1. education
2. homework and study tips

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting
Thursday, June 11, 2015; 9:00- 10:30 AM
Veterans Gallery, Union Depot*
214 E. Fourth Street, Saint Paul
AGENDA
Discussion Leader Item
Action Requested
Chair Rafael Ortega
1. Welcome and Introductions
Chair Rafael Ortega
2. Approval of the Agenda
Approval
Chair Rafael Ortega
3. Approval of the May 14, 2015 PAC Meeting
Summary
Approval
April Manlapaz
4. Corridor Vision: Draft Purpose and Need, Goals
and Objectives
a. May 14th PAC Meeting Follow-Up
b. TAC Comments
c. Release for Public Comment
Information
Information
Approval
5. Draft Universe of Alternatives
a. May 14th Meeting Follow-up
b. TAC Comments
c. Release for Public Comment
Information
Information
Approval
6. Update: Public Engagement Activities
a. Draft Public Engagement Summary
b. Educational Video
c. Round 2 of Open Houses
d. Update of Recent Activities
Approval
Approval
Approval
Information
Chair Rafael Ortega
7. Public Comment
Information
April Manlapaz
8. Next Steps
Information
April Manlapaz
9. Future Meetings
a. Next PAC meeting scheduled August 13, 2015
Information
April Manlapaz
Joy Miciano
*The Veterans Gallery is located on the second floor. It can be reached from Elevator #6.
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting Summary – 14 May 2015
Participants
See attached sign-in for attendees.
Summary
Meeting handouts included:






1.
Agenda
PowerPoint Presentation
April 9, 2015 PAC Meeting Summary
Draft Purpose and Need Statements and Supporting Data and Figures
Draft Level of Effort for Additional Public Engagement Activities
List of Public Engagement Activities
Welcome and Introductions
Chair Rafael Ortega convened the meeting at 9:04 a.m. and led introductions.
2.
Approval of the Agenda
The PAC approved the agenda with Matt Kramer making the motion, seconded by Pat Mancini.
3.
Approval of the 9 April 2015 PAC Meeting Summary
The PAC approved the meeting summary with Councilmember Tolbert making the motion, seconded by
1
Scott McBride.
4.
Request for Additional Public Engagement Activities
This item is a continuation of the PAC’s April 2015 meeting, where it requested additional scope, budget
and schedule details. Following is a summary of the ensuing discussion:

Would the additional public engagement focus on subsequent rounds of the open houses? Yes,
it would, along with outreach to Bloomington, Minneapolis, MSP Airport, and technical work
associated with this additional effort. April Manlapaz of the AECOM Team indicated that outreach
activities typically increase in the warmer months, when engagement tools such as walking tours
are more practical to conduct.

What additional information would be available in the next few months to justify conducting
additional public engagement activities? April Manlapaz advised that the Study Team expects to
have the preliminary results of the evaluation of initial alternatives. The outcome of this screening
will identify the detailed alternatives that the Study will analyze and develop information such as
service plan, station locations, cost and ridership.
In June/July timeframe, when the Study Team anticipates conducting the second round of open
houses, the public would have the opportunity to comment on the draft ‘universe’ of alignments
1
NB: The PAC approved this item near the end of the meeting.
1
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
and transit modes as well as the draft Purpose and Need and Goals and Objectives. Further, the
Study Team will discuss this draft information with the TAC and revise accordingly, before
presenting it to the PAC for approval. Specifically, the PAC’s approval at this juncture is to
release this as draft information, for purposes of garnering public input.

Scott McBride commented that the PAC faces a common challenge with respect to public
engagement and major transit projects, i.e. identifying an appropriate level of effort to reach as
large a constituency as possible. Effective engagement helps define a successful project.
The PAC approved the scope, schedule and budget for additional public engagement activities, with Matt
Kramer making the motion, seconded by Peter Wagenius.
5.
2
3
Corridor Vision: Draft Purpose and Need Statements

Regarding the comparison of the 2000 MIS and the ongoing Riverview Study, what are the
differences in the study areas? The 2000 Study did not include all of the Mall of America and
2
Bloomington South Loop area, the Ford site, and the East Side of Saint Paul (currently being
studies as part of the Rush Line Corridor).

The Riverview Corridor’s Purpose and Need are also part of the environmental review process.

How has the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) changed in the Twin Cities region? With the
opening of the Blue Line, we have seen an increase in the transit share of all trips, but overall,
3
VMT has been flat.

The amount of through traffic on W. 7 Street impacts businesses. Will the Study look at traffic
changes associated with each alternative? Yes; for example, during the initial screening – where
we will have numerous alternatives – the Study Team expects this analysis as a qualitative
assessment.

Is there a significant ridership market between the Riverview Corridor and Dakota County, similar
to what the Blue Line has experienced? The Study Team will look into this and report back.

Of the 23,300 new transit trips in the Riverview Corridor in 2040, how many are on the Route 54?
The Study Team will look into this and report back.

Of the number of zero-car households in the corridor, how many are attributed to senior citizens?
The Study Team will look into this and report back.

Compare the Riverview Corridor’s number/percentage of zero-car households to the Green and
Blue Lines. The Study Team will look into this and report back.

Clarify definition of poverty level, e.g. for a family of four. The Study Team will look into this and
report back.

Areas of Concentrated Poverty: Is there more recent data than 2007-2011 from the Census
Bureau? Heidi Schallberg from the Metropolitan Council advised that she will look into the
availability of more recent data from the American Community Survey.
th
Clarified by the Study Team as part of this summary.
Confirmed by the Study Team as part of this summary
(http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/reports/traffic%20volume/2011_VMT_Report.pdf).
2
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study

A transit line must not only be efficient and functional, but visually pleasing as well. This will
affect those who come to visit and how they view the region. Draft Goals #3 and 4 address this
point.

Define “transit supportive communities.” The Study Team will report back.

Include ‘businesses’ in draft Goal #3 statement.

Clarify schedule for PAC to review and comment on the draft Purpose and Need and Goals and
Objectives. April reviewed the working, high-level study schedule, and advised that the Purpose
and Need and Goals and Objectives as they stand are still a draft. The Study Team expects to
discuss this information further at next month’s meeting, when it sends the full draft report to the
PAC. The PAC will need to approve the draft document before it is shared with the public at the
next round of open houses. Chair Ortega advised that as the PAC deems necessary, we would
delay the release of the draft to the public and the conduct of the second round of open houses.
Mike Rogers stated that the best time for PAC members to comment would be in the next couple
of weeks via email or at the June PAC meeting. He also reiterated that there will be a great deal
of opportunities for review. The document will start with the Project Management Team and
move on to the TAC, followed by the PAC, where it will approved and then available for public
comment. The document could be finalized by the end of the summer.
Tim Mayasich requested that the process and next steps for review of the Purpose and Need and
Goals be sent out to PAC members. Pat Mancini requested that dates be included.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) looks at the Purpose and Need and Goals and
Objectives of a project seeking federal funding. The problems and proposed solution both stem
from the Purpose and Need Statements.

Are there are specific things that the FTA wants to see with respect to the current draft of the
Purpose and Need and Goals? Commissioner McLaughlin explained that FTA recently changed
the project justification criteria, and suggested providing a summary of the criteria to the PAC,
including how each statement would relate to specific FTA criteria.

Peter Wagenius commented that the definitions of some of the FTA criteria have also improved,
specifically, FTA counts existing ridership and transit-dependent ridership has twice the weight.

Commissioner McLaughlin commented that although public engagement is important, it is also
important to strategize for funding. He stressed that the best way to do this is to match the
Purpose and Need and Goals and Objectives to the federal criteria.

Chair Ortega requested that the Purpose and Need Statements and Goals be reiterated so that
the PAC keeps them in mind when making decisions. He also emphasized that PAC members
need to be brought up to speed on the FTA criteria repeatedly.
Chair Ortega requested that responses/follow-up to the PAC’s questions be sent to the entire PAC. The
Study Team will do so as a memorandum.
6.
Preliminary Draft Universe of Alignments and Potential Transit Modes

Add a footnote on the draft map to cite references.
3
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study

The public may need clarifications on the different types of buses/bus services.

Include/mention sub-surface alignments on the draft map. Although they may fall out of the initial
screening, the public would appreciate seeing them.

Peter Wagenius stated that the study area boundaries needs to extend beyond the alignments to
th
show additional ridership concentration. Currently, the map does not include 46 Street in
Minneapolis. Mike said that the team will look at the Minneapolis travel shed.

Chair Ortega asked when the downtown alignments will be known; they would have implications
to the rest of the corridor. April advised that the Study Team expected to have this information
later this summer.

Commissioner McLaughlin commented that two important factors in this project will be the river
crossing and getting into/out of downtown.
7.
Update on Public Engagement Activities
Joy Miciano provided an update on public engagement activities.

The Public Engagement Summary: The Corridor Vision will be ready for review next month and
outlines all the engagement activities from August 2014 to February 2015.

The Public Engagement Advisory Panels for the Riverview Corridor and Rush Line Corridor held
a joint meeting, where the consensus was to make the activities fun and help attract people who
are not typically involved in the process.

The educational video is in the process of review; it is being edited for brevity.

A second round of open houses are being planned and anticipated to be held in late June.
8.
Public Comment
th
Ed Heimel, a W. 7 Street area resident, made the following comments:
9.

Given the difficulty of making projections, is the Study Team preparing a range of population and
employment forecasts?

Present information in a manner that the public will understand, e.g. the number of trips on an
average weekday; clarify frequency of service, cost for potential transit modes.

Regarding the additional public engagement activities: The number of staff hours spent may be a
better measure than cost.
Additional Comments
The PAC noted that the current state legislative session leaves long-term funding for transit with
uncertainties. The Southwest LRT project is working to bring down its recently projected increased costs.
This has implications for other corridors in the region, including Riverview.
10.
Future Meetings
Chair Ortega thanked everyone for attending and announced the next PAC meeting is scheduled on June
11, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., at the Veterans Gallery of the Union Depot.
Meeting adjourned at 10:43 a.m.
4
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting - 14 May 2015
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Initial
Title
Deputy Mayor
Councilmember
Councilmember
Commissioner
President
Legislative Aide
Owner, Mancini's Char House
Metro District Engineer
Commissioner - District 4
Commissioner
Citizen
Councilmember - Ward 2
Councilmember - Ward 3
Policy Director
Representing
City of Saint Paul
City of Bloomington
Metropolitan Council
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce
Councilmember Thune - Ward 2
Riverview Corridor Business Representative
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority
Riverview Corridor Citizen Representative
City of Saint Paul
City of Saint Paul
City of Minneapolis
X
Staff and Consultants
Tim
Mayasich
Mike
Rogers
Kevin
Roggenbuck
April
Manlapaz
Angie
Christo
Joy
Miciano
Cristina
Diaz
Ted
Davis
Mike
Zipko
Director
Project Manager
Deputy Project Manager
Project Manager
Task Lead
Public Engagement
Public Engagement
Strategic Communication
Strategic Communication
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority
AECOM Team
AECOM Team
AECOM Team
AECOM Team
Davis Communications Team
Davis Communications Team
X
X
X
X
X
Other Attendees
Pat
Joseph
Heidi
Jane
Ed
Project Manager
Planning Analyst
Planner
Journalist
Citizen
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Hennepin County
Metropolitan Council
Highland Villager
W. 7th Street Area
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
First Name
Kristin
Tim
John
Pat
Matt
Pat
Pat
Scott
Peter
Rafael
Laurel
David
Chris
Peter
Surname
Beckman
Busse
Commers
Harris
Kramer
Lindgren
Mancini
McBride
McLaughlin
Ortega
Severson
Thune
Tolbert
Wagenius
Mosites
Scala
Schallberg
McClure
Hiemel
Contact Information
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project
Development Study
Policy Advisory Committee
June 11, 2015
Work in progress; subject to change
1
Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Welcome and Introductions
Approval of the Agenda
Approval of the May 14, 2015 PAC Meeting Summary
Corridor Vision: Draft Purpose and Need, Goals and
Objectives
Draft Universe of Alternatives
Update on Public Engagement Activities
Public Comment
Next Steps
Future Meetings
Work in progress; subject to change
2
4. Corridor Vision
DRAFT PURPOSE & NEED,
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
3
4. Clarifications from May 2015 Meeting
What is the difference between the Riverview Corridor
Study areas in 2000 and today?
•
2000 MIS included part of the Saint Paul, northeast of
downtown Saint Paul
•
Current Study includes part of West Saint Paul; Saint
Paul between Fairview Ave and the Mississippi River;
Bloomington bounded to the west by Chicago Ave/12th
Ave
Work in progress; subject to change
4
4. Clarifications from May 2015 Meeting
How has the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
changed in the Twin Cities region?
Work in progress; subject to change
5
4. Clarifications from May 2015 Meeting
Comparison of ridership between Riverview Corridor and
Dakota County
Riverview Corridor Transit Trips to/from Dakota County
Year
2010
Total Transit Trips To/From
Dakota County
3,670
2040 forecast
6,580
Riverview Corridor
Total Transit Trips
33,700
57,100
% To/From
Dakota County
10.9%
11.5%
Blue Line Ridership to/from Dakota County*
Year
2010
2040 forecast*
Total Trips to/From
Dakota County
3,470
3,760
Blue Line Total
25,520
51,350
% To/From
Dakota County
13.6%
7.3%
Source: Metropolitan Council.
*2040 Blue Line ridership forecast includes Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT).
Work in progress; subject to change
6
4. Clarifications from May 2015 Meeting
How does the number of zero-car households along the
Blue and Green Lines compare to those along the
Riverview Corridor?
Geography
Riverview Corridor
Transitway Comparison
METRO Blue Line1
METRO Green Line2
Total Households
24,900
Zero-Car
Households
4,100
Percent Zero-Car
Households
16%
25,900
33,200
6,600
9,200
25%
28%
1Hiawatha
2Central
light rail transit (LRT). Figures shown are within one-half mile of the line, consistent with FTA definition.
Corridor LRT. Figures shown are within one-half mile of the line, consistent with FTA definition.
Work in progress; subject to change
7
4. Clarifications from May 2015 Meeting
Of the estimated 23,300 new transit trips in the Riverview
Corridor in 2040, what number would be associated with
the Route 54?
Approximately 2,800 trips
Work in progress; subject to change
8
4. Clarifications from May 2015 Meeting
How is population in poverty defined?
Census Bureau: Poverty thresholds vary by family size and number of
children (under 18). They do not vary by geography.
Metropolitan Council: Family income is at or below 185% of the federal
poverty threshold. The Council chose a higher ratio to reflect the region’s
economic conditions, i.e. relatively high median income.
Poverty Thresholds for 2013 (Example)
Size of family unit
One person (unrelated individual)
Two people
Three people
Four people
Federal Poverty
Threshold
$
$
$
$
11,888
15,142
18,552
23,834
Metropolitan
Council Threshold
(1.85 x Federal)
$
$
$
$
21,993
28,013
34,321
44,093
Sources: Census Bureau, Metropolitan Council
Work in progress; subject to change
9
4. Draft Purpose Statement (Revised)
The purpose of the Riverview Corridor project is to provide transit
service that would:
•
Enhance mobility and access to opportunities for residents,
businesses, and the region through connections to
employment, education, and economic development throughout
the Twin Cities
•
Support goals to cultivate economic prosperity and to invest in
all neighborhoods in the corridor, with special attention given to
neighborhoods with areas of concentrated poverty
Work in progress; subject to change
10
4. Draft Needs (Revised)
•
Growing and changing travel demand
•
Needs of people who rely on transit
•
Local and regional objectives for growth
•
Constrained access within the Riverview Corridor and
the regional transportation system
Work in progress; subject to change
11
4. Draft Goals (Revised)
•
Improve transit connections to jobs, education, health care,
activity centers, cultural resources, and to the regional transit
network
•
Support development and employment in the corridor and
Twin Cities region
•
Support, protect, and enhance high-quality connections of
corridor resources, neighborhoods, businesses, and the
Mississippi River
•
Provide additional transportation choices in the corridor to
support community health and regional sustainability goals
•
Develop and select an implementable project with local and
regional support
Work in progress; subject to change
12
4. Draft Goals and Objectives (Revised)
Goals
Improve transit connections to jobs,
education, health care, activity centers,
cultural resources, and to the regional
transit network
Objectives

Provide high-quality service for local trips along the corridor

Increase frequency, reliability, and attractiveness of existing transit services and
facilities

Provide competitive transit travel times

Provide additional transportation capacity to meet current and future travel
demand

Increase transit share of travel in the corridor

Support development and employment 
in the corridor and Twin Cities region
Work in progress; subject to change
Serve transportation needs of transit-dependent population
Provide right-sized transit facilities at locations where existing and future land uses
make them mutually supportive, in order to maximize public and private
investment

Support community development and redevelopment initiatives

Support a mix of housing choices, including affordable housing
13
4. Draft Goals and Objectives (Revised)
Goals
Support, protect, and enhance highquality connections of corridor
resources, neighborhoods, businesses,
and the Mississippi River
Provide additional transportation
choices in the corridor to support
community health and regional
sustainability goals
Develop and select an implementable
project with local and regional support
Work in progress; subject to change
Objectives

Improve connections to the Mississippi River

Minimize negative impacts to the natural environment

Minimize negative impacts to existing businesses and neighborhoods

Balance impacts to existing traffic operations


Contribute to improving local and regional equity, sustainability, and quality of life
Support regional planning for a more balanced, multi-modal transportation network

Increase opportunities for safe bicycling and walking to improve public health and
the environment

Increase the comfort, connectivity, and attractiveness of bicycle and pedestrian
networks to and along the corridor


Provide accessible pathways to and from transit service and local destinations
Define transit improvements with public, stakeholder and agency support

Identify transit improvements that are financially feasible and competitive for
federal funding

Develop transit improvements that allow for phased implementation
14
New Starts Primer
• Discretionary, competitive federal grant program
• Legislature directs multi-year, multi-step process
• Emphases are creating economic opportunities and
improving quality of life
• New “fixed guideway” projects or extensions thereof
• Project seeking over $75MM / Project cost ≥ $250MM
Work in progress; subject to change
15
New Starts and Small Starts Process
PRE-PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT
O
N
G
O
I
2-3years
We are here
N
PROJECT
E
DEVELOPMENT
G
P
U
B
2 years
L
I
C
FULL FUNDING
G R A N T
AGREEMENT
N G I N E E R I N G
E
N
G
2 years
A
G
E
M
E
N
Open
For
Service
T
3–4
years
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Approval Point
16
FTA Project Justification Criteria
Overall Rating
Project
Justification
50%
50%
Local Financial
Commitment
Project Justification
Criteria
Definition
Mobility
Improvements
Environmental
Benefits
Congestion Relief
Land Use
Economic
Development
Cost-Effectiveness
Ridership
Transit-dependent ridership = 2x weight
Monetary value of benefits to safety, human health, energy air quality resulting from
transit improvement (FTA formulas)
FTA proposes as new transit trips vs. No-Build
Existing characteristics of development, pedestrian facilities, access for persons with
disabilities, parking supply and cost, affordable housing
Qualitative assessment of potential to induce future, additional development through
the review of existing local plans and policies
Annualized capital cost + annual operating cost
Annual project ridership
6 criteria
Equal weight
Work in progress; subject to change
17
4. Draft Purpose & Need vs. FTA Criteria
Draft Goals and Objectives
Improve transit connections to jobs, education, health
care, activity centers, cultural resources, and to the
regional transit network
Support development and employment in the corridor
and region
FTA New Starts Criteria
Mobility Improvements
Cost Effectiveness
Congestion Relief
Environmental Benefits
Land Use
Economic Development
Support, protect, and enhance high-quality connections
of corridor resources, neighborhoods, businesses, and
the Mississippi River
Economic Development
Provide additional transportation choices in the corridor
to support community health and regional sustainability
goals
Land Use
Economic Development
Develop and select an implementable project with local
and regional support
Cost-Effectiveness
Local Financial Commitment
Work in progress; subject to change
18
4. Timeline for Purpose & Need Approval
•
PAC approve Draft Purpose and Need Technical
Memorandum for public input
–
•
Conduct Round 2 of Open Houses
–
•
June 2015
Late June/early July 2015
Finalize Purpose and Need, Universe of Alternatives
–
Incorporate public input: July 2015
–
PMT review: July 2015
–
TAC review: July/August 2015
–
PAC review and approval (final): August 2015
Work in progress; subject to change
19
5.
DRAFT UNIVERSE OF
ALTERNATIVES
Work in progress; subject to change
20
5. Draft Universe of Alignment Alternatives
*Refer to handout
Q: What are the references used in determining
the draft universe of alternatives?
Previous studies:
· Riverview Corridor Major Investment Study (2000)
· 2030 Transit Master Study (2008)
· Initial Streetcar Line, Saint Paul Feasibility Study (2014)
Input from PMT and TAC
Work in progress; subject to change
21
5. Potential Transit Modes
Local Bus
Bus Rapid Transit
Modern Streetcar
Light Rail Transit
Diesel Multiple Unit
Commuter Rail
Refer to handout
Work in progress; subject to change
22
6. Public Engagement Activities
Video 1: Riverview Corridor Overview
View video 1 rough cut
Work in progress; subject to change
23
6. Summer Open Houses
•
Late June – Early July 2015
•
Locations:
− Union Depot,
− W. 7th Street
− Highland Park
•
Collect input on:
− Draft Purpose and Need
statements
− Draft goals and objectives
− Draft universe of alignment
alternatives and transit
modes
Promotions
•
Work in progress; subject to change
24
7. Public Comment
When Commenting, Please…
•
•
•
Be respectful
Be brief - Speak for 3 or fewer minutes to give others an
opportunity to speak
Visitor comments will be included in the PAC meeting
summary
The Chair reserves the right to limit an individual’s presentation if
it becomes redundant, disrespectful, or is not relevant to the
Riverview Corridor.
Work in progress; subject to change
25
8. Other/Next Steps
•
PAC discuss/approve Draft Purpose and Need
Technical Memorandum and Universe of Alternatives
•
Conduct Round 2 of Open Houses
•
Finalize Purpose and Need, Universe of Alternatives
–
Incorporate public input: July 2015
–
PMT review: July 2015
–
TAC review: July/August 2015
–
PAC review and approval (final): August/September 2015
Work in progress; subject to change
26
9. Future Meetings*
•
PAC:
−
No July meeting
−
Next meeting: August 13, 2015 to approve Purpose and Need
and Universe of Alternatives
•
TAC: July 23, 2015
•
Round 2 of open houses: Late June/ Early July
* Subject to change. Check riverviewcorridor.com for up-to-date information.
Work in progress; subject to change
27
Riverview Corridor Public Engagement Activities
June 2, 2015
Event
Type of Activity
Date/Time
Completed
Canadian Pacific Rail Yard Meeting
Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce Public Affairs Series:
The Future of Transportation
Presentation
August 12, 2014
Presentation
August 20, 2014, 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM
Sensible Land Use Coalition
Presentation
August 27, 2014
Highland Community Meeting
Presentation
September 9, 2014
ARISE (Alliance to Re-Industrialize for a Sustainable Economy)
Presentation
October 7, 2014
Lafayette Park Commuter Fair
Community Event
October 29, 2014, 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM
Ford Redevelopment Site Open House
Community Event
November 10, 2014, 6:30 - 7:30 PM
Downtown Saint Paul Skyway Transit Tabling
Pop-Up Table
November 19, 2014, 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM
Highland Business Association Happy Hour
Community Event
December 11, 2014, 5:00 - 8:00 PM
Cooper's Grocery Tabling (Sibley Plaza)
Pop-Up Table
December 17, 2014, 3:00 - 5:30 PM
D17: CapitolRiver Council Board Meeting
Presentation
January 21, 2015, 7:30 - 8:30 AM
Mississippi Market Tabling (1500 W. 7th St.)
Pop-Up Table
January 28, 2015, 3:00 - 6:30 PM
Highland District Council Board Meeting
Presentation
February 5, 2015, 7:00 - 8:00 PM
W. 7th Street/Fort Road Federation Board Meeting
Presentation
February 9, 2015, 7:00 - 8:00 PM
Cooper's Grocery Tabling (633 W. 7th St.)
Pop-Up Table
February 25, 2015, 3:30 - 6:30 PM
ARISE (Alliance to Re-Industrialize for a Sustainable Economy)
Presentation
February 26, 2015
Lund's Highland Tabling (2128 Ford Pkwy)
Pop-Up Table
March 4, 2015, 4:00 - 6:30 PM
Highland District Council - Transportation Committee
Brief Update
March 10, 2015, 7:00 PM
Downtown Saint Paul YMCA Skyway Transit Tabling
Pop-Up Table
March 11, 2015, 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM
Neighborhood House - Francis Basket Food Shelf
Pop-Up Table
March 20, 2015, 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Community Event
April 11, 2015, 9:00 AM - 2:00 PM
Cretin-Derham Hall High School
W. 7th Street/Fort Road Federation Annual Meeting
Community Event
April 15, 2015, 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
Summit Brewing Company
Saint Paul Downtown Alliance
Presentation
April 20, 2015, 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM
Highland District Council Home Improvement Fair
Highland District Council Annual Meeting
Community Event
Hwy 5/Shepard Road Access Options Study Open House
Community Event
April 22, 2015, 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
7th Street Tavern
April 23, 2015, 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
St. Paul Jewish Community Center
Presentation
April 30, 2015, 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM
Highland Park Library
Highland Business Association Member Luncheon
Ford Site Task Force Public Meeting - focused on transit, bikes, and
pedestrian elements
Community Event
National Train Day
Community Event
RiverWork Exhibit: Great River Gathering
Community Event
Visit Saint Paul Member Meeting
Presentation
Bloomington City Council/Port Authority Joint Meeting
Presentation
Neighborhood House - Francis Basket Food Shelf Distribution Event
Pop-Up Table
April 30, 2015, 7 PM - 8:30 PM
Gloria Dei Lutheran Church
May 9, 2015, 11:00 AM
Union Depot
May 14, 2015, 5:00 PM
Saint Paul RiverCentre
May 15, 2015, 8:30 AM
Twin Cities Premium Outlets
May 27, 2015, 5:30 PM
Bloomington City Council Chambers
May 28, 2015, 3:00 PM
Francis Basket Food Shelf
Business and Community Poster/Display Distribution
Material Distribution
March 9 - Present
Key stakeholder and community leader interviews
(22 completed)
Meeting
Ongoing
Upcoming
Presentation
June 15, 2015, 12:00 PM
Harriet Island
June 30, 2015, 3:00 PM
Schmidt Brewery Artist Lofts
July 9, 2015, 11:00 AM
Airport Conference Center - Chambers
Presentation
July 14, 2015, 7:00 PM
Highland Park Community Center
Highland Festival
Material Distribution
July 17-19, 2015
Highland Village
W. 7th Street Community Meeting
Mall of America - Transit Center
MSP Airport - Transit Center
Mini-Open house
Pop-Up Table
Pop-Up Table
July TBD
TBD
TBD
Business Owners and Management Association Membership Meeting
Pop-Up Table
W. 7th Business Association Bi-Annual Meeting
Metropolitan Airport Commission - CSAC
(Customer Service Action Council) Meeting
Presentation
Highland District Council - Transportation Committee
MEMORANDUM
From:
Riverview Corridor Study Team
To:
Policy Advisory Committee
Date:
4 June 2015
Topic:
May 14, 2015 PAC Meeting Follow-Up – DRAFT
The purpose of this memorandum is the address the following questions that the Policy Advisory
Committee posed at its May 14, 2015 meeting:









What is the estimated number of trips between the Riverview Corridor and Dakota County?
Of the estimated 23,300 new transit trips in the Riverview Corridor in 2040, what number
would be associated with the Route 54?
What percentage of zero-car households in the Riverview Corridor are persons over
65 years old?
How does the number of zero-car households along the Blue and Green Lines compare to
the Riverview Corridor’s?
How is population in poverty defined? Clarify federal and Metropolitan Council definitions.
Regarding the draft Goals, what does ‘transit-supportive communities’ mean?
How does the Riverview Corridor’s draft Purpose and Need and Goals and Objectives relate
to the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts [Project Justification] criteria?
What are the references used in determining the draft universe of alternatives?
Clarify decision-making process and schedule for the Purpose and Need and Goals and
Objectives.
What is the estimated number of trips between the Riverview Corridor and Dakota
County?
To answer this question, the Study Team used the Metropolitan Council’s current travel demand
model. The model uses 2010 as the base year and 2040 as the horizon year for population and
employment figures and draft forecasts, respectively. The model also includes the most current data
(2010) from the Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory, also by the Metropolitan Council.
As summarized in Table 1, in 2010, the regional model estimates 3,670 Riverview Corridor transit
trips are from Dakota County (11 percent of all corridor transit trips). By 2040, the model further
estimates an additional 2,910 Corridor transit trips (12 percent). The 2040 forecast is preliminary,
and based on an initial definition of ‘no-build’ conditions. Specifically, it assumes minor service
PAC Memorandum : May 2015 Meeting Follow-Up | DRAFT June 2015
1
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
changes to the Route 54.1 The Riverview Corridor Study will refine the ‘no-build’ conditions for
transit in the Riverview Corridor as part of the detailed definition of alternatives.
Table 1: Transit Trips between the Riverview Corridor and Dakota County2
Year
Riverview Corridor
Total Transit Trips in the
% to/from
Transit Trips to/from
Riverview Corridor
Dakota County
Dakota County
2010
3,670
33,700
10.9%
2040 forecast
6,580
57,100
11.5%
With respect to the New Starts process, FTA only accepts population, employment and travel
demand forecasts that are based on a metropolitan planning organization’s adopted plan. Specific
to transportation in the Twin Cities, this is the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy
Plan. Twin Cities projects that are currently in FTA’s New Starts program include the Green Line
Extension’s advanced design (Southwest Light Rail Transit) and Blue Line Extension’s preliminary
design (Bottineau Light Rail Transit); both projects use the Metropolitan Council’s travel demand
model.
Of the estimated 23,300 new transit trips in the Riverview Corridor in 2040, what
number would be associated with the Route 54?
Similarly, the Study Team used the Metropolitan Council’s travel demand model to arrive at the
following estimate:


Approximately 2,800 trips on Route 54 are from new transit trips in the Corridor.
In comparison, the Blue Line (Hiawatha LRT) draws 13.6 percent of its ridership from Dakota
County (see Table 2).
Table 2: Blue Line Ridership to/from Dakota County3
1
2
3
4
Year
Total Trips to/from
Dakota County
Blue Line Total Ridership
% To/From
Dakota County
2010
3,470
25,520
13.6%
2040 forecast4
3,760
51,350
7.3%
These preliminary modifications were developed with Metro Transit Service Development for
purposes of comparison at this juncture of the Study.
Source: Metropolitan Council travel demand model.
Source: Metropolitan Council travel demand model.
2040 Blue Line ridership forecast includes Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT).
PAC Memorandum : May 2015 Meeting Follow-Up | DRAFT June 2015
2
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
What percentage of zero-car households in the Riverview Corridor are persons
over 65 years old?
The number of zero-car households in the corridor and at the county and regional level is provided
by the Census; however, additional information about household vehicle ownership, such as the age
of residents, is not available. In addition, these characteristics have different units of measurements
(households versus population).
Although the percentage of persons over 65 years in zero-car households is not available, Table 3
provides percentage of residents over 65 years old for the corridor, Ramsey County, Hennepin
County, and the region.
Table 3: Population Over 65 Years Old5
Geography
Riverview Corridor
Ramsey County
Hennepin County
Seven County Metro
Total Population
52,457
515,732
1,170,623
2,889,547
Population over 65
years old
7,176
63,225
136,343
322,838
Percent of total
population
14%
12%
12%
11%
How does the number of zero-car households along the Blue and Green Lines
compare to those along the Riverview Corridor?
Table 4 below presents the number and percentage of zero-car households along the Riverview
Corridor (4,100), Blue Line (6,600) and Green Line (9,200) using 2013 estimates from the U.S.
Census Bureau.
Table 4: Estimated Number of Zero-Car Households in 20136
Geography
Riverview Corridor
Transitway Comparison
7
METRO Blue Line
8
METRO Green Line
Area Comparison
Ramsey County
Hennepin County
Seven-County Metro Area
Total Households
24,900
Zero-Car
Households
4,100
Percent Zero-Car
Households
16%
25,900
33,200
6,600
9,200
25%
28%
205,400
481,300
1,131,600
22,800
48,800
90,400
11%
10%
8%
Both the Blue and Green Lines operate in Minneapolis, and the Green Line runs through the
University of Minnesota. The high student population living around the University of Minnesota likely
contributes to the number of zero-car households within a half-mile of the Green Line.
5
6
7
8
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013 (www.census.gov).
Ibid.
Hiawatha light rail transit (LRT). Figures shown are within one-half mile of the line, consistent with
FTA definition.
Central Corridor LRT. Figures shown are within one-half mile of the line, consistent with FTA
definition.
PAC Memorandum : May 2015 Meeting Follow-Up | DRAFT June 2015
3
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Additionally, limited developable land due to terrain in the Riverview Corridor, significant
transportation uses, the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers, and parks result in a smaller area for
residential development.
How is population in poverty defined? Clarify federal and Metropolitan Council
definitions.
The Census Bureau defines persons in poverty using poverty thresholds that vary by size of family
and the number of related children under 18 years old.9 The Census Bureau measures poverty
using money income before taxes and excludes capital gains or losses, as well as non-cash benefits
(Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies). These thresholds do not vary by geography. Table 5
presents the Census Bureau’s 2013 poverty thresholds. For instance, a family of four with an annual
income of less than $23,834 (2013 threshold) was in poverty based on this measure.
Table 5: Poverty Thresholds for 2013, by Size of Family and Number of Related Children
Under 18 Years10
Size of family unit
One person (unrelated individual)
Under 65 years
65 years and over
Two people
Householder under 65 years
Householder 65 years and over
Three people
Four people
Five people
Six people
Seven people
Eight people
Nine people or more
Federal Poverty
Threshold
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
11,888
12,119
11,173
15,142
15,679
14,095
18,552
23,834
28,265
31,925
36,384
40,484
48,065
Metropolitan Council
Threshold
(1.85 x Federal)
$
21,993
$
22,420
$
20,670
$
28,013
$
29,006
$
26,076
$
34,321
$
44,093
$
52,290
$
59,061
$
67,310
$
74,895
$
88,920
For the Riverview Corridor, the Study Team also coordinated with the Metropolitan Council to
identify persons in poverty. The Metropolitan Council defines poverty as individuals whose family
income is at or below 185% of the federal poverty threshold. (See the third column of Table 5.) The
Council chose a higher ratio to reflect the region’s economic conditions, i.e. relatively high median
income.11 To use the preceding example, a family of four in the Twin Cities with an annual income
that is at or below $44,092.90 (1.85 x $23,834 = $44,092.90) is in poverty. Table 6 presents the
number of Riverview Corridor residents in poverty.
9
10
11
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html. Thresholds do not vary by
geography, although they are updated annually for inflation using Consumer Price Index.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and Metropolitan Council.
Thrive MSP http://www.metrocouncil.org/METC/files/e0/e0a8c4d8-1a1d-4a9e-85b3-f366e57ce1f5.pdf
PAC Memorandum : May 2015 Meeting Follow-Up | DRAFT June 2015
4
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Table 6: Riverview Corridor Population Living in Poverty in 201312
13
Corridor
Ramsey County
Hennepin County
Seven County Metro
Total Population
51,200
501,500
1,148,800
2,842,300
Population in
14
Poverty
15,200
129,400
229,500
502,500
Percent in
Poverty
30%
26%
20%
18%
Regarding the draft Goals, what does ‘transit-supportive communities’ mean?
Transit-supportive communities have safe, convenient access to effective public transit, and often
have a mix of housing and transportation choices. As a result, many sustainable communities have
reduced air pollution and storm water runoff, have helped to decrease infrastructure costs and
preserve historic properties, save people time in traffic, and meet market demand for different types
of housing at different price points. Transit-supportive development and communities support the
principle that convenient access to transit can be a key attraction that fosters mixed-use and higherdensity development.15
How does the Riverview Corridor’s draft Purpose and Need and Goals and
Objectives relate to the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts [Project
Justification] criteria?
FTA evaluates potential projects according to six “project justification” criteria listed below in
Table 7. The six criteria below constitute half of a project’s potential rating, while the other half of
the rating is based on local financial commitment of the project sponsor. The draft Riverview Corridor
project goals and objectives were developed in consideration of the FTA project justification criteria
to help develop a project that could be competitive for federal funding in the future. Table 8 presents
the draft project goals and objectives and the related FTA evaluation criteria.
Table 7: FTA Project Justification Criteria
Criteria
Mobility Improvements
Environmental
Benefits
Congestion Relief
Land Use
Economic
Development
Cost-Effectiveness
12
13
14
15
Definition
Ridership
Transit-dependent ridership = 2x weight
Monetary value of benefits to safety, human health, energy air quality resulting
from transit improvement (FTA formulas)
FTA proposes as new transit trips vs. No-Build
Existing characteristics of development, pedestrian facilities, access for
persons with disabilities, parking supply and cost, and affordable housing
Qualitative assessment of potential to induce future, additional development
through the review of existing local plans and policies
Annualized capital cost plus annual operating cost divided by annual project
ridership
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013 (www.census.gov).
Number shown excludes persons who are institutionalized, in military group quarters, in college
dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old.
Poverty refers to residents whose family income is at or below 185% of the federal poverty threshold.
FTA, Planning for Transit-Supportive Development: A Practitioner’s Guide, June 2014.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Report_No._0052.pdf
PAC Memorandum : May 2015 Meeting Follow-Up | DRAFT June 2015
5
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Table 8: FTA Criteria Related to Goals and Objectives
Draft Goals and Objectives
Improve transit connections to jobs, education, health care, activity
centers, cultural resources, and to the regional transit network
 Provide high-quality service for local trips along the corridor
 Increase frequency, reliability, and attractiveness of existing transit
services and facilities
 Provide competitive transit travel times
 Provide additional transportation capacity to meet current and future
travel demand
 Increase transit share of travel in the corridor
 Serve transportation needs of transit-dependent population
Support development and employment in the corridor and region
 Provide right-sized transit facilities at locations where existing and
future land uses make them mutually supportive, in order to maximize
public and private investment
 Support community development and redevelopment initiatives
 Support a mix of housing choices, including affordable housing
Support, protect, and enhance high-quality connections of corridor
resources, neighborhoods, businesses, and the Mississippi River
 Improve connections to the Mississippi River
 Minimize negative impacts to the natural environment
 Minimize negative impacts to existing businesses and neighborhoods
 Balance impacts to existing traffic operations
 Contribute to improving local and regional equity, sustainability, and
quality of life
Provide additional transportation choices in the corridor to support
community health and regional sustainability goals
 Support regional planning for a more balanced, multi-modal
transportation network
 Increase opportunities for safe bicycling and walking to improve public
health and the environment
 Increase the comfort, connectivity, and attractiveness of bicycle and
pedestrian networks to and along the corridor
 Provide accessible pathways to and from transit service and local
destinations
Develop and select an implementable project with local and regional
support
 Define transit improvements with public, stakeholder and agency
support
 Identify transit improvements that are financially feasible and
competitive for federal funding
 Develop transit improvements that allow for phased implementation
Related FTA New Starts
Criteria
Mobility Improvements
Cost Effectiveness
Congestion Relief
Environmental Benefits
Land Use
Economic Development
Economic Development
Land Use
Economic Development
Cost Effectiveness
Local Financial Commitment
PAC Memorandum : May 2015 Meeting Follow-Up | DRAFT June 2015
6
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
What are the references used in determining the draft universe of alternatives?
The Universe of Alternatives were developed using the following sources:

Build Alternatives analyzed in previous studies:
− Riverview Corridor Major Investment Study (2000)
− 2030 Transit Master Study (2008)
− Initial Streetcar Line, Saint Paul Feasibility Study (2014)

Input from the Project Management Team and Technical Advisory Committee, and from the
public through public engagement efforts.
Clarify decision-making process and schedule for the Purpose and Need and
Goals and Objectives.
The current, working timeline is as follows:
Draft Technical Memorandum #3: Purpose and Need and Goals and Objectives




Project Management Team (PMT)
− High-level review: May 22-26, 2015
− Detailed review: May 22 – June 3, 2015
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) review: May 29 – June 3,2015
PAC review, for purposes of releasing the draft to the public: June 5 – 11, 2015
Public review of draft: June 11 – 17 July 2015
Final Purpose and Need and Goals and Objectives



PMT: July 17, 2015
TAC: July 29, 2015
PAC: August 13, 2015
PAC Memorandum : May 2015 Meeting Follow-Up | DRAFT June 2015
7
DUPONT AVE S
DUPONT AVE S
HENNEPIN AVE
EMERSON AVE S
BRYANT AVE S
LYNDALE AVE S
LYNDALE AVE S
GRAND AVE S
BLAISDELL AVE
NICOLLET AVE S
NICOLLET AVE
NICOLLET AVE
1ST AVE S
2ND AVE S
4TH AVE S
PORTLAND AVE S
PORTLAND AVE
PORTLAND AVE
PARK AVE
CHICAGO AVE
BLOOMINGTON AVE
BLOOMINGTON AVE
CEDAR AVE S
26TH AVE
24TH AVE S
28TH AVE S
28TH AVE S
31ST AVE S
34TH AVE S
36TH AVE S
35TH AVE S
42ND AVE S
42ND AVE S
46TH AVE S
Minne sota
River
PELHAM BLVD
Mississippi River
CRETIN AVE N
CRETIN AVE S
CLEVELAND AVE N
EVE
AVE S
CLEVELAND
PRIOR AVE N
FAIRVIEW AVE N
FAIRVIEW AVE S
DAVERN ST
Snelling A-Line BRT(ABRT)
SNELLING AVE S
PILOT KNOB RD
HAMLINE AVE S
Rice St
LEXINGTON AVE S
LEXINGTON PKWY S
LEXINGTON AVE S
Park St
VICTORIA ST
Capitol Blvd
LUNAR LN
DALE ST N
Linden St
MARION ST
RICE ST
DELAWARE AVE
Mississippi St
SMITH AVE S
Pine St
Olive St
CHARLTON ST
Terrace Ct
John St
Westminster St
Lafayette Rd
STRYKER AVE
Arkwr
Clark St
Otsego St
ROBERT ST S
Desoto
ROBERT TRL S
Desoto St
Brunson St
Burr St
Bedford St
Bradley St
Jes
AVE
OAKDALE
Jessie St
Edgerton St
Fountain Pl
KANSAS ST
Preble St
Payne Ave
EARL ST
G
Greenbrier St
Stroh Dr
CAHILL AVE
W
ETNA ST
Arcade St
Arcade St
Mendota St
Forest St
Forest St
Duc
St
Cypress St
Cypress St
Earl St
Earl St