Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.a. St. Paul South Light Rail Transit CorridorCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: ST. PAUL SOUTH LIGHT RAIL AGENDA SECTION: TRANSIT CORRIDOR BUSINESS HEADS REPORTS PREPARED BY: SUSAN WALSH, CITY CLERK AGENDA NITEp =3 ATTACHMENTS: REPORTS & ARTICLES APPROVED BY*- (� Al Meyer, who was appointed by Council to serve on the St. Paul South Corridor LRT Committee, has requested an opportunity to update Council on this committee. Attached are several items of information for your review. RECOMMENDED ACTION: NONE COUNCIL ACTION: B R W INC. Planning Transportation Engineering Urban Design -..Thresher Square 700 Third Street So. Minneapolis, MN 55415 612/370-0700 Fax 612/370-1378 Minneapolis Phoenix Denver St. Petersburg San Diego Seattle Donald W. Ringrose Richard R Wolsfeld Peter E. Jarvis Thomas E Carroll Craig A. Amundsen Donald E. Hunt John B. McNamara Richard D. Pilgrim Dale N. Beckmann Jeffrey L. Benson Ralph C. Blum Gary J. Erickson John C. Lynch Paul N. Bay Memorandum DATE: September 27, 1991 TO: St. Paul South Technical Advisory Committee/Corridor Advisory Committee FROM: Tony Heppelmann, BRW, Inc. RE: St. Paul South Ridership Forecasts INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Council was requested to prepare a ridership forecast for the St. Paul South Corridor consistent with ridership forecasts that the Metropolitan Council had prepared for other Group A and B LRT corridors in the region. This memorandum presents the ridership forecasts that were developed from this effort. Most of the information in this memorandum and portions of the text were taken from a September 13, 1991, memorandum from Steve Wilson of the Metropolitan Council to Tony Heppelmann at BRW, Inc.' FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS The St. Paul South LRT line was assumed to run from 4th Street and Wacouta Street in downtown St. Paul to the Lafayette Freeway and then south along the Lafayette Freeway to Upper 55th Street. LRT Stations were assumed at Plato Boulevard, Concord Avenue, Butler Avenue, Thompson/Wentworth Avenues, Southview Boulevard and Upper 55th Street. Park and Ride was assumed at the stations at Thompson/Wentworth Avenues, Southview Boulevard, and Upper 55th Street. The maximum speed of LRT vehicles in the Lafayette Freeway Corridor was assumed to be 55 mph. The Midway Corridor I-94/Soo Line LRT network was used as the base network for the St. Paul South Corridor. The network was coded so that the LRT line would function as a single line from downtown Minneapolis to the southern terminus at Upper 55th Street. Therefore, the ridership forecasts for St. Paul South Technical Advisory Committee/Corridor Advisory Committee September 27, 1991 Page 2 the St. Paul South LRT Corridor assume LRT service in the Midway Corridor on the I-94/Soo Line alignment. The demographic base used in the forecast was the Metropolitan Council's 2010(f) estimate. The base information for variables such as transit fares and parking costs is the same as used in other corridors and were agreed upon at a meeting of all the regional railroad authorities, regional agencies and affected consultant staffs. The Metropolitan Transit Commission and Regional Transit Board staff developed a conceptual feeder bus system for the proposed alignment which identified the location and frequency of feeder bus lines serving the St. Paul South LRT line. BRW, Inc coded the transit network and the Metropolitan Council reviewed the coding and developed the ridership forecasts from the model output. ST. PAUL SOUTH CORRIDOR TRANSIT RIDERSHIP Table 1 shows the estimated daily light rail transit loadings for the St. Paul South Corridor portion of the light rail line. The total LRT ridership shown in Table 1 has a possible error of (+) or (-) 20 percent. The loadings at any individual section may have an error of more than 20 percent. Therefore, the values in the table should be viewed as the midpoint of a range and not as a single value. The St. Paul South Corridor is expected to carry about 11,800 daily riders in the Year 2010. Of this ridership, about 5,200 riders are estimated to continue their trips through downtown St. Paul and into the Midway Corridor. About 1,300 of the through -routed riders to the Midway corridor are new transit users; the remaining 3,900 are riders that would use a bus to access the Midway corridor if no LRT existed in the St. Paul South Corridor. The distribution of LRT ridership can be summarized as follows: 0 45-50 percent is bound to/from downtown St. Paul o 20-25 percent continues through downtown St. Paul to/from Minneapolis; TABS I ST. PAUL SOUTH CORRIDOR LRT ESTIMATED DAILY RIDERSHIP SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND ESTIMATED LOADINGS ESTIMATED LOADINGS DAILY DAILY ON ON STATION ON OFF BOARD STATION ON OFF BOARD CONTINUING FROM MIDWAY 2600 UPPER 55TH ST. 2000 0 2000 RICE ST./CAPITOL 100 0 SOUTHVIEW BLVD. 2300 100 2700 4200 SCIENCE MUSEUM 200 0 THOMPSON 800 0 2900 5000 TOWN CENTRE 900 0 BUTLER 500 100 3800 5400 4TH/MINNESOTA 900 0 CONCORD 200 0 4700 5600 LOWERTOWN 900 0 PLATO BLVD. 100 100 5600 ,5600 PLATO BLVD. 100 100 LOWERTOWN 0 900 5600 4700 CONCORD 0 200 4TH/MINNESOTA 0 900 5400 3800 BUTLER 100 500 TOWN CENTRE 0 900 5000 2900 THOMPSON 0 800 SCIENCE MUSEUM 0 200 4200 2700 SOUTHVIEW BLVD. 100 2300 RICE ST./CAPITOL 0 100 2000 UPPER 55TH ST. 0 2000 CONTINUING TO MIDWAY 2600 TOTAL 3300 5900 TOTAL 5900 3300 NOTE: Rounded Values: Zero Values Indicate Low Use Total ridership has possible error of (+) or () 20%. Loadings at individual stations may have error of more than 20%. Source: Metropolitan Council #9061t St. Paul South Technical Advisory Committee/Corridor Advisory Committee September 27, 1991 Page 3 o 15-20 percent continues through downtown St. Paul to/from the Midway Corridor. o 5 -10 percent remains within the corridor. The fairly low intra -corridor travel is reasonable considering the location of the alignment away from walk access to most of the trip attraction generators in the corridor. The large number of trips to downtown Minneapolis and the Midway Corridor is reasonable given that the LRT is the only transit option available to downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota from the corridor, and those two markets are the largest and third largest generators of transit trips in the region. About 58 percent of the LRT ridership generated by the south corridor would be work -trip related, and about 16 percent of the travel would occur in the peak hour. Both of these percentages are equal to the overall regional transit split. While it could be expected that this corridor may be more peak -oriented with its light rail line, the LRT service brings a significant increase in off-peak service to the corridor. Furthermore, the Midway Corridor portion of the line, because of its service to the University of Minnesota, is much more oriented to off-peak travel than a typical corridor. The estimated PM peak hour station activity for the St. Paul South portion of the corridor is shown in Table 2. The maximum load point in the St. Paul South Corridor occurs between downtown St. Paul and the Plato Boulevard station, with about 1,350 passengers in the peak direction, or an average of 225 passengers for each peak hour train. Table 3 shows the percentage of weekday and PM peak hour riders at each station arriving or departing by the following modes; walk, bus, auto passenger, and auto driver. Approximately 1400 of the 5900 riders that board the LRT system in the St. Paul South corridor drive a car to the LRT station. Approximately 700 are dropped off, 2400 arrive by feeder bus and approximately 1400 walk to the station. The numbers indicate the need for large park and ride facilities at both Southview Boulevard and Upper 55th S treet. NOTE: Rounded Values: Zero Values Indicate Low Use Total ridership has possible error or (+) or () 20%. Loadings at individual stations may have error of more than 20%. Source: Metropolitan Council 09061( TAB2 ST. PAUL SOUTH CORRIDOR LRT ESTIMATED PM PEAK HOUR RIDERSHIP SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND ESTIMATED LOADINGS ESTIMATED LOADINGS DAILY DAILY ON ON STATION ON OFF BOARD STATION ON OFF BOARD CONTINUING FROM MIDWAY 550 UPPER 55TH ST. 100 0 100 RICE ST./CAPITOL 50 0 SOUTHVIEW BLVD. 300 0 600 400 SCIENCE MUSEUM 50 0 THOMPSON 50 50 650 400 TOWN CENTRE 200 0 BUTLER 50 0 850 450 4TH/MINNESOTA 250 0 CONCORD 50 0 1100 500 LOWERTOWN 250 0 PLATO BLVD. 0 0 1350 500 PLATO BLVD. 0 50 LOWERTOWN 0 50 1300 450 CONCORD 0 50 4TH/MINNESOTA 0 50 1250 400 BUTLER 50 10 TOWN CENTRE 0 100 1200 300 THOMPSON 0 200 SCIENCE MUSEUM 0 0 1000 300 SOUTHVIEW BLVD. 0 550 RICE STJCAPITOL 0 50 450 UPPER 55TH ST. 0 450 CONTINUING TO MIDWAY 250 TOTAL 850 1400 _ TOTAL 550 300 NOTE: Rounded Values: Zero Values Indicate Low Use Total ridership has possible error or (+) or () 20%. Loadings at individual stations may have error of more than 20%. Source: Metropolitan Council 09061( TABLE 3 ST. PAUL SOUTH STATION ACCESS/EGRESS MODES DAILY ACCESS/EGRESS PF.RrF.NT RY MODF Daily Total Auto Auto Station On or Off Walk Bus Pass. Drive Plato Blvd. 100 90% 5% 5% < 5% Concord 200 80% 10% 5% < 5% Butler 500 55% 35% 10% < 5% Thompson 800 35% 30% 15% 20% Southview Blvd. 2300 15% 45% 15% 25% Upper 55th St. 2000 10% 45% 10% 25% Total 5900 23% 40% 12% 25% PM PEAK HOUR ACCESS Total 600 33% 67% 0% 0% PM PEAK HOUR EGRESS PFRCF-NT BY MODF Total Auto Auto Station Off Walk Bus Pass. Drive Plato Blvd. 50 40% Total 10% PFR('FNT RY MQDF 35% 10% Auto Auto Station Off Walk Bus Pass. Drive 35% Southview Blvd. 550 5% 20% 25% 50% Upper 55th St. 450 5% Plato Blvd. 0 90% 10% 0% 0% Concord 50 90% 10% 0% 0% Butler 100 75% 25% 0% 0% Thompson 50 50% 50% 0% 0% Southview Blvd. 300 15% 85% 0% 0% Upper 55th St. 100 10% 90% 0% 0% Total 600 33% 67% 0% 0% PM PEAK HOUR EGRESS PFRCF-NT BY MODF Total Auto Auto Station Off Walk Bus Pass. Drive Plato Blvd. 50 40% 45% 10% 5% Concord 50 50% 35% 10% 5% Butler 100 50% 35% 10% 5% Thompson 250 20% 30% 15% 35% Southview Blvd. 550 5% 20% 25% 50% Upper 55th St. 450 5% 15% 15% 65% Total 1450 13% 23% 18% 46% NOTE: Rounded Values, Zero Values Indicate Low Use Total Ridership has possible error of (+) or (-) 20%. Loadings at Individual stations may have error of more than 20. Source: Metropolitan Council #Mlt St. Paul South Technical Advisory Committee/Corridor Advisory Committee September 27, 1991 Page 4 Table 4 summarizes the ridership forecasts for the St. Paul South Corridor. The St. Paul South Corridor LRT would be expected to generate a net increase of about 4000 daily transit users above its base condition. About 13,000 total daily transit riders are expected in the St. Paul South Corridor in 2010 without LRT and about 17,000 total daily transit riders are expected in 2010 with LRT in the St. Paul South Corridor. Approximately 300 of the new transit riders are trips within the corridor that do not use the light rail transit line. These new trips are due to the increased transit accessibility within the corridor. About 1,300 of the new transit users are estimated to continue through downtown St. Paul and into the Midway Corridor. No estimate has been made of the number of new transit users that would continue through downtown St. Paul and into the Midway Corridor if there was no LRT in the Midway Corridor. COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS FORECASTS Ridership estimates for the corridor were developed for the Dakota County Comprehensive LRT Plan and were updated in the current alignment study. However, these earlier forecasts were developed using a sketch planning approach, which does not require the detailed information needed for the Metropolitan Council's Regional Travel Model. In order to utilize the Metropolitan Council Regional Travel Model, detailed information is required on the location and operating characteristics of the LRT line as well as the feeder bus system. The current LRT ridership forecast of 11,800 weekday riders is less than the 14,600 estimated in the Dakota County Comprehensive LRT Plan and the 13,600 estimated earlier in the alignment study. Some of the difference between the estimates for the Dakota County Comprehensive LRT plan and the current estimate may be due to differences in the assumed population and employment. However, most of the differences are probably due to the methodology used to develop the forecast and the split between LRT ridership and bus ridership in the corridor. In the current forecast there are 17,000 total weekday transit riders in the corridor, 11,800 which ride LRT and 5,200 which use the bus only. Previous forecasts did not include an estimate of bus transit TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF ST. PAUL SOUTH RIDERSHIP FORECASTS DAILY ANNUAL Existing Transit Ridership 8,600 2,600,000 2010 Transit Ridership Without LRT 13,000 3,900,000 2010 Transit Ridership With LRT 17,000 5,100,000 New Transit Riders 4,000 1,200,000 2010 LRT Ridership 11,800 3,500,000 Source: Metropolitan Council M9061e St. Paul South Technical Advisory Committee/Corridor Advisory Committee September 27, 1991 Page 5 use in the corridor with LRT. The estimates basically assumed most of the transit ridership in the LRT service area would be on LRT. The St. Paul South Corridor has one of the higher percentages of new transit riders for LRT corridors in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Regional Transit Board is starting a reevaluation of corridors included in the LRT Regional Development and Financial Plan. This reevaluation is expected, to include an analysis of total transit costs and total transit ridership in each corridor for both the build and no -build options. This information is needed before any conclusions can be reached regarding the status of the St. Paul South Corridor based on the new forecasts. COMPARISON TO OTHER CORRIDORS The St. Paul South Corridor is about 6.7 miles long measured from the Lowertown station on 4th Street to Upper 55th Street. The corridor therefore generates about 1,800 passengers per route mile. Table 4 compares the St. Paul South Corridor with the range of values reported by other North American LRT systems. This corridor would generate about the same or slightly more riders per mile as San Diego, Portland and Sacramento; but is well below the riders per mile for Calgary, Buffalo or Edmonton. Table 5 compares the St. Paul South Corridor ridership with other corridors in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The St. Paul South Corridor has approximately the same number of riders per mile as Minneapolis Northeast and Minneapolis Northwest. TH/lm Attachment cc: File 1033B15 #9061 TABLE 5 l COMPARISON OF ST. PAUL SOUTH WITH NEW NORTH AMERICAN LRT SYSTEMS Note: Rides for North American Cities are for 1988 to 1990 existing systems. Compiled from several sources. R906)t Length Rides Rides/ City (Miles) (Weekday) Mile St. Paul South 6.7 11,800 1,800 Sacramento 18.3 22,500 1,200 Portland 15.1 24,400 1,600 San Deigo 33.2 55,400 1,700 Edmonton 6.5 25,000 3,900 Buffalo 6.4 29,000 4,500 Calgary 17.1 99,000 5,800 Note: Rides for North American Cities are for 1988 to 1990 existing systems. Compiled from several sources. R906)t TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF ST. PAUL SOUTH WITH OTHER CORRIDORS IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Rides/ Length Rides Date City (Miles) (2010 Weekday) Revised Mile St. Paul South (to Upper 55th St.) 6.7 11,800 9/91 1,800 Central (Soo Line I-94/Alignment) 11.4 32,400 8/91 2,800 I -35W (to 96th Street) 11.4 31,000-33,000 6/91 2,800 Hiawatha (to GSA) 7.4 17,800 1/91 2,400 Mpls. Northeast (to Northtown) 11.1 18,500-20,000 5/91 1,700 Mpls. Northwest (to 85th Ave.) 13.3 24,000 1/91 1,800 Mpls. Southwest (to TH 169) 9.1 18,700 1/91 2,100 Sourde: Regional Transit Board Draft Status of LRT Ridership Capital Cost Estimates, September 23, 1991. 19061t THIS IS A DRAFT REPORT NOT TO BE QUOTED SUMMARY REPORT The Economic Impact of Light Rail Transit in the South Corridor by 9 Steven M. Hoffman* Joseph L. Kreitzer Jack Militello for The Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority and the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority October 1991 * The authors of this report are Professors of Political Science, Economics and Management, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota, respectively. INTRODUCTION This report provides information to the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority and the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority on the economic impact of Light Rail in the Southern Corridor. This corridor will primarily serve residents of the southern portion of St.Paul (or southern Ramsey County) and northern Dakota County. At the present time, the terminus of the alignment is Upper 55th Street in the City of Inver Grove Heights. Existing plans call for six stations along the corridor. No precise alignment has yet been determined for the corridor. This decision will be made subsequent to the Environmental Impact Statement and further public comment. Much of the information contained in the report is derived from a series of Community Response Group meetings conducted by the study team. These meetings were held between May 9 and July 30, 1991. Participants included representatives from business and neighborhood groups. The methodology and findings which emerged from these meetings are detailed in the third section of the report. The report is divided into six sections. The first section provides a summary of the major findings of the research, while the second discusses the methodologies employed in the conduct of the research. The third section summarizes the results of the Community Response Group meetings designed to gather basic information for this study. The fourth and fifth sections of the report provide an empirical and a qualitative analysis of some of the factors discussed by these groups. The report concludes with a discussion of issues related to land use and economic development. L SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS This project was designed to assess the impact of Light Rail Transit (LRT) in the South Corridor. Among the most significant findings generated by the research are the following: 1) Citizens perceive that the true costs of an auto -based transportation system are generally not captured by the explicit costs of private operation. Further, they believe that transportation alternatives ought to be evaluated on the full costs of each respective system. Yet, the convenience of the auto and its thorough integration into both the social and physical character of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA) makes LRT an uncertain prospect. However, a significant level of support was found for LRT. 2) The determination of social benefits associated with LRT is contingent upon both the technical assumptions made and the types of policies implemented by a variety of public agencies. Specific decisions made with regard to any number of factors, such as parking rates and zoning and other land use policies will have a major affect on the overall cost of the system. 3) The perception of LRT is largely a function of proximity to the central business district. Residents closer to the core city will evaluate LRT according to its ability to serve intracity transit needs. More distant residents perceive and support LRT as an incremental addition to the commuting system. 4) Citizens recognize that traditional core -periphery spatial relations are being altered by emerging patterns of metropolitan development. If LRT is to serve the commuting needs of suburban residents, the transit system must be designed to facilitate east -west, or suburb -to -suburb, commuting patterns. While the CBDs continue to be major employment and transit destinations, as well as centers for sporting, cultural or occasional mass -entertainment events, overall TCMA commuting needs are no longer defined exclusively in relation to the CBD. 5) LRT cannot by itself stimulate significant levels of economic development. LRT's potential for development is constrained by a number of factors including the availability of land and the willingness of people to walk to station areas. Experience in other cities shows that LRT may be associated with substantial economic impact if it is coupled with other public policy efforts. 6) Many of the factors relevant to public support for LRT are beyond precise quantification. Nonetheless these factors are major considerations in the public's perception of LRT. Indeed, many participants argued that the benefits associated with LRT were long-term and cannot be currently measured in any precise way and that they would take a chance on building it now rather than missing an opportunity that would could prove very costly to the next generation. 2 II. METHODOLOGY Background Assumptions A common characteristic of many public decision making processes is the emphasis paid to technical matters and the concomitant devaluation of those factors which are either difficult or impossible to measure. This predisposition is often accompanied by a tendency to treat public participation as yet another technical matter, usually relegated to the final stages of the planning process. Thus, in many planning efforts, technical plans are formulated and developed on the basis of predetermined criteria, such as cost, cost/effectiveness, impact on land use, congestion relief, etc. Only after the technical analyses are completed, or at least well underway, is the public asked to participate in the deliberative process. The result is a process which generates analyses which are either ignored or rejected by elected officials or the public at large. Technicians are left frustrated or their views concerning the inappropriateness of the political process for deciding what they perceive to be technical matters are reinforced. And many citizens are left even more distant from a policy system they perceive as hostile or at least largely insensitive to the public interest. To some this conflict seems almost inevitable. Linstone, for instance, characterizes public decision making as a process which involves "organizations and individuals whose perspectives are very different from those of 'rational' systems analysts or technology assessors" (Linstone, quoted in Johnston et al., 1988:460).' From this perspective, the different perceptions and outlooks evidenced by engineer and the neighborhood activist are generally so significant as to prevent any effective reconciliation. This report rejects such claims, instead asserting that consultation with the public will, at a minimum, provide the engineer both the legitimation for and the content of her technical analyses. By the same token, it is assumed that the average citizen can make a much more sensible decision through consultation with the planning professional. In general, the report assumes that a good planning process includes asking people about their desires and expectations in concert with conventional technical analyses. A second major assumption central to this report is that not all factors important to an evaluation of a modal choice are capable of being quantitatively analyzed. There is some evidence that this view is gaining currency in the planning community. As Meyer and Miller point out, "transportation planners for many years focused their efforts on ... quantifying the many impacts of proposed alternatives by assigning monetary values to project costs and benefits... Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, transportation planners became increasingly interested in the consequences of ' Johnston, Robert A., Daniel Sperling, Mark A. DeLuchi, and Steve Tracy. 1988. "Politics and Technical Uncertainty in Transportation Investment Analysis." Transportation Research. Volume 21A, No.6: 459-475. 3 transportation projects that could not be easily measured in monetary terms" (1984: 373).2 In the case of LRT, such factors include a more positive community image, potentially significant impacts on air quality, preservation of community ambiance, a movement away from excessive dependence on an auto -based transportation system, and a bequethement to future generations. Methods The public input used to frame this report was gathered by a qualitative methodology similar to those used in used focus groups. Participants were asked to respond to open-ended questions designed to reduce constraints on the discussion. They were then encouraged to use the full scope of their thinking to respond as broadly as possible to questions. The second approach used in this report is scenario analysis. The rationale for this method is again contrary to much of conventional analysis. In the usual case, the future is assumed to be fairly well -ordered, a fact which allows analysts to presume that the future is predictable if not absolutely certain. Increasingly, policy making bodies are recognizing that this approach is untenable, particularly for projects which are extremely long-lived, i.e., a basic infrastructural investment such as an LRT system. As an alternative, many agencies are pursuing "scenario analyses", a planning method which asserts that the answer to an uncertain future is not more sophisticated models or forecasting .methods, since even the most sophisticated methods cannot remove the veil of uncertainty. Instead, agencies project a variety of future scenarios and develop appropriate policies for each. The aim of this exercise is to develop policies which can be easily adjusted in response to new information or wholly unforseen events. This procedure is also extremely useful for assessing the impact of public policy measures on a particular planning environment. In the case of metropolitan transit systems, for instance, public policy may be used to bring about an increase in the costs of operating an automobile, which in turn may generate an increase in transit ridership and/or diversion rates. Scenario analysis may be used to estimate these sorts of effects without attaching to the analyses inflated claims of knowledge and or certainty.' In part, this report should be understood as a first step in the development of this process. The first part of the report discusses the results of the Community Response Groups. This is followed by an empirical analysis of certain factors identified by the focus groups. A discussion of factors not amenable to quantification follows. The report concludes with a review of issues related to land use and economic development. Meyer, Michael D. and Eric J. Miller. 1984. Urban Transportation Planning: A decision -Oriented Approach. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. 3 Sea Southern California Edison, PlanninL, for Uncertainty: A Case Study, 1988 for a discussion and example on the use of scenario analysis. 4 III. COMMUNITY RESPONSE GROUPS Past studies of LRT systems have attempted to justify their development on a variety of grounds, including it's capacity to spur economic development, relieve congestion, reduce air pollution, decrease dependency on an auto -based transportation system, and reinvigorate the central city. No matter what the justification for LRT, however, it is important for responsible public agencies to understand the relationship between fundamental community values and support for and/or resistance to public investment of this sort. This research was designed to identify the values held by communities along the corridor and to assess how members of those communities perceive the effect of light rail upon their living and working environments. Seven meetings were held with community groups residing along the corridor. Five of the seven meetings were held as part of the agenda of existing community groups concerned with economic development issues. The remaining two meetings were scheduled specifically for this research, one with the South Corridor Advisory Committee and the second with St. Paul West Side residents and business representatives. Meeting groups in sequence were: 1. The Inver Grove Heights Chamber of Commerce Local Issues Committee 2. The City of Eagan's Economic Development Commission 3. The South St. Paul Chamber of Commerce Local Issues Committee 4. The South Corridor Advisory Committee 5. A meeting of people invited for their prior knowledge about issues surrounding light rail 6. The St. Paul District 3 Community Organization's Economic Development Committee 7. An open meeting of St. Paul West Side residents/business representatives The groups were given a brief introduction to the overall research agenda and to the current status of light rail planning in the Corridor. Technical aspects of light rail were not discussed. Participants were asked two open-ended questions which provided the foundation for facilitated, open-ended discussions. The discussion questions were: What are the values you hold for your community which makes it a desirable place to live and work? 5 2. How would an enhanced transportation system (including, but not limited to light rail) affect those values?' In each case, the discussion was facilitated in order to draw out particular interests of participants. Very few leading questions were asked. Instead, the facilitators attempted to prompt a fuller discussion of those issues identified as significant by the participants themselves. Unlike traditional focus groups which seek a specific response to a uniform set of issues, these meetings sought to explore the broad thinking of the participants.5 Among the most important community and transportation -related values identified by these groups were the following: 1. Comprehensive cost of the automobile. Many of the participants argued that any analysis comparing the relative costs of automobile and LRT usage must include comprehensive automobile costs, including highway construction and maintenance, pollution control, time costs of commuting, effects of congestion, etc. Participants in the meetings also generally agreed that pollution, congestion, the generally deleterious effect on the quality of life, sprawl, and uncertainty about the availability and character of future supplies of oil all combine to make the auto a fragile basis upon which to build the transportation system. 2. Core -suburban distinctions. A distinctively different perception of LRT was voiced by core city and suburban participants. For suburban residents, LRT is principally perceived as an incremental addition to the commuting network. While some value was associated with LRT's ability to offer transit service within a particular community, the largest share of suburban participants evaluated the system on the basis of it's ability to transport them to and from work. This perception will, in turn, require that some consideration be given to newly emerging suburb -to -suburb commuting patterns of many TCMA suburban dwellers. The perception of LRT as a system designed to meet commuting needs contrasts rather sharply with the perception of those residents who live and work in the core city of St. Paul. For these people, LRT's ability 'The emphasis here was on transportation as a generic good; there was no attempt made to determine of any of the participants had ever experienced or used light rail. s The statements contained in this report are an interpretation of the discussions made during the meetings. Detailed transcriptions of the meetings can he obtained from either DCRRA or RCRRA. M to satisfy intraurban transit needs is much more critical in the assessment of the system. Participants also raised a series of related questions: how will LRT affect the viability of the core areas; is ' LRT yet another public investment which will ultimately sharpen the core/suburban split; will core city residents be required to pay for a system perceived to be of little benefit to them? It is interesting to note the issues related to the viability of the core were principally of concern to residents closer to the core areas. DCRRA and RCRRA policy makers, in other words, are facing constituents with distinctly different sets of perceptions and agendas. (See Section V for additional discussion of these issues.) 3. Economic development. Participants living closer to the central cities expressed more concern with economic development than those more distant from the core cities. For these latter participants, the impact of LRT on small business development is of major concern.' 4. Serving the transit -dependent citizen. Participants from the more suburban communities seldom raised issues about LRT's ability to serve transportation -dependent citizens,except for the possibilities of city - based residents coming to their communities for jobs. These groups also did not believe that their children would have much use for LRT. On the other hand, the. participants living nearer to the central cities are quite concerned with having a LRT system which serves seniors, handicapped, poor, and youth. 5. Preserving residential tranquility. Each community appreciates its own ambiance and participants often expressed concern about the potential for noise generated by the system. In particular, residents of the West Side Community were concerned with both the noise and aesthetic impact of LRT. The prospect of additional overhead wires and the increase in noise along already congested skyscapes and roadways is of major concern to these residents. 6. Serving occasional ridership. Many of the participants, particularly the suburban residents, perceive LRT as a way to access a range of occasional events, i.e., sporting events and cultural activities. Thus, some participants argued that station areas will have to be located within n As a result of these meeunvs, RCRRA staff will he worklmz with West Side residents and businesspeople to review alternatives to the northern -most portion of the alignment. Also, see Section VI of this report for additional discussion on land use and economic development. 7 walking distance of major metropolitan facilities such as the Civic Center, the Metrodome, the Met Center and the Target Center. As discussed in Section VI of this report, actions of this sort are part of a coordinated land use development policy required to promote economic development around station areas and along the corridor generally. More generally, the value of creating a system which can serve other than home -to -work use in the suburbs should be examined. 7. Community participation. It was clear from each of the meetings that citizens wish to take a more active hand in shaping the direction of LRT for their benefit. Participants from communities located at the proposed terminus, for instance, felt that they have had very little to say about LRT and that the interests of the core cities are likely to dominate the planning and implementation of the system. At the same time, core city residents felt that the system was being designed primarily to serve the interest of suburban residents. Obviously, there is a pronounced need to continue both inter- and intra -community planning as an integral part of the LRT planning process. 8. Defining Commuting Needs Many of the issues raised in the meetings center around a single fundamental issue: what is the basic purpose of the system and how will it be designed to meet that purpose? For many of the participants the basic rationale and design purpose is quite unclear. If the system is being designed principally to satisfy ,the commuting needs of suburban residents, will, the absence of east -west corridors. result in underutilization or less than optimal ridership levels? At the same time, however, participants at all of the suburban meetings expressed concern over whether they would be able to move from suburb to suburb and many questioned the viability of a system designed to serve primarily the core CBDs, particularly given the increasingly suburban character of Twin City employment. At the same time, core city residents did not see the system as being able to service their intra -city transit needs. For them, the system would do little to complement the existing bus -only system.' 9. Assessments into the future. For many, LRT was not perceived as providing apresent-day transportation advantage. However, participants believed that the future effects of LRT cannot be currently measured in any realistic way. Nonetheless, they would take a chance on building it ' This statement should not, however, be taken as a blanket endorsement of the present bus system. Indeed, there was a significant level of dissatisfaction expressed with the existing bus -only system of public transit. Rather, participants were skeptical that LRT would significantly complement the service provided by a bus -only system. 8 now rather than missing an opportunity that would could prove very costly to the next generation. 10. Support for LRT At the conclusion of the meetings, the participants were asked a final question: given all that had been said about community values, transit needs, and LRT would they support continuation of LRT planning and implementation? For the suburban residents, the answer was uniformly 'Yes'. This was particularly interesting in that these participants were oftentimes representing, or at least had been gathered, to discuss business- and economic development - related agendas. Their approval came despite the lack of any knowledge that LRT would generate substantial levels of new economic development. For near -core and core city residents, the answer was more equivocal. However, even in this case, the general sentiment was to continue consideration of and planning for the system. 0 IV. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS Purpose of the Analysis The insights elicited from the community response groups provided valuable guidance for the quantitative phase of Our research. A number of objectives were considered critical to this portion of the project: 1) to specify as fully as possible those economic factors important to the operation of a light rail transit system; 2) to develop a methodology capable of assessing the impact of changes in public policies relevant to LRT; and 3) provide an analytical tool helpful to decision makers. Analytical Framework The overall purpose of the analysis was to assess the level of social cost or benefit associated with this portion of the LRT system.' The basic approach is derived from Taylor -Wright and Friedenberg,' both of whom sought to assess the economic benefits associated with a Northeast extension of Calgary's light rail transit system. In that a significant portion of their analyses dealt with factors identified by the community response groups their general framework was considered appropriate to the present analysis. The basic purpose of the analysis was to determine the overall level of social cost or benefit associated with the St. Paul South Corridor of the LRT system. A model was specified which included factors identified by the community response sThe purpose of this analysis is to determine what the system cost or benefit is across time. The life of the system is assumed to be twenty years. The benefits are assumed to be spread across that period while the capital cost of the system is assumed to occur in the first year of operation. This is a standard assumption of many cost - benefit analyses. The "net social cost/benefit" is calculated by comparing the discounted 'streams' of costs and benefits. If the costs are greater than the benefits than there is said to exist a "net social cost% if the benefits are greater than the costs, a "net social benefit" exists. Discounting is a procedure which is used to determine the present value of costs and benefits which occur in future time periods. In essence, a "social discount rate" can be thought of as an interest rate working in reverse. The actual specification of the appropriate discount rate is a matter of great debate since a "pure discount rate" is thought to be a measure of the value of time. Analysts generally refer to a number of proxies for this value, including the interest rate on government bills (i.e.,. a virtually riskless instrument and therefore a useful reference point for determining the value of time independent of contingent or real-world risks) as well as a variety of market interest rates. 9 Taylor, Scott and Robert Wright. 1983. "An Economic Evaluation of Calgary's North-East Light Rail Transit System." The Logistics and Transportation Review. Volume 19, Number 4:351-365. Friedenberg, Brent. 1983. "Benefit Coat Analysis and Calgary's Northeast L.R.T.: A Comment on the Taylor Wright Paper.". Path Economics Ltd. El groups. The basic forms of the equations were taken from Wright -Taylor and included the following sectors: * benefits arising from a redaction in travel time for LRT users; * benefits arising from a reduction in automobile operating costs for commuters who switch to LRT; * benefits arising from reduced congestion; * benefits arising from reduced parking requirements in the CBD; and * capital and operating costs of the project. In order to evaluate these factors, values for a number of parameters were required, including: * the number of station areas to be located along the South Corridor; * the number/location of destinations for riders, as percent of total ridership (i.e., 20% of total riders traveling to St. Paul CBD, 15% to Minneapolis CBD, etc) by station: * the estimated number of LRT riders from each station area; * estimated average travel time of LRT riders to various destination; * estimated number of riders; * estimated travel times for riders for alternative travel modes; * estimated operating costs per mile of automobile, as presently estimated in the ridership forecast model; * estimated of number of daily LRT trips for the St. Paul South Corridor; * the proportion of LRT riders diverted from autos; * average length of diverted vehicle's (i.e, auto) trip; * estimated occupancy rate per vehicle; * estimated number of vehicle hours saved by other drivers per mile of diverted trip; * estimated number of additional freeway miles needed absent the St. Paul South Corridor LRT; * estimated cost of freeway construction per mile; * average "life expectancy" of freeway mile; and * estimated cost of St. Paul South Corridor LRT line. These data were provided by the principal engineering. firm (BRW) and were incorporated into the analyses. 10 10 A complete description of the data, equations and outcomes generated by the analyses can be obtained by contacting either DCRRA or RCRRA. The findings presented here represent only a small fragment of the analyses. Results of the Analysis The first stage of the analysis sought to determine the extent to which changes in the certain factors affected the overall level of social cost or benefit. As can be seen in Table 1, net social benefit is extremely sensitive to changes in some of these factors. For instance, increasing the value of time from $4.00 from $9.00 per hour reduces the net social cost by $25 million, or from $102 million at $4 per hour to $77 million at $9 per hour. Conversely, increasing the social discount rate from 5% to 9% increases the overall social cost by $10 million (i.e, $84 million worth of costs at a 9% rate versus $73 million worth of costs at a 5% rate.)." On the other hand, a number of factors often discussed in relation to LRT do little to affect the overall level of social benefit. For instance, changes in the cost of operating an automobile do little to affect the outcome until relatively large incremental changes are realized. A second way of looking at the effect of these assumptions on the overall net social benefit is presented in Table 2. In this analysis, certain factors are arbitrarily defined while the others are allowed to "float". The aim of the analysis is to find values for all of the factors where the net social benefit is just equal to the net social cost. The values under Column I, for instance, represent a state in which none of the parameters are arbitrarily constrained. Thus, if the social discount rate is set at 5.071 %, the time value of money is set at 14.858%, the costs of operating a car is set at $3.547 per mile, etc., then social costs and social benefits are equal. Column II, on the other hand, sets the social discount rate at 5% and allows the other values to be determined; Column III constrains both the discount rate and the time value of money, and so on. A final way of assessing these factors is demonstrated in Table 3. The values are referred to as "elasticities". In essence, elasticities demonstrate what will happen if there is a one percent change in the specified factor. For instance, as shown in the Table 3, if there is a one percent increase in the social discount rate, then the net social benefit will fall by .269% Even more significant changes in the level of net social benefit are demonstrated with regard to both the diversion rate and the daily parking cost. At the same time, the elasticity of the per mile cost of operating an auto is a modest 0.004. These results suggest that the efforts of local policy makers might best be directed towards ends, namely the enactment of those polices most " This result offers a "common-sense" validation of the model. In the first case, a higher value of time means that there will be "more" benefits occurrinu in future years since the time spent riding the system will be worth more to the 'average' rider. At the same time, a hieher discount rate will decrease present values of future benefits and simultaneously raise the level of social cost (i.e. there w1II be fewer benefits to offset the costs of the system.) For example, a dollars' worth of benefit assumed to occur five years from now is "worth less" in discounted or present value terms if the discount rate is 10 % as opposed to 5 9c . The reason for this result is that each year the dollar annually loses 109% of its value with a 10% discount as opposed to 5% of its value with a 5% discount rate. It should be noted that the data used in these analysis are preliminary and are being updated. It is not expected, however, that the general direction of the results will change. 12 likely to affect the diversion rate and increase the cost of parking. As will be discussed in Section V of this report, however, any such actions may have rather perverse and unintended consequences (see Footnote # 18 in particular). The analyses presented here have several advantages the most important being that rather than presuming a single value and asserting its certainty, the analysis recognizes both uncertainty and the oftentimes determined character of the values. Social discount rates, the time value of money, parking rates and even diversion rates are represented as the subjects of policy not foregone conclusions. The analysis presents policy makers not with a foregone conclusion but with an opportunity to assess not only the objectives of public policy but also the types of policy changes required to achieve those ends. 13 TABLE 1 Expected Net Benefits 14 Net Benefit Parameter Value (in millions) Social Discount Rate 5.009 -$ 73.064 6.00 - 76.312 7.00 - 79.332 8.00 - 82.144 9.00 - 84.767 10.00 - 87.214 11.00 - 89.502 Value of Time $ 4.00 -$102.572 5.00 - 97.485 6.00 - 92.398 7.00 - 87.310 7.50 - 84.767 8.00 - 82.223 9.00 - 77.135 Operating cost of $ 0.095 -$ 84.767 a car per mile 0.400 - 84.047 1.000 - 82.630 5.000 - 73.189 10.000 - 61.388 15.000 - 49.586 20.000 - 37.785 25.000 - 25.984 30.000 - 14.182 Diversion Rate 8 - 91.217 . (percent) 10 - 87.992 12 - 84.767 14 - 81.541 16 - 78.316 Freeway Speed 35 - 84.728 (mph) 40 - 84.767 45 - 84.797 50 - 84.821 Daily Parking Cost $ 6 - 89.487 8 - 84.767 10 - 80.046 12 - 75.325 14 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 Elasticities of Net Benefit Values of Parameters Where Parameters Net Social Cost Equals Net Social Benefit Parameter I i I III Social Discount Rate 5.071 9 9 Time Value of Money 14.858 17.255 7.5 Cost/mile of car 3.547 4.828 9.273 Diversion Rate 14.448 15.797 19.935 Daily Parking Cost 11.452 12.733 17.178 TABLE 3 Elasticities of Net Benefit With Respect to Selected Parameters Parameter Elasticity Social Discount Rate -0.269 Time Value of Money 0.454 Cost/per mile of car 0.004 Diversion Rate 1.409 Daily Parking Rate 1.403 15 IV 9 7.5 0.095 22.894 22.923 V. DISCUSSION OF QUALITATIVE FACTORS While the analyses presented in Section IV are useful they tend to focus attention on only those elements of the system that are capable of being quantitatively specified and measured. However, as evidenced in Section III, many of the factors central to community support of LRT are either difficult or impossible to measure. For the policy maker, the combination of quantifiable analyses and qualitative factors presents a dilemma which minimally raises two questions. First, does the policy body wish to take those actions which can be shown empirically to contribute to specific outcomes, i.e., mandating increased parking fees as a way of achieving increased ridership. Second, are the qualitative factors so significant that they dictate a project be carried out without undue regard for any empirical analysis? This section of the report concerns a variety of issues raised by the community response groups which are difficult to assess in specific quantitative terms but which nonetheless would seem to play a major role in their evaluation of LRT. What follows is a discussion of and commentary on a number of the most important of these issues. 1) Image of the Community In a study of cities with LRT systems, K. F.. Turnbull of the Texas Transportation Institute states that "individuals in Atlanta, Portland and San Diego all expressed strong opinions that the (LRT) systems presented very positive images and contributed to the image of the city." Further, she says that in these cities, as well as Miami, "terms like 'progressive', 'forward looking', 'city on the cutting edge', and 'high technology' were used to describe the image projected by the rail system and the city" (Turnbull, 1989: ii). Very similar sentiments were expressed by the community response groups convened for this research. Time and again, the participants stressed that if the TCMA was to remain a "modern" city, then infrastructural investments such as LRT must go forward. 2) Environmental considerations The environmental issues associated with LRT and the automobile were significant considerations in virtually all of the community meetings. The pessimistic assessment concerning the relationship between the auto and environmental degradation seems well founded. Unlike LRT, the auto is a major contributor to virtually all of the greenhouse gases. LRT emits approximately 0.4 grams of hydrocarbons (a precursor to methane) per 100 passenger miles as compared to 209 grams for a car with a single occupant. t2 Increasing the number of occupants by using van pools or car pools does little to improve the 'competitive pollution advantage' of the internal combustion engine. Even more problematic is the contribution of the auto to carbon dioxide emissions. Collectively, autos generate 25% of the total CO2 produced in the '= The average auto occupancy rate in the TCMA is assumed to be 1.18. OR United States, an emission which constitutes 50% of all of the greenhouses gases currently generated in the economy." A single occupant car emits 1.12 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile, as compared to 0.37 pounds for an electric transit vehicle. to 3) Uncertainty About the Sustainability of an Auto -based Transportation System In addition to the environmental impacts associated with an auto -dependent economy, the participants consistently expressed a high degree of skepticism over society's ability to sustain an auto -based transportation system, particularly as it concerns intra -city transport. At the present time, the transport sector relies almost exclusively upon petroleum for it operation. Three percent of the sectors total energy requirements are supplied by natural gas and less then one percent is supplied by electricity; the remainder, 97%, is supplied by petroleum. Also, the annual rate of consumption increase is 1.3%, a growth rate which contrasts with other sectors of the economy which have all seen real decreases in annual energy growth rates. is These trends are compounded by other destabilizing tendencies. From 1985 to 1989 Persian Gulf oil imports rose from under 100 million to more than 600 million barrels per year --over 500%. The cost of this imported oil is now responsible for over half of the country's $100 billion trade deficit.16 Finally, as pointed out in Section 111, the participants expressed significant concern that policy makers should assess the true costs of the modal choices. Once again, the participants demonstrated considerable sophistication in their analysis. For instance, one analyst argues that in 1985 alone, the United States paid more than $200 per barrel just to keep the Persian Gulf shipping lanes open-- seven times what it paid for the oil itself. Other potential costs include the $26 billion per year that the federal government pays to the producers of fossil fuels in the form of tax credits and research subsidies. Left unaccounted for in even this more expansive calculation in the true costs of automobile transport are the thousands of lives lost annually in auto -related accidents, the cost of building and 13 Shute, Nancy. 1991. "Driving Beyond the Limit." The Amicus Journal. Volume 13, No.2:10-17. 14 The figure for a car with an average occupancy of 1.12 is 0.68 pounds per passenger mile. These data are taken from Marcia D. Lowe, 1990, "Out of the Car, Into the Future", World Watch, November/December: 20-25; and Deborah Gordon, 1991, Steering A New Course, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C. 15 These sectors include the residential/commercial, industrial, and electric utility sectors. See EIA, "Monthly Energy Review," January, 1990. 16 Romm, Joseph. 1991. "Needed: A Nu-Rczrets Energy Policy." The Bulletin of the Atomic .Scientists. July!Aueust:31-36. 17 maintaining highways and other service -related infrastructure, and the enormous environmental damage associated with oil exploration, transportation, refining, and delivery." 4) Effect on the Core City Some of the participants expressed deep concern over the impact LRT might have on the core cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. For many the question is fairly straightforward: will the system contribute towards greater dispersion of the population to even more distant suburbs or will it bring more people into the core? The question of equity was also raised in the meetings. For many core city residents, LRT is unlikely to satisfy their principal transportation needs. Yet, if the system is supported by a general sales tax, they will be required to pay for its operation. Some residents also feel that policies which may be required to encourage the use of the system will likely have an uneven and deleterious impact on the CBD. Raising downtown parking rates, for instance, is often suggested as a means to increase ridership. Yet, such policies are unlikely to be implemented by suburban communities which, in order to induce companies to locate or relocate within their borders, consistently point to large tracts of open land easily converted into acres of free employee parking. The result of increased parking rates under this scenario is a further erosion of the CBD's competitive status.This result is even more likely given the recent intensification of core -suburban economic competition. It is perhaps, not coincidental that the perception of LRT as yet another public policy harmful to the CBD was most keenly felt by those closest to the core's boundaries. This discussion does not exhaust the range of issues raised by the community response groups. They do, however, represent those issues most frequently discussed. For a full accounting all of the issues please refer to the documents available from either DCRRA or RCRRA. " Romtn, "Needed --A No -Regrets Energy Policy", p.31. See also, Harold M. Hubbard. 1991. "The Real Costs of Energy." Scientific American. Volume 264, No. 4:36-42. The conceptual difficulty of comparing alternative transit modes when one is already in place and the other is speculative is, of course, profound. " The conclusion that those policies designed to increase ridership, such as increasing parking rates, could be harmful to the CBD is particularly ironic if the system is being designed primarily around the CBD. Such policies could very well convince employers that a suburban location is a preferred alternative the end result being to move employment centers further into the suburbs and erodin_, a major portion of LRT's intended ridership. IN VI, Land Use and Economic Development Impacts Economic development encompasses many issues, including income growth and distribution, the location and nature of employment, differences among and within particular growth sectors, and associated social and environmental impacts of growth. Further, the determinants of growth are not particularly well understood and much debate surround the capacity of government, and local government in particular, to stimulate local economic performance. In spite of this uncertainty, policy makers have often assessed public investments on their ability to enhance the employment and development prospects of the local community. LRT has not been exempted from such considerations; indeed, one of the seven policy goals adopted by Ramsey County is the enhancement of economic development in the County.19 The purpose of this section is to briefly comment on the relationship between economic development and LRT. Little systematic evidence is available to demonstrate a conclusive linkage between LRT and economic development. According to the authors of a study for a proposed Southeastern Wisconsin LRT system (BRW, 1990:3):'" Essential factors for successful land development around light rail transit stations include (a) a strong real estate market, (b) public support such as land use regulations and incentives (both financial and non-financial) and (c) high transit ridership levels. With these factors in place, LRT may induce substantial amounts of development around station areas, and to a lesser degree, along station lines. However, LRT by itself cannot induce growth that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere in the market area for particular land use. Such growth around station sites is merely captured from one location in the market area. Experiences in other cities would seem to lend credibility to the conclusion that LRT is itself not a catalyst to enhanced economic activity but that LRT in combination with aggressive public policies would be likely to induce such activity. A study performed for the Texas Transportation Institute, for instance, found that (1989:8-9):'' 19 See Goals for Lieht Rail Transit in Ramsey County Minnesota. Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority. Adopted June, 1988. 'BRW. 1990. How to Promote and Enhance Urban Development Around Light Rail Transit Stations. Minneapolis, MN. 2' Turnbull, Katherine. F. 1989. "The Intangible Aspects of Rail Transit." Texas Transportation Institute. The Texas A&M University System. R Individuals in Atlanta and Portland expressed stronger support for the impact the rail system has had on development that those in Miami and San Diego. In part this was due to a planned effort on the part of these two cities to focus development around transit stations and in the downtown areas. In all cases, individuals noted that the impact has been primarily on regional locational decision, rather, than attracting new businesses from outside the region. All of those interviewed noted that other policies, such as those relating to parking requirements, zoning, land use and density can be used to encourage development at certain locations. A recent meeting of transit experts from around the country offered their support for just this sort of policy. Five phases of the land use planning process were identified by the participants: land use evaluation, station area land use planning, detailed station area land use planning, station area preparation, and station area development. The report concludes that in order to facilitate "positive development and transportation impacts" the appropriate public authorities must recognize the need for careful land use planning and controls.' Such action may include establishing a detailed inventory of the number and kind of parcels available for development, establishing a detailed inventory of the number and kind of buildings available for redevelopment within one-half to one-quarter mile of the corridor and, in particular, at station areas, cataloguing the zoning policies currently in place and the likelihood of change in these policies, and compiling a listing of other infrastructural improvements likely to be made in the area by local units of government. == See LRT Land Use Coordination: The Land Use Element of the Regional Transit Board's Light Rail Coordination Plan. Metropolitan Council. August, 1990. The citations can be found on Pages 7 and 34. -)0 SUMMARY Many of the participants in the Community Response Groups were clearly uncertain about the basic mission of LRT in the Twin Cities. Further, the participants were cognizant of the changes occurring in the TCMA which might adversely affect the operations of the LRT system. At the same time, however, the participants expressed great concern over dominant role played by the automobile in the shaping of the TCMA. They understood both that the auto is fundamentally harmful to the environment and that an auto -based transit system is unlikely to be sustainable in the future. These latter feelings, it would seem, were responsible for the generally positive support found for LRT. This analysis also suggests the critical role that public policy will play in assuring the success of Light Rail Transit. Major public investment decisions have seldom rested upon the enumeration of precise, quantifiable results. Instead, appeals to a broad range of fundamental values have been used to argue for certain policies meant to improve the conditions faced by society. The development of interstate highways, low interest loans to finance suburban development, and other public investments which played a major role in shaping the contemporary metropolitan area were all seen as providing a positive benefit to society. We are now seeing the "downside effects" of these policies: highway improvements meant to speed traffic cause further congestion, reliance upon the auto means not greater freedom but increased dependence upon unstable oil supplies, and an ever growing accumulation of pollutants is reshaping the environment in ways which are extremely harmful to all forms of life. The transition to a less destructive form of transit such as LRT can play a major role in reversing these tendencies. Yet, it is difficult to demonstrate a "positive net benefit" to society under the rerms required by u conventionul cost -benefit analysis.'-' As shown in this report, however, public support for LRT is not predicated upon factors specifiable in an empirical assessment of the economics of the system. Instead, support for and evaluation of Light Rail seems to rest upon a set of factors which must be ignored in an empirical treatment of the problem. To act upon these factors requires leadership grounded upon the insights gained through a meaningful process of public participation. ='The difficulty of this has been discussed by Amory Lovins in his discussion of so called "soft" energy paths. According to Lovins, it is quite impossible to compare a system already in place, i.e., an auto -based transportation system, with a purely hypothetical systCm such as one dependent mainly upon mass transit. In any comparison of this sort, the hypothetical is bound to lose, if for no other reason than the fact that none of the "sunk costs", or the costs of the infrastructure already in place, are considered in the existent system while all of the capital and other costs required to build, say an LRT system, are considered in the analysis. 21 Star Tribune/Saturday/October 5/1991 __ Light rail or bus lane? 1-35W study fails to.settle del 380 { r, By Laurie Blake Staff Writer The state Transportation Depart- ment has pushed back the deadline cars from the freeway. • sign and about $1.01 billion to w the simplest light-rail design.• Rebullding I -35W. The options Rebuilding Interstate Hwy. 35W for its decision on the design choice again, this time from the end of the The state study shows that 700 cars would be diverted to local streets Craig Robinson, state 1-35W corridor Ridership in 2010: Light rail would attract more riders south of downtown Minneapolis with four traffic lanes in each direction year to next May. Six designs, varia- tions of the light-rail and transit -lane during the morning rush hour at Lake St. in Minneapolis if the free- manager, said the difference of $60 million is not huge when compared than the bus. and a light-rail line down the middle would attract more mass -transit rid- options, are still under consideration. The state wants to begin the project way were built with the transit -lane .design. With the light-rail design, the with the total investment in the free- way of more than $1 billion. 1 DaI1y ridership On 1-35W with light rail in the median from Bum&++T villa to Minneapolls:32,900. E r C. ers than a design with buses and car by 1997.It number of cars diverted would be ■ Daily ridership from Burnsville to Minneapolis by bus: 22,200',r : a pools using an express lane, a new state study concludes. Ridership figures are similar for both three times that: 2,300 cars. But the estimate of construction costs does not include a line connecting 0 Daily ridership from Burnsville to Minneapolis to Burnsville bbus, If the freeway is not Improved: 15,900. options, so officials say the choice of With cars being diverted all along the the light-rail system to downtown Chalk one up for light-rail transit. designs is now likely to be deter- freeway from Burnsville to down- Minneapolis; that would cost consid- Capacity In 2010: The highway would carry more people * mined by cost, the availability of town Minneapolis, there would be erably more.} w site more vehicles with a trine or Car p001a 8114 bU>s@8.± 0* But rebuilding 1-35W with four traf: fic lanes and an express lane would local and federal money for light-rail construction, and design safety. 390 accidents a year on local streets in Minneapolis, Richfield, Blooming- In the past, roads have been built ■ In one hour during the morning commute at 1-36W and Lake SC allow the freeway to carry more pea ton and Burnsville using the transit- with money from federal and state ' four driving lanes plus a carpool -bus lane would carry 16,800 ple overall because the express lane would attract both bus riders and car The safety issue will be argued most- Iy in terms of the freeway's effect on lane design, while there would be 800 accidents a year on local streets with gasoline taxes and state vehicle regis- tration fees. Although light-rail cone people and 10,300 cars. N In one hour durMg the morning commute at Lake St., four drfvitg, poolers. local streets. the light-rail design. struction has been proposed for lanes and light rail would carry 16,100 people and 8,800 cars.'° Chalk one up for an express lane. Because the projected demand for Construction costs will be another years, legislators have been unwilling to provide the money to build it. Cost: Light rail would test about $60 million mom.sem" By now, it was supposed to be clear freeway capacity is greater than any of the designs can accommodate, key part of the decision. Estimates show that building a light-rail line in Robinson said that considering the ■Using the simplest design, four driving lanes each way and an;,, , express lane for car pools and buses would cost $950 million. _ whether it would make more sense to rebuild the Twin Cities' busiest free- congestion would force some cars onto local streets. That would con- the median would cost about $60 million more than building the spe- project's high cost, there are two options: choose a design and try to ■ Using the simplest design, four lanes each way and light talk down the middle of 1-35W would cost $1.01 billion. way with light rail or with a bus and tribute to more accidents on the tial transit lane. get the money for it, or see what money is available and choose a de - car-pool lane. But judging by rider- ; ship projections, it isn't. streets, a factor that some argue makes the car-pool lane -a safer de- It would cost about $950 million to sign.' source: Minnesota Department of frensportatlonmommoommonow sign because it would divert fewer build the simplest car -pool -lane de- jv­ a Light rail or bus _ lane for 1-35W? Stay tuned ... ST. PAUL SOUTH CORRIDOR LRT STUDY FACT SHEET 1. WHERE IS THE ST. PAUL SOUTH CORRIDOR? The St. Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor extends from downtown St. Paul to the I-494 area in Dakota County parallel to the Lafayette Freeway. The South Corridor service area includes portions of St. Paul, South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, West St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, and Eagan. The South Corridor was recommended by both Dakota and Ramsey Counties as the most promising corridor for light rail transit (LRT) service to the portion of Ramsey County south of the Mississippi River and the northern part of Dakota County and has been designated in the ten-year staging plan for LRT construction in the Regional LRT Development Plan. It would connect in downtown St. Paul to the Midway Corridor and other regional LRT corridors and would provide South Corridor residents with an alternative means of transportation in the metro area. 2. WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THE ST. PAUL SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY? The St. Paul South Corridor LRT study is a cooperative project of the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) and the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority (DCRRA). All state trunk highway, county road and railroad rights-of-way ,in the South Corridor have been analyzed based on potential suitability for LRT service. County Regional Railroad Authorities were authorized by the State Legislature in 1980. Since that date Dakota and Ramsey Counties as well as other metropolitan counties have formed separate county regional railroad authorities. The County Commissioners serve as the Regional Railroad Authority Commissioners for their respective counties. They have the authority to plan, design and construct light rail transit. They also have the authority to acquire right-of-way and to levy property taxes for LRT. Advisory committees comprised of community and business representatives and technical `staff have reviewed information and made recommendations throughout the study. Public meetings have been held to provide an additional opportunity for community input. The Rail Authorities have prepared the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision Document for public review. These two documents identify major alternatives to be studied in the South Corridor and develop the foundation and framework for subsequent Preliminary Engineering studies and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which may be undertaken. Subsequent studies will include a community participation program with public meetings and hearings and advisory committees. 3. WHAT IS LRT? LRT - is an efficient and effective addition to the transportation system in metropolitan areas. It is not intended to replace buses or cars, but to complement them. LRT uses steel wheeled vehicles operating on tracks in its own right-of-way. It is powered by overhead electrical wires and is quieter than buses. LRT vehicles are connected like trains which are operated with only one driver. Fares are paid outside the vehicles on the station platform. People enter from the station platform which is designed to make the vehicles accessible for everyone, including the elderly, handicapped and people with strollers. The bus system is re -designed to transport people to and from LRT routes. "Park and ride" facilities at some stations allow patrons to drive to the nearest LRT line and leave their cars at the station. 4. WHY IS LRT NEEDED? The area south of St. Paul is experiencing rapid growth. Planning to manage the increasing development, including transportation improvements, needs to occur now. Expected increases in the metro area in the next 20 years: 33% in daily vehicle miles traveled 60% in the number of miles of metro area highways that are congested in peak hours 30% in the travel time of commuters 25% in the number of jobs in both downtowns No new freeways are planned and widening existing freeways is difficult and expensive. The cost of I-394, a freeway in Minneapolis, is about $40 million per mile. LRT attracts more transit riders than buses because of its quality, speed, reliability and its image. It can have a positive impact on air quality on the streets because its energy comes from electricity. LRT can also help focus economic development. 5. WHAT ALTERNATIVES ARE UNDER CCNSIDERATICN IN THIS CORRIDOR? Major alternatives to be considered in future studies of the St. Paul South 'Corridor include a No -Build option and an LRT Build option. No -Build. This option would include some improvements to existing bus service to extend some routes and provide greater service frequency. LRT Build. The LRT line would be located in the side slope on either the east or west side of the Lafayette Freeway between the Chicago and North Western Railroad and approximately 1-494. The location of the alignment north of the Chicago and North Western railroad depends on the connection to downtown St. Paul. If the LRT line follows Fourth Street and Prince Street to the Lafayette Freeway, the LRT line may either be elevated adjacent to the east or west side of the freeway or it may be located at -grade adjacent to the one-way frontage road on either the east of west side of the freeway. If the alignment follows State Street, the LRT line would enter the Lafayette Freeway corridor at Eaton Street. An additional alignment alternative along Concord Street west of Lafayette Freeway will also be evaluated. 6. WHERE WILL STATIONS BE LOCATED? Patrons access the line at designated station areas. These stations may include park-and-ride areas, auto pick-up and drop-off areas, and bus pick-up and drop-off - 2 - areas. Passengers may access the stations by walking, by automobile, by feeder bus or by bicycle. Bus service in the corridor would be re -configured to feed into the light rail transit stations. The feeder buses would be scheduled so that they arrive at the station at the same time as the light rail transit vehicle in order to facilitate transfer. LRT stations are proposed at: Plato Boulevard, Concord Street, Butler Avenue, Thompson or Wentworth Avenue, Southview Boulevard, and Upper 55th Street. The facilities that would be provided at each station will be determined during the preliminary design phase of the project. 7. BOW MUCH WILL LRT COST? The estimated -capital cost of light rail transit in the St. Paul South Corridor is $144 to $159 million. 8. HOW WILL LRT BE FUNDED? The Regional LRT Coordination Plan recommends a one cent regional sales tax for broad-based transportation purposes, with 1/2 cent dedicated to LRT construction and 1/2 cent returned to the counties and municipalities within the seven county metropolitan area for transportation purposes. Funding will be addressed by the State Legislature. 9. WHM WILL LRT BE C�1SZIttTCTED? Construction could occur, at the earliest, in 1993 on the Midway Corridor, between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul, and will take about three years to complete so that LRT could be operating in 1996. The South Corridor is included in the ten year staging plan for LRT and would most likely be constructed after the Midway Corridor. ;The Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document are available for public review in public libraries in the South Corridor area. For more information or to submit written statements contact Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority, Kathryn DeSpiegelaere, Director of LRT Planning, 316 Court House, St. Paul, MN 55102 (612) 298-5420 or Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority, Allen Moe, Program Manager, 14955 Galaxie Boulevard, Apple Valley, MN 55124, (612) 891-7030. Written statements must be submitted by October 2, 1991. September 1991 - 3 - 8t. Paul South LRT Corridor LRT ALIGNMENT WITH E. A. W./ S c o STATIONS LOCATIONS ping Decision R 0" .000'- 5 4 - s V. k� - DATE: 12-12-91 TIME: 15:01 CITY OF ROSENOUVT LISTING ^---- ----- ----Hi03060--12-02-91---ALLTOMA{}E-�YSTEN3- ; PAGE: 1 VER. 4.0.02 iT PROGRAM AP06 IN04875 VOUCHER APPROVAL a 8 J AUTO SUPPLY 084164 1140-484-6-11 0 9I - 0842084284 o t IN04877 ALL VENDORS WILL BE REPORTED SELECTION CRITERIA: ALL RECORDS WILL BE REPORTED 084284 IN04878 BANK: 999 VENDOR: 084452 -----IN0;879- i1-06-91----------.--------_._�._-...---084-311- -m IN04880 - 11-08-91 YEN/INV ACCOUNT NJMBER r TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION IRAN AMT- VENDOR AMT a - REF N0. DATE, VENDOR NAME 0&5108 IN04983 11-15-91 085183 ---fff950i8-1'i-2f-9f-1tMfRleA*-E"fNEERiM6-TfSfiNG-`9i�991---k22-4800 MPAfif9lF-TE3 941:89- 6 .I IN05026 12-12-91 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE A85URAN 694599 10101 AFLAC PREMIUMS -AFbAC-PRET11UM5--- 69.01 ---.-,- - --- e .-, ii l 1----1*04887-13-1-9 9i 601-- - "n 602 AFLAC PREMIUMS, 9.01 99.03 o-' IN04889 11-19-91 085435 --1NOA840-11-20-91 -- _ 084504 --tM05 fRifAM-PA�FMf ffk 0i-4940e-$i-4��-AR0E-*3*-RE#FAL--DEG FEB-, RENTAL DEC - FEB 31.00 62.00 ,z h+ .. 602-49450-01-415 DROP BOX ----IN04873-12-05-9t-AMfRIEAN-SWEOISH-INS "-UVE--268.2----101 4rr100-8�7-3397- ,,-TOU"F-�-INSTITUTUE-12f5------ T 36.-00----- 54.00--- INO5059 11-30-91 APPLE VALLEY HEALTH CARE CEN NOVFEE' 801-49001-01-319 NOVEMBER. 1991 'MEALS 1#02b.00 ir026.00 `'I 4874 12-10-91 ASPEN PUBLISHERS. INC. RENWAL 101-41110-01-598 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWALS 194.00 194.00 tN0 au� i ,_ I ,bar 987.77 ----Hi03060--12-02-91---ALLTOMA{}E-�YSTEN3- ; 0 ;�.. r »j Cllr-r----0183II5- IN04875 11-02-91 a 8 J AUTO SUPPLY 084164 1140-484-6-11 0 9I - 0842084284 o t IN04877 11-04-91 084284 IN04878 11-05-91 084452 -----IN0;879- i1-06-91----------.--------_._�._-...---084-311- IN04880 - 11-08-91 084694' `I IN04881 11-12-91 084947 '---•FN0�882--11-14-91 0&5108 IN04983 11-15-91 085183 IN04884 11-18-91 085332 -----14404883- 11-18-91- - --- -085357 IN04986 11-19-91 085393 ii l 1----1*04887-13-1-9 9i 08S-428 IN04888 11-19-91 085434 IN04889 11-19-91 085435 --1NOA840-11-20-91 -- _ 084504 i IN04891 11-21-91 085582 IN04892 11-2191 085622 `-----i M"893 11-229 ,. 08$6" IN04894 11-22-91 085658 IN04895 11-22-91 085694 �a j--I�t04896 -11-23-9; 088808 IN04897 11-26-91' 085876 IN04898 -11-26-91',085,921 11405061 {a, 09-10-91 BAILEY NURSERIES 773860 I--IN04901--41-19-41-SARR--ENGINEER-ING-COMPANY----SERVGE 11404902 12-10-91 BECHTOLD# DAVID J. REIMS IN04903 10-25-91 BRAUER & ASSOCI 601--4-9400-01--395--fME4t&6NC-Y-W€LL--SYST€M- WORK 101-43100-01-221 BATTERIES'FOR M242 }O1--43}98-Oi-221 �rrcnrra o 30_S�RA?S 101-43100-01-242 1 HYDRAULIC JACK 101-42210-01-221 5 BULBS. 1 CASE OIL 10143.100-01-221----1.-L,-1GT1-�-€I3R-M218. -- 101-42210-01-221 1 SWIfCH FOR #3581 101-43100-01-221 1LIGHT FOR M204 301=4310a� nor 'c��eaa- a crL-TfRS-EOR-5LOClt 101-43100-01-219 PLASTIC TIES 101-43100-01-219 WIRE TIES. 2 1/4 EXTRACTORS -Lo 1.43-1-00-01�I1IRE-TIES FAR XMAS-DECORAIIONS- 101-43100-01-221 �':: 3 FILIERS FOR M205 101-43100-01-221 LINERS#`COUPLERS & FILTERS iS1-42110-01 221-= o-RAKE-=,SHOE--B-NASHERS--FO+'t--RO--#1.-- 101-42110-01-221 1 CORE DEPOSIT CREDIT 101-43100-01-221 1 MIRROR FOR M204 -101-�43ZD0-01221,-----ELARE--i:I-I#--FIL-IER &-•AIL--- 101-42110-01-221 FILTERS':& BRAKE SHOE.FOR PD 02 101-42110-01-221 ; 1 CORE DEPOSIT CREDIT 101-43100-01-221 4 FILTERS 101-43100-01-221 2 FILTERS 101-43100-01-221 '1 LIGHT',FOR M208 101-42210-01-221 12 BULBS , 101-45100-01-225 UPGRADE NURSERY STOCK/VO-TECH 1 SRt-I--R OJELT-REVIEV-----7-7- 402-4$000-01-303'ASSESSMENT TESTIFYING 419-48000-01-503 `- UCTOBER SERVICES' 101-45100-01-331 ARMORY LUNCH 101-45100-01-437 STAFF LUNCH 101-41810-01-319 =` --PAYMENT:#12-PARKS MASI'M PLAN - ,o . 180.00 14.02 -15.b2- 6.45 8.83 22_50_ 22.50 8.85 rS-b3_ 11.62 116.28 34 2X 6.50- 9.35 6.50- 4 57 50.68 7.79 1.157.50 54.80 96.42 15.47 21.35 au� i ,_ I ,bar 987.77 0 ;�.. r »j 1/157.50 7.785.81` Ow, >>. 36.82 462.80Tm �0 I -p ; v INN O f O i T M N Op p I O c i4 aO : •/y. i 4 m o �,• ,rt, 1111 �• uh :. WN W J to c o_ � Iz w J > u00 V ~ ao N O 00 M M. OS M1 M06 O OD tet A wi O 00 O 10 OO aO m K • O N .O I tR to W `{ J Pd .0 .� .H 10 M C2, OD' A M O M V\ 10 .} do O •O NMI 1•II X Z 10 d0 O' P M N .; N N O. N M NO ..i N Wtij0 ; I J 1 F = •w z tb t' ffLo I o w � C 1 I W z •- t!1 to M Vt C7.:17 o L P 1 M W O m: - MF x to r Vf 1- t11 K N t- I[ : W 0 t9 2 2 ( U t z N 0. •t * 1/1 Vf �!1 N1 V1 N M O N\ N \ 1 4, O en -!J J .yJ J «< a �' L�. .{. en ` O.o O o e7UO < r?aaC \N..1 W to en NN In it :. - to V V v V 2ZZ 07 eJ7OA N11 i o C J J l7 t7 t?U' tC W 0. K O� D-' CCC J J 7 S 2 2$ 1 uM1 N IT O '3 6! 2 2 Z z z 1%f I ( O O m W o J 0 0 0 0 M.. I.1. r 1: N `..i '.t _ ., t . N O Y NVki • ro NN 2 z a z 2Sz W r w r f 6..; rwr .•. 00 W LL) SSx O_'.. W 323 .i .i4 W ♦ < b W W W W X .-1 11 " O O O O •" 1" < V XXXNZ -4 rJJ tY o N: i 2 I t'7 4 0 0 o f L C S O.. d 4 d '.. 72 m w '533 O. O <6< JM N' 111 7 O Z Yw << 2x O o Q G1 i W tl 1}rr .x...11 d M W. 1 'e IW- Z to 00 to Z z'2 z Z tW� O V v 2 z X 2 Z Z z '" Q: ^+ VI "'+ I �" 2 00 .•1 F' z i d' � Y.• J m00 O LL 4}� C O C O O, O O O «K J J U1 'A WWW I'� r 1� V U V to b ft ft ft < ft. U v :., W M MV r r �` f 111 Op e8 ^. Y J J 1j EG K . OG �f 0. 0. ¢ , ii! < < < O /{1 C rr V Z y z Ln }! 00 a0 M `f� 2 x 3G d U' t¢p -' {'J 1 Ut W C r F N, to ifC - < < fYi w W : O. 2 O a _ O. .i : .4.OFI wi . W W tL ?S : m ' r r !� S to .r 7 «. < - 1- O: O S . I►.t'J M .. OO P P P J JJ NN 22 W 4- V w _ ( Nt!t J V r N .i �'1 -4N -.: Z. • LLLLtl. N LLL LLL' L W . O W 10 �.0 ..F P N N : N O`'. P N N vl N !! v\ 1 aO 06 -O •z. r .i . .ii 4 .4 4 N N .1i .i w0 .i "0O M AI M _M 11 •. W 1 t t 1 i .ii .1t + .-i .i0 •1'1 rl .Id d O.. C ri M ..! O? O .•+ O I e•1 .d •.1 O E g e O 0 0 0 O 1 1 O: t O 1 I C2, 1 O 1 O f O: :t :. 1/ 1 / • 1 / / t `. 1 A J 7 1 I f. � O O 1 O 'O •O VI N'W V• fV N /f.I N q 0 .1/ .M 0 O q O 4 { - .•i .1 'i O .1 q ^I J O> S O W � t� O .1a N w• .d .10 .i T1M .f/ .111 (L if [A !� .-P .1 VI ..i N 'i VI N N' N 00 OD 00 �1 W C m i.z M MHH MM' �(I .-I M VI. JJ J J 1 J Jd. J 1 ul 0. O a o = 2 1 O J t ♦a J111���►►► J ( 1 1 1 .r a t z { 11 F r 1 1 :/ 1 1 . 1 1 t 1 1 v4 1 t 1 -•t K < W : V... rl .}O 1./ .1t .i .10 " : 15't .11 • 4 14 .i .111 ey:. .-1 e11 N ood .1i o .� 0 ^I .•1 � 000 .1t ..• a -O 000 .-1 0 o f'L o I oo o I Z o doo 0 0o q od Cl 0 0 0 "4 .-f 'o r4 .M N O .i .-. .-1 .•i .-i ../ .-1 O W W .14..4 .i .'i ..1 .i _ vi ..1 .'O •-• i � � f } V > I r' r 1•' M1 , ._,A: O .I{ M N 1A i .f 1 0 .tet N M1 00 .il 10 w C' O J J w M •O PP P rn POO M J L x L L 10 N 00 ..1 N. 00 00 co 00 W C j N O M t U > •"• 1 \ d 1D 10 10 m to 10 I O P N O 30 2 z : 10 OO OD 00 P P O O .11 wi W L In 9 .w i W N > d M M M M M A A N A J J w0 1 i N M VI -0 to C w. VI z YLa I < >C 'Y W J 2 W .. .4♦.-. I w > O. N Wuj T r 1 i < O1 .. O :d a X ., ..a. J N �:ac W V a 2 W "X"'. .. Matt" j .,. to i d Z C 4A W 4c jO W- r .. W I Z x i a O z o r V O d! {{ •• O I W C •"' W L6 1111 C I rz r t r CD 'tC w Z J t1:. < t7 x Q.' W >< N < W ( M 1 W • < zi z y W a a o� o<< '< o u+ ♦ * _ C C W x i � O O V �}• I+' i < W U. J 2 W .©r <( V f U U{ W t11 in 2 I O J 1t X< t► LL LL- LL in W .-1 W C O w Q> J b O Q O O I ui N w 1 V r r r .2 > 12 r.. J Y, Y} Y Y K Uf < 2 0 1 Y Y Y Y to w > a C C J r r tr r r < " "J J ; O u� i• r v� o n o (n I-. M ( .1.1 i' 1 1 1 P P It ti N W r 1 J I i I i d A M I�[�I N N .M M K ' v O ` Y b' Cl .4 •€`: N .tet .ii NMN O' wi 1* �.i cm O N N N N. a M e N M O 1 .i` M 1 •G P O 1 ! t 1 1 1� j i` . t I 1 ' •1 .'/ M .t . N1 .1i .f• 1 .1 O_ :.1 .� rl. 1.1• } .4.f 1 t N >t 2• M 10 P !�l 10 .tet L < < i O•O 6100M. -t wiM 1010 N N N N N .N M P M O MMS/' PPP J P M 1 0 O i PP d .•K m 2 b PPPPP PP OO P P to 0. •0 o N :P -C J efl J i d' J i N N t< .t .► •^ W l7 N til K d .k J 44 N VI .t O J O tit b Oz O 1 d O b Coo O lO O 00 m r0 N. ' O Cl OObb d0 ZZ Oe aX a z Z z z Z z 2 ZaX z 2 1 2 <Ix W X aazaz i, •..r ... T' ..' ... r. " ... �.. rZ.•.X.• i o o_ �z �. 1111 .+ r 11 _ • t . 1 4 f t t i t f . I !. 4 t- t .._.._........-6649tl._.....1.u-1-4316u-U1-3b1.._-_.,Z)1Ht:N Ol3._._. _.. - 4.Su DATE: 12-12-91 TIME: 15:01 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT PAGE, 3 VER. 4.0.02 I^ i PROGRAM AP06 VOUCHER APPROVAL LISTING - BANK: 999 VENDOR: ALL VENDORS WILL BE REPORTED SELECTION CRITERIA• ALL RECORD WILL BE REPORTED -I� REF N0. DATE VENDOR NAME YEN/INV ACCOUNT,NJMBER TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION,, tRAN AMT VENDOR AMT al 6 '� IN04950 11-21-91 DAKOTA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION 66498 101-45100-01-381 IRRIGATION PUMP CONTROL BLDG 20.36 5.30 I•., IN04957 11-21-91 66316 101-43160-01-381 SIREN 1114 10@-01-383.--�-_-•--iRHI6A7IUN-PUMP-'CONTROL-SlD6.-._-20.-96----_-.___...--- el F IN04960 11-21-91- 5289 101-43160-01-381 187 -STREET LIGHTS 1.227.16 »' IN04962 11-21-91 66315 101-45100-01.381;CONNEMARA PARK SMELTER LIGHTS 16.35 ! Nft4F6 #--li- 66-39- X91-49499 -9 66655 601-49416-01-381 WATER TOWER p2 63.29 '4 4� -LV IN04967 11-21-91 IN04968 11-21-91 55535 602-49454-01-381 LIFT STATION 94 9T.3I 51.'34-•-'---2.369.46-- ' _-IN04470 -11-.22••91 - 65584 ---602-49455-@1-381 ,- - -LIEF 5i'A'TfUN-#4 - - ti IN04471 12-05-91 DAKOTA ENGRAVING 1281 101-41110-01-598 PLABES FOR OUTGOING MEMBERS 91.50 41.50 �o FORD INO'49T2 L1-13-91 DAVE THOMAS VALLEY R 15912 101-42110-01-221 $100 OEDUCTItsLE-PD #5 100.00 100.00 111 z� a{ {NO4974-04-08-91-£-A.H:-SCHMIOT- &-A5SOWAFE-S----803---101-4-1940 FAi;L EXHAUST -F44 -PW -SHOP'--- 8&0.09 439.00 ---- 1.239.00 11! 2-'I "j-- 101.45100-01-223. ';INSTALL"EXHAUST,FAN-PW SHOP SIF E $M+*A+'F8 -SERV--641-424---103-4-394@-0>-3}n - n�.cuecn'PEST-.�HFROL --'tr^2----23_00- 361 II?ylI IN05085 12-11-91 ERICSON, JEWEL C. RMBRMT 101-42110-04-217 RMBRMf UNIFORM BOOTS g SHIRTS 61.98 61.98 3' IN04980^ 12-03-91FARMINGTON INDEPENDENT ' 101-41400-01-352 PUBLICATION OF NOTICES " 14.00 ` ; 19.00 d,` JL 1 -INtF5035-1'c=s2-ni--F1R5F-STAFE-BANI6-FE$ERAI-W H--'416005--1$1 crcnrn.e''.urrHl101-0I S €� [ 604-63 2.499.49 py 1a 101 FICA WITHHOLDING - ER ,,,1- 101 FICA WITHHOLDING - EE 2.499.49 3- >>8•-13--m-..------ fJ��,#F=" [' 101 a MEDICARE WITHHOLDING -'EE ?18.20, 4s1 < `201 FEDERAL WITHHDLDI NG - EE = 175.72 aJ 0} �-.^�Ff:A=W'I-i-NHOL-0-I-N6 €R g 4` J 201 FICA WITHHOLDING - EE 75.88 4c1'- _I 201 MEDICARE WITHHOLDING - ER 17.75 -T-" N641L•ARE--WI-Td HOLDING=EE--- - 601 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING - EE 470.09. ;I a� 4 601 :fiCA.wITHHOLDING - ER 262.30 „ c01 HOL41-01£s--(E X62.28 5 601 MEDICARE WITHHOLDING - ER 61.34 601 MEDICARE WITHHOLDING - EE 61.33 i 602 ---______7__FEDiFRAtc WiTHHOLDIVG_- -_EE___ _ 602 'IICA3,,,.MITHHOLDING - ER '1.12..38 601�2 FICA WITHHOLDING - EE 112.40 S'' 6l q LV2 �"HCntt=♦ ,E,._Wit NoL_itNr, --r. cz 602 MEDICARE WITHHOLDING - EE 26.29 15,004.08 --4N04981--12-Y9-41-FRICKE.-MICHA€6 -FE€'5-11<i-.�-_1246 --_ - --3RVC€----10'1-61 10-01�1d-5 - 84.A0 .-86 6 6`>I_ I IN04982 11 -25 -91'' -GALL -S INC. 926804 101-42210-01-580 2 FLASHLIGHTS 8 TRAFFIC CONES 159.56 159.56 67, I3 IN04983 12-10-91 GILB, JANE - REIMB 1D1-41520-01-437 USER GROUP MEETING LUNCHES 12.08 12.08 est ,a >> --1004984--12-04-9"OLDSWORTHYs--GREGORY - ---4ERVC€'---101x-42110.01-41S---D€ EHOER,-AMINAL--CONIROL,_. .-.. -._. _-.•.-559-33--558.33 ----- IN05086 `11-3091`. GOPHER' STATE ONE -CALL,,: INC 111056 ;'601-49403-01-318 40VEJ1lER' ,"SERVI"CES t 92. SO 92.50 " Y �f "i I I N 5 -IMO IN05016 IN05018 11-2b-91 11-21-91 4 t. - -} 0-1-4i 10a, -0i -iii 251842 101-45100-01-205 252717 101-45100-01-205 i 8.73 4.30 199.30 4 <, a; ~ GATE: 12-12-91 TIME: 15:01 11-25-91 _MAC TOOLS DISTRIBUTOR ;, - CITY OF ROSEMOJ4T VOUCHER APPROVAL LISTING VER. PAGE: 0.0 4 4.2 1 55.70 PROGRAM AP06 v IN05023 12-02-91' : V 624111 101-43100-01-219 "10 ^I BANK: 999 VENDOR: ALL VENDORS WILL BE REPORTE) SELECTION CRITERIA: ALL RECORDS WILL BE REPORTED 11-27-91 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT. INC. 7720 Jll REF N0. DATE VENDOR NAME 3.360.00 WEN/INV ACCOUNT NUMBER TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TRAN ANT VENDOR AMY .. -4124-- 101-42110-01-196- , JANUARY.-•92-ENFORS-HAINTENCE ---472.00- ----6-12. 00 ,,i tN05045 -i6 IN04986 12-10-91 HOYT, CHRISTOPHER 101-45100-93-219 REFUND 101 .9 Iss 00 b IN05046 -IN05087-i0.31�41-iNSTAMi-iESiiN6 EOMP-A Y-----TESTS--,-42-2-4'8000-@1--3@3---6RA0*fI4NRiUCONCREfE-TE$TSHEL� 92700 -50 51 - Si3.95 j `I IN04990 12-10-91 'JOSTP LISA ' " REIMS ?b I01-45100-01-205 FILM''S BATTERIES AP ;21.22 " ,7 40.000„00 y� 0 i -4i L-9@ 324 . -'91'.DAYS,DUE 3/16/91:; '=; IN04993 11-23-91 K -MART 272197 ---i0i-45100-93-2#4-�-^OT-�0N-8ALk-5-8-•CANDY--EANES-- 101-45100-85-219 COTTON BALLS 6 CANDY CANES -�-----x.-81'-'--`-i7„btr 7.85 325 '91 DAYS DUE 3/16/91', j RMBRMT M 101-41110-01-331 MILE116E6PARKING REIMBURSEMNf X39.25 39.25 , a IN04998 11-27-41 ,'KLASSEN. SHEILA nr_navc�UE-3f3�f91 e^_r404 ti9lT, -�I IN05088 30-15-91 KNUTSON SERVICES, INC. 107453 101-43122-01-384 CREDIT MEMO 101-43122-01-384 27 TIRES DUMPED 85.73- 108.00 22.27 z' 2., 2, (J� INO5001 I1-21 41 KOKESH SUPPLIESP INC ', 46192 10'1-45100-01-219 YCE ASKS AIR PUMP 10.95 3.59- 7.36' = - IN05047 INO5004 11-21791 ,,; ,' 46186 101-45100-01-219, •CREDIT FOR 5� _ , IN05089 12-12-91 KORPELA. DIANA RMBRMT 101-41810-01-209 RMBRMT APPT BOOK 5.25 5.25 au-- z, �z,l--IN@5090---1.1-?9-91 -LAKEL-AND-FOR0-SALES-•---^---1i5Sk--�01 ,: - _ -R6PAI S -TO N202 Tii1CK- - TRUCK' 'rb36.3i-- '1.000.00 2.636.51 „' 101-43100-01-409 INS.,DEOUCT FOR 1202 F< d' -!NOS IN05010 11-13-91 26930 Al -43}00 0} 212---=�6 101-43100-01-221 CAR WA5H-BLDG DEPT PICKUP .99 16.39 s, ,,,-- a•, LEAGUE--@F-Mi#NESOTA-6#-TI-ES•-----9840--1 0-1-41-110- ^-HfiNDB00K-FOR-MN CITIES --MAYOR 68.-00 -__.- b0..g0 .n . , 0 013 11 -1191" -'LOCH PHARMACY 14X 201717 101-45100=01-205 %:2 KLS FtLk, I FILM DEVELOPED 9.87 ,�. �f "i I I N 5 -IMO IN05016 IN05018 11-2b-91 11-21-91 4 t. - -} 0-1-4i 10a, -0i -iii 251842 101-45100-01-205 252717 101-45100-01-205 a e A LAMINATION OF PICTURES PICTURES FOR TINY TOTS 8.73 4.30 199.30 4 <, a; INO5021 11-25-91 _MAC TOOLS DISTRIBUTOR ;, - 398931 101-43100-01-219: HOSE', FITTING'i NIPPLE CUT'flFF WHEELS 39.25 16.45 55.70 00 v IN05023 12-02-91' : V 624111 101-43100-01-219 "10 ,a .,, IN05043 11-27-91 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT. INC. 7720 101-43122-01-224 TAIL GATE CONVEYOR -SHOULDERING 3.360.00 3.360.00 -- INOi044- 12-0,1-91- NASYS EORPORATION - - -4124-- 101-42110-01-196- , JANUARY.-•92-ENFORS-HAINTENCE ---472.00- ----6-12. 00 ,,i tN05045 1207=91. MCDONALD•S Of ROSEMOUNT.'INC, BRKFST 101-45100-93-219 .BREAKFAST KITH SANTA 123,78 123.78 -b Iss 00 •�,,,` IN05046 11-22-91 MENARDS 92700 101-45100-01-225 MATERIALS FOR 12 PARK SIGNS 712.22 712.22 ",._.--IN05092-- 12-i2-91---METROPOLITAN-FEDERAL--BANKP-F--_91-OAY ----202 -----^---91--WS--DUE 40.000„00 y� 324 . -'91'.DAYS,DUE 3/16/91:; 325 '91 DAYS DUE 3/16/91', 40.000.00 67 ba j 26 nr_navc�UE-3f3�f91 e^_r404 ti9lT, -�I 603 91 DAYS DUE 3/16/91 20.000.00 500.000.00 10- y iN05093- -Z5-91­-METIEN--APPRAISA6S--TEST MN --7.-402-48000-X11-3014 - -PREPARATION -FOR -TESTIMONY - „--225.00- - 225.00--- 131 IN05047 11�-21-91"' MIDWEST HACHINERY� S NC ;'- �. PP0205 101-43 00-01-221 $2tT£"iWiNDt�Mi f012 M204 5� e t.- ----- tN@59#8 l2 03 9t i'28�39---i8-k'1i00-0}-221 FftFfR�-tl-4F#NG6_FAH-N2H4--- -i9.2t�- lae.u� - fNO5048-i2-0 -__ _------- - -_-_PAGE. DATE: 12-12-91 TIME: 15:01 CITY OF ROSEMOJVT VOUCHER APPROVAL LISTING 5 VER. 4.0.02 i PROGRAM AP06 BANK: 999 VENDOR: ALL VENDORS WILL BE REPORTED SELECTION CRITERIA. ALL RECORDS WILL BE REPORTED - REF N0. GATE VENDOR NAME VEN/INV 'ACCOUNT NUMBER „TRANSACTION OESCRIPTiON fRAN ANT VENDOR AMT j ` lN05049 11-11-91 MID -AMERICA BUS SYST 8 EQUIP 7743 601-49400-01-209 MICROFILM METE 602-49450-01-209 MICROFILM METER SHEETS 8 RCROS R SHEETS 8 RCRDS 48.90 48.90 97.80 e 8I i 12-02-91 MIDWEST DELIVERY SERVICES. I 346988 _777777777IN05065 101 DELIVERY SERVTCES 14.95. 14.95 -` SFPEN9--881-49BOi-vz-3 --I NOi894-12 #RiSTff.c-- .a [N05095 12-01-91 MINN COMM PAGING 7 04097 101-43100-01-329 MONTHLY PAGER RENTAL - _ 27.48 27.48 ;6 IN05050 12-10-91 DAILY '- SUBSCR -�--- 101^418'10-01-2'03 ';1 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 55.00 55.00 e� v - -MINNESOTA fif T)t -49i-431 0 •• •d"nER SPEEiAL-F$E��T-AX -f NO -5051 i -NN ES Of A-9 22 yj iN05052 12-09-91 MINNESOTA DEPUTY REGISTRAR A DUES 101-41520-01-433 1992 HE ERSHIP ES 70.00 70.00 2 _- INC 11 3 8 101=41940 01+319'NOV�MBERBELEVATORUSERVICE�62.15 62.,15 IN05053 11-26-91 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR., - x �..: �Mi -s34.A 0- NO -5-0, ESOTA=5A IN05054 11-25-91 MOODY•S INVESTORS SERVICE NVO321 202-49002-01-319 SERVICES FOR G.O. BOND ISSUES 4 2 2-483 00-01-3i9 5ERV3S-FAR-.G.-0.-BONG ISSU€5 500.00 `QQ-D!}--1.8QO-QO- IN04899 �2-91 109- N.A.D.A. APPRAISAL GUIDE$ SUBSCR 101-41520-01-433 1992 SUf3SCIPTION USED CAR BOOK °43.00 43.00 ]6 3G L, IN04900 11-27-91 NORTHERN DAK CTY CHAMBERS -CO 111203 201-46300-01-437 LUNCHEDN 201-46300-01-437 NOVEMBER MONTHLY MEETINGS 40.00 11.00 51.00 iN04905 11-27-91 111203 JI - -- IN04914 1126-91 NORTHERN HYDRA ULICg'f'r497290 .'HOND ' GENERATOR"` `101-42210-01-580' 1398.49 52 1.398.99- + as E" -F0490 - NORTHWESTERN-r6RE& 300339 - a Ags 6 nz424" 101-43122-01-224 126.35 TONS CLASS 5 49nUO 293.16 a5� 0 IN049 8 IN04410 11-22-91 11-25-91 300343 101-43125-01-224 76.95 TONS ICR 63.10 - + a { "i --_--[N04912 1b-26-9} - -30034& -101-43125-01-214 -88T@NSICR - --- TONS ICR 43.87 47-5 ..88 IN04913 11-27-91 300351 a 1 $3.50, 01-43125-01-4 24 C ---F#649i`S_j,- 4-4�SEN GNAEN-B {Ae� Gy -torr Ill^�--x$7902- - 101-43i�0-&i 24 y �sVcc>-N iQ2-:--2QB 6 { a �r� [N05066 11-25-91 OSLAND JANITORIAL SUPPLY 01533 101-41810-01-208 VACUUM. CLEANER. MOP HEAD 378.95 378.95 - -� -- - - -- 143483 101 SERVICES15346.99IN04917 11-15-41 OSM FEE'S ��19,,IAUXITEPROJECT 101ERNOOD ESTA7E - ENG FEES.01`.u.. iN05067 12-11-41 I -6L -`v -->+jt.__ N&--fFE�-S •n�.: i� {1 201-46300-01-319 ASSESSMENT ROLL 8 HEARING 1.434.38 c1^ a 422-48000-01-303 COUNTRY HILLS 4!H- ENG FEE'S 3.095.06 7.195.79 bi IN04914 11-22.91 PEOERSON-SELLS EQUIPMENT CO 34669", 101-43100-01-221 FLON CONTROL VALVE k M242 18.98 18.48 -Go-91-R€0R4-�S-NAIURAt-GAS-CONRANX--193395 - b0.1►444Abs0-1 383 . 70 --iNA4920--3 1N05069 12-10-91 169470 101-41940-01-383 CITY HALL 875.56 48.22 71 IN05071 12-10-91 463385 169471-10-1-41940-01 601-49403-01-383 WELL M 3 =383----€IRF-HALL-- - b ----'�4 •$8 - - i3 1N05072---12-10-91 `' -' 150362 101-41940-01-383 CHIPPENDALE P'ARK••BUILDING 74 IN05073 12 -LO -91 { ,i46338b 101-41440-01-383 WARKS GARAGE :0 = 491.25 2.378.10 'i IN05074 12-10-91 y r wPUBLiC -�^ DATE: 12-12-91 TIME: 15:01 CITY OF ROSEMOUVT VOUCHER APPRDVAL LISTING PAGE: 6 VER. 4.0.02 PROGRAM AP06 BANK: 999 VENDOR: ALL VENDORS WILL BE REPORIEJ SELECTION CRITERIA: ALL RECORDS WILL BE REPORTED -� REF NO. DATE VENDOR NAME VEN/INV 'ACCOUNT NUMBER TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TRAN AMT VENDOR AMT ,'I, S I ( IN04921 12-03-91 PITNEY BOWES INC. 741393 101-41810-Oi-322 MAINT AGREEMENT 1192-12192 MTR 709.00 8.50 716.50 7 -. 101-41810-01-322 RESET CHARGE ON 11108/91 _----- -- IN04923 12-10-91 POWER UP SOFTWARE CORP. 073533 101-41110-01-548 QUICK SCHEDULE PLAN ;; "'COMPANY LADDER 99.45 54.95 9i 101-41110-01-598 �. 95----164.8 5-- 191-41 110 -93-59 --- itt IN05036 12-12-91 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT A 725000 101 PERA W/H - ER PERA-,4t £E 3.731.66 -- "' 201 ERA Wf}I-- ER 55.12 201 , . PERA li/H .^ EE ERA ER n 52.04"WtH - 601 PERA WIN - EE 185.17 602 PERA W/H - ER 84:07 n' -602 PERA-Wf# - EE* 74a 3b— 7r377.b9 ,' iN05056 12-12-91 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT A 725051 101 PERA DEFINED CONT W/#,- ER' fRA-9E'FfNtR-CO*T--W/H---EC--------2vr25---4+1.54?----- 20.25 1 IN05037 12-12-91 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT A 725000 101 PERA LIFE INS PREMIUMS 9.00 - _- 201 PERA LIFE INS PREMIUMS 4.00 601 PERA LIFE INS PREMIUMS 34.20 -_PFR _L.._s.-E­-- RS -PRE "AS 14, . ��0 3, ls IN04428 12-07-91 RENO'S PIZZA 648984 101 -42210 -OL -3 9 FOOD IGH STANDBY FOR X -MAS 29.47 29.474 � I;� --_- IN04430 __ 11-01-91 -- ,RESOURCE STRATEGIES'CORP. � SRVCE 101 pAKOTA CTY WASTE ENERGY PRJT '.101 IND. PROJECT ' 778.52 30101. 68 3 880.20 ..� - ,...:. ;;UAKOT 44 IN04933 12-02-91 ROSEMOUNT EXPRESS ACCOUNT PUMP 101-42210-01-230 SMOKE MACHINE PUMP MEMBERSHIP DUES S.VANJERHEYDEN 48.66 15.00 4;' _i I IN04934 IN04935 12-04-91 12-Ok-41 DUES TRIPS`, 101-41320-01-433 ---15.0 101-45100-87-219•- RMBRMT RUDOLPHS BBQ 'RESTAURANT '-, MAUMA MEETING 11-21-91 192.77 7.00 -- 4J IN04937 12-05-91 MEETN6 101-41320-01-339 40.00 f --11104918--tom-64-4 COOKIE 01-H�i& 01 433—MNAPA-fl�6i3FRA4#ON 992 101-45100-85-219 RMBMT COOKIES FOR TINY 1075 10.68 - ;l IN04940 IN04941 12-09-91 12-09-91 BRKFST KF5 101-41320-01-437 LME DELEGATION BRT - S.JILK 20.00 53.00- -- 502.,11 --iN05075—i2-�2-41-- IN05076 12-12-91:: ROSEMOUNT NATIONAL BANK s 91DAYS 01-349---RM-BR#T--COPIES-OUPLEXED_--�--___ 327 ' 41 DAYS 16/91, 501000.40 - S0 _e04-40-- au bt .n. as nAvc nnF; i/16!91 60s000.00 - DATE: 12-12-91 TIME: 15:01 CITY VOUCHER OF ROSEMOUNT APPROVAL LISTING PAGE: 7 VtR. 4.0.02 I PROGRAM AP06 ^ BANK: 999 VENDOR: ALL VENDORS WILL BE REPORTED SELECTION CRITERIA: ALL RECORDS WILL BE REPORTED I` REF N0. DATE VENDOR NAME VEN/INV ACCOUNT NUMBER TRANSACTIOM DESCRIPTION TRAM AMT VENDOR AMT j IN04,i49 11-27-91 'ST. PAUL STAMP WORKS. INC. 44243 101-42110-01-209 ANIMAL TAGS - GOLD WITH TN LINKS 107.15 107.15 7 -IN050T9--113@-9i-3T AR TfIdUNE- 1-191 -41481-A�T£D-AO FOR-{lT*-£Mb 3s- N1 - ' IN04951 12-�03-91 STRESE'p JOHN'S " 28527. 101-42210-01-322 EPOS NGE'.REIMBURSEMENT 2.51 2.51 ,0, " N04952 199.0 12-11-41 TARGET STORES 100183 101-45100-86-219+ JOHN DENVER CASSETTE 6.99 99 u ial- IN04953 11-15-91 T.V. 101-41810-01-242 1 25" RCA T.V.iV -mm xl 17 1N04954 i 11-01-91 TERRY -S ACE HARDWARE 940315 101-43100-01-x41 FfUSN'SHOVELS 37.48 7.42 a 'I IN04955 11-02-91 94215 101-43100-01-221 CLAMPS k M202 ��'*'°9 i I ' r - --I N-0-4956- 11-04-4r - =� -�-' ` 948 28-- - 10-1-41 41@-&i -21� T. `gin -----= 95060 101-43100-01-219 DRIVEWAY MARKERS, T APES 38.69 1 '' ' lN04958 IN04959 11-05-91 11-05-91 95111 101-41810-01-208 ICE MELT. SPONGES "i i 3386-----14#-4-31OD*01-24# (27-SNALF SHOYiLS 11.69 - i ' 45519.601-49400-01-2'41 PLIERS- IN04963 IN04465 11-07-91: 11-12-91, 96924 101-43100-01-.219 4C0RKSCREWDRAIN CLEANER �,�13.49 21, --fN04966--14-12 91 � ""43&-=-b@i-444-00-01 `220 _.-MRr-#TPA-L$r COUPLING- x-35 IN04969 11-13-91 97198 602-49450-01-219 ROOF RAKE d GLASS REPAIRS 33.99 30.99- sI 311 IN04969 73 11-13-91 97369 94417- 602-49450-01-219 CREDIT MEMO 10-1-4-51100-01-2- d3---- POP -*IV -E T= ---�- T__-,_ 1.-59L- fN049? 5-11-13-91 _ _ ------ 97325 101-43100-0i-219 „5X -MAS .LIGHT BULBS 8'ROPE 95.79 IN049T6 IN04977 11-14-91: 11-14-91 97420 101-43100-01-1'214) PIPE FITTINGS 4 3 6' --I N04978-1-1-14 -93 97522. `19-#43 #9---.41-6E8NES _ UGSP LES NNUTSPLWASNERS.PFITTINGS IN04985 1N04987 11-15-91 11-18-91 98215 101 43100 01-221 BOLTS.20 11.62 4�' -SSC--SLR€WS - - -- - 41 -I NO4998--1-1-14-91 IN04989 11-18-91 x 98229601;49400-001 2i9RU8T£8,E ASEALS -�Q 41-- tN04991 11-18-91 98253 --- ---- 101-43100-01-221 BOLTS. -:Ai-431a0 s! 242 �•YY-v'�r �L-UT"XtRAC•T8R '- a� 45I 45 IN04992 11-18-91 98278 101-45100-01-225 (3) ROLLS DUCT TAPE FOR TREES 14.97 9.10 av'^ 47 IN04994 11-19-41 98508 7 2 5--1 101-43100-01-219 HOSE CLAMPS. RINGS 0-4.000--01-+T' ° -� GAS£-iHRISTNAS dU185---__� 170.bt. - 4 I } N0 4 9 9 5-11-2 IN0449b 0-9#----, 11-21-91 - --98 :. 99037. 601-49400-01�24i ;LADD£R8 STRIPPER 15.48 5, ' 51•^ IN04997 11-22-91"' - 99183 101-41810-01-208 flUTDflOR CORA. PAINT 15.18 ' `01=494$0-:ki-•23@=1($FWBi-k81TPL-INCrS --IN@49491-9 IN05000 �3-r 11-25-91 99919 101-43100-01-219 ROPE. 'QUICK LINKS 13.46 7.72 s<l, lN05002 11-25-91 99994 109066--601-49400-01^234 101-41418-01-219 KEYS COP1E5. ID COVERS DRI 66 -4-T*-GARDEN +NUTSRS,�.69� y7 INO5005 11-26-41 16486• 101.-45100-01-214 TAP£ NEA5URE WING'NUT 6 97 lN05006 11-26-91 > 100187 PACK 101-43100 O1 2#9,z;fLASi, LIG COMBO` 94 62A -1i -3@-9r '"lii1-101-431-00-@i '221 .4: :'°_EKf:E-SfRfW RN5 2$ b }.M@5@@8 i IN05009 11-25-91 TOMS SUPER VALU 1947 6 101-45100-93-219 MARSHMELLOWSo MISC-SUPPLIES 16.15 }-N05010- #1-2@-91 - 201 -- - a 6300 01-439 MEETING 11/23/91 2030 S„ 16.80 - IN05011 INO50}2 11-26-91 11-2T-91 2058 '` _`DOUGHMUCHEESE ''101-41810-01-208 COFFEES TYLEMOLi"SOAP 75.47 + fib, eak -I N@4014-�-1-2-7-AI e, 040':4!$10-81 A6F�S -0�BAW9-# }OS 2157 101-45100-85-219 APPLE CIDER, FROSTING, ETC .-00 26.80 177.80 ;0!�, 1N05017 12-11-91 7, 1N05019 --11-,T7 9#-Tri€ADW#IF-.GRAPH ICS .;:. 1743---._101.42110-0168 --NISL. tT.A.R,E.-SU�'PCLES-.- _-- - -•---234.45 234.45.---- 71 { TRI M. a. 4 , T 101-63100-01 221=,`;WIPEMOTOR`'kRM A4SPN81V ,�., F, 47.03 ° ,.; 97.03 /4.- tN05020 11-22=91: St ATE BOBCAT•;,lC: X35"^ ;43155 f+ - -- DATE: 12-12-91 TIME: 15:01 CITY OF ROSENO PAGER VER. 4.0.02 PROGRAM AP06 VOUCHER APPROVAALL LISTING BANK: 999 VENDOR: ALL VENDORS WILL BE REPORTED SELECTION CRITERIA: ALL RECORDS WILL .._- BE REPORTED - _... -. REF N0. DATE VENDOR MANE VENlINV __. --- --- - - - ACCOUNT. NUMBER TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION ..TRAN AMT VENDOR AMT . - IN05022 11-21-91 TROLL PRESCHOOL BOOK CLUB 915418 101-49100-85-219 BOOKS 10.80 10.80 - {N05023--21-2p-4i-TUCKfRs KEiIiN RMBRMT -}pi-422 i0-01-388 --- MSPC-EERT--RE615-REPAY14ENT- 35, DQ - 35.00 y. IN05024 12-09-91 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 14466 601-4940041-3i0 "WATER ANALYSIS FOR 11/91 " 48.00 48.00 " IN05025 11-12-91 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED, INC. 342445 101-42210-01-218 _ (1) LONG SLEEVE UNIFORM -BAILEY 26.50 26.50 �+3 Iw i INO5039- 12-12-91---URiTED-WAY---ST-PAUL-AftEA- 720136----103 ----^--UNfFEd-WAY- CONTRIBUTIONS----- WAY CONTRIBUTIONS nu 4%•$$ -- 4.00 "i 201 " UNITED 601-"UNITEDiIAY CONTRI$UTIONS 3.76 0 62 N"t"Tfot A ;, (.� I IN05040 12-12-91 UNITOG COMPANY 5205 101 UNIFORM RENTALS B ACCESSORIES 234.00 zz 2,1 602 UNIFORM77777- RENTALS '& ACCESSORIES I ,y 101^43100-01-�Il ;.UN[FORM RENTALS i ACCESSORIES 27,69 IN05080 12-02-91 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 6810 101-41940-01-415 TENANCY AGREEMENT 12/91 776.70 776.70 31 3, IN05041 12-12-41 -USCM DEFERRED COMP PLAN " 23111 101 DEFERRED COMP WIN 1•$23,04 " 50.00DEFERRED �+ 201"' DEFERRED COMP WIN EOMP ,t °! 602 DEFERRED COMP W/H 19.50 1.938.09 ;,, 39 i - {NO5OZ7 - it-2691--VAttfY-TIRE i- AUTO SfRih{EE -7537$-10i-43100-8i-T3t----T-IRE-REiPAidt--#--206 --• ''CHANGE -^16.0&- - _--- _.. 182.00 198.00 41. IN05028 12-03-91 75490" ." 101-42110-p1^t21 TIRES AsVN MAfeNsDER-OFFi{ilf- �s9a 372.00- 4'' (�N IN05081 12-02-91 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY 296017 601-49400-01-220 (1) 2" ROCKWELL METER W/PAD 41.89 41.89 41 n IN05031 12-12-91 WILLCOX• HARRY RMBRMT 101-41110-01-331 MISC. MEETINGS EXPENSES 5.32 5.32kiIt 4u• ?� L-6-HiN�B1FRRf---=-37659# ---}03-43180 ASHERS az 1 --l-Np548 �J+1 s IN05042 12-12-91 WmMICHAELS LIMITED 990119 7..__101- 101 FLEX A)MIN FEES - ER 12.92 5 601 FLEX ADMIN FEES - ER 1.98 ,d ,y -601 FLEX 'A)MIN FEES - EE sf 602 FLEX ADMIN FEES - EE .84 - s', 101-41810-01-319 FLEX A)MIN FEES - EE 42.00 73.50 IN05032 11-25-91 ZACK•S INC 15306 101-43100-01-.214 S®UEEGE4 HANDLE�e- 182.00 101-43100-01-221 CHAINS. MID-LINKS' f51 lN05083 114-32-00 -29-91 15308 101-43100-01-242 CHAIN. CRIPER TOOL ao.. � Y IN05084 12-04-91-- ZIEGLER•-INC. ---- 18037 - 101-43100-81-221 3 BLADES- FOR PLOWS -_-- _-_.--_ 576.-61-- 516.61 l9i 7 �,, , �L_ _. DATES 12-12-91 - -- --- ---------------._.__ ._ _.- -_ TIME: 15:O1 CITY OF ROSEMOJNT PAGE: 9 VER. 4.0.02 � PROGRAM AP06 VOUCHER APPROVAL LISTING BANK: 999 VENDOR: ALL VENDORS WILL BE REPORTED SELECTION CRITERIA: ALL RECORDS WILL BE REPORTED REF NO. DATE VENDOR NAME VEN/INV 'ACCOUNT NUMBER TRANSACTION DESCRIPTIDN ?RAN ANT VENDUR AMT - I • I APPROVED BY: 11 'uI I1 --- ----------------- ------ ----- 3 � 1B 11 22 — — — -+Ir .. — — — — — — — 2b' 3 b � 34 I4J At 4 Ell i z~ _ ; - , , •� ' r cc -1 GJI 3i ] 2I _ _ _ DATE TIME: 08:54 CITY OF ROSEMOUNTI VOUCHER APPROVAL LISTING VE. PAGE:0.02 6E `PROGAAM2AP06g1 6. 6E BANK: 999 VENDOR: ALL VENDORS WILL BE REPORTED SELECTION CRITERIA: ALL RECORDS WILL BE REPORTED iREF NO. DATE VENDOR NAME VEN/INV ACCOUNT NUMBER TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TRAM AMT VENDOR AMT ' 41 IN -04860 12-05-9 B AC B RN. I KELS & SMIT NSURE 101 INS FOR ANIMAL WARDEN SERVICE 581,31 71 6' 101-42110-@1-415 INS FOR ANIMAL WARDEN SERVICE 133.46- 447.85 7, gl 9' IN04861 11-19-91 VI"ST S -ESE 0 E --"� 282977-' 3:^41$i0-01-$ FIRA-A-L-VAOYNG IN04862 349380 101-41810-01-321 POLICE DEPT 392.22 _11-19-91 IN04863 11-19-91 340842 101^-41810-01-.321 FIRE HALL 188.73 �2{ - "IN04872 11-25-91 __ 4898 101 4 11/25-12/24 E StTA-1�USAGE .43 �4�_ 101-41810-01-321 11/25-12/24 MTHLY & LONG DIST 1,569.24 2,162.47 15 T-N6-48"54-TiT=i�=9T� 6AK0'TI�ELE�TRIC-"ASSOGTATZDiI-� 7�2"6A"T`- -1-$1= 4'316 --Wl 3$1 -SIREN IN04865 i1-1191 66366 -101-45100..-01-381 JAYCEE PARK CONTROL BLDG 6.83 IN04866 11-11-91 68237:' 101-45100-01-381 JC PARK $3.86 45.99{ , o IN04867 12-02-91 FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION 2ND 101 2ND HALF LEVY FOR FIRE RELIEF 16,401.00 16,401.00 2' 'L Zai IN0465H- =S3=9i-1CIPUTS7DN`5ERVICES, INC-- '-� iECYCI __._l@1_..__—�__---__ DECEMBE-W--RECYC�:ING_.SERVICES---'--2 ,1 IN04869 12-05--91 METROPOLITAN FEDERAL BANK, F 36 DAY 101 36-OAY INVEST 1/13/92 4.68 260,000.00 ------ 3%92-4_-.T>X----130. pi06. 2�T 303 35 -DAY INVEST 1/13/92 4.6% 80,000.00 " 322 35 -DAY INVEST 1/13/92 4.6% 30,000.00 TN04576-i 0 - — ^9-I- ` -2�f 9�DRY "INVE`ST-DUE' 3/9192-4:8'_-_..' V70;0T3Tf 00 aa� 31 202 91 -DAY INVEST DUE 3/9/92 4.8%' 250,000.00 313 2201 91 -DAY INVEST DUE 3/9/92 4.8% 80.000,@0 35 _- VESf-DUE 374/94 B- X00;@ 311 327 91 -DAY INVEST DUE 3/9/92 4.8% 500,000,00 3a^ 39 328 91 -DAY INVEST DUE 3/9/92 4.8% 40,000.00 an 0 -----^ Y_ I NVE ST'.._D.0 E.-3 / 9-/ 9 2 " 4 ; 8 %--3-0;.0.@.0 , 4. 606 91 -DAY INVEST DUE 3/9/92 4..8% 30.000.00 2000,000.00 a. IN04$if 1 - - C T`6Al'—37G--r `�I=ffiC7S"7NVEST DT1E 3t9./92" 4.8-ZS�.00� 00 '�y 408 91 -DAYS INVEST DUE 3/9/92 4.8% 100,000.00 601 91 -DAYS INVEST DUE 3/9/92 4.8% 50,000,00 400,000.00 4• 4t;j _ ani sa',... "TOTALVOUCHERS TO BE PAID* 2421,442.31 s. ^— 6E 6. 6E �_.T-....-_..:�_ .-.................-._.... �..__..___ - t -.-.f__.-...._.. _._.....�. 7 71 i ------ PAGE: 2 DATE: 12-06-91 TIME: 08:54 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT VVER. 4.0.02 VOUCHER APPROVAL LISTING 'PROGRAM AP06 ALL VENDORS WILL BE REPORTED SELECTION CRITERIA: ALL RECORDS -WILL BE REPORTED -- -- �QNK999 VENDOR: - - -- - - _ - 1 A NAME VEN INV ACCOUNT NUMBER TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TRAN AMT VENDOR AMT / 3 REF NO. DATES VENDOR 4' �.._.._—.�.... wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwMwwwwM tkww www 5 w APPROVED BY: wj 10i... wwwirww,tww*wwww'wwwww*w.wwwww:ly tt, 12' 13'. 14 1t,. 161 19 20 21 24., — — --- -- — -- — J1 ,3., 36', 37 36.E - _......._. 4''. T. 43 44 45 46 t, _ 41 48 4 . 91 -. 4 50� H1> 51 5f, 57, 5&lr1 s 59 6Q• ..' film 11:1 ti4 .__..... 6F+Ih 61 fib 69 7 O'^ 74� 751 7 Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) NOTE TO PREPARERS Thisworksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) or its agents. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the final worksheet itself. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 296-8253 or (toll-free) 1-800-652-9747 (ask operator for the EQB environmental review program) or consult EAW Guidelines, a booklet available from the EQB. NOTE TO REVIEWERS Comments must be submitted to the RGU (See item 3) during the 30 -day comment- period following notice of the EAW in the EOB Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investiga- tion, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has been prepared for the scoping of an EIS (See Item 4.), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the informa- tion and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. 1. Project Title St. Paul South Light Rail Transit Dakota County Dakota County 2. Proposer Regional Railroad Authority RGU Regional Railroad Authority Allen Moe Contact Person Allen Moe Contact Person Pro- Manager Dept. of Planning Address 14955 Galaxie Boulevard and title and Program Management Apple Valley, MN 55124 Address 14955 Galaxie Boulevard Ramsey County Proposer Regional Railroad Authority Contact Person Kathryn DeSviegelaere Address 316 Court House Saint Paul, MN 55102 Phone X12) 298-5420 M8439 1 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Phone (612) 891-7030 Ramsey County RGU Regional Railroad Authorit Contact Person Kathryn DeSaiegelaere Director, and title Light Rail Transit Planning Address 316 Court House Saint Paul MN 55102 Phone (612) 298-5420 4. Reasons for EAW Preparation X EIS Scoping Mandatory EAW Citizen Petition RGU Discretion Proposer Volunteered If EAW of EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number (s) No existing mandatory category for EAW's or EIS's covers an LRT system. The EQB determined that other LRT projects in the metro area mostly likely fall under Rule No. 4410.2000, subpart 3, as a project which has "the potential for significant environmental effects." 5. Project Location Section 32, T29N, R22W Sections 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 T28N, R22W St. Paul, South St. Paul, West County Dakota and Ramsey City/Twp St. Paul Inver Grove Heights Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW: a. a county map showing the general location of the project (Figure 1); b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries (Figure 2); c. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features (Figure 3). 6. Description. Give a complete description of the -proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the envi- ronment or produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Introduction The proposed project is the construction of a light rail transit line to serve the St. Paul South Corridor. The light rail transit line would run south from downtown St. Paul to approximately Upper 55th Street, just south of I-494. This corridor is located in Ramsey and Dakota Counties. #8439 2 Legend Group A ensn Group B 10 -Year Plan wimm Group Ci Group D: 20 -Year Plan St. Paul South LRT Coffidof IjGur RAm TRANsiT DEVELOPMENT PLAN jjj E.A.W./Scoping Decision +` Figure 1.0 r, 0 Miles 8 NORTH` ® Source: RTB Regional Development and Flnanciai Plan Light rail transit is a modern transit technology which uses electrically powered, steel wheeled vehicles which run on steel rails. Power is drawn from overhead wires and therefore the track is totally inert. The light rail vehicles operate singly or in multiple car trains on predominantly reserved, but not necessarily grade separated right-of-way. Pedestrians and vehicles may cross the track at -grade since the track is totally inert. The maximum service speed is 55 miles per hour. LRT Alignment The Proposed St. Paul South LRT line would be an extension of the LRT line proposed in the Midway Corridor connecting downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul. The Midway Corridor LRT line will end on 4th Street at Wacouta. The proposed St. Paul South LRT line would be located adjacent to the Lafayette Freeway on either the east or west side. There are two options for connecting the downtown alignment with the Lafayette Freeway (Figure 4). One alignment would continue from Wacouta Street to Wall Street where it would turn south and cross the Mississippi River to State Street south of the River, which it would follow to Eaton Street and then follow Eaton Street to the Lafayette Freeway. The other option is to continue on 4th Street to Broadway, bend south around the southwest corner of the Gillette building onto Prince Street and follow Prince Street to the Lafayette Freeway. The line would potentially extend as far south as Upper 55th Street. The St. Paul South LRT line would involve the construction of a new bridge across the Mississippi River. If the Wall/State Street alignment is followed the new bridge would be located approximately 600 feet upstream from the existing Lafayette Freeway bridge. The bridge on the Wall/State Street alignment would begin north of Kellogg Boulevard and bridge over Kellogg Boulevard, over the existing parking deck by the Post Office, over the railroad tracks south of the Post Office parking deck and then over the Missis- sippi River. The bridge would continue over Fillmore Avenue on the south side of the River and end on State Street north of Plato Boulevard. The line will also bridge over the Chicago/Northwestern railroad tracks just south of Eaton Street. The other alternative will be to construct a new bridge immediately adjacent to either the east or west side of the Lafayette Freeway bridge. If the LRT is located adjacent to the Lafayette Freeway between downtown St. Paul and the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad, it may either be located at -grade, adjacent to the one-way frontage road, or on a bridge adjacent to the freeway. South of Eaton Street the LRT line would be constructed in the side slope of the existing freeway. In order to locate LRT adjacent to the highway the freeway side slope would be excavated and a retaining wall constructed to provide room for the 30 -foot right-of- way required for the LRT track. In most areas this will be accomplished within the existing freeway right-of-way. However, some additional right-of-way will be needed between Eaton Street and Annapolis Street for the LRT line. The track would be .843 6 a ,...�.«.•� r»,;..:w�a �....._.. .•:---_.._ ._.......: �+.+�r.�,i + Yrr+Yi� 14wiiYiY �W�.rri «......- � � �r+.+.r1 wi+�+..ri + ,.._ L Legend lM Alignment 0 Station Location 1, Oil ..moi .--... ____ ;:. �►�..� � St, I A�I Sod�I l I �Oi���ol DOWNTOWN CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES E.A.W./Scoping Decision 0. 1,000• �� Figure 4.0 separated from the highway traffic lanes with a raised concrete jersey median barrier (See Figure 5.). At interchanges the LRT line would follow the exit ramp to the intersecting cross -street where it would cross the intersecting signalized roadway at - grade. The LRT stations would be located at these interchange areas on either the north or south side of the intersecting roadway. Additional right-of-way will' be needed at station areas to accommodate the ancillary facilities (i.e., parking, bus, drop-off spaces, bicycle racks, etc.) associated with the stations. Stations People access the line at designated station areas. These station areas may include park- and-ride areas, auto pick-up and drop-off areas, and bus pick-up and drop-off areas. (See Figures 6 through 8 for prototypical station layouts. The prototypical station layouts have not been designed to represent any specific station location in the corridor.) Passengers may access the stations by walking, by automobile, by feeder bus or by bicycle. Bus service in the corridor would be reconfigured to feed into the light rail transit stations. The feeder buses would be scheduled so that they arrive at the station at the same time as the light rail vehicle in order to facilitate transfers. The criteria used to select station locations included the proximity to an existing bus route, the proximity to a collector or arterial roadway, the proximity of major traffic generators, and the availability of land for development of a station site. LRT stations are proposed at: * Plato Boulevard * Concord Street * Butler Avenue * Thompson or Wentworth Avenue * Southview Boulevard * Upper 55th Street The facilities that would be provided at each station will be determined during the preliminary design phase of the project. However, it is anticipated that the Plato Boule- vard and Concord Street stations would not have any park-and-ride, drop-off/pick-up area, or off-street bus bays for timed transfers. The Butler Avenue Station is not expected to have any park-and-ride area. The proposed stations at Thompson or Wentworth, Southview Boulevard, and Upper 55th Street would have facilities similar to Layout Type C (Figure 8.0). M39 8 310' Typical 100' SI. Paul South LRT Corridor I"AYETTE FREEWAY WENTW4RTH TO I-494 E.A.W./Scoping Decision Figure 5.0 T B Travel I l Lanes Median Lanes _ . .... ................. ..... ... .... ...... _....... ......_....... .......,_._._.._ --..—.... .._......_...._.... _ ----- .._... _ 38' 34' 38' TYPICAL EXISTING SECTION 310' Typical 5"d. Im 4% ►' SB NB 1 Travel Lanes LRT Median . PROPOSED 100' SI. Paul South LRT Corridor I"AYETTE FREEWAY WENTW4RTH TO I-494 E.A.W./Scoping Decision Figure 5.0 I,1aulAM LK Uomdoi TYPE ASTATION E.A.W./Scoping Decision PROTOTYPICAL A . . A STATION LAYOUTS Feet o so 60 120 NWH R Figure 6.0 f a IT i I I I I Collector or Arterial Timed -Transfer Bus Bays I I Roadway On Street (If Required) I I Platform Access I i I I I Ramps I I I I I 'I � w I c' Landscaping Screens I pr (As Required) I o Station /� { Platforms l I Adjoining I I Developments I I i I I Platform Access I I Stairs j I j f u I w ► Station Data: ! 3 ! Approximate Site Size = 1.1 Acres PP I I i w I j I,1aulAM LK Uomdoi TYPE ASTATION E.A.W./Scoping Decision PROTOTYPICAL A . . A STATION LAYOUTS Feet o so 60 120 NWH R Figure 6.0 f a ICombined Bus and Automobile 1 Site Access .ctor or Arterial Roadway Access Stairs T�aund y Adjoining Developments Landscaping Screens (As Required) Station Data: Approximate Site Size = 2.6 Acres Buses = 5 Bays Drop -Off and Pick -Up =16 Spaces St, Paul South LRT Corridor TYPE B STATION E.A.W./Scoping Decision PROTOTYPICAL STATION LAYOUTS Feet R 0 30 60 120 NOWN 7.0 Collector or Arterial Roadway Stairs L\ a Bus Site Access Automobile Site Access /,> Adjoining Landscaping Screens) Developments 1 (As Required) StationC Data: Approximate Site Size = 5.3 Acres Buses - 5 Bays Drop -Off and Pick -Up =16 Spaces Park -And -Ride = 230 Spaces 4 txoeiopmena � i St, Paul South LRT Coiddoi 1"YPE C STATION E.A.W./Scoping Decision PROTOTYPICAL STATION LAYOUTS Feet 0 30 60 120 N=W® Figure 8,0 i /,> Adjoining Landscaping Screens) Developments 1 (As Required) StationC Data: Approximate Site Size = 5.3 Acres Buses - 5 Bays Drop -Off and Pick -Up =16 Spaces Park -And -Ride = 230 Spaces 4 txoeiopmena � i St, Paul South LRT Coiddoi 1"YPE C STATION E.A.W./Scoping Decision PROTOTYPICAL STATION LAYOUTS Feet 0 30 60 120 N=W® Figure 8,0 Vehicle Yards and Shops Another component of a light rail transit system is the vehicle yards and shops. It is expected that the vehicle yards and maintenance facilities will be constructed as part of the LRT construction in other corridors and that vehicles used on the St. Paul South LRT line will be stored and maintained at the centrally located Yards and Shops facilities for the Regional LRT System. REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM The St. Paul South LRT line is one segment of a proposed Regional Light Rail Transit System. The maximum ten and twenty-year Regional Light Rail Transit System Plan is shown in Figure 1. The Regional Light Rail Transit System Plan was developed by the Regional Transit Board and its Joint Light Rail Transit Advisory Committee based on Comprehensive LRT System Plans completed by the individual County Regional Railroad Authorities. The RTB Finance and Development Plan prioritizes the different corridors for construction. The Midway Corridor between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul is the first priority corridor. The construction of the St. Paul South LRT line is dependent on the construction of the Midway Corridor. A separate Environ- mental Impact Statement has been prepared for the Midway Corridor line including the segment in downtown St. Paul. SCOPING OF ALTERNATIVES The St. Paul South Corridor was identified as a potential corridor for LRT in the Ramsey County and Dakota County Comprehensive LRT System Plans. In December of 1990, Ramsey and Dakota County initiated an alignment study for the St. Paul South Corridor. The purpose of the Alignment Study was to identify the preferred alignment and station locations for LRT in the St. Paul South corridor, to identify the terminus for the St. Paul South LRT line and the connection to downtown Minneapolis. One of the first steps in the alignment study was to define the boundaries of the St. Paul South Corridor. This was done based on the analysis completed for the Ramsey and Dakota County Comprehensive LRT System Plans which evaluated several different travel sheds to the southwest, south and southeast of downtown St. Paul. The travelshed to the south showed the greatest potential ridership and had the lowest cost per rider. The boundaries of this travelshed were generally defined by the Mississippi River. The next step in the process was to identify candidate alignment corridors (Figure 9) within the St. Paul South corridor. The initial set of alignment corridors considered included all state and county highway rights-of-way and any railroad rights-of-way. These candidate alignments were then screened based on three criteria: right-of-way availability, service area, and land use compatibility. 08439 13 5t, Faul AM LRT Corridor E.A.W./Scoping Decision o' 6000• CANDIDATE ALIGNME,'VT ALTERNATIVES Figure 9.0 This screening process narrowed the north/south corridor alignments to Robert Street and Lafayette. Two primary east -west routes were also included for further evaluation: I-494 and Lone Oak Road. One of the objectives of the alignment study was to deter- mine whether the line should extend to the west to serve the growing employment base in Eagan or continue south to serve the growing population in Inver Grove Heights. The alignments selected in the screening process were then evaluated in more detail to select a preferred alignment corridor, preferred station locations, and terminus. Detailed analysis was also conducted to determine potential connections to the downtown St. Paul LRT alignment. The Robert Street corridor north of TH 110 was eliminated in this process because it would require acquisition and relocation of a number of residences and businesses on Robert Street and the construction of a very long bridge on Robert Street from approximately Concord Street to Annapolis. Based on cost estimates and ridership estimates for the different alignment options south of I-494, it was deternnined that the line should end at Upper 55th Street in Inver Grove Heights. Extensions of the line south or west added significantly to the cost of the project with very little increase in ridership. It was determined that the areas that might be served by an extension of the line south or west could also be served by feeder bus routes from LRT to those areas. Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in EOB Monitor notice: Project Title:. St. Paul South LRT Corridor The proposed project is the construction of a light rail transit line to serve the St. Paul South corridor in Ramsey and Dakota Counties. The LRT line would run south from downtown Saint Paul to approximately Upper 55th Street, just south of I-494 (5.6 miles). Six LRT stations are proposed for the South Corridor. ` RGU: Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority Contact Persons: Allen Moe Kathy DeSpiegelaere DCRRA RCRRA 14955 Galaxie Boulevard 316 Court House Apple Valley, MN 55124 Saint Paul, MN 55102 (612) 891-7030 (612) 298-5420 #8439 15 v 7. Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) NA or Length (miles) 5.6 mile Number of Residential Units Unattached NA Attached NA CommerciaVIndustrial/Institutional Building Area (gross floor space) Total NA square feet; Indicate area of specific uses: Office Manufacturing Retail Other Industrial Warehouse institutional Light Industrial Agricultural Other Commercial (specify) Building Heights(s) Other _1,000-1,400 Park-and-ride spaces at LRT stations 8. Permits and Approvals Required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and funding required: Unit of Type of Government Application Status FEDERAL: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard National Park Service Federal Highway Administration Section 10, Section 404 Need to be determined. Permits Permit to Construct Bridge To be submitted. in Navigable Waters Review of Plans for To be submitted. consistency with National River and Recreation Area Preliminary and Final To be applied for. Design Approval #8439 16 STATE: MN Department of Natural Work in Protected Waters Need to be determined. Resources Permit Water Appropriations Need to be determined Permit MN Pollution Control Agency Indirect Source Permit Need to be determined. NPDES Permit Need to be determined. Minnesota Public Service Permit to Operate a Need to be determined Commission Transit System Minnesota Department of Preliminary Design To be submitted. Transportation Approval for segments within Mn/DOT ROW Final Design Approval To be submitted. for' segments within Mn/DOT ROW Permit to Use/Access To be submitted a Trunk Highway State Historic Preservation Review of Archaeological To be determined. Officer (SHPO) Mitigation State Archaeologist Review of Archaeological To be determined. Mitigation REGIONAL: Regional Transit Board Preliminary Design Plans To be submitted. (Review/Comment/Recommend modifications) Final Design Approval To be submitted. Metropolitan Council Preliminary Design Plans To be submitted. Final Design Plans To be submitted. (Review for consistency with Development Guide) NU39 17 Dakota County Regional Preliminary Design To be submitted. Railroad Authority Approval Final Design Approval To be submitted. Dakota County Board of Preliminary Design To be submitted. Commissioners Approval Final Design Approval To be submitted. Ramsey County Regional Preliminary Design To be submitted Railroad Authority Approval Final Design Approval To be submitted. Ramsey County Board of Preliminary Design To be submitted. Commissioners Approval Final Design Approval To be submitted. Dakota County Soil and Review of erosion and To be determined. Water Conservation District sediment control measures Ramsey County Soil and Review of erosion and To be determined. Water Conservation District sediment control measures Lower Mississippi Watershed Varies To be determined. Management Organization LOCAL: Additional wetland permits may be required after January 1992, by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources or the local governmental units, as a result of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. Review by the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) regarding potential impacts to archaeological sites, historic districts and properties. The Physical Design component of the Preliminary Design Plans and Final Design Plans will require approval from the following cities: St. Paul West St. Paul South St. Paul Inver Grove Heights 08439 18 In addition, a number of local permits will be required as part of the project approval process. These permits include any and all permits associated with zoning, platting, subdivision, site plan, and building processes where and if applicable. 9. Land Use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks. The current land uses vary greatly along the corridor. The portion of the corridor north of Eaton Street is primarily industrial and manufacturing type land uses. South of Eaton Street to I-494 the land use adjacent to the corridor is primarily low density and medium density residential. South of I-494 to Upper 55th Street.the land use is office and commercial. A major shopping mall is proposed in the southeast quadrant of the Lafayette Freeway/I-494 interchange. One of the criteria for locating the LRT line and stations was the proximity to major transit patron generators. The residential and office commercialland uses were consid- ered to be the largest generators of transit trips. Therefore, from the standpoint of providing good transit service, the project is compatible with the adjacent and nearby land uses. However, potential concerns of the adjacent and nearby land uses may include increased traffic at station areas, intensification of land uses around stations,` and noise. No survey has been conducted of potential environmental hazards due to past land uses. However, south of Eaton Street to I-494, the past land uses were primarily residential. ' The right-of-way for this segment of the Lafayette Freeway Corridor was previously residential development. The area south of I-494 was primarily undeveloped. 10. Cover Types, Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and after totals should be equal): Because the exact location of the alignment and stations has not been determined, it is difficult to estimate the acreage of different cover types that might be affected by the project. In addition, the size of station park-and-ride lots has not yet been determined. The estimates below are, at this point in the design process, approximations based on the level of detail available. M39 19 a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The LRT line would cross the Mississippi River on a new bridge which will involve construction in the river. This construction could have potential effects on fish, but it is expected to be minimal. Other natural areas that may be affected by the construction of the LRT line include Bluff Park in the southwest quadrant of Concord Street and the Lafayette Freeway and Simon's Ravine just south of Butler Avenue (Figure 10). There are also a number of wetlands adjacent to the corridor which may be impacted depending on the exact location of the alignment and stations. The impact to wildlife habitat is expected to be minimal; therefore, the project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on fish and wildlife resources. The extent of impacts and measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts will be determined during the preliminary design and environ- mental impact statement phase of the project. b. Are there any state -listed endangered, threatened, or special -concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? Yes No X To Be Determined If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. A site survey has not been conducted to determine the presence of these types of resources in the corridor. However, it is expected that these types of resources do not exist in the corridor. The proposed alignments are within the range of two 08439 20 Before After Types 2 to 8 Wetlands 1 0 Wooded/Forest 4 p Brush/Grassland 4 p Cropland p p Urban/Suburban Lawn Landscaping 39 10 Impervious Surface 7 45 Other (describe) 0 0 55 acres 55 acres 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The LRT line would cross the Mississippi River on a new bridge which will involve construction in the river. This construction could have potential effects on fish, but it is expected to be minimal. Other natural areas that may be affected by the construction of the LRT line include Bluff Park in the southwest quadrant of Concord Street and the Lafayette Freeway and Simon's Ravine just south of Butler Avenue (Figure 10). There are also a number of wetlands adjacent to the corridor which may be impacted depending on the exact location of the alignment and stations. The impact to wildlife habitat is expected to be minimal; therefore, the project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on fish and wildlife resources. The extent of impacts and measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts will be determined during the preliminary design and environ- mental impact statement phase of the project. b. Are there any state -listed endangered, threatened, or special -concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? Yes No X To Be Determined If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. A site survey has not been conducted to determine the presence of these types of resources in the corridor. However, it is expected that these types of resources do not exist in the corridor. The proposed alignments are within the range of two 08439 20 St. Paul South LRT Corridor PREUMINARYNATURAL E.A.W./Scoping Decision AND CULTURAL RESOURCEINVENTORY ` 5 000'��� 0 Figure 10.0 federally listed bind species, the Bald Eagle and the Peregrin :Falcon. The project will not likely impact habitat of either species. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program will be requested to review their database for records of state or federally listed species within or near the project area. 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (take, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? X Yes No If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in. water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were reviewed to identify the wetlands within the corridor study area (Figure 10). Along the east side of the Lafayette Freeway, seven wetlands were identified, including DNR Wetland 88W. Four small wetlands are located along the west side of the Lafayette Freeway. An unnamed creek flows under the Lafayette freeway to the north of Emerson Avenue through Simon's Ravine. The. proposed LRT system may requiring filling of area wetlands. Modifications to DNR Protected Wetlands within the study area will require a Permit to Work in Protected Waters or Wetlands and compensatory mitigations. An Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit will be required for any fill to be placed within the wetlands in the study area. As noted in Item 8, additional wetland permits may be required after January 1992, by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources or the local governmental units, as a result of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. As noted in Item 11, the proposed alignment will cross the Mississippi River on a newly constructed bridge. The bridge design plans will require review and approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard. The design plans and construction activities will comply with U.S. Coast Guard Requirements regarding vertical and horizontal clearance. The impacts to the Mississippi River, the unnamed creek, study area wetlands and the Simon's Ravine area, will be addressed in greater detail in the EIS. "8"9 22 4 13. Water Use a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? Yes No X To Be Determined For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermitted wells, give the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if known). This issue area will be addressed in greater detail during the EIS and preliminary design phase of the project. Additional right-of-way will be required at the station locations and between Eaton Street and Annapolis Street. The extent of the study area at the stations is dependent on the proposed station area facilities (e.g., number of park-and-ride/drop-off spaces, bus bays, etc.). b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (includ- ing dewatering)? X Yes No If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water appropriation permit number of any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on groundwater levels. It is anticipated that dewatering will be required during construction of retaining walls adjacent to the corridor and any underground utility relocation or service extensions to the proposed station locations. If determined necessary, a Department of Natural Resources groundwater appro- priation permit will be applied for. C. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? X Yes No If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used. It is anticipated that each station facility will have a water connection for clean- ing/maintenance of the station area. Restroom facilities may be provided at various station areas. The specific facilities provided at each of the stations in the w8439 23 St. Paul South Corridor will be addressed in greater detail during the EIS/prelim- inary design stages of the project. 14. Water -related Land Use Management Districts. Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100 -year floodplain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? X Yes No If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. The City of Saint Paul has adopted a Mississippi River Shoreland Zoning District ordinance. The St. Paul South LRT alignment will cross the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Lafayette Bridge in St. Paul. The Mississippi River has an Urban Development shoreline classification in the proposed corridor area. It is not anticipated that the construction of a bridge for the LRT will violate any of the setback require- ments under this classification. The bridge crossing will also span the Mississippi River Critical Area. The Critical Area is generally bound by the upper limits of the river bluffs and it is not anticipated that the LRT crossing will impact this area. It is anticipated that the bridge crossing will not affect the 100 -year floodplain of the Mississippi River. The LRT will also cross over the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area created in 1988. However, this area has yet to be defined and a management plan coordinating federal, state, regional, and local plans is to be devel- oped by November of 1991. The management plan is expected to address public and private use of the river corridor and to provide a framework for intergovernmental relations with regard to the river. The construction of the proposed LRT bridge will require the placement of bridge columns in the Mississippi River. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will address in greater detail the compatibil- ity of an LRT line through the aforementioned areas. 15. Water Surface Use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? Yes X No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any poten- tial overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife resources. #8439 24 t 16. Soils. Approximate depth .(in feet) to: Groundwater: minimum average 50* feet Bedrock: minimum 150 average 350 (range of 150-550) *Source: Geologic Atlas for Dakota County. ,The Geologic Atlas for Ramsey County has not been completed. Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpreta- tions and soil boring logs need not be attached.) Groundwater depth within the Dakota County portion of the corridor averages 50 feet below the ground surface. Based on review of the Geologic Map of the Minneapolis/ St. Paul Urban Area: Bedrock, Topography and Engineering Properties, the bedrock within the corridor varies from 150 to 550 feet below the ground surface, with the exception of outcroppings of bedrock along the river bluffs. Excluding the floodplains of the Mississippi River, the soils in the corridor area generally consist of well -drained soils formed in loamy and sandy glacial till and outwash. The subsoils in the corridor area are generally sand. The main soil type is a combination of the Kingsley and Kingsley-Mahtomedi soil groups. This loamy and sandy soil is well drained and moderately coarse textured. This type of soil would be classified by the Soil Conserva- tion Service as a Group B soil. The EIS will address soil conditions at potential facility sites, cleanup and disposal of contaminated soil as necessary, and the impact directly related to this project. 17. Erosion and Sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres na* cubic yards na* Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map (Figure 11). Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. * Grading plans have not yet been prepared. Steep slopes exist near the Mississippi River bluffs and Simon's Ravine. Between Eaton Street and I-494, the LRT alignment would be located in the side slope adjacent the highway. The existing side slope would be eliminated by using retaining walls and LRT would be located at about the same grade as the Lafayette Freeway. Sedimenta- tion control measures utilized during construction operations will include placement of sediment barriers (silt fences and hay bales) around adjacent wetlands and storm sewer systems to filter out sediments contained in storm water runoff. The sediment barriers will be maintained throughout the construction period. After construction, disturbed areas will be fine graded and revegetated. I 1 $8439 25 ' _ � .. ' or Slope Location Alignment -10 � �Go CLAI 0 S1. Paul Sot LRT Corridor STEEP SLOPE AREAS E.A. ./Scoping Decision' 01 3 r),C)W' PICIF) Figure 11.0 5-0 SIN an S1. Paul Sot LRT Corridor STEEP SLOPE AREAS E.A. ./Scoping Decision' 01 3 r),C)W' PICIF) Figure 11.0 Recreation Area boundaries. The DCRRAIRCRRA will coordinate with the National Park Service regarding proposed LRT alignment plans within the designated area. Groundwater Appropriation The EIS will address areas where dewatering may occur during LRT construction. 1.4 SOILS LRT alignments are primarily located along highway right-of-way. Generally, soils in these areas provide an adequate base for roadway/highway construction. Possible exceptions to this are those areas not yet designated as park-and-ride lots and embankment areas. The EIS will address soil conditions at potential facility sites, cleanup and disposal of contaminated soil, as necessary, and the impacts directly related to the project. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will be requested to conduct a file search of their database for contaminated and/or potentially contaminated areas within one mile of the proposed St. Paul South LRT alignment. The intent of this review is to provide a preliminary identification of existing contaminated sites that may be present within the study area. 1.5 STORM WATER RUNOFF It is anticipated that the additional storm water runoff will be generated by increasing impervious surfaces such as track ballast, bituminous and concrete pavement, and rooftop areas of the park-and-ride sites. Storm water runoff resulting from the construction of the proposed LRT alignment and station areas, particularly major park-and-ride lots (more than 200 parking stalls), and its impact on receiving bodies of water, will be addressed in the EIS. Receiving waters throughout the corridor vary from creeks and ditches to local storm water pipe systems. The projected impact on receiving waters will be identified and addressed in the EIS. #8453 8 1.2 STEEP SLOPES The EIS will address and present areas where slope requirements warrant retaining walls or other special treatments. South of Eaton Street the LRT line would be constructed in the side slope of the existing freeway. To accommodate the LRT adjacent to the highway, the side slope would require excavation and construction of a retaining wall to provide adequate space for the thirty-foot right-of-way required for the LRT track. 1.3 SHORELAND ZONING, FLOODPLAINS, MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL AREA/ NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, GROUNDWATER APPROPRIATION Shoreland Zoning The Minnesota DNR requires that cities and townships adopt zoning regulations to protect the environmental qualities of surface waters and the natural and economic values of shoreland areas,and to provide for the wise utilization of such waters. The Shoreland Zoning District Ordinance of each of the municipalities within the study area will be reviewed to determine the impacts resulting from the proposed alignment. Floodplains Information regarding the study area floodplain boundaries and floodplain regulations will be obtained from the municipalities in the study area and Watershed Districts to determine potential LRT construction impacts on floodplain areas. Mississippi River Critical Area/National River and Recreation Area The proposed LRT alignment (under both river crossing alternatives) would cross the Mississippi River which is designated a Mississippi River Critical Area and National River and Recreation Area. The Critical Area Plan will be reviewed to determine LRT's consistency with the policies of the Plan. An approved National River and Recreation Area plan has not been completed at this time. The EIS will identify the National River and #8453 The following topics have been identified for in-depth analysis in the Environmental Imnacf Statement (EIS). The LRT alternatives previously defined will be evaluated in terms of these topics. This section provides - a brief description of each of the major topics to be studied. 1.1 WETLANDS, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE The EIS will address impacts on wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife. Park-and-ride lots are proposed at the Thompson/Wentworth, Southview Boulevard and Upper 55th Street stations. 'These parking facilities,' along with right-of-way required for all the stations and the LRT alignment will be assessed for impacts to area wetlands, vegetation and wildlife. Protected waters within the study area will be identified, impacts will be quantified, to the extent possible, and suggested mitigation measures will be presented: The proposed alignments are within the range of two federally listed bird species, the Bald Eagle and the Peregrin Falcon. The project will not likely impact habitat of either species; however, potential impacts will be addressed in the EIS. The Minnesota Natural Heritage Program of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will be requested to review their database for records of state or federally listed species within or near the project area. A site evaluation of the LRT alignment and station areas will be conducted to determine if prairie plant species are present. «84" 6 Alternative 2: No -Build. The No -Build alternative assumes that -the proposed St. Paul South LRT line, in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, is not constructed. Transit service would be provided by the existing bus transit system plus any bus system improvements planned by the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), which are consistent with the Regional Transit Board's Guidelines for Year 2010 bus service. TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Topics that will be addressed in the EIS include: • Wetlands/Vegetation and Wildlife • Steep Slopes • Shoreland Zoning/Floodplains/Mississippi River Critical Area/ National River and Recreation Area • Soils Storm Water • Energy • Air Quality • Noise and Vibration • Transit Service • Traffic • Cultural Resources • Parklands • Visual Impacts • Financial Impacts • Economic Development, Employment, and Sociological Impacts • Utilities • . LRT Ridership Projections #8453 5 Option A: Wall/State Street Alignment Under this alignment option, the LRT continues from Wacouta to Wall Street, where it turns south and crosses the Mississippi River on a newly constructed bridge approximately 600 feet upstream from the existing Lafayette Freeway bridge. The proposed bridge would begin north of Kellogg Boulevard, bridge over Kellogg Boulevard and the existing parking deck by the Post Office, over the railroad tracks south of the Post Office parking deck and the Mississippi River. The bridge would continue over Fillmore Avenue on the south side of the river' and end on State Street north of Plato Boulevard. From State _ Street the LRT- alignment follows Eaton Street to the Lafayette Freeway. Option B: Lafayette Freeway Alignment Under this alignment option, the LRT continues on 4th Street to Broadway, bends south around the southwest corner of the Gillette Building onto Prince Street and follows Prince Street to the Lafayette Freeway. Under this option, a new bridge to accommodate the LRT would be constructed immediately adjacent to either the east or west side of the Lafayette Freeway bridge. South of Eaton Street, the LRT alignment would be constructed in the east .. or west side slope of the existing freeway. The LRT track would be separated from the highway traffic lanes with a raised concrete jersey 33} median barrier. At interchanges the LRT line would follow the exit ramp I to the intersecting cross -street where it would cross the intersecting signalized roadway at -grade. LRT stations are proposed at: • Plato Boulevard • Concord Street • Butler Avenue • Thompson or Wentworth Avenue • Southview Boulevard • Upper 55th Street 08453 4 ........,.:. ,•,.,„,;....� ...�,,,..N, �...... _�_._ •...-.+d a.vr+.rw trr �ir.iMr:r i�rs.+w .........�.• �_....� .....o..i w..raii rrn..�..� ..-....: E Legend Alignment Station Location _ �% G: o N t t id J'�> o r r Corgi y�. �► ''' %% �- a 12- E h -:o O tbl � o J th/S q P _z 5BLVD St. Paul Sod LRT CoCIdoC DOWNTOWN CONNECTION Uta ALTERNATIVES E.A.W./Scoping Decision 0. 1,000.,` ® Figure 2.0 Legend 0� Alignment 0 Station Location 'Ca nee lumctio v 7, 4, IV _4 A;V 0 i &M k; Porrldbr =29, 7_;_.-_R L i lijAl M V9 j i &M k; I J* Bu X"" AV C 44 . 7- toTKO'MOM - Tharnoso-b/z, T x&orth X- en! warl, t A D Via,, ( NN VS fSouth viewSc�ut, S �.Ut hvvi hviwo� vv,, -.E3,1 vd!­�'. �17 �17 J LUIP nfit._t K 1 -2. 2i E - S1. PaLRT ALIGNMENT WITH ul Soulh LRT Co(dof E. A. W�/$coping Decision7 STATIONS LocmNS ID C R R A R C R R AJ RFPIM 01 5. 000',x` Figure 1.0 Porrldbr 7_;_.-_R L i j trPY %$t I J* Bu X"" AV C 44 . 7- toTKO'MOM - Tharnoso-b/z, T x&orth X- en! warl, t A D Via,, ( NN VS fSouth viewSc�ut, S �.Ut hvvi hviwo� vv,, -.E3,1 vd!­�'. �17 �17 J LUIP nfit._t K 1 -2. 2i E - S1. PaLRT ALIGNMENT WITH ul Soulh LRT Co(dof E. A. W�/$coping Decision7 STATIONS LocmNS ID C R R A R C R R AJ RFPIM 01 5. 000',x` Figure 1.0 SUMMARY The Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority (DCRRA) and the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) have prepared this Scoving Decision Document in conformance with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) regulations pertaining to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Scoping Decision reflects information prepared for the St. Paul South LRT Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). This Scoping Decision Document identifies the alternatives to be addressed in the St. Paul South LRT Corridor EIS, and issue areas to be addressed in detail in the EIS. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is a light rail transit =(LRT) transit line to serve the St. Paul South Corridor. The light rail transit line would run south from downtown Saint Paul to approximately Upper 55th Street, just south of I-494. This corridor is located in Ramsey and Dakota Counties. ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED IN THE EIS The St. Paul South LRT Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement will assess the impacts of two alternatives. Alternative 1: Build the St. Paul South LRT Route as shown in Figure 1.0. The proposed St. Paul South LRT line would be an extension of the LRT line proposed in the Midway Corridor connecting downtown Minneapolis and downtown Saint Paul. The Midway Corridor LRT line will end on 4th Street at Wacouta (Figure 2.0). There are two major alignment options for connecting with the downtown Saint Paul alignment and crossing the Mississippi River. #8453 TABLE OF CONTENTS summary....................... ............... 1 1.0 Environmental Impact Statement Scope ............... 6 1.1 Wetlands, Vegetation and Wildlife .............. 6 1.2 Steep Slopes ............................... 7 1.3 Shoreland Zoning, Floodplains, Mississippi. River Critical Area/National River and Recreation Area, Groundwater Appropriation ................... 7 1.4 Soils 8 1.5 ................................... Storm Water Runoff ........................ 8 1.6 Energy ..................... 9 1.7 ..... .... Air Quality ......................... .... 9 1.8 Noise and Vibration ......................... 10 1.9 Transit Service ............................ 10 1.10 Traffic 10 1.11 .................................. Cultural Resources .......................... 12 1.12 Parklands 13 1.13 ................................ Visual .................................. 13 1.14 Financial Impacts .......................... 13 1.15 Economic Development, Employment, and Sociological Impact ......................... 13 1.16 Utilities 14 1.17 ................................. Ridership Forecasts .......... ............... 14 2.0 EIS Schedule 15 ................................. 3.0 Required Governmental Actions .................... 17 4.0 Concurrent Permit Application and Data Collection ....... 20 5.0 Alternatives to be Studied in the EIS ................. 21 6.0 Background Data Collection and Studies .............. 23 7.0 Identification and Examination of Indirect Effects ........ 24 Appendix A: Noise Guidelines, Criteria and Methodology DAKOTA COUNTY/RAMSEY COUNTY ST. PAUL SOUTH LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT CORRIDOR DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT Prepared by: Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority Western Service Center 14955 Galaxie Avenue West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124-8579 and Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority 15 West Kellogg Boulevard 316 Courthouse Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 with Assistance by: BRW, Inc. 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 August 1991 Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Draft Scoping Decision Document CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU (all three certifications must be signed for EQB acceptance of the EAW for publication of notice in the EQB Monitor) A. I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature Signature B. I hereby certify that the project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no other projects, project stages, or project components, other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as "connected actions" or "phased actions," as defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, subp. .9b and subp. 60. Signature Signature C. I hereby certify that copies of the completed EAW are being sent to all points on the official EQB EAW distribution list. Signature Title of signer Date Signature Title of signer Date 08439 41 31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by Items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. The DAIS will also address potential relocations/displacements associated with the proposed St. Paul South LRT alignment and station areas. 32. SUMMARY OF ISSUES. (This section need not be completed if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document which must accompany the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identi- red above that may require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be consid- ered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. i i 08439 40 The feeder bus plan will be updated and refined throughout the design and implementa- tion process. i' 30. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? X Yes ; No If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmen- tal review. b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? X Yes No If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing,, and any past environ- mental review. G d. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? X Yes No If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project. If a, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other development. The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority and the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority have completed and distributed the Draft EIS for the Midway Corridor (December 1990). The proposed _St. Paul South LRT alignment has been developed to ensure that connections to the downtown portion of the Midway and Saint Paul Northeast alignments can be made. Implementation of the 'St. Paul South Corridor is dependent on the construction of the Midway Corridor alignment. As previously noted, the Regional Transit Board's Finance and Development Plan identifies the St. Paul South LRT Corridor, with a terminating point at TH 110, in the Ten -Year Staging Plan. The RTB's Twenty -Year LRT Plan identifies a west extension of the St. Paul South Corridor, to connect with the extension of the proposed Hiawatha LRT Corridor at the I-35E/I-494 interchange. As presented in Item 28, LRT -related development/redevelopment could occur around the proposed LRT station areas. The appropriate municipalities will continue to be responsible for land -use related decisions. The EIS will identify proposed station areas where there is the potential for development/redevelopment. xaa39 39 legend LRT �D Radial Service to Downtown ■ ■ ■ Timed Transfer at Butier ttttnnt Timed, Transfer at Thompson or Wentworth • "� "' Timed Transfer at SouthAew t � Ei�. � ■ tr-a uta#t�ttu�tnt�rtrrn�unt tau ampson mtworth 1i - Concord t � Ei�. � ■ tr-a uta#t�ttu�tnt�rtrrn�unt tau 51, I aul AM LII Gofiidoi FEEDER Bus SERVICE E.A.W./Scoping Decision CONCEPT PLAN 0.0 Figure 12.0 ampson mtworth 51, I aul AM LII Gofiidoi FEEDER Bus SERVICE E.A.W./Scoping Decision CONCEPT PLAN 0.0 Figure 12.0 * Phase I --Land Use Evaluation. This phase, which would be accomplished during preliminary design (10 percent) and environmental reviews, involves a review of local comprehensive land use and transportation policies, an assessment of the potential impacts of the LRT line, and an assessment of station locations. * Phase II --Station Area Land Use Planning. This phase, accomplished during preliminary engineering (30 percent), includes development of conceptual land use planning around LRT stations, amendments to comprehensive plans, and further refinement of the location and sizing of park-and-ride facilities. * Phase III --Detailed Station Area Land Use Planning. This phase of planning would be undertaken during final design of LRT and involves development of a final station area land use plan, preparation of an economic market analysis, and preparation of an implementation plan. * Phase IV --Station Area Preparation. Once LRT construction- is initiated, cities would take the necessary steps to implement station area plans including any public land acquisition required, negotiations with developers, and implementation of financial plans, as may be appropriate. * Phase V --Station Area Development would -occur after the LRT system begins operations and would continue ten to twenty years after the system is open. 29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? X Yes No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure/services needed. (Anyinfra- structure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in this EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.) Transit Service s Se ce An overall preliminary transit service plan has been developed by the Metropolitan Transit Commission for the St. Paul South LRT Corridor (Figure 12.0). The goal in developing the transit service plan is to provide the St. Paul South Corridor with transit service which is equal to or better than existing transit service in terms of total travel time and route coverage. The transit service plan will be developed to conform to the "Rail/Bus Connections" section of the Regional Transit Board's Coordination Plan (pp. 94-95). W39 37 construction of a LRT bridge across the Mississippi River, which would add an additional structural element to the River. 28. Compatibility with Plans. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of an local, regional, state, or federal; agency? I X Yes No A If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with 1 the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the projectand the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain. The St. Paul South Corridor, from downtown Saint Paul, to TH 110 is included in the Regional Transit Board's Ten-year Staging Plan (Figure 1.0). The _Comprehensive LRT System Plan for Ramsey County approved in December 1989, identified the St. Paul South LRT Corridor as the second priority corridor in, Ramsey County (the Midway Corridor was identified as the highest priority LRT corridor in the metropolitan area). The Cornnrehensive LRT System Plan for Dakota County, approved in March 1990, recommends three LRT corridors .for construction in the next twenty years, including the St. Paul South Corridor (referred to as the "East Corridor" in the Comprehensive Plan). Comprehensive Plans for the municipalities` included in the St. Paul South Corridor Study areacurrently do not address the implementation of an LRT system in this area. Therefore, -to directly assess if the implementation of LRT is consistent with the appropriate comprehensive plans would not be possible. As directed by the Metropoli- tan Council, municipalities should take into account LRT when updating their respective Comprehensive Plans. The EIS will include an analysis of impact areas, which are components of city/community character, such as the potential impact to neighborhood boundaries; access to community facilities/schools; traffic impacts, particularly at station sites; development potential associated with LRT; and potential relocation impacts. The Metropolitan Council has prepared a planning framework for coordination between the development of an LRT system and land use -related activities. While land use and development opportunities are a primary objective of LRT, these guidelines are not mandatory. They are intended as information and guidance to cities affected by the implementation of LRT. Cities will continue to be responsible for land use -related decisions. The recommended planning process includes five phases: "8439 36 eligible for listing, then mitigation measures may be required to prevent, reduce or compensate for the impacts. In addition to the known cultural resources, there is a possibility for the existence of previously undetected archaeological, architectural, and historical resources. A reconnaissance survey will need to be conducted within the study corridor to identify and locate these areas. If warranted, further investigation for previously undetected and/or unrecorded cultural resources will be recommended. The cultural resources identification program will be conducted and reviewed according to the guidelines set forth by the National Historic Preservation Act and the Procedure of the National Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800). Specific impacts to historic properties which cannot be adequately deter mined at this time can be deferred to later planning stages. C. A preliminary review of local and regional parks that could potentially be impact- ed by the proposed alignments was conducted. This information was taken from the comprehensive plans of the cities of Inver Grove Heights, South St. Paul, Saint Paul and a Dakota County Highway map. Figure 10 identifies the parks within the study area. As identified in Figure 10, Thompson County Park and several city parks are located within the study area. Two parks within the City of Saint Paul could be impacted by the west Lafayette Freeway alignment. Thompson County Park in West St. Paul and Kaposia Park in South St. Paul could be impacted by the west and east Lafayette Freeway alignments, respectively. d, Scenic Views and Vistas The Mississippi River, downtown Saint Paul, and the aver bluffs can be viewed from the Lafayette Freeway. 27. Will the Project Create Adverse Visual Impacts? (Examples include: glare from intense lights; lights visible in wilderness areas; and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) X Yes No If yes, explain. Because the proposed LRT alignment would be located within an existing highway corridor, it is anticipated that there would not be any significant visual impacts. The impacts to adjacent residents, associated with the passby of LRT vehicles, will be addressed in greater detail in the EIS. The proposed LRT alignment would require the i #8439 35 Automobile traffic to and from proposed station sites ` and parkinglots associated with the system. Vibration I The proposed LRT system has the potential to create ground -borne vibration impacts on developments adjacent to the corridors. The effects of LRT ground -borne vibration are generally perceived in two forms: * Vertical floor vibration ^ r� * Rumbling noise within adjacent buildings which is caused by resonance through M the building structure Adjacent to at -grade sections, vertical vibration of interior floors is the dominant effect. In contrast, adjacent to rail tunnel sections, the rumbling of ground -borne noise is more dominant. Guideline levels for evaluating the potential for a significant impact have been established for each of these vibration effects. Guidelines, criteria, and methodologies to address noise and vibration in the EIS are t, documented in Appendix A. 26. Are Any of the Following Resources on or in Proximity to the Site? a. archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? X Yes No b. prime or unique farmlands? Yes X No r C. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? X Yes No d. scenic views and vistas? X Yes No e. other unique resources? Yes X No If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. a. The St Paul South LRT alignment could potentially impact three structures already considered significant by the St Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). These buildings are located at 634 South Woodbury Street, 306 East Baker Street, and 555 East Concord (Figure 10). These structures will need additional study to determine if they are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). If these structures are determined to be M39 34 i If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the loca- tions of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these receptors. Dust Dust will be generated during construction of the proposed LRT system., The amount of dust generated will depend on: * The area of exposed soil surface. * The amount of excavation or filling required. * Wind speeds and directions during the construction period. * Soil moisture during the construction period. * The duration of the construction activities. Dust generation can be minimized by paving or by promptly replacing vegetative cover after grading, applying dust suppressants during dry periods, and ceasing construction during periods of high wind.The generation of dust is regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Minnesota Rules Part 7005.0550 which requires reasonable measures to control dust during construction. Construction dust generation will not be analyzed in the EIS. Noise The proposed LRT system will generate noise during both the construction and opera- tions phases. During the construction phase, noise will be generated by heavy machin- ery used to prepare the station sites, park-and-ride lots and track sections. Noise generated by construction will be controlled by using construction equipment that is properly maintained, operated, and muffled in accordance with manufacturers' specifica- tions and by restricting construction activities to daytime hours. Noise generated during the operations phase would be from the following sources: * In roadway corridors, LRT would replace a portion of the existing vehicular traffic. The noise impacts on LRT in the corridor compared to vehicle traffic will be addressed in the EIS. * Feeder -buses which extend the service area of station sites. The EIS will address the noise impacts of potential changes in existing transit bus routes. 08439 33 A The LRT system has the potential to increase motor vehicle emissions by reducing available roadway capacity. Roadway capacity may be reduced where the LRT operates at -grade on existing roadways or where there are at -grade rail crossings. Motor vehicles emissions may increase if traffic is diverted to alternative routes or is subject to a additional ` delays. The Draft EIS will analyze the change in roadway capacity associated with the proposed LRT line and the resultant changes in traffic volumes, delay times, and operating` speeds. Where the LRT will significantly change existing traffic operations, detailed analyses of carbon monoxide concentrations will be done and presented in the EIS. In the vicinity of LRT stations, traffic attracted to the station will emit pollution and add to existing traffic volumes. If the LRT station -generated traffic causes a significant { change in traffic operations, detailed analyses of carbon monoxide concentrations will be done and presented in the EIS. 24. Stationary Source Air Emissions. Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust stacks)? X Yes No If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the quantities and composition of the emissions atter treatment; and the effects on air quality.' The LRT system will be electrical) } y y powered. 'If additional fuels are burned to generate power for the LRT, additional sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates will be emitted in the vicinity of the power -generating facility. The amount of air i pollutantsemitted by electrical generating faculties to produce the energy needed to power the St. Paul South LRT will be estimated in the Draft EIS. It will not be possible, however, to associate the power required for the LRT system with a specific existing power -plant. It -is -important to point out that the increase in sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions associated with the required electrical power generation will occur outside the Metropolitan area. No new power plants will be 'constructed to accommodate the LRT system. 25. Will the Project Generate Dust, Odors, or Noise During Construction and/or Operation? X Yes No #8439 32 * Trip generation will be based on the best available information, including LRT patronage forecasts, experience of other LRT systems, and/or assumptions on traffic patterns of LRT users. * Directional distribution of traffic will be based on local traffic patterns in the area of each park-and-ride lot. * The analysis will generally be based on existing traffic conditions plus the addition of project -generated traffic. In some cases, increases in traffic because of other sources will be considered, depending on local conditions. Traffic analysis will also be conducted to determine the impact of operating LRT lines in existing street right-of-way. The analysis will include the following: * Impact of the operation of the LRT line, including signal pre-emption, any reduction in street capacity, and any change in ADT which would result. * Ability of the street and parallel streets to carry existing and projected traffic demand. * The need for roadway improvements which would occur as the result of imple- mentation of the LRT line. 0 * Impact on maintenance of parallel roadway. The analysis will be conducted using available traffic counts and forecasts. The Draft EIS will also include an evaluation of pedestrian access at stations and the need for any special pedestrian -related facilities in this corridor. 23. Vehicle -related Air Emissions. Provideanestimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.) a By providing an alternative to the automobile, the proposed LRT line could reduce vehicle travel and resulting vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. The Draft EIS will estimate the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in the corridor with and without the proposed LRT. The change in VMT will be used to estimate the change in vehicle air pollutant emissions. #8439 31 Based on the station area traffic evaluation, stations will be placed into one of the following categories, depending on the level of impact: * * No Significant Traffic Impact: The traffic impacts of the station will be considered insignificant with no further analysis required. Minor Traffic Impacts: The station will be subjected to a brief traffic analysis which will include recom- mendations for provision of access to the station and analysis of any traffic issues which are potentially significant. * Potentially Significant Off -Site Traffic Impacts: A potential impact analysis will be conducted for the station to determine off-site impacts and recommended mitigation measures. The analysis will also include an evaluation of access to the station and analysis of other potentially significant traffic issues. , The level of traffic analysis will depend on the following: * Number of park-and-ride spaces provided ri * Number of feeder buses expected * ` Number of `drop-off users expected * Characteristics of the street system adjacent to the station 3 At the stations where an off-site traffic impact analysis will be conducted, this analysis will determine the following: * Daily and PM peak hour trip generation of the station 1 * Directional distribution of traffic Impact on the local street system, including increase in ADT * Need for roadway improvements to accommodate expected traffic increases Each off-site traffic impact analysis will be conducted using the following assumptions: * The analysis will consider Daily and PM peak hour trips. The need for roadway improvements will be based on PM peak hour conditions. * The study area for the analysis of traffic impacts will be determined based on a recommended Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) practice for the conduct of traffic impact analyses published in the August 1988 ITE Journal. OU39 30 I i 21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous wastes; Storage Tanks a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures, sludges and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source separation plan; list type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling. Portions of the LRT system are expected to generate very minimal solid wastes, such as are gathered in a waste receptacle. These wastes will be collected by maintenance personnel and become part of the normal solid waste stream. Hazardous wastes will not be generated m significant quantities, and there will be no sludges. As compared to earlier electric railway technology, modern LRT systems are engineered to avoid hazardous materials through the use of inert material and air (instead of oil bath) cooling of electrical equipment. Quantities cannot be estimated until the size of the LRT fleet and details of its mechanical and electrical design are specified and a maintenance plan is prepared. Once these parameters are known, appropriate disposal locations will be deter- mined. b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water). Not applicable. 22. Traffic. Parking spaces added 1,000-1,400 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) NA Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated 2,500- 3,000 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: 600 to 1,000 vvh. For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic im- provements which will be necessary. The potential traffic impacts of the St. Paul South Corridor include decreases in daily traffic volumes resulting from a mode shift to LRT, increases in local traffic associated with LRT stations, and potential conflict with traffic movements. These impacts will be addressed in the Draft EIS. A traffic impact evaluation will be conducted for all stations in the corridor and for conflicts with traffic movements. «e439 29 on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the discharge may affect a lake, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.) All wastewater will discharge into municipal sewer systems. C. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements which will be necessary. Existing municipal sewer systems will service the proposed stations. The increase in wastewater flow will be insignificant, and the existing municipal systems have adequate capacity to facilitate the minor increases in flow. Improvements will consist of connecting to the existing sewers and extending a service line to the proposed station. 20. Groundwater - Potential for Contamination a. Approximate depth (in feet) to groundwater: minimum; 50 feet* average. *Source: Geologic Atlas for Dakota County. The Geologic Atlas for Ramsey County has not been completed. Additional analysis regarding the groundwater depths in Ramsey County will be completed during the EIS/preliminary design phase of the project. b. Describe any of the following site hazards to groundwater and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow limestone formations/karst condi- tions; soils with high infiltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. The identified potential site hazards to groundwater will be addressed in the EIS. C. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. There will be no use of toxic or hazardous chemicals in the operation of the LRT system. 08439 28 Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be provided in accordance with the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization's ordinances and additional requirements of the impacted municipalities. 18. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff. It is not expected that the LRT corridor will create a significant increase in the volume of runoff over that experienced from the existing LafayetteFreeway corridor. The LRT corridor will be approximately 30 feet in width and will consist of track and crushed rock ballast. This type of surface will be more pervious than the existing roadway and will limit the amount of runoff from the corridor. At station locations, impervious area will be added to facilitate parking. However, the overall addition of impervious surface will be minor and no signifi- cant impacts are anticipated. Storm water handling considerations will be includ- ed in the design for each station, in cooperation with state and local governing agencies, and the affected Watershed District. b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the runoff may affect a lake, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.) Receiving waters vary from ditches to local storm water pipe systems. The specific receiving waters (including area wetlands) affected by the proposed alignment and station areas will be addressed during the EIS/preliminary design phase of the project. 19. Water Quality - Wastewaters a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the site. Restroom facilities, if any, at station locations will produce normal domestic sewage. b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or if the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiv- ing waters (including groundwater) and estimate the impact of the discharge I W39 27 1.6 ENERGY The EIS will include a preliminary estimate of the annual LRT energy consumption for the St. Paul South LRT system. Detailed electrical power requirements and specific distribution system characteristics will be further refined during the preliminary engineering phase of the project. 1.7 AIIt QUALITY The EIS will address project -related air quality impacts. As presented in Section 1.6, the EIS will estimate the annual energy consumption for the proposed St. Paul South LRT system. The EIS will also estimate the amount of air pollutants emitted by electrical generating facilities to produce the energy needed to power the proposed LRT system. The estimate will be based on the estimated LRT energy requirement and the average pollutant emission rates from NSP power generating facilities in 1986. The EIS will not identify the specific existing power plant(s) which will provide power for the LRT system. The EIS will estimate the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in the corridor with and without the proposed LRT. The change in VMT will be used to estimate the change in vehicle air pollutant emissions. Where LRT operates at -grade and will significantly change traffic operations, the EIS will contain detailed analyses of project impacts on carbon monoxide concentrations. If LRT station -generated traffic causes a significant change in traffic operations, detailed analyses, of carbon monoxide concentrations will be done and presented in the EIS. Dust will be generated during construction of portions of the proposed system. This impact will be temporary, lasting only the duration of construction. Dust generation can be minimized by paving or by promptly replacing vegetative cover after grading, applying dust suppressants and limiting construction operations during periods of high winds. The generation of dust is regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Minnesota Rules Part 7005.0550). Construction dust generation will not ' be analyzed in the EIS. #"s3 1.8 NOISE AND VIBRATION The EIS will estimate light rail vehicle (LRV) noise levels and identify land uses which may experience noise levels exceeding American Public Transit Association (APIA) noise standards and guidelines due to LRT operation. The EIS will identify noise impacts caused by feeder bus operations and LRT station -generated traffic. Noise will be generated by equipment used to construct the LRT system. Noise impacts caused by construction activities will vary depending on the type of equipment in use, the location of the equipment on the construction site, and the operating mode. The EIS will address the construction -related noise impacts. The EIS will estimate LRV ground -borne vibration and identify vibration sensitive land uses which may be impacted by LRV operations. A detailed description of criteria, guidelines, and methodologies for assessment of noise impacts is included in Appendix A. 1.9 TRANSIT SERVICE The impacts of the project on existing and future transit" service in the affected areas of Ramsey and Dakota Counties will be addressed in the EIS. This will include: • Refinement of preliminary feeder .bus system; frequency of buses; required -fleet size; estimated- dtly bus vehicle miles travelled • Impact on existing bus service t • Estimated transit travel times 1.10 TRAFFIC Traffic impacts associated with LRT in the St. Paul South Corridor will be addressed in the EIS. M53 10 i There are four purposes of the St. Paul South LRT Transportation 1 Analysis: r0 Identification/q P Identification/quantification of transportation impacts and benefits of LRT implementation in the St. Paul South LRT Corridor • Desi evaluation of measures to mitigate the identified acts im Design/evaluation P • Provide input in the design/evaluation of LRT facilities and operating scenarios • Provide input to analysis of traffic -related environmental issues Transportation impacts to be considered in the analysis are the direct and I immediate effects of LRT operations adjacent to the alignment and stations as well as those that may occur in other locations. Effects of LRT implementation on the transportation system can be identified/quantified within three analysis areas: i On -Street - at -grade LRT street and railroad crossings d - taking general traffic lanes and consequent reductions in available on -street capacity - closure of streets - vehicular safety - restrictions on certain traffic movements and operations - closure of driveways to parking lots and building access points - emergency vehicle access - reductions in sidewalk width and pedestrian circulation - traffic operational impacts to TH 3 (Lafayette Freeway) and I-494, including impacts to access ramps 08453 11 • Stations feeder bus access to LRT stations, park-and-ride, and drop-off j vehicles 1 - vehicle access to LRT stations, park-and-ride, and drop-off facilities - pedestrian circulation, accessibility, and safety - reduction in available sidewalk widths - location of crosswalks and other pedestrian amenities/aids • Traffic- Diversions - reduction in St. Paul South LRT Corridor traffic volume due to bus/LRT mode split - rerouting of traffic volume adjacent to the alignment that cannot be accommodated by available capacity and permitted traffic movements and operations - reduction in available on -street capacity and land use accessibility along streets where traffic will be rerouted 1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES The St. Paul South LRT alignment could potentially impact three structures already considered significant by the Saint Paul Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). These buildings are located at 634 South Woodbury Street, 306 East Baker Street, and 555 East Concord. These structures will need additional study to determine if they are eligible for listing, then mitigation measures may be required to prevent, reduce or compensate for the impacts. In addition to the known cultural resources, there is a possibility for the existence of previously undetected archaeological, architectural, and historical resources. A reconnaissance survey will need to be conducted within the study corridor to identify and locate these areas. If warranted, further investigation for previously undetected and/or unrecorded cultural resources will be recommended. 08453 12 The cultural resources identification program will be conducted and reviewed according to the guidelines set forth by the National Historic Preservation Act and the Procedure of the National Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (36 CGR 800). 1.12 PARKLANDS The EIS will address potential impacts of the project on . public park and recreation areas, such as required park acquisition, access, user safety, visual and noise impacts and projected adjacent development.., 1.13 VISUAL The EIS will include an analysis of visual and aesthetic impacts to the existing environment resulting from LRT implementation in the St. Paul South Corridor. The impacts will be addressed in terms of the relative sensitivity of surrounding land uses and the visibility of the roadbed, catenary wires, and LRT vehicles from adjacent publicly accessible areas such as sidewalks or parklands. 1.14 FINANCIAL IMPACTS The EIS will address the financial impacts of constructing (capital costs), maintaining and operating the proposed St. Paul South LRT Corridor. 1.15 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, EMPLOYMENT, AND SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT The EIS will, address: • Economic impacts of LRT • Pedestrian and transit user safety • Impacts on low -to -moderate income, and transit dependent residents • Impacts on access to community facilities and services • Impacts to neighborhood boundaries • The estimated number of construction and permanent jobs #8453 13 • Potential relocations/displacements • Coordination of development and land use planning with LRT 1.16 UTILITIES Utility structures which could be impacted by the proposed St. Paul South LRT system will be addressed in the EIS. Each utility owner within the study area will be contacted to determine the scope of their facilities and potential impacts and treatments required to accommodate the proposed LRT system. 1.17 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS Forecasts of Year 2010 LRT ridership will be prepared. The forecast will use the ridership forecasting model developed for the region in the Hennepin County LRT Preliminary En eineering Study. The forecasts developed by the Metropolitan Council will produce estimates of average weekday ridership, peak hour maximum load point volume, peak hour forecasts, access mode, and station parking demand. 2.0 EIS SCHEDULE The following are anticipated completion dates for the various tasks and phases of the EIS process. Work Task Approximate Date DCRRA Approves EAW August 6, 1991 RCRRA Approves EAW August 13, 1991 EAW Available to EQB August 12, 1991 EAW Notice Published in EOB Monitor August 19, 1991 Scoping Meeting September 19, 1991 Scoping Period Ends October 2, 1991 DCRRA/RCRRA Approves Scoping Decision October 22, 1991 Scoping Decision Distributed to EQB October 28, 1991 Scoping Decision/EIS Preparation November 11, 1991 Notice Published in EOB Monitor DCRRA/RCRRA Begin Preparation of EIS January 1992 ii DCRRA/RCRRA Approves DEIS/ June 1993 DEIS Distributed DEIS Submitted to EQB June 1993 DEIS Notice Published in EOB Monitor June 1993 Public information Meeting July 1993 NUS3 15 Work Task Approximate Date FEIS Notice Published in EOB Monitor December 1993 DCRRA/RCRRA Makes Adequacy Decision/ January 1994 Adequacy Decision Distributed Adequacy Decision Notice Published January 1994 in EOB Monitor 1� The required public hearings and meetings on the Preliminary Design (10% level of engineering) will be completed as required by state legislation. The hearings will be held after the DEIS public hearings. 6 #8453 16 3.0 REQUIRED GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS A number of permits will be required as part of the LRT project approval process. These permits include or may include the following: LEVEL OF TYPE OF GOVERNMENT APPLICATION STATUS FEDERAL: U.S. Army Corps Section 10, Section 404 Need to be dee mined of Engineers Permits for Dredge and Fill Activities within Wetlands x8453 17 Approval of Mississippi To be submitted River LRT Bridge Design Federal Highway Preliminary Design Approval To be submitted Administration Final Design Approval To be submitted United States Approval of Mississippi To be submitted Coast Guard River LRT Bridge Design National Park Review of Plans for To be submitted Service Consistency with National River and Recreation Area STATE: MN Department of Groundwater Appropriations Meed to be determined Natural Resources Permit Work in Protected Waters Need to be determined Permit MN Pollution Indirect Source Permit Need to be determined Control Agency NPDES Permit Need to be determined x8453 17 LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS MN Pollution Review/Approval of Existing Need to be detennined Control Agency Contaminated Soil Mitigation Measures Minnesota Public Permit to Operate a Need 10 be detennined Service Commission Transit System Minnesota Department Preliminary Design Approval To be submitted of Transportation for segments within Mn/DOT ROW Final Design Approval To be submitted for segments within Mn/DOT ROW Permit to Use/Access a To be submitted Trunk Highway State Historic Review of Archaeological To be determined Preservation Officer Mitigation (SHPO) State Archaeologists Review of Archaeological To be determined Mitigation REGIONAL: Regional Transit Board Preliminary Design Plans To be submitted (Review/Comment/ Recommend Modifications) Final Design Approval To be submitted Metropolitan Council Preliminary Design Plans To be submitted Final Design Plans (Review for Consistency with Development Guide) Dakota County Regional Preliminary Design Approval To be submitted Railroad Authority Final Design Approval To be submitted Dakota County Board Preliminary Design Approval To be submitted of Commissioners Final Design Approval To be submitted #8453. 18 i l i LEVEL OF TYPE OF GOVERNMENT APPLICATION STATUS Ramsey County Regional Preliminary Design Approval To be submitted Railroad Authority Final Design Approval To submitted Ramsey County Board Preliminary Design Approval To be submitted of Commissioners Final Design Approval To be submitted Lower Mississippi Varies To be determined Watershed Management Organization Dakota County Soil and Review of Erosion and To be determined Water Conservation District Sediment Control Measures Ramsey County Soil and Review of Erosion and To be determined Water Conservation District Sediment Control Measures LOCAL: The Physical Design component of the Preliminary Design Plans and. Final Design Plans will require approval from the following cities: St. Paul West St. Paul South St. Paul Inver Grove Heights • Any and all permits associated with zoning, platting, subdivision, site plan, and building processes where and if applicable. • Review by the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission regarding impacts to archaeological sites, historic districts and properties. • Additional wetland permits may be required after January 1992 by the Board of Water and Soil Resources or the local governmental units, as a result of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. The information for these permits will be collected at appropriate times j during the course of project development. Appropriate permit application 1 forms will be filed as required. #8453 19 4.0 CONCURRENT PERMIT APPLICATION AND DATA COLLECTION An Indirect Source permit may be required for each park-and-ride facility which provides more than 1,000 parking spaces. It is not expected that any park-and-ride facilities will exceed 1,000 spaces; however, this determination will be made during the preliminary design/EIS phase of the project. A majority of the data required for the submittal of an Indirect Source permit, as required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, will be collected during the EIS process. All data collected for the Indirect Source Permit will either be made part of the EIS text or will appear as a table or text in the EIS appendix. - p The EIS will also address the need for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. M53 20 50 ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED IN THE EIS The St. Paul South LRT Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement will assess the impacts of two alternatives. ALTERNATIVE 1: BUILD THE ST. PAUL SOUTH LRT ROUTE AS SHOWN IN FIGURE 1.0 The proposed St. Paul South LRT line would be an extension of the LRT line proposed in the Midway Corridor, connecting downtown Minneapolis and downtown Saint Paul. The Midway Corridor LRT line will end on 4th Street at Wacouta (Figure 2.0). There are two alignment options for connecting with the downtown Saint Paul alignment and crossing the Mississippi River. b Option A: Wall/State Street Alignment Under this alignment option, the LRT continues from Wacouta to Wall Street, where it turns south and crosses the Mississippi River on a newly constructed bridge approximately 600 feet upstream from the existing Lafayette Freeway bridge. The proposed bridge would begin north of Kellogg Boulevard, bridge over Kellogg Boulevard and the existing parking deck by the Post Office, over the railroad tracks south of the Post Office parking deck and the Mississippi River. The bridge would continue over Fillmore Avenue on the south side of the river and end on State Street north of Plato Boulevard. From State Street the LRT alignment follows Eaton Street to the Lafayette Freeway. Option B: Lafayette Freeway Alignment Under this alignment option, the LRT continues on 4th Street to Broadway, bends south around the southwest corner of the Gillette Building onto Prince Street and follows Prince Street to the Lafayette Freeway. Under this option, a new bridge to accommodate the LRT would be constructed immediately adjacent to either the east or west side of the Lafayette Freeway bridge. M8653 21 South of Eaton Street, the LRT alignment would be constructed in the east or west side slope of the existing freeway. The LRT track would be separated from the highway -traffic lanes with a raised jersey median barrier.At interchanges the LRT line would follow the exit ramp to the intersecting cross -street where it would cross the intersecting roadway at -grade. LRT stations are proposed at: • Plato Boulevard • Concord Street • Butler Avenue • Thompson or Wentworth Avenue • Southview Boulevard • Upper 55th Street ALTERNATIVE 2: NO -BUILD. The No -Build alternative assumes that the proposed St. Paul South LRT line, in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, is not constructed. Transit service would be provided by the existing bus transit system plus any bus system improvements planned by the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), which are consistent with the Regional Transit Board's Guidelines for Year 2010 bus service. M8453 22 6.0_ BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION AND STUDIES Some new research and data collection will be conducted to refine ridership estimates. Also, Traffic Impact Studies will be conducted where appropriate. Some additional data collection may be required to complete the Air Quality analysis and an Indirect Source Permit application. Background CO concentrations and noise levels will need to be monitored in the study area. The data will be analyzed in accordance with standardized and approved predictive modeling, using the CALINE3 and MOBILE2 computer models. Noise impacts will be predicted using the STAMINA 1.0 computer model. Some additional data collection, including field investigations, will be required for completion of the Wetlands/Vegetation and Wildlife Section, existing Land Use, Soil Contamination Sites, and Historic/Cultural Resources. Other studies related to the completion of the EIS are not expected to require the collection of new data, but rather, an examination and analysis of existing data. #8453 23 r 7.0 IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF INDIRECT EFFECTS All expected or potential direct and indirect effects of the LRT project have been listed under Section 1.0: EIS Scope. #U53 24 j NOISE GUIDELINES, CRITERIA, AND METHODOLOGIES NOISE Noise generated during the operation of the proposed LRT system would be from the following sources. o 'Light rail vehicles o Feeder -buses o Station -related automobile traffic The remainder of this section documents methodologies which will be used to identify future noise levels and noise standards, guidelines and criteria which will be used to evaluate noise impacts. Existing Environment The existing noise environment adjacent to the proposed rail lines and station sites will be characterized through noise monitoring. Noise monitoring sites selected will represent the most noise sensitive uses proximate to the rail corridors and proposed station sites. Noise Impact Measurement Generally, a proposed development would create the potential for a significant noise impact when one or both of the following conditions are met. o Predicted noise levels exceed state or federal one-hour noise standards o Noise associated with the proposed development causes a three decibel increase in predicted one-hour no -build noise levels _ These criteria will be used in evaluating the potential for impacts from feeder -buses and from automobile traffic associated with the proposed system. The federal noise abatement criteria and state noise standards are documented in Tables 1 and 2. LRV noise, because of the relatively short single -point passby duration and the low number of passbys per hour would not noticeably affect the predicted one-hour noise levels. Therefore, evaluation of the potential for impacts based on the State Noise Standards or Federal Abatement criteria is not appropriate. LRV noise impacts will be evaluated by comparing average maximum passby noise levels (Lmax) to American Public Transit Association (APIA) Lmax Guidelines. The Lmax noise level is the average maximum noise level associated with an LRT passby. 3 M8439A TABLE 1 FEDERAL NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA Hourly A -Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA) 1/ Activity Category Leo(h) L10(h) Description of Activity Category A 57 60 Lands on which serenity and quiet (Exterior) (Exterior) are of extraordinary significance and serve 70 65 an important public need and where the 65 Industrial preservation of those qualities is essential if 75 80 the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 70 Picnic areas, recreation areas, (Exterior) (Exterior) playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 75 Developed lands, properties, or (Exterior) (Exterior) activities not included in Categories A or B above. D _• -- Undeveloped lands. E 52 55 Residences, motels, hotels, public (Interior) (Interior) meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. 1Either 1,10(h) or Leq(h) (but not both) may be used on a project Source: FHPM 7-7-3, 23 CFR 772, "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise," FHWA, July 1982. • TABLE 2 STATE NOISE STANDARDS Minnesota State Noise Standards (dBA) Daytime Nighttime (7:00 AM - 10:00 PM) (10:00 PM - 7:00 AM) L10* L50* L10* L50* Residential 65 60 55 50 Commercial 70 65 70 65 Industrial 80 75 80 75 * Sound levels for a one-hour survey. Source: Minnesota Rules Chapter 7010.0400. Statutory Authority Minnesota Statutes Section 116.07 Subdivisions 2, 4. .sown 1 APIA Lmax noise level guidelines, documented in Table 3, are set at levels which would likely be acceptable to communities potentially affected by the additional transient noise. In addition to establishing Lmax passby noise levels for general land use categories, the APTA has established Lmax guidelines for a number of more sensitive building uses. These guidelines are shown in Table 4. Impact Quantification Methodology The potential for significant noise impacts from the sources listed above will be -quantified using the methodologies described in the following sections. LRV Noise LRV noise impacts on surrounding developments will .be quantified using the following general methodology: o Lmax LRV noise emission rates over the assumed range of operating speeds for the system will be established Lmax noise emission rates developed for the Hennepin County Light Rail Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement are also applicable for use in Ramsey and Dakota Counties. Surveys of other operating systems or additional noise monitoring may be completed. For the Hennepin County system, noise emission rates from systems in Portland, Sacramento, San Diego and Baltimore were used in establishing best -case and worst-case noise emission levels. o The general land use of the area surrounding the proposed rail corridors will be determined. The appropriate APTA guideline which would be applicable along various segments of the line is dependent on the use of the land. o The setback distance to receiver sites adjacent to the rail corridors will be determined. o Based on the emission rates, applicable APTA guidelines and the setback distance to adjacent receiver sites, the number of residential, commercial, industrial and public uses which would fall within the appropriate Lmax contour will be identified. Traffic and Bus Noise i Vehicle traffic and bus traffic noise impacts will be quantified using methodologies documented in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway traffic Noise Prediction Model (Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-RD-77-108, Washington, j #8439A TABLE 3 GUIDELINES FOR MAXIMUM AIRBORNE NOISE FROM TRAIN OPERATIONS Single Event Maximum Noise Level Design Goal Community Area Single -Family Multi -Family Commercial Category Dwellings Dwellings Buildings I Low Density 70 dBA 75 dBA 80 dBA Residential II Average Residential 75 75 80 III High Density 75 80 85 Residential IV Commercial 80 80 85 V Industrial/liighway 80 85 85 Source: 1981 Guidelines for Design of Rapid Transit Facilities, American Public Transit Asociation, Washington, DC, 1981 TABLE 4 GUIDELINES FOR MAXIMUM AIRBORNE NOISE FROM TRAIN OPERATIONS x Building or Single Event Maximum Noise Occupancy Type Level Design Goal Amphitheatres 60 dBA "Quiet" Outdoor Recreation Areas 65 dBA Concert Halls, Radio and TV Studios, 70 dBA Auditoriums Churches, Theatres, Schools, Hospitals, 75 dBA Museums, Libraries Source: 1981 Guidelines for Design of Rapid Transit Facilities American Public Transit Association, Washington, DC, 1981 0843913 DC, 1978). The model estimates traffic noise levels at adjacent receivers from roadway sources based on: o Peak hour background and site -generated traffic levels o Mixture of heavy trucks, medium trucks and cars in the vehicle stream. Transit buses generated by the proposed facility are assumed to have noise emission levels comparable to medium trucks o National average vehicle noise emission levels o Vehicle -operating speeds representative of existing or forecast operating conditions o The distance from the roadway source and receiver site Using this methodology, predicted noise levels for the build and no -build condition will be calculated. Based on a comparison of the build condition noise levels to no -build levels and a comparison of the predicted noise levels to the federal and state noise standards, the potential for a significant impact will be determined. VIBRATION e The proposed LRT system has the potential to create ground- borne vibration impacts on development adjacent to the corridors. The effects of LRT ground -borne vibration are generally perceived in two forms: o Vertical floor vibration o Rumbling noise within adjacent buildings which is caused by resonance through the building structure Adjacent to at -grade sections, vertical vibration of interior floors is the dominant effect. In contrast, adjacent to rail tunnel sections, the rumbling of ground -borne noise is more dominant. Guideline levels for evaluating the potential for a significant impact have been established for each of these vibration effects. Vibration Impact Criteria American Public Transit Association (APIA) guidelines apply to ground -borne noise from train operations. Criteria for acceptable levels of interior floor vibration have also been established. These guidelines are not intended for design of a system that is imperceptible, but rather a system which would emit vibration levels sufficiently low so that no significant intrusion or annoyance would occur (San_ Diego East Urban Corridor Alternatives N8439A s Analysis/Environmental Impact Statement Technical Report: Noise and Vibration Wilson Ihris, and Associates April 1984). The established guidelines for LRT ground -borne noise and criteria for vibration are documented in Tables 5 and 6. o Identification of surrounding land uses and applicable vibration guidelines. Included in the land use inventory process would be identification of specific vibration sensitive uses. Type of uses identified are described in Table 7. o An evaluation of vibration analyses completed for other LRT systems relative to the proposed St. Paul South LRT corridor. The potential impact area is highly dependent on the propagation rate of the geological strata between the rail source and the adjacent receiver sites. Evaluation of the strata will be completed as part of the preliminary engineering and system design phases of project planning. As with LRT -generated air -borne noise, supplemental maximum ground -borne noise and vibration guidelines for a number of specific vibration sensitive non-residential uses have been established. The average maximum LRT pass -by vibration criteria for these sensitive uses are documented in Table 7. The threshold for perception of vibration resulting from an LRT passby varies based on the frequency of the shock wave. The degree of perception of LRT generated ground -borne vibration, by frequency band, is displayed in Figure 3. The figure shows that if predicted levels of ground -borne vibration from the proposed LRT system do not exceed approximately 72 dB over most frequency bands, re: 1.0 micro inch per second, the level would be barely perceptible. In addition, if the predicted vibration level falls below 67 dB over most of the frequency bands, ground -borne vibration from the proposed LRT would likely be imperceptible. Vibration Impact Analysis As part of the EIS process, the following vibration impacts analyses will be completed: o Identification of rail vibration emission levels o Identification of surrounding land uses and applicable vibration guidelines. Included in the land use inventory process would be identification of specific vibration sensitive uses. Type of uses identified are described in Table 7. o An evaluation of vibration analyses completed for other LRT systems relative to the proposed St. Paul South LRT Corridor. 08439A TABLE 5 APIA GUIDELINES FOR MAXIMUM GROUND -BORNE NOISE FROM TRAIN OPERATIONS Source: 1981 Guidelines for Design of Rapid Transit Facilities, APIA, Washington, DC, 1981 TABLE 6 CRITERIA FOR MAXIMUM GROUND -BORNE VIBRATION FROM TRAIN OPERATIONS Community Maximum Single Event Vibration Velocity (dB) Area Single -Family Multi -Family Category Dwelling Dwelling Hotel/Motel Low -Density 70 dB 70 dB 70 dB Residential Average 70 dB 70 dB 75 dB Residential High -Density 70 dB 75 dB 75 dB Residential Commercial 70 dB 75 dB 75 dB Industrial/Highway 75 dB 75 dB 75 dB Note: Criteria apply to vertical vibration of floor surfaces within the buildings. Vertical vibration RE: 1.0 micro inch per second. Source: Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, Inc., Technical—Memorandum, Acoustical Study Guadalupe Corridor, 1983. A8439T5 Maximum Single Event Ground - Community borne Noise Level Design Goal Area Single -Family Multi -Family Hotel/Motel Category Dwellings Dwellings Buildings I Low Density Residential 30 dBA 35 dBA 40 dBA H Average Residential 35 40 45 III High Density Residential 35 40 45 IV Commercial 40 45 50 V Industrial/Highway 40 45 55 Source: 1981 Guidelines for Design of Rapid Transit Facilities, APIA, Washington, DC, 1981 TABLE 6 CRITERIA FOR MAXIMUM GROUND -BORNE VIBRATION FROM TRAIN OPERATIONS Community Maximum Single Event Vibration Velocity (dB) Area Single -Family Multi -Family Category Dwelling Dwelling Hotel/Motel Low -Density 70 dB 70 dB 70 dB Residential Average 70 dB 70 dB 75 dB Residential High -Density 70 dB 75 dB 75 dB Residential Commercial 70 dB 75 dB 75 dB Industrial/Highway 75 dB 75 dB 75 dB Note: Criteria apply to vertical vibration of floor surfaces within the buildings. Vertical vibration RE: 1.0 micro inch per second. Source: Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, Inc., Technical—Memorandum, Acoustical Study Guadalupe Corridor, 1983. A8439T5 90 r� 30 20 ..................... ........... _.......... ...................... ........................ 7 ....... ............... . Distinctly Perceptible ......... ......... .... .........f... .... ....... ...... .. •. ... .... ........ B:#rely—perce Aible....... ;...................... ........... :.......... :............................................. ........ Usually Imperceptible 4 8 16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 Octave Band Center Frequency - Hz Vertical Vibration RE: 1 Micro Inch Per Second Sounw. San Diego Ent Urban Go"Wor Alternatives Analysis FIS Technical Report: Noise 4 Vibration, 1984. Figure 3 Level of Perception of Normalized Ground Surface Vibration at 50 feet TABLE 7 SPECIFIC BUILDING USE MAXIMUM GROUND -BORNE VIBRATION CRITERIA FROM TRAIN OPERATIONS OU3977 Maximum Maximum Single Event Single Event Vibration Ground -Borne Tvoe of Building or Room Velocity (0) Noise LevelABA) Concert Hall/ TV Studio 65 25 Auditorium/Music Room 70 30 Church/Theater 70 35 Hospital Sleeping Room 75 35-40 Courtrooms 75 35 Schools/Library 75 40 University Building 75-80 35-40 Office 75-80 35.45 Commercial/Industrial 75-85 35-45 Vibration Sensitive Research Laboratory 60-70 -- Note: Criteria apply to vertical vibration of floor surfaces within the buildings. Vertical vibration RE: 1.0 micro inch per second. OU3977