HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.c. Authorize the Mayor to Sign and Submit Comments Regarding the Draft 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update to the Dakota County Regional Rail AuthorityRC)ISEMOLINT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting: August 4, 2010
AGENDA ITEM: Authorize the Mayor to Sign and Submit
Comments Regarding the Draft 2010
AGENDA SECTION:
Cedar Avenue Transitway
N&W ��`y,���
Implementation Plan Update to the
Dakota County Regional Rail Authority
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
AGENDA NO. &7,C.
ATTACHMENTS: Comment Letter; Cover Letter; Draft
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway
Implementation Plan Update; Section 4 of
APPROVED BY:
the draft Technical Memorandum #4:
Service Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to authorize the Mayor to Sign and Submit the
Comments Regarding the Draft 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan
Update.
ISSUE
On July 13, the Dakota County Regional Rail Authority released the Draft 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway
Implementation Plan Update (Update) for a 30 day public comment period. The plan shows service and
financial models for the Cedar Avenue bus rapid transit (BRT), express, station -to- station, and local bus
service throughout the corridor including the communities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Lakeville,
and Rosemount. There are three service and financial models for 2012 (the first year of BRT operation),
2020, and 2030. Staff has reviewed the Update and associated technical memorandums and has comments
and concerns that the existing local and express service from Rosemount will be negatively affected and
service reduced within these models.
SUMMARY
Dakota County is planning to have the Cedar Avenue shoulder and station improvements constructed
over the next two years to begin BRT service in the fall of 2012. As a part of the funding process, the
County must submit this update to the Metropolitan (Met) Council as the metropolitan transportation
organization (MPO). The Dakota County Regional Rail Authority ( DCRRA) is the responsible unit of
government (RGU) that is charged with reviewing and approving the document before its submittal to the
Met Council. The DCRRA had reviewed the draft Update at their July 13 meeting and released it for the
30 day comment period. The City must submit our official comments to the County by August 13 if they
are to be added to the official record.
Staff has been participating on a technical advisory committee (TAC) for the Cedar Avenue transitway
since at least 2006. For the last two years, the TAC has been participating in the development of the
Update. In January, Sam O'Connell, Dakota County Transit Specialist, presented an update on the
progress of the Update. Following the presentation, the Council members provided comments including
the concern of the re- routing of the 420 route and desires for transit routes that connect to Cedar Avenue
at the Palomino Park and Ride or even farther north. Unfortunately, these concerns have not been
addressed in the draft Update.
Staff has prepared a comment letter that has one major theme; not only doesn't the model increase transit
opportunities in Rosemount but the service and financial models actually show a reduction in transit
service to Rosemount. The reduction of service is twofold. First, the existing 420 flex -route is replaced in
the model by Local Route 4. Second, the existing 476R express service to Downtown Minneapolis via
Eastview High School and the Palomino Park and Ride is rerouted to service only Cedar Avenue and
replaced by Local Route 10.
The current route 420 runs from Downtown Rosemount to the Apple Valley Transit Station along 145''
Street and County Road 42. The proposed Local Route 4 runs along 145'` Street and County Road 42 to
Pilot Knob Road, south to the 157' Street Park and Ride before finally traveling to the Apple Valley
Transit Station via County Road 46. This re -route avoids the retail, employment, service, and civic uses
along County Road 42. The comment provided states that this re -route is detrimental to our transit
dependant population and the modeling preformed in the Update does not show any additional ridership.
The current 476R express service provides two a.m. and one p.m. buses from Rosemount to Downtown
Minneapolis. The Update models show the express routes located east of Cedar Avenue being
cannibalized to provide 40 foot express buses for additional service on Cedar Avenue while replacing the
existing express service with a local route using the 32 foot cutaway buses. Route 476R is proposed to be
replaced by Local Route 10 which runs from the Rosemount Community Center to the 140'' Street Station
(which is a walk up station in 2012 and the near future) generally along Connemara Trail and 140'' Street in
Apple Valley.
The comments provided regarding Local Route 10 ate that replacing an express bus with local service is a
reduction in service even if the same destinations are served. The comment states that there is a transfer
delay of zero to ten minutes (which is recognized as a penalty in transit models) when a rider would need
to change buses at 140'' Street and Cedar Avenue. Additional, the comments address the issue of
perception which was discussed heavily when the buses for the BRT service are to be chosen. The
cutaway buses look different than the express buses, are not as attractive, and staff contends also qualifies
as a reduction in service.
Also provided is a cover letter that addresses concerns more general to the Cedar Avenue transitway than
that covered in the scope of the Update. Most of the cover letter is of the same nature that Rosemount is
looking for additional or improved service from the Cedar Avenue transitway rather than the reduced
service shown in the models of the Update. The cover letter concludes that it would be difficult to
authorize a resolution in support of the Update if the comments provided regarding the Update are not
addressed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends authorizing the Mayor to sign and submit the comments regarding the Update to the
DCRRA.
2
4ROSEMOUNT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
August 4, 2010
Dakota County Western Service Center
Salima "Sam" O'Connell, Transit Specialist
14955 Galaxie Avenue
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Re: Comments to the Draft 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Dear Ms. O'Connell and Dakota County Regional Rail Authority Commissioners,
The City of Rosemount would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the draft 2010
Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update and associated technical memorandums.
The City has concerns with the Plan and its service and financial models. These concerns are
expressed in the following comments:
The City staff is concerned that the service plan models would reduce the level of transit service
for Rosemount residents. Currently, Rosemount is only served by three MVTA routes, the 420
flex - route, the 476R and 478 express routes. The proposed service plans referenced to above
would re -route the 420 flex route into Local Route 4 and would eliminate the 476R route and
use the bus(es) to provide Cedar Avenue express service. During the Cedar Avenue BRT
presentation in January to the Rosemount City Council, the Council members expressed
concerns of re- routing the local route south to access the Cedar Avenue corridor. It is
disconcerting if transit riders using the new Local Route 4 would need to travel south when their
ultimate destination (Downtown Minneapolis) is to the north. The Council members also
expressed a need to connect to express service farther north on the Cedar Avenue corridor even
beyond the 140`' Street or Palomino Park and Rides and to include evaluating connections to the
Blackhawk or Cedar Grove Park and Rides. The service plans do not address these concerns
and even reduce the current level of service by eliminating the 476R express bus route.
• Re -route of the 420 flex route. The City is concerned that the re- routing of the 420
flex route that currently travels along County Road 42 in Apple Valley to the Local
Route 4 that would travel along County Road 46 in Apple Valley would adversely affect
the transit dependant population in Rosemount without providing gains to the Cedar
Avenue corridor ridership. The all day 420 bus service provides Rosemount residents
access to the shopping, service, and jobs along County Road 42 in Apple Valley and the
re- routing into Local Route 4 would eliminate that important transit access by travel
along County Road 46 which lacks those same shopping, service, and job connections.
The ridership models show no increase in ridership as a result of Local Route 4 and draft
Technical Memorandum #3 recommendations on page 31 even recommend further
analysis on the cost - effectiveness of Local Route 4.
SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS
Rosemount City Hall • 2875 145th Street West • Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997
651-423-4411 • TDD /TTY 651-423-6219 • Fax 651-423-5203
www.d.rosemount.mn.us
• The elimination of the 476R route. The elimination of this route would reduce the
express service from Rosemount to Downtown Minneapolis from the current three a.m.
trips and four p.m. trips to only two a.m. and two p.m. trips. It is disconcerting that the
creation of the Cedar Avenue BRT and the express service along that corridor includes
service plan models that would reduce express service from Rosemount to Downtown
Minneapolis. The result of this reduction in service would be the increase in automobile
traffic from Rosemount residents that would either drive to a park and ride lot along the
Cedar Avenue corridor or drive directly to Downtown Minneapolis. The Rosemount
City Council has expressed their desire to have additional bus service between the Cedar
Avenue corridor park and ride sites beyond only the Apple Valley Transit Station. These
connections would reduce the number of Rosemount residents required to use their
automobiles to travel to work.
Local Route 10. The proposed Local Route 10 is not an adequate replacement for the
elimination of the 476R.
1. Local Route 10 is a local route running between the Rosemount Community
Center and the 140th Street Station while the 476R is an express bus that runs
from the Rosemount Community Center and Downtown Minneapolis. This
change would require people to transfer buses, which is acknowledged as a
transit penalty, that currently do not. This transfer would also result in an
increase in travel time from anywhere between zero and 10 minutes due to the
transfer depending on the scheduling difference between the every 30 minute
service of the Local Route 10 and the every 10 minute service of the express
route from the 140th Street Station.
2. Local Route 10 is a cutaway bus while the 476R is a regular sized 40 foot bus. As
has been discussed in draft Technical Memorandums #4 and #5, design is an
important consideration when implementing the Cedar Avenue corridor. The
replacement of the regular 40 foot bus of the current express service with a
cutaway bus of the local service will visually look like a reduction in service in
conjunction with the actual reduction of service that it is.
Thank you for providing the opportunity for Rosemount to review the 2010 Cedar Avenue
Transitway implementation Plan Update and associated technical memorandums. We hope that
these comments will be addressed in the final report of the Cedar Avenue Transitway Plan
Update and will reflect that there will not be a reduction in actual transit service to Rosemount
as a result of the implementation of BRT, express, and station -to- station bus service on the
Cedar Avenue transitway.
Sincerely,
William H. Droste, Rosemount Mayor
4ROSEMOUNT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
August 4, 2010
Re: Cover Letter Regarding the Comments to the Draft 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway
Implementation Plan Update
Dear Dakota County Regional Rail Authority Commissioners,
The City of Rosemount is providing its official comments in the Comment letter that is
attached. We feel that it is necessary to address the overall nature of the Cedar Avenue
transitway in this cover letter because a number of our concerns are not specific to the draft
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implement Plan Update (Update).
Since at least 2006, the City has participated in the Cedar Avenue transitway and staff has been
serving on the Cedar Avenue technical advisory committee (TAC). Our goal in participation
was not only to support additional transit service in Dakota County and along Cedar Avenue but
also to increase transit service in Rosemount and create new connections onto and along Cedar
Avenue. In January, Sam O'Connell made a presentation of the Cedar Avenue transitway to our
City Council and much of the conversation surrounded how Rosemount will be able to connect
onto the transitway. It was discussed that connecting onto the transitway at the Apple Valley
Transit station is counter intuitive for riders to travel south from Rosemount when their ultimate
destination is north to Downtown Minneapolis. It was discussed that the City would desire
connections at the Palomino Park and Ride and with a connection even farther north.
In early July, Rosemount staff provided comments to the TAC that the service and financial
models in the draft Technical Memorandums #3 and #4 do not increase transit service as
requested at the January City Council meeting. It was noted that the models actually project a
reduction in service for Rosemount residents. The draft Update released by the Dakota County
Regional Rail Authority on July 13 has not altered these models and therefore continue to show
a reduction in service.
In conversations with Dakota County staff, it has been stated that the models in the Update
were only to maximize ridership onto Cedar Avenue and any changes to actual routes will be the
decision of the local transit provider, MVTA, and the local transit fonder, Metro Transit. The
City believes that this is not an adequate response to a document as important as the Update
particularly when the financial models show the pilfering of the existing express services located
east of Cedar Avenue to provide new express service along Cedar Avenue. In these difficult
financial times, it will be a challenge to locate the deficient funding identified in the financial
models to maintain existing service to Rosemount and add the new proposed Cedar Avenue
transitway services. Unless the reduction in Rosemount services shown in draft Update is
restored, it will be difficult for Rosemount to support the resolution the final Update document.
Sincerely,
William H. Droste, Rosemount Mayor
SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS
Rosemount City Hall • 2875 145th Street West • Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997
651-423-4411 • TDD /TTY 651-423-6219 • Fax 651-423-5203
www.ci.rosemount.mn.us
Q
0
-mon
1 1 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Update
DRAFT REPORT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
July 2010
M
vim
LM. Fit Shed 7bWe .10D SDA Fft Skeet. SUMe 15M. WMeapaUfi. MN 55M
R 612-37DOM(I . F 612-370-IM
got
vim
LM. Fit Shed 7bWe .10D SDA Fft Skeet. SUMe 15M. WMeapaUfi. MN 55M
R 612-37DOM(I . F 612-370-IM
On July 13, 2010 the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority authorized the release
of the Draft 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update for public and
agency comment. Comments will be collected from the public until August 13, 2010 and
will be considered by the Dakota County Regional Rail Authority when finalizing the
plan.
Copies are available at www.dakotacounty.us, search "Cedar Avenue ". A printed copy
of the plan will be available for review at the Physical Development Division Offices
within the Dakota County Western Service Center located in Apple Valley at 14955
Galaxie Avenue. A copy of the plan will be available to review from 8AM to 4:30 PM,
Monday through Friday, during the public comment period. The Physical Development
Office is located on the third floor of the Western Service Center.
Only written comments will be accepted and may be mailed to Sam O'Connell, Dakota
County Transportation Department, 14955 Galaxie Ave., Apple Valley, MN 55124 or sent
via e-mail to Sam.00onnell @co.dakota.mn.us.
Comments must be received by the end of the business day
on August 13, 2010 for consideration.
Page 1
Ulm 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
1. CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY: A LIFELINE FOR DAKOTA COUNTY
As a main connection between the southern suburbs and both downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul,
the Mall of America, the airport and the University of Minnesota, Cedar Avenue is one of the most
traveled roads in Dakota County. More than 150,000 vehicles travel Cedar Avenue daily and that
number is expected to almost double over the next 20 years as growth along the corridor continues. If
no improvements are made in the corridor, congestion will continue to increase and traffic speeds will
continue to decrease from an average of 35 mph today to 12 mph in 2030. Expanded transit service
along Cedar Avenue is essential to meeting the needs of residents, businesses and commuters.
Communities south of the Minnesota River have been rapidly growing for decades, as has traffic along
Cedar Avenue. In the late 1990s, Cedar Avenue was identified as a high priority for light rail or bus
rapid transit development for the region. Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority, in partnership
with local cities, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
(MVTA), the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) and the federal government have
been working to develop bus rapid transit along Cedar Avenue.
The Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority selected bus rapid transit as the best option for Cedar
Avenue following an extensive evaluation of transit and highway alternatives and substantial public
input. Bus rapid transit (BRT) was chosen because it combines the flexibility of buses with the
frequency, speed and reliability of both commuter rail and light rail transit (LRT). BRT was also chosen
for its ability to be implemented in phases. This provides flexibility by constructing transitway facilities
or providing transit services when ridership and demand is warranted. Since buses operate on existing
roadways, BRT has the advantage of operating on bus -only shoulders (i.e. widened and /or reinforced)
to bypass congested roadways. BRT also uses convenient on -line stations and traffic signal priority to
achieve a service similar to commuter rail and light rail transit service that is fast and reliable.
Today, the Cedar Avenue Transitway is recognized as one of the first bus rapid transit corridors in the
state. The Cedar Avenue Transitway (Transitway) will provide access to other regional transitway
investments such as the Hiawatha light rail transit line, the Northstar commuter rail line and the
Central Corridor light rail line. Investments in the Transitway will provide transit patrons with a
seamless, convenient way to travel to many destinations in and around the Twin Cities.
With its ability to ensure fast and reliable transit services, provide competitive travel time savings to
the automobile and promote more sustainable transportation options, the Cedar Avenue Transitway
will continue to be a lifeline for the residents and businesses of Dakota County.
2. CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
Developing and implementing transit projects take time and extensive analysis. The Transitway has
been in development since the late 1990s, seeking the most appropriate and reasonable transit and
roadway improvements along Cedar Avenue. Project development activities include feasibility studies,
Page 2 �5
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
an alternative analysis, preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, final design and
ultimately, construction.
In 1998, development of the Transitway was initiated with the beginning of the Cedar Avenue Corridor
Study (Study). The purpose of the Study was to determine the feasibility of various transit options that
could assist in meeting the growing travel demand on Cedar Avenue. The Study looked at numerous
transit options including light rail and bus rapid transit. In addition, potential transit alignment options
were considered that included Cedar Avenue, Galaxie Avenue in Apple Valley and Nicols Road in Eagan.
At the conclusion of the Study in 2001, the report documented the benefits and the costs of both BRT
and LRT options along Cedar Avenue.
Building off the results of the Cedar Avenue Corridor Study, a Federal Transit Administration compliant
Alternatives Analysis (AA) was started in 2003 and was completed in 2004. The AA analyzed many
elements for implementing transit options on Cedar Avenue. The AA documented the benefits and
costs of:
• Center, side and shoulder running BRT configurations
• Capacity improvements to Cedar Avenue
• Station Sites and configurations
• Transit service concepts
• Express to downtown Saint Paul, Minneapolis & Mall of America
• Station to station services along Cedar Avenue
• Ridership & Financial implications
In March 2004, the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority (DCRRA) selected BRT as the Locally
Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Cedar Avenue Transitway. BRT was chosen for the following
reasons:
• Eighty percent of the transit service need is express service to both downtown Minneapolis and
St. Paul
• BRT allows more flexibility to modify transit service based on community need
• BRT requires less land acquisition and has less environmental impact
• BRT is less capital intensive and therefore, less expensive than light rail
• BRT is quicker to implement, addressing growing congestion issues sooner
Page 3
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
In 2004, the Metropolitan Council 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, adopted in 2004, identified five
"Tier 1" transitways as the first corridors to be examined for implementation. The Cedar Avenue
Transitway was identified as one of the five Tier 1 transitways.
In 2006, Preliminary engineering (PE) and environmental documentation commenced the development
of bus shoulder lanes along Cedar Avenue between 138th in Apple Valley through County Road 70 in
Lakeville. In addition, station development and property acquisition started in Eagan, Apple Valley and
Lakeville for stations beginning operation in late 2009 and early 2010.
In 2008, the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) developed and adopted an Interim Transit
Investment Framework that includes capital and operating grants to the Cedar Avenue Transitway.
Funding from CITB is used to construct the Apple Valley Transit Station and provide BRT express
services to the Lakeville Cedar park- and -ride.
In 2009, Final Design (FD) activities for the Transitway's bus shoulder lanes began and are ongoing at
the time of this writing. FD follows the environmental process required by the federal partners of the
Transitway's development. FD activities include the development of detailed working drawings,
specifications, and cost estimates for the proposed transportation project. The primary objective of FD
is to use all previous work done as a starting point to prepare contract plans and specifications that can
be used to bid and construct the project with a minimum of field changes, delays, and cost overruns.
Late 2009 and early 2010 also brought many exciting events in the Transitway. The Lakeville Cedar
park- and -ride opened in Fall of 2009. In 2010, we saw the opening of the Apple Valley Transit Station
and the Cedar Grove Transit Station in Eagan also opened for service.
In 2010, construction of the Transitway's bus shoulder lane component will begin. First, utility
relocations will occur in the fall to prepare for major construction in 2011 and 2012. In 2011, bus -only
shoulders and other roadway improvements will be constructed from Dakota County Highway 42 in
Apple Valley south to Dodd Boulevard in Lakeville. In 2012, bus -only shoulders and other roadway
improvements will be constructed from Dakota County Highway 42 north to 138th Street in Apple
Valley.
In late 2012, station -to- station service is scheduled to begin in the Transitway. This service will use the
newly constructed bus -only shoulders and on -line transit stations, providing benefits to all travelers
along Cedar Avenue.
3. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update (2010 IPU) has been undertaken as a
result of recent major events in the Twin Cities' transit direction. First, the Counties Transit
Improvement Board (CTIB) was formed in 2008 that allowed Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and
Washington Counties to levy a quarter -cent sales tax dedicated to transit improvements. This new,
dedicated source of funding for fixed guideway transit projects has helped accelerate the
implementation of the Cedar Avenue Transitway (Transitway). Another positive change in the
Page 4
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update um
Draft Report • July 2010
implementation of the Transitway is the City of Lakeville joining the Regional Transit Capital
Communities, formerly known as the Transit Taxing District. Third, the United States Department of
Transportation awarded the Twin Cities with an Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) grant to fund
major transit projects in the region that included elements of the Transitway, 1 -35W BRT, and the
Marquette and Second Transit Project in downtown Minneapolis. Through UPA funding, the Cedar
Grove, Apple Valley and Lakeville Cedar stations were realized in late 2009 and early 2010.
Additionally, updates to the 2030 comprehensive plans for cities along the Transitway and Dakota
County showed areas of growth and development along the Transitway. With these changes, a review
and refinement to earlier assumptions and recommendations regarding the Transitway became
imperative.
Specifically, the 2010 IPU reexamines the following elements of the Transitway in order to guide the
next stages of Transitway development:
• Service plan
• Ridership
• Bus fleet
• Station, park- and -ride, layover, and fleet
storage and maintenance facilities
• Station amenities
3.1. Agency Coordination
• Technology enhancements
• Transitway enhancements
• Integration with the regional transit
system
• Capital and annual operating and
maintenance costs
• Implementation and financial plan.
Because the Transitway uses Cedar Avenue (Dakota County Highway 23), Trunk Highway 77, Trunk
Highway 62, and Interstate 1 -35W into downtown Minneapolis its development entailed coordination
with multiple partners including Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, MVTA, Metro Transit, Mn /DOT,
Lakeville, Apple Valley, Eagan, and Bloomington. To ensure communication and coordination between
these multiple jurisdictions, the project has used an advisory structure that has been in place since the
planning stages of the project, through design, environmental documentation, and construction. This
structure has four elements — Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority, the Cedar Group, Project
Management Team, and Technical Advisory Committee described as follows:
• The Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority oversees the planning, development and
implementation of bus rapid transit (through special legislation) for Cedar Avenue Transitway
and other fixed guideway transit projects within the County. Staff from the Authority serves
as the project manager for this 2010 IPU.
• Cedar Group — The Cedar Group is composed mostly of elected officials from the cities and
counties along the Transitway, the Metropolitan Council, MVTA, and representatives from the
Page 5
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
business community. The Cedar Group — meeting bi- monthly -- has been the primary point of
contact for their community's constituents in the IPU process.
• Project Management Team — The Project Management Team is made up of representatives
from Dakota County, MVTA, and the Metropolitan Council. The group's purpose is to provide
technical and policy guidance to the project, specifically as it relates to the financial, funding,
and work plan elements of subsequent steps of the Transitway's implementation. The group
generally met twice a month.
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) — The TAC was made up of City, County, and
Transportation Agency staff. The TAC meets monthly and at key milestones throughout the
project to provide technical guidance, discuss interim results, and review draft products. In
addition to representatives from local governments along the Transitway, the TAC membership
included staff from Metro Transit, Metropolitan Council, MVTA, and Mn /DOT.
3.2. Public Involvement and Engagement
The purpose of public involvement in the 2010 IPU process was to support decision - making efforts and
encourage an open, collaborative approach regarding a balanced transportation system. The key was
to actively involve the community to create enthusiasm for and consensus on the Transitway. The IPU
public involvement approach was to fulfill the following:
• Communicate with and educate the public, neighborhoods, businesses, and agencies in the
project area regarding opportunities and impacts that the Transitway may present for their
community and /or area of interest.
• Involve local residents and businesses in the decision - making process, thereby creating a sense
of public ownership of the project.
• Gain insight into issues of greatest concern or interest to the public, businesses, and
municipalities along the Transitway and incorporate them into the decision making process.
• Meet or exceed the requirement and intent of federal, state, and local public involvement
policies.
Outreach Activities
Meaningful public input is not possible if constituents are uninformed about the project, or think it
does not affect them. Several different outreach techniques were used to solicit a range of opinions
regarding the Transitway.
• Monthly Project Update Meetings — Each month throughout the project, the Dakota County
hosted project update meetings, at either 7:30 a.m. or 6:00 p.m., enabling the residents to
attend the meetings on their way to or from work. At each of the meetings, a presentation was
Page 6 u�
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
given informing the public of progress made to date on the IPU and the larger Transitway
project.
• Public Open Houses — Three of the Monthly Project Update Meetings (September 2009,
November 2009, and March 2010) were larger public open houses. The purpose of these open
houses was to present information regarding all ongoing phases of the Transitway project to
the public that included the Implementation Plan Update and Final Design. (This same format
was used during Preliminary Engineering and the Environmental Assessment). Being an open
house, the format was informal and allowed the public to talk to members of project team
individually to answer questions that they have regarding various aspects of Transitway
development.
• Dakota County Web Site — The Dakota County web site serves as a clearinghouse for all
information related to the development of the Transitway. Materials that are available from
the web site include Transitway project history; meetings and events; construction updates;
and information distributed at monthly project update meetings and open houses.
• City Council Presentations — In addition to the Technical Advisory Committee and Cedar Group,
the 2010 IPU was presented to individual city councils. Dakota County staff provided a preview
of the preliminary recommendations of the 2010 IPU, answered questions and clarified findings
and recommendations, acting as a vehicle for the cities to adopt them in their plans.
• Special Presentations — Individual presentations are also part of the outreach for the 2010 IPU.
This outreach included stakeholders such as Chambers of Commerce, community groups, and
transportation boards (e.g. CTIB). Similar to the city council presentations, this format allowed
Dakota County staff to focus the recommendations of the 2010 IPU to the particular interests of
these groups.
• Newsletters — Dakota County also issued printed newsletters as part of its outreach program on
the Cedar Avenue Transitway. During the 2010 IPU, two newsletters were issued — in
September 2009 and November 2009. These newsletters publicized upcoming open houses
and provided updates on ongoing projects such as Final Design and the 2010 IPU.
Summary of Public and Stakeholder Comments Received
Throughout, the course of the outreach activities and public involvement several themes continued to
come as important elements that should be incorporated into the planning of the Transitway.
Community residents and transit riders wanted the Transitway to include:
• Transit service that is both reliable and frequent — The public wants to know that if they want to
take the bus from Cedar Grove Transit Center to go shopping in Apple Valley, that the buses will
be there when they are scheduled to be. In addition, the public wants the reliability of knowing
that when they are done shopping, they can walk to a bus stop and a bus will be there in a few
minutes to take them back.
Page 7
um 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
• Residents want stations that are convenient to their destination to quicken their overall trip.
• Transit riders expressed a clear preference for shorter dwell time at stations. Riders consistently
brought three means to accomplish this, as follows:
— Fast fare collections systems similar to the off -board fare collection systems used on
Hiawatha and Northstar.
— Level boarding to allow persons with mobility limitations to board and deboard without the
use of a ramp.
— Interior bicycle racks to allow cycling patrons to wheel their bicycle into the bus. In addition,
interior bicycle racks provide greater protection for bicycles and do not require passengers
to lift their bicycle onto and off a rack.
• Both residents and transit riders stated that they wanted the Transitway to be as an
environmentally - friendly alternative to driving. They felt the Transitway should go beyond
reducing dependence on personal automobiles to environmentally friendly buses, like hybrid -
diesel buses used elsewhere in the Twin Cities.
• Business and commercial property owners along the Transitway felt that:
— Stations should compliment the nearby properties and buildings.
— Station development should mirror initial ridership projections and increase capacity as
transit demand increases.
— Service should be fast and frequent enough to attract additional customers and convenient
for employees to use.
— Additional steps may be needed to ensure parking spaces near businesses are utilized by
customers and not transit patrons.
4. TRANSITWAY VISION AND FRAMEWORK
The Cedar Avenue Corridor Transitway Alternatives Analysis was completed in 2004 to determine the
most appropriate transit improvements for the Cedar Avenue Transitway between the Mall of America
(MOA) in Bloomington and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 70 in Lakeville. A Technical Advisory
Committee and a Project Management Committee guided the study. Committee members were policy
and technical representatives of the cities and other governmental jurisdictions in the Transitway.
These committees adopted the following goals for the study:
1. Improve Transitway mobility.
2. Maximize the movement of people within the Transitway across the Minnesota River.
3. Provide cost - effective and efficient transit element of the transportation system.
4. Provide flexible, adaptable, and expandable transportation choices.
5. Enhance /promote transit - oriented development and economic development that are
compatible with community planning goals.
Page 8
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
6. Provide a convenient, desirable, and safe travel
alternative.
7. Minimize adverse social, economic and environmental
impacts, and pursue opportunities to enhance these
qualities within the Transitway.
The 2010 IPU is a continuation of the AA and seeks to guide
the Cedar Avenue Transitway into the realization of the goals
identified for the Transitway. The Transitway will provide
rapid transit through a combination of express, station -to-
station, and local service utilizing on -line stations, as well as
bus -only shoulders. This unique combination of transit
advantages will make transit service in the Transitway time
competitive with the private automobile. Figure 4 -1 presents
the 2030 vision for the Transitway.
4.1 Overview of Existing Transit Conditions
The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) provides local
and express bus services in the Cedar Avenue Transitway in
Eagan and Apple Valley with service to Bloomington
(illustrated on the following pages, Figures 4 -2 and 4 -3).
Table 4 -1
Existine Transitwav Ridership
Route
Riders per Day
in 20081
420
100
440
100
442
550
444
850
445
450
Local
2,050
472
450
476
550
477
1,500
479
50
480 2
200
Express
2,750
Transitway
4,800
1 Source: MVrA.
1 Route 480 only reflects the 37.5
percent of the ridership on the route
that is in the Cedar Avenue
Transitway.
Express service is provided to downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul. Express routes operate
in the morning and afternoon peak periods on frequencies of 10 minutes to 30 minutes, and local
routes on frequencies of 30 to 60 minutes. Metro Transit provides express services to Lakeville via the
1 -35W BRT Transitway with additional local transit services serving Bloomington as well.
Currently, the Transitway has a strong ridership base associated with both local and express service in
the Transitway. An important goal of providing additional transit enhancements in the Transitway is to
ensure that these enhancements build on the existing ridership base and create new patrons for the
local and station -to- station services. Table 4 -1 presents the 2008 average weekday ridership on MVTA
routes operating within the Transitway.
In 2010, five park - and -ride facilities exist along the Transitway — 28th Avenue Station in Bloomington
with 1,440 spaces; Cedar Grove Station in Eagan with 164 spaces; Palomino Hills and Apple Valley
Transit Station in Apple Valley with 312 and 750 spaces, respectively; and Lakeville Cedar in Lakeville
with 190 spaces. These five facilities have a total capacity of approximately 2,860 spaces. The Apple
Valley Transit Station and Palomino Hills facilities are currently full.
There are three other park- and -ride facilities operated by MVTA that are proximate to the Transitway —
Blackhawk park- and -ride lot at Cliff Road and 1 -35E; Burnsville Transit Station at Nicollet Avenue and TH
13; and 157th Street Station at Pilot Knob Road. As the Transitway develops, these facilities will
experience an increase in usage as a result of investments in both transit service and capital facilities.
Page 9
um 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Although these facilities are not directly located on the Transitway, the routes that serve them will
operate on the Transitway, and patrons using these facilities will experience some of the benefits of
the Transitway, i.e. reduced transit travel time.
Page 10
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Figure 4 -1
2030 Cedar Avenue Transitway Vision
Draft Report • July 2010
� 3ouMilaap irmiN -•• Ave. • •
Existing Local Routes
istdZliM3z E�oMOn�
• ❑ Station and p&r lots
Local All -Day Route
l Not Shown: ROtde 441 (Sat, Service)
Rd
rte t
r
co IN. (wjkL • .a ''�'
r 1 r
zoo
�. � _ tsar,sr , (s imam .• 4 � - ..� ..- ;
l _. 7�OMi sr f i
r
,57M SL
a _
z i
pps k�l� Y •4 } � /�' A�
, - 67�
INS 77
r
Page 12
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Figure 4 -3
Existing Express Transit Routes Serving the Cedar Avenue Transitwayl
ill Downlnwr, - .. - .� ".
Routes Existing Express
• Station and p &r lots
i Expross Route
r Y G
3
t-
V
n ra
T
00 r
V
7
r
Y m ¢ ti ea. t'
L "$
".'
q r 1661 a- ! Cs
1
�
f
o.s
it' sts�,aT.
Not Shown:
a. Routes 478, 484 and the
Burns Ole branch of Route
1 Route 475 express Cedar Grove Transit Station to University of Minnesota is scheduled to begin in fall of 2010.
Page 13
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
4.2 Overview of Currently Funded Improvements within the Transitway
The 2005 Implementation Plan identified four phases for project development of the Transitway. As
shown in Table 4 -2 the 2005 Implementation Plan estimated the Transitway capital cost at
approximately $120 million in 2003 dollars, and would require over 20+ years to implement.
Table 4 -2
Summary of 2005 Implementation Plan Phases
Phase
Timeframe
Capital Costs
in 2003 dollars
Phase 1— Strengthen Core BRT Service and Enhance BRT Facilities
Within 5- years
$27.18 million
Phase 2 —Add Station -to- Station Service and On -Line Stations
5 to 10 years
$15.68 million
Phase 3 — Extend BRT
5 to 15 years
$11.50 million
Phase 4 — Expand and Improve BRT Service and Facilities
Long Term
$65.24 million
Full Implementation of the Transitway
119.60 million
The 2010 IPU is building on and updating the 2005 Implementation Plan and, as such, project
development has transitioned from phases to stages of implementation. The 2010 IPU proposes the
new staging timeline that reflects an updated and a more balanced approach to developing the
Transitway:
• Stage 1 defined as the period between 2009 and 2012
• Stage 2 defined as the period between 2012 and 2020
• Stage 3 defined as the period between 2020 and 2030
As of this writing, the Transitway is currently in Stage 1 of development, with several major elements
of the Transitway already funded through the UPA, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ),
CTIB, and state bonds, either in part or in their entirety. The Transitway has secured approximately
$105 million for the capital and project development /administration activities associated with Stage 1.
Examples of those funded improvements that are still under design or construction include:
• Runningway — Curb side bus -only shoulders along Cedar Avenue between 138th Street and 181St
Street.
• Stations - 140th Street and 147th Street Stations in Apple Valley; 28th Avenue Station in
Bloomington.
• Buses for station -to- station and express service (partial funding).
• Technology enhancements — Driver Assistance System and real -time signage for the Mall of
America Station are fully funded; other technology enhancements such as off -board fare
collection and customer information systems at stations are partially funded.
Additional information on each Stage and its associated costs are found in Section 7, Staging Plan.
Page 14
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update Va�w
Draft Report • July 2010
4.3 2012 Transitway Vision
The 2012 vision for the Transitway is to commence station -to- station service, in addition to express
and local service, in late 2012 to connect the Mall of America /South Loop District in Bloomington, to
Eagan, Apple Valley, and Lakeville. It is proposed that station -to- station service could operate with 10
minute peak /15 minute off -peak service from the South Loop District, through Eagan and Apple Valley,
with every other bus continuing to Lakeville. The anticipated ridership for this new service is 2,250.
Curbside bus shoulder lanes and stations are anticipated to be in place by 2012 for station -to- station
service. The following stations are anticipated to be developed prior to the beginning of revenue
operations — 28th Avenue, Mall of America Transit Center, Cedar Grove, 140" Street, 1471h Street,
Apple Valley Transit Station, 1615t/162nd Street, and Lakeville Cedar (181St Street). Figure 4 -4 indicates
the general location of these stations within the ultimate 2030 Transitway vision. The 2009
Implementation Plan Update is recommending moderate increases in express and local service in the
Transitway to be introduced with start of station -to- station service.
2012 Service Plan and Ridership
The 2010 IPU is recommending that in 2012, station -to- station service begin from the Mall of
America /South Loop District and 28th Avenue Park and Ride in Bloomington, to Eagan, Apple Valley and
Lakeville, along with, moderate expansion of the existing express and local service provided by MVTA
in the Transitway. Figures 4 -5 and 4 -6 show 2012 conceptual express service in the Transitway, while
Figure 4 -7 shows the conceptual local and station -to- station service plan for 20122. Further refinement
of actual services to provided for express, local and station -to- station services should be initiated by
the transit provider.
The conceptual services plans identified in the 2010 IPU were developed for the purposes of estimating capital and
operating costs, as well as modeling the potential ridership demand. The final alignment and service frequencies may
differ from those that appear in the report.
Page 15
.� 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Figure 4 -4
oned for 2030
Legend
Station Type:
Transit Center
Numerous transfer opportunities and /or
park - and -ride with more than 400 spaces
Park - and -Ride Station
Park- and -ride with less than 400 spaces
and limited transfer opportunities
Walk -up Station
No park- and -ride and limited transfer
opportunities
General routing of
station -to- station service
begining in 2012
General routing of
station -to- station service
longterm
Page 16 �S
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report a July 2010
Figure 4 -5
Conceptual Express Service Plan for 2012
To To To South To
Minneapolis U of M L000 District St. Paul
Rte 477
20 min.
195th St.
215th St.
Cedar Grove
(off -line stop)
Palomino Hills
(off -line)
Apple Valley
North (140th St.)
147th St.
Apple Valley
Transit Station
Page 17
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
1
•
/ 1
,
... _ ...... __
;Rte 473
1 �
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
/
"Rte 476
'
/
1
/
1
�
1
,
1
1
1
1
/
1
1
�
1
�
Rtes 471,
20 min.
475,479
161 st St.
Lakeville
- C _Arinr
— -- --
Rte 477
20 min.
195th St.
215th St.
Cedar Grove
(off -line stop)
Palomino Hills
(off -line)
Apple Valley
North (140th St.)
147th St.
Apple Valley
Transit Station
Page 17
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Figure 4 -6
Conceptual Express Service Plan Map for 2012
�,
allwuf`•ap ,Wwa Cedar .�
�Q ••- 1 Express Route
.;
Statlon and p &r lots
• (>
Express Route
C1W Md.
i
j
Y.
qw
z �,�}�� � ._�� r= � -� `�� � moo'• `��'�
f a r • —
Zao _
As
A''
r _tsanae � _+
t
r
j
1671h
del 600! 51
zq g
Tt-
i
T
1 212er St.
b0 ftj
Page 18
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update um
Draft Report • July 2010
Figure 4 -7
Conceptual Local and Station -to- Station Service Plan for 2012
r1,�otdti toop'DhMcf ,
IN o/Ant•rloar Cedar Av- Transitway
Cf3alh S1..i101iQ!►g
Conceptual • •
Route Service Plan
6
• Cedar Ave. StotOVStop
i� wca Aii -Day acne
v, •• • Local K. Period Route
cedar Ave. Station -to- Station
c and Enxess Routes
> : n,+m au�rr,anr ro
r , � ,,� ,e �c�t mi�e rtxrrurrr n+.r�ev�eo zor>
e , r can as t ® _ �� art �s �� °• 0.+ ` ,.
!A N i
OF-
MO. ® -
"`3sow s
• �:i d°��� •.. t '-rl.;_?� i
_ ! C
° � Y
' -
t� ''--* jam`
0 oS t 2 i ``� T 21.a, f --
fr�
$ 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Table 4 -3 presents the estimated 2012 Cedar Avenue Transitway ridership for recommended
conceptual service plan. Table 4 -3 presents the total ridership by service type regardless of where the
rider boarded or alighted the bus and provides a picture of regional transitway benefits.
Table 4 -3
2012 Cedar Avenue Transitway Ridership - All Routes Using the Transitway
Service Type
2008 Existing
Ridership
2012 Forecasted
Ridership
Local
2,050
2,000
Express
2,750
3,500
To Minneapolis
2,550
2,900
To St. Paul
200
400
To U of Minnesota
Not Applicable
200
Station -to- Station
Not Applicable
2,250
Total
4,800
7,750
2012 Park - and -Ride Facilities
As previously stated, five park- and -ride facilities directly serve the Transitway, with a total of
approximately 2,860 spaces'. There is excess capacity at the 28th Avenue, Cedar Grove and Lakeville
Cedar park- and -ride facilities. Apple Valley Transit Station and Palomino Hills are operating at capacity.
The 2010 IPU is recommending additional analysis be done to determine how accommodate future
park- and -ride demand in northern Apple Valley through the North Apple Valley Park - and -Ride Demand
Project. Additional analysis is needed to quantify the costs and benefits of potential options of serving
northern Apple Valley and meeting anticipated transit demand. Potential options could include adding
additional capacity to the Apple Valley Transit Station park- and -ride structure, identifying an additional
park- and -ride location between 1411h Street and 138th Street, providing the infrastructure to physically
connect the Palomino Hills park- and -ride to the Transitway as well as other investment options. The
final section of this document (Staging Plan) will address this topic.
3 Source: MVTA
4 Source: URS and Metropolitan Council travel demand model.
' Metro Transit, Engineering and Facilities, Facilities Planning, 2008. 2008 Annual Regional Park- and -Ride System Survey
Report.
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, 2010. Park & Ride. Available: http: / /www.mvta.com /Park and Ride.html.
Metropolitan Council, 2009. New peak express bus service from Lakeville to downtown Minneapolis launches Sept .28.
Available: http: / /www.metrocouncil.org /news /2009 /news_653.htm
Page 20 �wS
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
4.4 2030 Transitway Vision
The 2030 vision for the Cedar Avenue Transitway includes extending the Transitway south along Cedar
Avenue to 215th Street, utilizing the existing shoulders as bus -only shoulders and constructing stations
at Cliff Road, Glacier Way, 195th Street, and 215th Street. Of these four new stations, only the 215th
Street Station would include a park- and -ride. Numerous 2030 conceptual service plans were analyzed
to assess the impact of different park- and -ride locations in northern Apple Valley, (Palomino Hills and
140th Street). Generally, the 2030 conceptual service consisted of:
• Direct express service from each park- and -ride
• Local /feeder service network — Expanded hours of service, geographic coverage, and frequency
• Station -to- station service every 20 minutes in the peak and off -peak from Lakeville, and every
10 minutes in the peak and off -peak in Apple Valley and points north.
Figure 4 -8 presents the conceptual 2030 express and station -to- station service that was modeled for
services that included a park- and -ride at Palomino Hills. Figure 4 -9 presents the conceptual
local /feeder service network that was used for all 2030 scenarios.
2030 Ridership Forecasts
The 2030 ridership forecasts were developed employing two methodologies. The first methodology
builds on the 2012 Scenario based on MVTA's existing service and assumes ridership will increase in
proportion to population in the Transitway. This represents the lower -end of possible ridership in the
Transitway in 2030. In addition, three full build -out scenarios were developed that represent the
potential ridership with a robust transit network and varying park- and -ride configurations in northern
Apple Valley. The 2030 forecasted weekday ridership for all routes in the Transitway range from 11,250
to 19,200 - with the higher end of the ridership forecasts representing a higher level of region -wide
travel benefits. Table 4 -4 indicates that there would be no significant difference in the forecasted
Transitway ridership between the three full build -out scenarios.
Please note that the 2010 IPU recommends, at a planning level, that any future transit service
investment should be tied to ridership demand. Periodic ridership updates will need to be conducted
to monitor service demand to plan for additional services and /or facilities. As the ridership modeling
exercise was based on the Metropolitan Council's regional transportation model, any modifications to
the model or socio- economic data supporting the model may impact the 2030 ridership forecasts.
Moving forward, period updates to the ridership forecasts have been included in each stage of
transitway development.
Page 21
um 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Figure 4 -8
2030 Conceptual Express and Station -to- Station Service Plan
To To
Minneapolis U of M
1 1
r r
1
1
15/ -- -430
I
1
301 --
30/-
To South To
LOOD District St. Paul
Station (140th St.)
1
r
r
147th St.
1
Cedar Grove
1
(off -line stop)
1
Apple Valley
Cliff Road
I
1
�
1
1
�
1
1
t
1
/
1
t
1
1
I
I
1
1
�
�
/
i
�
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�
1
�
1
1
r
1
1
1
1
�
1 1
r r
1
1
15/ -- -430
I
1
301 --
30/-
To South To
LOOD District St. Paul
20/20
- 161 st St.
- Glacier
Lakeville
Cedar
-195th St.
215th St.
20/20
Apple Valley North
Station (140th St.)
1
r
r
147th St.
1
Cedar Grove
1
(off -line stop)
1
Apple Valley
Cliff Road
/
Palomino
(off -line stop)
1
20/20
- 161 st St.
- Glacier
Lakeville
Cedar
-195th St.
215th St.
20/20
Apple Valley North
Page 22
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update um
Draft Report • July 2010
Station (140th St.)
1
r
r
147th St.
1
1
i
Apple Valley
Transit Station
30/ --
Page 22
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update um
Draft Report • July 2010
Figure 4 -9
2030 Conceptual Local Service Plan
tObf: a
1 j � Cedar Ave. SlotiorVStop
Local A i•Doy Route
a .• Local Pk Period Route
Cedar Ave. Station- toStatcon
a ;
r y and Express Routes
AAw mpA poste a vnp r for
Yxvd +e/w0o 1d>•Mn AfiNIBJNV 2bo
'u s LAIi '�Sif
f
� t
t i
oA
o
'e
rr,
. o os
co Ra 0 C■R Rd o -
• «_
r' `•
'
r 5th 91: .:M
�Ll
;'-
-ia
v� -Si 1
1
gl
U,s 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Table 4 -4
2030 Ridership Forecasts for Cedar Avenue Transitwav6
2030 Park - and -Ride Facilities
Currently, the 28th Avenue (in Bloomington), Cedar Grove (in Eagan), and Lakeville Cedar (in Lakeville)
park- and -ride facilities have additional capacity, while the two Apple Valley park- and -ride facilities
(Apple Valley Transit Station and Palomino Hills) are operating at capacity. The Apple Valley Transit
Station was designed to accommodate future expansion. However, the Palomino Hills park -and -ride
facility has significant challenges associated with expanding the facility. In addition, the travel demand
modeling completed as part of the 2010 IPU indicated that a park- and -ride facility located in the
vicinity of 140th Street and Cedar Avenue would attract more commuters than Palomino Hills park -and-
ride with equivalent service. As a result, this may be a better location to develop a park- and -ride
facility.
The Metropolitan Council estimates that by 2030 there will be demand for an additional 1,400 park -
and -ride spaces in Apple Valley8. The 2010 IPU is recommending that MVTA conduct the Apple Valley
Park - and -Ride Siting Project to identify when and where these park- and -ride spaces should be built in
Apple Valley. However, since the existing facilities are currently operating at capacity, development of
the additional park- and -ride spaces in Apple Valley is targeted for Stage 2. The expansion /development
of other park- and -ride facilities Cedar Grove, Lakeville Cedar (expansion), and 215th Street
(development) are currently planned for Stage 3.
6 The Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model may be overestimating local ridership.
Assumes no additional service from recommended service 2012, and 2.1 percent increase in ridership per year from
2012 to 2030.
$ Metropolitan Council, 2009. Regional Solicitation of Federal Transportation Projects. Appendix G included the 2030
park- and -ride demand by TAZ for the Twin Cities.
http: / /www.metrocounci Lore /planning/ transportation /RegSolicit /2009 /AppgndixG5.htm
Page 24
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Assumes no
With Park -and-
2008
additional service
With Park -and-
Ride at
With Park -and-
Service Type
Existing
from
Ride at 140th St
Palomino and
Ride at Palomino
Ridership
recommended
140th St
20127
Local
2,050
2,900
9,850
9,850
9,550
Express
2,750
5,050
5,350
5,400
5,400
To Minneapolis
2,550
4,200
4,050
4,150
4,200
To St. Paul
200
550
11000
950
900
To U of Minnesota
0
300
300
300
300
Station -to- station
0
3,300
3,650
3,950
4,000
Total
4,800
11,250
18,850
19,200
18,950
2030 Park - and -Ride Facilities
Currently, the 28th Avenue (in Bloomington), Cedar Grove (in Eagan), and Lakeville Cedar (in Lakeville)
park- and -ride facilities have additional capacity, while the two Apple Valley park- and -ride facilities
(Apple Valley Transit Station and Palomino Hills) are operating at capacity. The Apple Valley Transit
Station was designed to accommodate future expansion. However, the Palomino Hills park -and -ride
facility has significant challenges associated with expanding the facility. In addition, the travel demand
modeling completed as part of the 2010 IPU indicated that a park- and -ride facility located in the
vicinity of 140th Street and Cedar Avenue would attract more commuters than Palomino Hills park -and-
ride with equivalent service. As a result, this may be a better location to develop a park- and -ride
facility.
The Metropolitan Council estimates that by 2030 there will be demand for an additional 1,400 park -
and -ride spaces in Apple Valley8. The 2010 IPU is recommending that MVTA conduct the Apple Valley
Park - and -Ride Siting Project to identify when and where these park- and -ride spaces should be built in
Apple Valley. However, since the existing facilities are currently operating at capacity, development of
the additional park- and -ride spaces in Apple Valley is targeted for Stage 2. The expansion /development
of other park- and -ride facilities Cedar Grove, Lakeville Cedar (expansion), and 215th Street
(development) are currently planned for Stage 3.
6 The Metropolitan Council Travel Demand Model may be overestimating local ridership.
Assumes no additional service from recommended service 2012, and 2.1 percent increase in ridership per year from
2012 to 2030.
$ Metropolitan Council, 2009. Regional Solicitation of Federal Transportation Projects. Appendix G included the 2030
park- and -ride demand by TAZ for the Twin Cities.
http: / /www.metrocounci Lore /planning/ transportation /RegSolicit /2009 /AppgndixG5.htm
Page 24
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
2030 I -35W /Cedar Avenue Transit Travelshed
The 1 -35W Transitway is parallel to the Cedar Avenue Transitway and will also have bus rapid transit
station -to- station service beginning in 2012. Using a select link analysis to analyze the 2030 model
results allowed for the identification of transit travelsheds for both the 1 -35W and Cedar Avenue
Transitway crossings over the Minnesota River. Figure 4 -10 shows the distinct travelshed for each
transitway as well as the overlapping portions of their travelsheds. The majority of the transit
travelsheds for both Transitways is located south of the Minnesota River, reflecting the strong
northern transit commute patterns from Dakota County.
However, the model does indicate that some riders beginning their trip in the South Loop District will
use the Cedar Avenue Transitway to travel south into Dakota County. The majority of the potential
riders originating in the Mall of America /South Loop District will use the 28th Avenue park- and -ride, via
pedestrian movements, to access Cedar Avenue Transitway services. This option of accessing the
Transitway via walking is a strong testament to the transit oriented development (TOD) principles and
zoning the City of Bloomington has enacted in the Mall of America /South Loop District to encourage
alternative travel options.
Similarly, the 1 -35W Transitway will also have transit riders starting their trip in the southern portion of
Bloomington (primarily south of Old Shakopee Road) who will use the 1 -35W to travel to Dakota
County. South of the Minnesota River, the 1 -35W Transitway travelshed includes TAZs west of 1- 35W/1-
35 and the TAZs east of Cedar Avenue and north of what will be 180th Street make up the Cedar
Avenue Transitway travelshed. There are several TAZs located between 1- 35/1 -35W and Cedar Avenue
that are split between the two travelsheds and south of what will be 180th Street. Of interest is the
model's indication that the transit riders from the TAZs near Farmington (circled in red) would travel
past Cedar Avenue for the benefit of the faster transit travel times along 1- 35/1 -35W9. The transit trips
originating south of the Minnesota River for both Transitways are headed to destinations north of the
River.
9 The Travel Demand Model assumes maximum transit travel speeds of 50 miles per hour (mph) on 1 -35W Transitway
and maximum transit travel speeds of 35 mph along Cedar Avenue, TH 77, and TH 62.
Page 25
u$ 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Figure 4 -10
2030 Transit Travelsheds for 1 -35W and Cedar Avenue BRT Transitways
Legend
a a.
CedarAvenueStation -to- Station Alignment i !a
Interstate �+
-- - _ H�hwa ' i I
Transit Travel Shed '
1- 35WTransitTravelshed - t!
0 (more than 70% of transit trip on 1 -35" J) I
Page 26
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report a July 2010
S. 2009 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis of ridership, cost, benefits and feedback from the Cedar Avenue Transitway
stakeholders and public, this 2010 Implementation Plan Update makes the following
recommendations. Timing and cost of each of these elements are described in detail in Section 4 as
well as Section 7.
5.1 Runningway
Runningway is the exclusive or semi - exclusive bus lane. The Transitway will utilize numerous types of
runningways to take advantage of regional transit advantages while providing cost effective transit
travel time advantages.
Stage 1: 2009 - 2012
• Curbside bus -only shoulders on Cedar Avenue (Dakota County Highway 23) between 138tH
Street and 181St Street are in final design. Construction will begin in 2011 and will be
completed in fall of 2012, in time for the start of station -to- station service.
• For express service to /from downtown Minneapolis, buses will continue to use bus -only
shoulder on TH 77 and TH 62 north of Bloomington, employ the transit advantage for buses
traveling northbound TH 77 to westbound TH 62 and access the High Occupancy/Toll (HOT)
lanes on 1 -35W and utilize the designated transit corridors on Second and Marquette in
downtown Minneapolis.
Stage 2:2012 - 2020
• Provide transit advantage for southbound buses traveling to TH 77 from the South Loop
District. Currently, buses experience delays from Killebrew Drive to southbound TH 77 in the
afternoon peak hours.
Further analysis and coordination with the City of Bloomington, MVTA, and the Metropolitan
Council, at a minimum, are needed to identify how best to improve transit travel times for
buses entering and exiting the South Loop District to southbound TH 77. Consideration should
be given to rerouting of buses via Old Shakopee Road (Hennepin County Highway 1). Providing
transit advantages along Old Shakopee Road may provide a significant travel time savings at
lower cost than providing a transit advantage on the on ramp from Killebrew Drive to TH 77.
Stage 3:2020 - 2030
• Long -term, center - running transitway is no longer recommended for the long -term because of
the high capital cost associated with its implementation; and its potential to limit Mn /DOT's
ability to provide additional capacity to TH 77 as recommended in its pending TH 77 Managed
Lane Study. In addition, center - running operations would require additional weaving of transit
vehicles to serve on -line stations and return to bus -only shoulders. Instead, a more cost-
Page 27
tm 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
effective means of enhancing travel time savings and reliability would be to provide direct
access between stations (e.g. Cedar Grove and Cliff Road) and TH 77.
- Connecting Cedar Grove Transit to the Transitway is a priority of MVTA and the City of
Eagan and is envisioned through providing a pedestrian connection the platforms on the
Transitway. To provide greater information and analysis of this can be accomplished,
funding for an access design project has been identified in Stage 1.
• Long -term, buses would use existing shoulders on Cedar Avenue between 181St Street and 215th
Street. These shoulders were constructed accommodate buses.
5.2 Stations and Park -and Ride Facilities
Stations are where riders board and alight the buses. They also provide a connection between the
Transitway and the surrounding community. Some stations along the corridor are designed to be walk-
up stations — stations that have no park- and -ride
facilities. Some stations, like the Cedar Grove Station, Figure 5 -1
the Apple Valley Transit Station and the Lakeville Cedar Apple Valley Transit Station
station will have park- and -ride facilities. Some stations
will accommodate only local and station -to- station
service. In addition, some stations will also
accommodate express services. With such flexibility, the
Transitway can add capacity as transit demand grows
over time for transit services without making large initial
investments. The 2010 IPU recommends that when
locating and sizing transit stations that ridership, service
levels, roadway impacts, bike and pedestrian
connectivity as well as development potential be
considered.
• This Implementation Plan Update reaffirms location and function of stations identified in the
Alternatives Analysis, i.e. at Mall of America, Cedar Grove, Cliff Road, 140th Street, 147th Street,
181St Street (Lakeville Cedar), 195th Street, and 215th Street. (Figure 5 -1 show Apple Valley
Transit Station)
• New station locations resulting from the 2010 IPU include 28th Avenue Park - and -Ride in
Bloomington and 161St/162nd Street and Glacier Way in Lakeville.
• Provide pedestrian bridges at locations such as Cedar Grove, 140th Street, 147th Street and
Lakeville Cedar (similar to the facility at Apple Valley Transit Station) as warranted by ridership,
safety, and operations.
Page 28
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Stage 1: 2009 - 2012
• Cedar Grove, Apple Valley, and Lakeville Cedar Transit Stations have been constructed. These
stations have park- and -ride facilities.
• Construct walk -up stations at 140th Street, 147th Street, and 161St Street in 2012 for 2012
ridership projections and allow for expansion capability as ridership grows.
• Park - and -Ride Facilities were constructed at Cedar Grove, Apple Valley, and Lakeville Cedar
Transit Stations. Figure 5 -2 shows the existing park- and -ride at the Apple Valley Transit Station.
• This updated analysis confirms the need for more detailed analysis regarding how to provide
additional park- and -ride capacity in northern Apple Valley, i.e. limited expansion capability at
the Palomino Hills facility, vis -a -vis traffic and access constraints at a potential site in the
northwest quadrant of 140th Street /Cedar Avenue.
Stage 2:2012 - 2020
• Construct Glacier Way Station as a walk -up station.
• Construct park- and -ride facilities in Apple Valley
Recommended by the Apple Valley Park - and -Ride Siting
Project.
• Add a pedestrian skyway connection and additional
capacity to the 140th Street station as warranted by
ridership and service demand.
• Apple Valley: Add 1,400 spaces in Apple Valley, in
addition to the 750 spaces available at the Apple Valley
Transit Station) as identified by the Apple Valley Park -
and -Ride Siting Project.
Stage 3:2020 - 2030
riallra 5..7
• Construct walk -up stations at Cliff Road in Eagan and 195th Street in Lakeville.
• Construct park- and -ride station at 215th Street in Lakeville.
• Add pedestrian skyways at Cedar Grove, 147th Street, and Lakeville Cedar Transit Stations, as
warranted.
• Expand park- and -ride facilities at Cedar Grove and Lakeville Cedar Transit Stations.
• Eagan: Add 550 spaces at Cedar Grove Transit Station
Page 29
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
• Lakeville: Add 200 spaces at Lakeville Cedar Station; construct 200 spaces at 215th Street
Station.
5.3 Transit Fleet
Based on feedback from stakeholders and the public,
station -to- station vehicles are recommended to have the
following features:
• Streamlined, rail like, aerodynamic appearance to
allow passengers waiting at a station to easily
recognize the bus and distinguish it from other
buses operating within the Transitway.
• On -board fare collection to offer greater
flexibility for route planning and use of vehicles
along various routes
• Off -board fare collection systems to decrease
station dwell times and shorten passenger in-
vehicle travel time
Figure 5 -3
On -Board Bicycle Racks
Swift BRT, Snohomish County, WA
• Multiple doors to facilitate boarding and alighting and reduce station dwell times
• On -board bicycle racks to decrease boarding and alighting time and reduce station dwell times;
could allow buses to accommodate more than two bicycles at a time (as compared to racks
installed on the front of the bus. Figure 3 -3 shows the on -board bicycle rack used on Swift BRT.
• Compliant with Americans with Disability Act (ADA), for compliance with federal law
• Compliant with Buy America Requirements, for purposes of federal and state funding
requirements
• Diesel- hybrid propulsion, for cleaner air emissions and quieter buses
• Low - floor, to facilitate boarding and alighting
Implementation of the Transitway will require MVTA to expand its fleet of express and local buses in
addition to adding station -to- station vehicles to the fleet. Table 5 -1 shows how the fleet will increase
by Stage.
Stage 1: 2009 - 2012
• Ten 40 -foot buses for station -to- station service
• Three additional express buses
Page 30
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update Im
Draft Report • July 2010
• Four additional local /feeder buses.
Stage 2: 2012 - 2020
• Seven additional express buses (seven new plus four shifted from local service due to
recommended changes in local /feeder network the total increase in buses used for express
service is 11).
• Twenty -six Local /feeder buses (13 new and 13 replacement)
Stage 3: 2020 - 2030
• Eleven 60 -foot buses for station -to- station service (as required by ridership and scheduled
vehicle replacement)
• Twenty -four express buses (nine new and 14 replacement, plus three shifted from local service)
• Fifty -eight additional local /feeder buses (16 additional and 42 replacement)
Table 5 -1
Cedar Avenue Transitwav Fleet Reauirements1,
Service and vehicle type
Existing
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Total
Total
Increase
from
Existing
Total
Increase
from
Stage 1
Total
Increase
from
Stage 2
Increase
from
Existing
Station -to- station vehicles
0
10
10
10
0
11
1
11
Express (Standard)
51
54
3
65
11
77
12
27
Local
16
20
4
29
9
42
13
26
Standard
12
16
4
12
-4
9
-3
-3
Cutaway
4
4
0
17
13
33
16
29
Total
67
84
16
104
20
130
26
64
5.4 Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facility
As the size of the transitway fleet increases, there is also the need to increase capabilities to store and
maintain vehicles.
Stage 1: 2009 - 2012
io In Stages 2 and 3, the number of standard buses needed for local service decreases from the previous Stage. It was
assumed that these buses will be used to off -set the need to purchase additional express buses, since MVTA provides
express service in the Transitway with standard buses.
11 The table above only includes increases in the MVTA fleet; all buses in the MVTA fleet will need to be replaced when
they reach the end of their useful life, 12 -years for station -to- station vehicles and standard buses, 5 -years for cutaway
buses.
Page 31
um 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
• MVTA will use its planned expansion and existing storage and maintenance facilities in Eagan to
accommodate the increase in the vehicle fleet during Stage 1.
Stage 2:2012 - 2020
• MVTA is planning to expand the Eagan Bus Garage to accommodate fleet increases associated
with station -to- station, express, and local service for Stage 2.
Stage 3:2020 - 2030
• In the long -term, the 2010 IPU recommends a project to develop and analyze alternatives for to
expand MVTA's systemwide capabilities for vehicle storage and maintenance and not just due
to fleet expansion associated with the Cedar Avenue Transitway or station -to- station service.
5.5 Vehicle Layover Facilities
Layover facilities provide increased schedule reliability and quality of transit service, by minimizing the
impact of congestion and other delays on transit service. Some layover facilities also provide break
facilities for bus drivers.
An overall recommendation is to coordinate Transitway layover needs with Metro Transit's 2010
Downtown Minneapolis Layover Study, ensuring adequate layover facilities are available in downtown
Minneapolis will require continual coordination between MVTA and Metro Transit.
Stage 1: 2009 - 2012
• Provide layover capability in Apple Valley near the Apple Valley Transit Station, as
recommended in the forthcoming 2010 Apple Valley Layover Siting Project.
Provide layover capability in the vicinity of 28th Avenue /Mall of America/ South Loop District for
three buses.
Stage 2:2012 - 2020
• The forthcoming 2010Apple Valley Layover Siting Project will provide more detail regarding the
needs layover facilities in the Transitway.
Stage 3:2020 - 2030
• The 2030 conceptual service plan proposed in the 2010 IPU would require an additional layover
space in Apple Valley or in Lakeville to maintain schedule reliably.
5.6 Technology
Use of technology in the Transitway will improve service reliability and the passenger experience with
the Transitway, resulting in increased ridership. Technology will be implemented in the Transitway as
stations are constructed, vehicles are acquired, and the runningway is built /extended.
Page 32 �.S
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
• Implement the same, consistent and uniform on- and off -board fare collection used on the
Hiawatha light rail and Northstar commuter rail and is anticipated for Central and Southwest
Transitways.
• Provide customer information /real -time signs at stations, similar to those at the Mall of
America Transit Center and Marquette and Second Avenues in downtown Minneapolis.
• Install Driver Assist System to facilitate buses to stay within the runningway on Cedar Avenue
between 138th and 181St Streets and deploy along the Transitway as needed.
• Implement Transit Signal Priority to minimize delays to buses at signalized intersections along
Cedar Avenue south of 138th Street. The use of transit signal priority will be explored for as a
way to reduce transit travel time to /from Cedar Grove Transit Station and TH 77.
5.7 Enhancements
Transitway enhancements will improve passenger experience and result in additional ridership. In
addition to providing a benefit to the transit riders, transitway enhancements will also improve the
pedestrian and bicycle environments in the Transitway, encouraging walking and bicycling. Improving
the pedestrian environment along the Transitway is important because it allows transit riders to
complete the final portion of the trip via pedestrian movements comfortably. Similar to technology
enhancements, transitway enhancements will be implemented as the stations are constructed and the
runningway is built /extended.
• Additional streetscaping will provide visual and
enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
(Figure 5 -4 is a sketch of wayfinding proposed in
Apple Valley)
• Public art is encouraged, but not mandated, and
can be achieved through the use of construction
materials and elements with function.
• Identify opportunities to partner with businesses,
arts organizations and other stakeholders along
the Transitway and implement public art.
Figure 5 -4
Sketch, Apple Valley Wayfinding
Monument
5.8 Service Plan
The 2010 IPU is recommending the following service plans are developed and implemented along the
Transitway:
Stage 1: 2009 - 2012
• Moving forward, the 2010 IPU suggests making minor changes to express and local /feeder 2010
existing service that primarily eliminate redundancy with the introduction of station -to- station
Page 33
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
service in 2012. The 2010 IPU recognizes the need for the development of detailed service and
operating services plans to be developed by the transit provider.
• In 2012, station -to- station service is recommended as follows:
- From Lakeville to the Mall of America /South Loop District: Every 20 minutes in the peak and
every 30 minutes in the off -peak
- From Apple Valley to the Mall of America /South Loop District: Every 10 minutes in the peak
and every 15 minutes in the off -peak.
- More detailed service plans will need to be developed prior to implementation of station -
to- station service.
Stage 2:2012 - 2020
• Continue to expand express and local service to meet ridership demand.
• Investigate the option of offering hybrid station -to- station and express service to some stations
and destinations along the Transitway.
• Increase frequency of station -to- station service as warranted by ridership to provided as
follows:
- From Lakeville to the South Loop District: Every 20 minutes all day
- From Apple Valley to the South Loop District: Every 10 minutes all day.
Stage 3:2020 - 2030
• Provide direct express service to downtown Minneapolis from all park- and -rides in the
Transitway
• Expand the local feeder network to access more neighborhoods, business districts and local
attractions
• In 2030, station -to- station service is recommend as follows:
- From Lakeville to the Mall of America /South Loop District: Every 20 minutes all day
- From Apple Valley to the Mall of America /South Loop District: Every 10 minutes all day.
5.9 Other Recommendations
The following recommendations have regional implications that need to be addressed within a larger
context than the Cedar Avenue Transitway. The Regional Transitways Group is anticipated to address
these additional topics.
• Improvements to the South Loop District
Page 34
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
- Expansion of the Mall of America Transit Center: The Mall of American Transit Center is the
focus of significant transit services and infrastructure in the Twin Cities that include the
Hiawatha light rail line, and Metro Transit and MVTA services today. In the future,
additional development in the area and growth in the Twin Cities' transit network would
add demand at the facility. The facility also has virtually no expansion capability to
accommodate long -term growth. Also, existing security procedures to enter the facility as
required by the Mall of America (a private entity) add to transit travel times, which impact
the attractiveness of using transit. A comprehensive analysis of the South Loop District that
involves stakeholders such as transit providers, Metropolitan Council, and the City of
Bloomington (at a minimum) should examine these needs in detail to determine the long-
term plan for the area.
— American Boulevard /1 -494, Chicago Avenue and Seventh Street BRT Corridors: The
Metropolitan Council's 2030 Transit Policy Plan identifies these three arterial BRT lines
connecting to the Cedar Avenue Transitway. Required services and infrastructure to
provide or facilitate these connections are regional in nature and should be addressed as
such.
— The City of Bloomington estimates an additional 15 million square feet of development will
on in the South Loop District over the next 40 years 12. The anticipated development will only
increase the traffic related delays MVTA buses experience exiting the South Loop District to
TH 77. As part of the South Loop Project, it will be important to identify a long -term solution
to reduce transit travel times from the South Loop District to TH 77.
An option that should be considered in could providing a transit advantages on the
Killebrew Boulevard to southbound TH 77 ramp and along Old Shakopee Road to TH 77.
When considering the routing of buses along Old Shakopee Road consideration should be
given to, a station located at the intersection of 86th Street and Old Shakopee Road.
• Maintenance facility for other station -to- station service such as 1 -35W: Depending on the
station -to- station vehicle that is selected and whether a regional BRT fleet is decided upon,
there might be economies of scale associated with sharing common maintenance facilities for
station -to- station fleet. With BRT service envisioned not just on Cedar Avenue, but 1 -35W, 1-
494 /American Boulevard, Chicago Avenue and Seventh Street as well, this issue warrants
further discussion.
• Branding for other station -to- station service such as 1 -35W, 1- 494 /American Boulevard, Chicago
Avenue, and Seventh Street should be consistent and easily recognizable as BRT. Branding for
BRT services is key to their success and should be given careful consideration during
implementation.
12 City of Bloomington, 2010. South Loop (formerly Airport South) District Energy. Available:
httr): / /www.ci.bloominRton.mn.us/ citvhall /dent/ commdev/ DfanninR/ loneranR /southloop /distrenergv.htm
Page 35
tw 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
6. CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY FUNDING PLAN
The Cedar Avenue Transitway, like most major capital transit investments, has been and will continue
to be funded through a combination of local, state, and federal funds. For planning purposes, major
transit capital projects in the Twin Cities region are assumed to be funded in one of two ways, with
varying combinations of federal and non - federal sources such as the State of Minnesota, CTIB and
other local sources such as municipal funds. The first method employs the FTA's Section 5309 (New
Starts) funds, with the typical funding ratios:
• 50 percent FTA Section 5309
• 30 percent CTIB
• 10 percent State of Minnesota
0 10 percent other local.
As an example, the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project is partially funded by the FTA's New Starts
program. The project is currently in preliminary engineering. Depending on the size and scope of a
project, the New Starts project development process has rigorous requirements, entails extensive
environmental documentation, and is an extremely competitive process. This typical funding formula
will be pursued for Stages 2 and 3.
The Cedar Avenue Transitway AA determined that the project would not enter the New Starts
program. For projects such as Stage 1 of the Cedar Avenue Transitway — i.e. non -New Starts — a lower
federal share of funding capital cost is anticipated, as indicated in the following formula:
• 30 percent Federal
• 30 percent CTIB
• 30 percent State of Minnesota
• 10 percent other local.
6.1 Funding To -Date
As of this writing, over $105 million have been secured for the capital development of the Cedar
Avenue Transitway. These funds have come from five sources: federal, state, Regional Transit Capital
(formerly the Twin Cities regional transit taxing district), CTIB, and local sources such as Dakota County
Regional Railroad Authority, and Transitway communities. Table 6 -1 presents the funding secured for
the project to -date.
Page 36
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Table 6 -1
Capital Fundine Secured for the Cedar Avenue Transitwav13
Federal
Through various federal programs, the Transitway has secured approximately $45 million. This includes
a CMAQ grant used to purchase vehicles. UPA funds were used for station development, including
Cedar Grove, Apple Valley, and Lakeville Cedar. UPA funds were also used to fund a portion of the DAS
Technology that is being installed on buses operating in the Transitway. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) funds were used to fund a portion of preliminary engineering and the
environmental assessment for the runningway. FHWA funds will also be used to fund a portion of the
construction of the bus -only shoulders to Cedar Avenue.
State
The Transitway has used and will continue to use the State of Minnesota bonding authority to fund
portions of the capital costs of the Transitway. State bonds have been used to fund right -of -way
acquisition, final design of the runningway, a portion of preliminary engineering and the environmental
assessment for the runningway, and station development for the Cedar Grove, Apple Valley, and
Lakeville Cedar Transit Stations. State bonds were used to provide off -board fare collection and real
time information signs at the Mall of America Transit Center. In addition, property tax supported
regional transit capital (RTC) bonds have been used to fund capital elements of the Transitway.
As of this writing, the State legislature has approved the use of approximately $25 million in State
bonding for the Transitway. However, use of additional State bonding funds does require the approval
of both the Legislature and Governor, on a biannual basis. The 2010 bonding bill passed by the
Legislature included $43 million for Transitways, $9 million of which was targeted for developing the
Cedar Avenue Transitway. However, these funds were removed from the bonding bill through the use
of a line -item veto by the Governor. The continued use of State bonds will depend on bi- annual
Legislative and Gubernatorial approval.
Counties Transportation Improvement Board (CTIB)
In 2008, a 0.25 percent sale tax and a $20 excise tax on vehicles sold at retail dedicated to Transitway
development /operations were passed by five counties in the Twin Cities region, including Dakota
County. The revenues from this tax are managed by the CTIB. The sales tax and vehicle excise tax
create a dedicated source for transit funding in the Twin Cities region. CTIB is made up of
13 Dakota County presentation to the CTIB on May 19, 2010.
Page 37
U 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Federal
State
CTIB
DCRRA
Dakota County
Regional Transit
Total
Cities
Capital
Funding
Secured
$45.18
$25.21
$23.27
$9.47
$2.16
$105.29
($ million)
Federal
Through various federal programs, the Transitway has secured approximately $45 million. This includes
a CMAQ grant used to purchase vehicles. UPA funds were used for station development, including
Cedar Grove, Apple Valley, and Lakeville Cedar. UPA funds were also used to fund a portion of the DAS
Technology that is being installed on buses operating in the Transitway. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) funds were used to fund a portion of preliminary engineering and the
environmental assessment for the runningway. FHWA funds will also be used to fund a portion of the
construction of the bus -only shoulders to Cedar Avenue.
State
The Transitway has used and will continue to use the State of Minnesota bonding authority to fund
portions of the capital costs of the Transitway. State bonds have been used to fund right -of -way
acquisition, final design of the runningway, a portion of preliminary engineering and the environmental
assessment for the runningway, and station development for the Cedar Grove, Apple Valley, and
Lakeville Cedar Transit Stations. State bonds were used to provide off -board fare collection and real
time information signs at the Mall of America Transit Center. In addition, property tax supported
regional transit capital (RTC) bonds have been used to fund capital elements of the Transitway.
As of this writing, the State legislature has approved the use of approximately $25 million in State
bonding for the Transitway. However, use of additional State bonding funds does require the approval
of both the Legislature and Governor, on a biannual basis. The 2010 bonding bill passed by the
Legislature included $43 million for Transitways, $9 million of which was targeted for developing the
Cedar Avenue Transitway. However, these funds were removed from the bonding bill through the use
of a line -item veto by the Governor. The continued use of State bonds will depend on bi- annual
Legislative and Gubernatorial approval.
Counties Transportation Improvement Board (CTIB)
In 2008, a 0.25 percent sale tax and a $20 excise tax on vehicles sold at retail dedicated to Transitway
development /operations were passed by five counties in the Twin Cities region, including Dakota
County. The revenues from this tax are managed by the CTIB. The sales tax and vehicle excise tax
create a dedicated source for transit funding in the Twin Cities region. CTIB is made up of
13 Dakota County presentation to the CTIB on May 19, 2010.
Page 37
U 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
representatives from five metro counties and the Chair of the Metropolitan Council. CTIB requires a
10 percent local match for all capital grants.
CTIB funds were used to fund a portion of the Apple Valley Transit Station. CTIB funds will be used to
fund a portion of the runningway improvement in the Transitway and are planned to be used to fund
30 percent of all other capital costs associated with implementation of the Transitway.
In addition to capital funding, CTIB can provide up to 50 percent of annual operating and maintenance
costs for station -to- station and BRT express service. Based on the recommended service plan for 2012,
this funding is estimated at $1.77 million annually, in 2009 dollars.
Local: Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority
In 1987, the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority (DCRRA) was created with broad authority to
oversee the development and implementation of BRT in Dakota County. The DCRRA has the authority
to levy up to 0.04835 percent of the market value of all taxable property situated within Dakota County
(Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 398A.04(8)).
DCRRA provided a portion of the funding for the Apple Valley Transit Station and will provide a portion
of the funds for the development of runningway along Cedar Avenue. DCRRA will be a source of the
10 percent local match for all CTIB funds used for the implementation of the Transitway.
Local: Cities
The Cities of Apple Valley and Lakeville provided funding for a portion of the runningway
improvements within their respective cities for Stage 1 development
7. STAGING PLAN
Findings and recommendations on conceptual service planning, ridership, and capital needs have led
to the development of the staging plan defined in this document. Capital and operating and
maintenance costs accompany the elements under each project implementation stage. Note that
there is a difference in costs identified in the 2009 Implementation Plan Update relative to the 2005
Plan, as the latter did not include estimates for the following major elements:
• Buses (fleet)
• Fleet storage and maintenance
• Technology— Customer information, transitway, fare collection
• Maintenance and layover facilities
• Transitway enhancements
• Ridership specific to route and station
Page 38
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
• Adjustments for growth in the system
• Environmental documentation
• Enhancements such as public art, service marketing and branding
• Project management and oversight
• Periodic plan refinements
This staging plan was developed using results of technical analysis, vetted through the Technical
Advisory Committee, Project Management Team, Cedar Group and the Dakota County Regional
Railroad Authority. The staging plan encompasses three time periods, similar to the 2005
Implementation Plan. Stage 1 encompasses the time 2009 through 2012, when station -to- station
service is envisioned to begin. Stage 2 is the period between 2012 and 2020, while Stage 3 represents
the long -term plan, from 2020 to 2030. There are many variables that can impact the ultimate
implementation and either advance or delay Transitway elements, they include:
• Capital and operating funding
• Ridership demand
• Increased transportation costs (e.g. gas, parking)
• Development.
Thus, this staging plan includes periodic updates. Following is a summary of the elements of each
stage in the plan.
7.1 Stage 1: 2009 - 2012
Stage 1 is preparing for the introduction of station -to- station service. It represents the most visible
transformation of the Cedar Avenue into a Transitway. Stage 1 includes the introduction of runningway
on the shoulders of Cedar Avenue from 138" to 181" Street, as well as, the construction of transit
stations and park- and -ride facilities. Transit riders will also notice the benefits provided through transit
technology.
Many of the elements in Stage 1 are under design or have been constructed as part of the UPA
improvements. Express and local transit riders are benefiting from the early implementation of these
elements. Table 5 -1 presents the elements included in Stage 1.
Page 39
tm 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Table 7 -1
Summary of Stage 1 Elements
Element
Description
Cost in 2009
Funding
dollars
Secured
Runningway
Bus -only shoulders along Cedar Avenue between 138th and 181St
$52.31 million
$52.31 million
Streets
Stations
Cedar Grove Transit Station - Opened in March 2010; with 164 park-
2.62 million
2.62 million
and -ride spaces and passenger waiting facility
Apple Valley Transit Station - Opened in January 2010; with 750-
21.48 million
21.48 million
space parking garage; temperature- controlled passenger waiting
areas and pedestrian bridge over Cedar Avenue.
Lakeville Cedar Station - Opened in September 2009; with 190 -space
2.68 million
2.68 million
park- and -ride
140,n Street Station - Walk -up station with anticipated boardings of
3.50 million
3.50 million
250 to 1,410 per day, depending on whether a park- and -ride is
associated with the station.
147` Street Station - Walk -up station with anticipated boardings of
3.50 million
3.50 million
450 to 700 per day.
1615`1162" Street Station - The implementation of this station in
1.40 million
-
Stage 1 depends on the findings of the Lakeville Station Siting Project.
A walk -up station is envisioned at this location, with 50 to 100
boardings per day, and would serve the more developed area of
Lakeville proximate to Dakota County Highway 46.
Lakeville Cedar Station - Shelter upgrade for station -to- station service
0.31 million
-
28t Avenue Station - Improvements at this station include a bus pull-
0.20 million
200,000
off for station -to- station service, sidewalk reconstruction, shelter
upgrade, and real -time signs.
Buses
Station -to- station: 10 -40' buses
7.35 million
2.94 million
Express: 3 -40' buses
1.42 million
1.26 million
Local /feeder: 4 -40' buses
1.89 million
-
Vehicle Storage
Layover facility allowance
1.55 million
-
Storage and maintenance allowance:
and Maintenance
/Layover
Station -to- station
3.00 million
-
Express
0.90 million
-
Local /feeder
1.20 million
-
Technology
Off -board fare collection, customer information system, real -time
9.05 million
6.73 million
signs, Driver Assist, and Transit Signal Priority
Project
Includes this Implementation Plan Update, project administration for
7.46 million
7.46 million
Development/
construction of stations and runningway between 138th and 181St
Administration
Streets; various projects such as Apple Valley Layover and Lakeville
Station Siting; Environmental Assessment for station -to- station
service; etc.
Annual Operating
Incremental cost in 2012, by type of service:
and Maintenance
Station -to- station
2.90 million
-
Cost
Express
0.46 million
-
Local /feeder
0.27 million
-
Additional BRT facilities
0.17 million
-
Stage 1 Totals
Capital
$114.36 million
$97.22 million
Project Development /Administration
7.46 million
7.46 million
O &M
3.80 million
-
Page 40 u�
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Of the total capital needs in Stage 1, $98.06 million are already funded, yielding $18.66 million that
require additional funding. The $7.46 million in project development /administration are fully funded.
The $3.8 million in 0 &M cost for additional transit service do not have identified funding. Although, 50
percent of the increased O &M costs associated with station -to- station and express service is eligible
for operating funds through CTIB, or 1.77 million in 2012.
One of the priorities that this study was tasked to confirm was the need for a station at 140th Street
and 147th Street. The ridership forecasts for 2012 and 2030 indicate that there is indeed a need for
stations at these two locations. In the short- and mid -term, the range of boardings at the 140th Street
Station is from 250 to 1,400 per day, depending on whether the station remains a walk -up station or it
includes a park- and -ride facility. Similarly, the range of boardings at 147th Street Station is from 450 to
700 per day — a narrower range than 140th Street Station because there is no other scenario for a
station here but a walk -up.
7.2 Stage 2: 2012- 2020
During Stage 2 the Transitway will be augmented through introduction of additional service and
facilities. Stage 2 will guide the Transitway through early years of operations, Stage 2 will expand
Transitway facilities, towards the ultimate 2030 vision for the Transitway. Transit riders will continue to
experience the benefits of Transitway, as local and express service is expanded in the Transitway.
Table 4 -2 summarizes the implementation elements included in Stage 2. Stage 2 is the period between
2012 and 2020. At this juncture, funding for all Stage 2 elements have yet to be identified.
Page 41
tM 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Table 7 -2
Summary of Stage 2 Elements
Element
Description
Cost in 2009
dollars
Runningway
Transitway improvements between the South Loop District stations
$5.20 million
and southbound TH 77
Stations
Apple Valley park- and -ride allowance for 1,400 spaces, pending
39.89 million
findings of Northern Apple Valley Park - and -Ride Siting Project.
140` Street Station pedestrian bridge
1.72 million
Glacier Way Station, pending findings of Lakeville Station Siting
1.40 million
Project
Buses
Station -to- station: No increase over Stage 1
--
Express: 7 -40' buses, in addition to Stage 1(shift 4 from local)
3.31 million
Local /feeder — 26 -30' buses (13 additional over Stage 1 and 13
4.24 million
replacement)
Vehicle Storage and
Layover facility allowance — No increase over Stage 1
--
Storage and maintenance allowance:
Maintenance /Layover
Station -to- station — No increase over Stage 1
--
Express — Increase of 7 over Stage 1
2.18 million
Local /feeder— Increase of 13 over Stage 1
4.06 million
Technology
Off -board fare collection, customer information system, real -time
1.82 million
signs, Driver Assist, and Transit Signal Priority
Project Development/
South Loop Project, Stage 2/3 Planning, and Maintenance Facility
0.95 million
Administration
Project
Annual Operating and
Incremental cost in 2020, by type of service:
Maintenance Cost
Station -to- station
3.44 million
Express
1.50 million
Local /feeder
1.21 million
Additional BRT facilities
0.50 million
Additional bus garage
0.40 million
Stage 2 Totals
Capital
$63.82 million
Project Development /Administration
0.95 million
O &M
7.07 million
7.3 Stage 3: 2020 - 2030
Stage 3 is the realization of the long -term vision for the Transitway. It includes the extension of the
Transitway south from Lakeville Cedar Transit Station to 215th Street Transit Station, as well as the
expansion of existing stations with the addition of new stations and park- and -ride facilities. Table 4 -3
below summarizes the implementation elements included in Stage 3. Stage 3 is the period between
2020 and 2030. At this juncture, funding for all Stage 3 elements have yet to be identified.
Page 42
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update um
Draft Report • July 2010
Table 7 -3
Summary of Stage 3 Elements
1100 "All
�..
- ma, _
x
' f 0:n in way
lading findings of °Mi jpbVs TH 77l anaged fh6e Shudy.
Stations
Cedar Grove —Add 550 structured spaces to park- and -ride
1345 m914on
Cliff Road— Walk -up station
2.34 million
147 Street— Pedestrian bridge allowance
1.72 million
Lakeville Cedar —Add 200 park- and -ride spaces
2.80 million
195 Street — Construct walk -up station as development warrants
1.40 million
215 Street — Construction station with 200 -space park- and -ride
2.99 million
Buses
Station -to- station: 11 articulated buses
13.86 million
Express: 9 additional and 14 replacement 40' buses (shift 3 from
10.87 million
local)
Local /feeder: 16 additional and 42 replacement 30' buses
9.44 million
Vehicle Storage and
Layover facility allowance — Increase of one space over Stages 1 and 2
0.19 million
Storage and maintenance allowance:
Maintenance /Layover
Station -to- station — For 1 artics
0.31 million
Express — For 9 buses, increment over Stages 1 and 2
2.81 million
Local /feeder— For 16 buses, increment over Stages 1 and 2
4.99 million
Technology
Off -board fare collection, customer information system, real -time
2.65 million
signs, Driver Assist, and Transit Signal Priority
Project Development/
Stage 3 Planning, Maintenance Facility Project
0.55 million
Administration
Annual Operating and
Incremental cost in 2030, by type of service:
Maintenance Cost
Station -to- station
4.11 million
Express
2.80 million
Local /feeder
2.40 million
Additional BRT facilities
0.61 million
Additional bus garage
0.50 million
Stage 3 Totals
Capital
$70.11 million
Project Development /Administration
0.55 million
O &M
10.43 million
7.4 Cedar Avenue Transitway
Cedar Avenue Transitway is being implemented in three Stages. Table 7 -4 below presents a summary
of costs by Stage for each of the major elements.
Page 43
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
Table 7 -4
Summary of Cedar Avenue Transitway Elements by Stage
t ni
New: CIIff Rd;'Station,195th fit. Station, 215tH St. Transit
Station $ 25.00 $ -
Expanded: Cedar Grove Transit Station, 147th St. Station,
Lakeville Cedar Transit Station
Costs 2009
($ millions)
Funded
Portion
($ millions)
Stage 1: 2009 - 2012 Prepare for Station - Station Service in 2012
$ 34.17
$ -
Total Capital
$ 114.36
$ 97.22
Runningway
$ 52.31
$ 52.31
Stations
$ 35.69
$ 33.98
New: Cedar Grove Transit Station, 140th St. Station, 147th St.
Station, Apple Valley Transit Station, 161st St. Station, and
Lakeville Cedar Transit Station
Expanded: 28th Avenue Transit Station
Buses
$ 10.66
$ 4.20
Vehicle Storage Maintenance and Layover
$ 6.65
$ -
Technology
$ 9.05
$ 6.73
Project Development /Administration
$ 7.46
$ 7.46
Annual Incremental Operating & Maintenance Cost
$ 3.80
$ -
Stage 2: 2012 - 2020 Augment Stage 1 Service and Facilities
Total Capital
$ 63.82
$ -
Runningway
$ 5.20
$ -
Stations
$ 43.02
$ -
New: Glacier Way Station
Additional 1,400 park- and -ride spaces in Apple Valley
location pending Apple Valley Station Siting Project. Expand
140th St. Station
Buses
$ 7.54
$ -
Vehicle Storage Maintenance and Layover
$ 6.24
$ -
Technology
$ 1.82
$ -
Project Development /Administration
$ 0.95
$ -
Annual Incremental Operating & Maintenance Cost
$ 7.07
$ -
t ni
New: CIIff Rd;'Station,195th fit. Station, 215tH St. Transit
Station $ 25.00 $ -
Expanded: Cedar Grove Transit Station, 147th St. Station,
Lakeville Cedar Transit Station
Buses
$ 34.17
$ -
Vehicle Storage Maintenance and Layover
$ 8.30
$
Technology
$ 2.65
$ -
Project Development /Administration
$ 0.55
$ -
Annual Incremental Operating & Maintenance Cost
$ 10.43
$ -
Page 44 *��
2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update X+s�.7
Draft Report • July 2010
8. NEXT STEPS
Station -to- station service is scheduled to begin revenue operations in late 2012 from Lakeville to Apple
Valley, Eagan, and the Mall of America /South Loop District in Bloomington. To this end, the following
work plan for the period between 2010 and 2012 has been developed:
• Environmental Assessment — MVTA is leading the Environmental Assessment activities that
documents the impacts of station -to- station service and construction of additional stations
along the Transitway. The EA must be completed prior to the construction of any new stations,
ordering of vehicles and the beginning station -to- station service. It is anticipated that the EA
will be completed by early 2011.
• Cedar Avenue Reconstruction — Dakota County will reconstruct Cedar Avenue from 138th Street
in Apple Valley to 181St Street in Lakeville to include curbside bus -only shoulders. This project
also includes construction of pedestrian enhancements and streetscaping. It is anticipated that
bus shoulder lanes will be constructed by Fall of 2012.
• Apple Valley Layover Siting Project MVTA is conducting a project examining numerous
locations for a possible layover facility in Apple Valley. It is anticipated the project will be
completed by late summer 2010.
• Apple Valley Park - and -Ride Siting Project — MVTA will identify the location and schedule for
adding 1,400 park- and -ride spaces in Apple Valley.
• Lakeville Station Siting Project — DCRRA will identify the location of stations in Lakeville. The
Project will consider station access and pedestrian crossing issues. It is anticipated this project
will be completed by late 2010, early 2011.
• Vehicle Procurement — MVTA will lead vehicle procurement activities. The following additional
buses required to provide service in the Transitway:
— Station -to- station: 10 buses
— Express: 3 buses
— Local: 4 buses.
• Cedar Grove Transit Station Access Project — DCRRA, MVTA, City of Eagan, Mn /DOT,
Metropolitan Council, and Metro Transit will develop a plan to decrease transit travel time
to /from TH 77 and the Cedar Grove Transit Station for both the short and long -term.
• Mall of America /South Loop District Transit Plan — Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, MVTA,
City of Bloomington, DCRRA, and Mn /DOT will develop a coordinated plan to address the future
transit needs of the South Loop District. The plan will address the expansion of the MCA Transit
Center, layover facility needs, transit advantages to /from TH 77, and accommodation for future
arterial BRT lines in the Mall of America /South Loop District.
Page 45
Em 2010 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Report • July 2010
4.0 STAGE 3 CONCEPTUAL PROJECT SERVICE PLAN
Initial service planning efforts for this project started with the definition of 2030 Horizon Year (Stage 3)
service plans. The Stage 3 service planning effort took into consideration:
• Recent transit service changes implemented by MVTA since completion of the AA;
• Review of recent travel demand model forecasts that were prepared by URS that utilized the
Cedar Avenue Corridor Transitway AA service plan as a starting point;
• Recent service plan meetings with Dakota County and MVTA staff; and
• Input received from the project's Technical Advisory Committee.
The new conceptual Stage 3 service plan assumes the following facilities are in place:
• 215th Street park- and -ride station
• 195th Street walk -up stop
• Lakeville Cedar park- and -ride station (existing)
• Glaacier Way walk -up stop
• 161St Street walk -up stop
• Apple Valley Transit Station (existing)
• 147th Street walk -up stop
• 140th Street /Apple Valley North (either park- and -ride or walk -up, to be determined)
• Palomino Hills park- and -ride (remains only if 140th Street is a walk -up stop)
• Cliff Road walk -up stop
• Cedar Grove park- and -ride station (existing)
• 28th Avenue park- and -ride station (existing)
• Mall of America Transit Center (existing)
There are three scenarios for Stage 3. Scenario 1 assumes the the 140th Street Station includes a park -
and -ride lot and the Palomino Hills park- and -ride lot is not included as part of the corridor service plan.
US Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update Page 9
coN is Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010
Scenarios 2A and 2B assume the Palomino Park- and -Ride lot remains in place and part of the corridor
service plan, and 140th Street is either remains a walk -up station, or 140th includes a park- and -ride.
Buses will operate on bus -only shoulders along TH 77 to the end of the freeway in Apple Valley, and
then operate in curbside bus lanes along Cedar Avenue (CSAH 23) to the southern terminus in
Lakeville. ITS features are proposed to minimize bus delays at traffic signals.
Specific route assumptions for the conceptual service plan are described in the following sections of
this chapter of the report. Figures 4 -1 and 4 -2 illustrate the Corridor's conceptual express and station -
to- station service plan for the two alternative scenarios (i.e., with and without a park- and -ride lot at
Apple Valley North /140th Street Station). Figure 4 -3 illustrates conceptual local route service for the
scenario that assumes a park- and -ride lot at 140th Street. Local service assumptions do not change for
the scenario that assumes the park- and -ride lot remains at Palomino Hills. Table 4 -1 presents service
frequencies for each route.
4.1 Station -to- Station Service to South Loop District
Two station -to- station route patterns are proposed. The first route pattern starts at 215th Street and
makes stops at all on -line Cedar Avenue stations and stops (215th Street, 195th Street, Lakeville Cedar,
Glacier Way, 161St Street, Apple Valley Transit Station, 147th Street, 140th Street and Cliff Road). This
route then deviates off of TH 77 to stop at Cedar Grove, before continuing to the South Loop District,
including stops at the 28th Street LRT Station and Mall of America Tranist Center. If Palomino Hills
remains in place, this route would also deviate to /from this off -line park- and -ride lot. The second
route pattern provides supplemental service north of Apple Valley Transit Station. This route pattern
starts at Apple Valley Transit Station and makes the same stops as the first route pattern. Proposed
weekday frequencies for both route patterns in this Stage 3 conceptual service plan are 20- minutes in
the peak and midday periods. These service frequencies result in a combined frequency of 10- minutes
north of Apple Valley Station in this conceptual service plan. The full route pattern to 215th Street
would also continue to operate by itself at 20- minute frequencies in the evening period.
Conceptual weekend service consists of the full route pattern only (i.e. from 215th Street to the South
Loop District). Proposed Saturday frequencies are 20- minutes during the day and evening periods.
Proposed Sunday frequencies are 30- minutes during the day and evening periods.
4.2 Express Service to Downtown Minneapolis
Non -stop express routes are proposed from each of the corridor's park- and -ride lots (215th Street,
Lakeville Cedar, Apple Valley Transit Station, 140th Street /Palomino Hills, and Cedar Grove Transit
Station). These routes would operate in the peak periods only at the following service frequencies:
• 215th Street — 30- minute frequencies
• Lakeville Cedar Station —15- minute frequencies
Page 10 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update.5
Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010 ��
• Apple Valley Transit Station — 5- minute frequencies
140th Street — 7.5- minute frequencies (also stops at Palomino Hills if this park- and -ride remains
in place)
• Cedar Grove— 15-minute frequencies.
US Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update Page 11
�ff c is Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010
Figure 4-1
Conceptual Express and Station-to-Station Service Plan for Stage 3, Scenario 1
(Without Palomino Hills and With 140th Street Station as a Park-and-Ride)
TO TO
Minneapolis U of M
5/.-
30/-
''it
5/__ --/30
30/--
To South TO
)op District St. Paul
_0
Cedar Grove
(off-line stop)
Cliff Road
Apple Valley North
Station (140th St. I
147th St.
Apple Valley
Transit Station
20/20 30/ --
- 161 st St.
Glacier
Lakeville
Cedar
195th St.
215th St.
20/20
Page 12 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update UM
Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010
Figure 4 -2
Conceptual Express and Station -to- Station Service Plan for Stage 3, Scenario 2A and 2B
(With Palomino Hills Remaining a Park - and -Ride)
To To
Minneapolis U of M
r �
r r
r
r
30/ --
To South
)op District
--V- 215th St.
20/20
To
St. Paul
"
Cedar Grove
(off -line stop)
r
r
Cliff Road
r
r
Palomino
(off -line stop)
r
r
r
r
�
�
r
r
�
r
r
r
�
r
�
r
�
r
r
�
r
�
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
�
r
r
�
�
�
�
r
�
I
�
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
�
�
r �
r r
r
r
30/ --
To South
)op District
--V- 215th St.
20/20
To
St. Paul
"
Cedar Grove
(off -line stop)
r
r
Cliff Road
r
r
Palomino
(off -line stop)
r
Apple Valley North
_
Station (140th St.)
Apple Valley
Transit Station
UM Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update Page 13
49 c is Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010
Figure 4 -3
Conceptual Local Service Route Plan for Stage 3 — All Scenarios
Page 14 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update UM
Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010 �,��
Table 4 -1
Service Frequencies for Stage 3 Conceptual Service Plan (Year 2030) — All Scenarios
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
UM Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update Page 15
4w Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010
Service
Frequency
,•
Midday
Loc 1
Cedar Grove Station to Apple Valley Station via Blackhawk P &R
1 30
60
30
60
U)
m
Loc 2
Cedar Grove Station to Apple Valley Station via Burnsville P &R
30
60
30
60
Loc 3
Apple Valley Station to Burnsville P &R via Palomino
30
60
30
n/a
°
Loc 4
Apple Valley Station to Rosemount via 157th St P &R Frmr 420
30
60
30
n/a
m
Loc 5
Burnsville Ctr to Apple Valley to Lakeville Cedar via 157th St P &R
30
60
30
n/a
m
Loc 6
Apple Valley Station to Crystal Lake
30
60
30
n/a
U.
Loc 7
Apple Valley Station to 215th St Station via Pilot Knob
30
n/a
30
n/a
°
c
Loc 8
215th St Station to 181st St Station via Dodd Blvd
30
n/a
30
n/a
e°
Loc 9
215th St Station to Farmington
30
n/a
30
n/a
0
Loc 10 140th St. Station to Pilot Knob /Diamond Path
30
60
30
n/a
11
444
Savage and Burnsville to Mall of America
30
30
30
60
445
Cedar Grove Station to Eagan via Yankee Doodle Rd
30
60
30
60
—
NEW
215th to South Loop District
20
20
20
20
U) N
NEW
Apple Valley to South Loop District
20
20
20
n/a
NEW
215th to Minneapolis k dir. only)
30
n/a
30
n/a
U)
NEW
Lakeville Cedar to Minneapolis k dir only)
15
n/a
15
n/a
.mod.
c 'o
NEW
Apple Valley to Minneapolis k dir only)
5
n/a
5
n/a
CL R
NEW
140th to Minneapolis k dir only)
7.5
n/a
7.5
n/a
H
NEW
Cedar Grove to Minneapolis k dir only)
15
n/a
15
n/a
_ ly
CL
472
Eagan to Downtown Minneapolis - Nicols /Diffle k dir only)
30
n/a
30
n/a
w
472
Eagan to Downtown Minneapolis - Diffle /Thomas k dir only)
60
n/a
60
n/a
NEW
Lakeville Cedar -Cedar Grove - Minneapolis CBD -U of M
n/a
30
n/a
n/a
o 2
NEW
Cedar Grove to University of Minnesota (pk dir only)
30
n/a
30
n/a
480
Bunsville to DT St. Paul (Heart of City)
3 trips
n/a
3 trips
n/a
A K
Eagan to DT St Paul Black Hawk PNR
2 trips
n/a
2 trips
n/a
w
NEW
Apple Valley -140th to St. Paul (pk dir only)
30
n/a
30
n/a
Saturday
Sunday
UM Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update Page 15
4w Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010
Combined, these express routes result in 28 bus trips /hour to /from downtown Minneapolis from the
Cedar Avenue Corridor. In addition to the routes described above, Route 472 is proposed to continue
operating at existing frequencies. Route 472 accesses TH 77 at Cliff Road.
4.3 Express Service to the University of Minnesota
Non -stop express service is also proposed directly to the University of Minnesota. This route would
operate from the Cedar Grove park- and -ride lot at 30- minute frequencies in the peak period, peak
direction. Service would operate only on weekdays.
4.4 Midday Service to Downtown Minneapolis and the U of M
The conceptual service plan also includes midday service to both downtown Minneapolis and the
University of Minnesota. This conceptual route pattern starts at Lakeville Cedar Station and serves all
on -line Cedar Avenue Stations and stops north of this station (Apple Valley Transit Station, 147th
Street, 140th Street, Cliff Road). This route then deviates off TH 77 to serve the Cedar Grove park -and-
ride, then continues to downtown Minneapolis with a stop at the 1 -35W 46th Street BRT Station. This
route will follow Route 465's alignment through downtown Minneapolis to the University of
Minnesota. Proposed weekday service frequencies are 30- minutes in the midday only.
4.5 Express Service to Downtown St. Paul Express
New service is proposed from Apple Valley Transit Station. This route would stop at the 140th Street
stop before continuing to downtown St. Paul via 1 -35E. If Palomino Hills remains in place, this route
will also stop at this off -line park- and -ride lot. Proposed weekday service frequencies are 30- minutes
in the peak period, peak direction only.
4.6 Local Route Service
The service plan described above will require a supporting bus feeder plan. Presently, many of MVTA's
express and Mall of America routes provide service to neighborhoods off of Cedar Avenue. The service
plan, as described above, streamlines express and station -to- station service. Thus, feeder routes will
be needed to continue to provide neighborhood service to the trunk service that is provided at Cedar
Avenue stations and stops. Ten local /feeder routes are proposed to ensure local route service that
currently exists in the corridor, and to reflect expansion of this coverage. Two of the local routes will
also provide connections to 1 -35 BRT service.
Local ##1
This route is designed to provide service in neighborhoods east of Cedar Avenue, between Cedar Grove
and the Apple Valley Transit Station. Starting at Cedar Grove, the conceptual alignment follows:
Cedarvale Blvd., Rahn Rd., Cliff Lake Rd., Cliff Rd., Johnny Cake Ridge Rd., McAndrews Rd., Galaxie Ave.,
150th Street, Garrett Ave. and 155th Street. Proosed weekday frequencies are 30- minutes in the peak
Page 16 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update.5
Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010
periods and 60- minutes in the midday and evening periods. Weekend service is also proposed at 60-
minute frequencies.
Local #2
This route is designed to provide service in the neighborhoods west of Cedar Avenue, between Cedar
Grove and the Apple Valley Transit Station. Starting at Cedar Grove, the conceptual alignment follows:
Nicols Rd., Cliff Rd. Nicolet Avenue (stopping at the Burnsville Transit Station), 134th Street, 140th
Street, Garden View Drive, Whitney Drive and 155th Street. Proposed weekday frequencies are 30-
minutes in the peak periods and 60- minutes in the midday and evening periods.
Local #3
This route is designed to provide service between the Apple Valley Transit Station, the Burnsville
Center Mall and the Burnsville Transit Station. Starting at Apple Valley, the route follows 155th Street,
Whitney Drive, Pennock Lane /Ave., 140th St, Cedar Avenue (serving at the 140th Street stop),
McAndrews Rd., Pennock Ave., Palomino Drive, 140th Street, McAndrews Rd., Portland Avenue,
Nicollet Blvd. and TH 42 to Burnsville Center. The route alignment then follows Aldrich Avenue,
McAndrews Rd., and Nicolet Ave., to the Burnsville Transit Station. Proposed weekday frequencies are
30- minutes in the peak periods and 60- minutes in the midday. Weekend service is also proposed at 60-
minute frequencies.
Local #4
This route replaces the existing MVTA Route 420 and generally follows the current alignment with one
exception. At the west end of the route, the proposed alignment follows Pilot Knob Road, 160th
Street, Flagstaff Ave., 157th Street, Gas Light Drive and 155th Street to Apple Valley Transit Station.
Proposed weekday frequencies are 30- minutes in the peak periods and 60- minutes in the midday.
Local #5
This route is designed to provide direct service between the Burnsville Center Mall and the Apple
Valley Station area, with continuing service to residential neighborhoods south of this commercial
area. From Apple Valley Station, this route follows 155th Street, Garrett Ave., 150th Street, Pilot Knob
Road, 160th Street, Flagstaff Avenue, Gerdine Path, Dodd Blvd., and Cedar Avenue to the Lakeville
Cedar Station. This route will also provide connecting service to /from 1 -35 BRT service. Proposed
weekday frequencies are 30- minutes in the peak periods and 60- minutes in the midday. Saturday
service is also proposed at 60- minute frequencies.
Local #6
This route is designed to provide service to neighborhoods west of the Apple Valley Transit Station.
From Apple Valley Station, this route follow 155th Street, Whitney Drive, Garden View Road, Highland
Ave., 165th Street, Kennick Ave., 162nd Street, Jaguar Avenue, back to 165th Street. This route also
provides connecting service to /from 1 -35 BRT service. Proposed weekday frequencies are 30- minutes
in the peak periods and 60- minutes in the midday.
UM Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update Page 17
c is Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010
Local #7
This route provides connecting service to residential areas at the south end of the corridor, east of
Cedar Avenue. From the Apple Valley Station, this route follows 155th Street, Gas Light Drive, 157th
Street, Flagstaff Ave., 160th Street, Pilot Knob Road, 212th Street and Cedar Avenue to the 215th
Street Station. Proposed weekday frequencies are 30- minutes in the peak periods only.
Local #8
This route is designed to provide service to Lakeville residents that live west of Cedar Avenue. From
the 215th Street Station, this route follows: 215th Street, Dodd Blvd., 207th Street, Ipava Ave., 185th
Street, Dodd Blvd., and Cedar Avenue to the Lakeville Cedar Station. Proposed weekday frequencies
are 30- minutes in the peak periods only.
Local #9
This route is designed to provide service to Farmville residents. From the 215th Street Station, this
route follows: Cedar Avenue, 212th Street, Chippendale Avenue, 220th Street and 3rd Street, back to
Elm Street. Proposed weekday frequencies are 30- minutes in the peak periods only.
Local #10
This route is designed to provide service east of 140th Street Station. This route follows 140th Street to
Diamond Path to Pilot Knob. Proposed weekday frequencies are 30- minutes in the peak periods and
60- minutes in the midday.
4.7 Existing Route Modifications
The above service plan, as described in Section 4.1 through 4.6 of this chapter, results in several
modifications to existing MVTA service in the Cedar Avenue Corridor. Specific route changes are as
follows:
• Route 420 — Eliminated and replaced with Local Route #4, as described above.
• Routes 437 and 438 — Elimnated and replaced with restructured service,a s described above.
• Routes 440 and 442 — Eliminated and replaced with Cedar Avenue BRT service and restructured
local service, as described above.
• Route 444—No changes are proposed.
• Route 445 — Route is turned back at Cedar Grove Station, with continuing service to South Loop
District provided by Cedar Avenue station -to- station service.
• Route 472 — No changes are proposed.
• Routes 476, 477 and 479 — Eliminated and replaced with new corridor express service, as
described above.
Page 18 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update
Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010c is
• Route 480 — Branch that presently begins at Apple Valley Station is eliminated and replaced
with new St. Paul express service, as described above in Section 4.5. No other changes are
proposed.
4.8 Bus Travel Time Estimates
Bus travel times were estimated for all station -to- station and express routes. Bus run times assume a
maximum 35 mph operating speed on Cedar Avenue in the peak periods, 20- second station /stop
dwells and traffic signal delays. Express routes operating to downtown Minneapolis assume 50 mph
maximum speeds along the 1 -35W BRT busway. The estimated peak period one -way travel time from
215th Street to the South Loop District (the station -to- station service) is approximately 43- minutes if
there is no stop at Palomino Hills, resulting in an average speed of 23 mph. If there is a stop at the off-
line Palomino Hills park- and -ride, the estimated peak period one -way travel time increases to 47
minutes (i.e., an additional 4- minutes).
The estimated peak period one -way travel time to downtown Minneapolis from each of the park -and-
ride lots is as follows:
• 215th Street — 49.5 minutes
• Lakeville Cedar— 42.25 minutes
• Apple Valley Transit Station — 36.75 minutes
• 140th Street — 33 minutes w/o Palomino stop, 37 minutes with Palomino stop
• Cedar Grove — 26.75 minutes.
The peak period travel time from Apple Valley Station represents a 9- minute improvement over the
existing bus travel time — due to both improved speeds along Cedar Avenue and improved speeds
along 1 -35W (by using the BRT busway). Run time estimates for station -to- station and express route
patterns are provided in Appendix A at the end of this report.
4.9 Operating Requirements
Operating requirements were estimated for the service plan that is described above. Cycle times were
calculated by including time for layover /recovery. Daily trips were estimated on the basis of service
hour and frequency assumptions. Table 4 -2 presents a summary of weekday, Saturday and Sunday
estimates of service statistics by route for Scenario 1 without the Palomino park- and -ride. Table 4 -3
presents service statistics with the Palomino park- and -ride (Scenarios 2A and 26). Detailed service
statistics by route are provided in Appendix B.
UM Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update Page 19
�ff c is Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010
Table 4 -2
Summary of Corridor Service Statistics for Stage 3 Conceptual Service Plan - Scenario 1
(Without Palomino Park - and -Ride)
Peak Buses
34
9
52
3
8
106
Platform Hrs.
1,717
1,440
0
0
0
3,157
Weekday
334
153
244
11
22
764
Saturday
149
79
0
0
0
228
Sunday
105
47
0
0
0
152
Annual
98,988
45,927
62,148
2,767
5,682
215,511
Revenue Miles
Weekday
4,110
2,568
4,524
196
392
11,790
Saturday
1,717
1,440
0
0
0
3,157
Sunday
1,239
960
0
0
0
2,199
Annual
1,209,197
785,400
1,153,620
49,878
99,960
3,298,055
Change from Existing
Peak Buses
Ann. Platform Hrs.
Ann. Revenue Miles
52
114,530
1,806,136
Table 4 -3
Summary of Corridor Service Statistics for Stage 3 Conceptual Service Plan - Scenarios 2a /2b
(with Palomino park- and -ride)
Peak Buses 34 10 52
Platform Hrs.
107
Weekday
334
160
251
11
22
777
Saturday
149
91
0
0
0
240
Sunday
105
63
0
0
0
168
Annual
98,988
49,102
63,933
2,767
5,682
220,472
Revenue Miles
Weekday
4,110
2,741
4,567
196
403
12,016
Saturday
1,717
1,521
0
0
0
3,238
Sunday
1,239
1,014
0
0
0
2,253
Annual
1,209,197
836,808
1,164,636
49,878
102,714
3,363,233
Change from Existing
Peak Buses
Ann. Platform Hrs.
Ann. Revenue Miles
53
119,490
1,871,314
Page 20 Cedar Avenue Transitway Implementation Plan Update um
Draft Technical Memorandum • Service Plan • June 2010�.o„o �„
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN
THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM
UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
CALENDAR YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2020
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (N innesota Statutes sections 473.25
to 473.255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to
address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by
Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base
Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Local Housing
Incentive Account and the Inclusionary Housing Account, is intended to provide certain
funding and other assistance to metropolitan -area municipalities; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan -area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under
the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites
cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account
Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to
negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life -cycle housing goals for that
municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as
provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and
WHEREAS, previously negotiated affordable and life -cycle housing goals for municipalities
participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program expire in 2010; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan -area municipality can participate in the Local Housing Incentives
Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if (a) the municipality elects to
participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program; (b) the Metropolitan Council and the
municipality successfully negotiate new affordable and life -cycle housing goals for the
municipality; (c) the Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the new negotiated affordable
and life -cycle housing goals for the municipality; and (d) the municipality establishes it has
spent or will spend or distribute to the Local Housing Incentives Account the required
Affordable and Life -Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) for each year the
municipality participates in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Rosemount:
1. Elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act for calendar years 2011 through 2020.
2. Agrees to the following affordable and life -cycle housing goals for calendar years 2011
through 2020:
Affordable Housing Goals Range
I Life-Cycle Housing Goals Range
700 to 1,000 Affordable Housing Units
1 1,000 to 2,678 Life-Cycle Housing Units
3. Will prepare and submit to the Metropolitan Council a plan identifying the actions it
plans to take to meet its established housing goals.
ADOPTED this 4`h day of August, 2010, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2010 -
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 2010 - 54 APPROVING THE LIQUOR
LICENSE AMENDMENT OF THE ON -SALE CLASS B LIQUOR LICENSE FOR
T iOMPSONS FIRESIDE PIZZA II, INC. DBA FIRESIDE LOCATED AT 3410 150TH
STIIEET WEST TO ALLOW FOR OUTDOOR LIQUOR SERVICE IN THE TENT AREA
(ADJACENT TO BUILDING) ON SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 2010
WHEREAS, Thompsons Fireside Pizza II, Inc. DBA Fireside submitted a request to amend its
current On -Sale Liquor License Class B and Sunday Liquor License for Fireside located 3410 150th
Street West;
WHEREAS, the request was to extend the licensed premises for Fireside to include the sale of
liquor in an outdoor tent area on the north side of the building on August 14, 2010;
WHEREAS, an additional request was made to include a live music event in same tent on the north
side of the building on August 14, 2010; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby approves the extension of
hours to serve alcohol and allow live music from the previous request subject to the following
conditions:
1) The licensee will begin the sale of alcohol and event of live music no earlier than five
o'clock (5:00) p.m. and end no later than eleven o'clock (11:00) p.m. on Saturday, August
14, 2010; and
2) The licensee will clear the tent of all patrons and all parts of the outside service area of
all patrons no later than eleven thirty o'clock (11:30) p.m. on Saturday, August 14, 2010.
ADOPTED this 4th day August, 2010 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2010 - 54
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LIQUOR LICENSE AMENDMENT
OF THE ON -SALE CLASS B LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THOMPSONS FIRESIDE PIZZA 11, INC.
DBA FIRESIDE LOCATED AT 3410 150TH STREET WEST TO ALLOW FOR OUTDOOR
LIQUOR SERVICE IN THE TENT AREA (ADJACENT TO BUILDING) ON SATURDAY,
AUGUST 14, 2010
V'HEREAS, Thompsons Fireside Pizza II, Inc. DBA Fireside submitted a request to amend its current On-
Side Liquor License Class B and Sunday Liquor License for Fireside located at 3410 150th Street West;
WHEREAS, the request was to extend the licensed premises for Fireside to include the sale of liquor in
ol.rtdoor tent area on the north side of the building on August 14, 2010;
V 1 HEREAS, an additional request was made to include a live music event in same tent on the north side of
tl ie building on August 14, 2010; and
T' HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby approves the extension of licensed
p :emises to include an outdoor tent at 3410 150,h Street West subject to the following conditions:
1) The licensee will begin the sale of alcohol and event of live music no earlier than five o'clock
(5:00) p.m. and end no later than ten o'clock (10:100) p.m. on Saturday, August 14, 2010;
2) The licensee will clear the tent and all parts of the outside service area of all patrons no later ten -
thirty o'clock (10:30) p.m. on Saturday, August 14, 2010;
3) Maintain the minimum of a twelve (12) foot wide emergency vehicle access through the
Rosemount Market Square parking lot;
4) A building permit and an electrical permit are required. A detailed site and floor plan shall be
provided with the application. The permits must be issued before inspection and occupancy of
the tents;
5) Completion and final inspection of the rear stairs for The Pond by 4:30 p.m. Friday, August 13,
2010; and
6) Compliance with narrative, tent floor plan, and parking lot layout provided on July 14, 2010.
ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 2010 by the City Council of City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
A7E T:
1 1
Amy Domeier, City Clerk