Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Agenda Thursday, October 10, :00 3:20 pm Woodbury City Hall

Transcription

1 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Agenda Thursday, October 10, :00 3:20 pm Woodbury City Hall Note: Gateway Corridor Commission meeting will begin at 3:30 pm after the PAC meeting 1. Welcome and Introductions 2:00 2:05 2. Public Comments 2:05 2:20 a. Review format for public comments b. Comments from the public 3. Community Advisory Committee Update 2:20 2:25 a. Meeting Recap b. Update from CAC Chair 4. Review of Coordination Activities 2:25 2:40 a. TAC Meeting b. City Meetings c. FTA Coordination 5. Comparative Evaluation Alignment B1 and B2 2:40 3:05 a. Findings from Technical Evaluation b. TAC Recommendation c. CAC Input d. PAC Action Requested e. Next Steps 6. Upcoming Coordination Activities 3:05 3:15 a. MnDOT and Met Council Coordination Meeting (10/11) b. Gateway Corridor Commission/Agency Leadership TBD c. Station Area Planning Process Overview 7. Confirm Next PAC Meeting 3:15 3:20 The Policy Advisory Committee meets at 2:00 on the second Thursday of each month on an every other month basis at Woodbury City Hall. Next PAC meeting is scheduled for December 12, 2013.

2 Gateway Corridor Commission Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Public Participation in PAC meetings The public is welcome to attend all PAC meetings. Visitors may share their comments or concerns on the Gateway Corridor to the PAC at the beginning of each meeting, whether or not the issue is listed on the PAC s agenda. If you wish to address the PAC, please fill out a comment card before the meeting begins and give it to the PAC chair or project staff. The PAC Chair will ask you to stand, state your name and address, and present your comments. We ask that your comments be presented in a respectful manner. You are encouraged to limit your presentation to no more than 3 minutes. The PAC Chair reserves the right to limit an individual's presentation if it becomes redundant, disrespectful, or is not relevant to the Gateway Corridor. Visitor comments will be summarized in the PAC meeting summary. Please note that formal public comment periods will occur periodically throughout the Gateway Corridor Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. Those commenting at PAC meetings are encouraged to also submit comments in writing or verbally at public hearings during these EIS comment periods to ensure their thoughts are included in the formal EIS administrative record. For further information contact Gateway Corridor staff or see the project website: Andy Gitzlaff, Washington County Lyssa Leitner andy.gitzlaff@co.washington.mn.us Lyssa.leitner@co.washington.mn.us

3 Gateway Corridor Policy Advisory Committee Visitor Comment Form Name: (please print clearly) Address: (street address, city, state, zip code) I would like to present my comments on the following topic(s): Check here if you would like to be contacted by a member of the project team regarding your question. Preferred method of contact: Please add my name to the Gateway Corridor list address:

4 10/8/2013 Policy Advisory Committee Meeting #2 October 10, 2013 Today s Agenda Welcome and Introductions Public Comments Community Advisory Committee Update Review of Coordination Activities Comparative Evaluation: Alignment Options B1 vs B2 (St. Paul) Upcoming Coordination Activities Next PAC Meeting 1

5 10/8/2013 Public Comment Policy Public encouraged to attend PAC meeting Public comment period will take place at beginning of each meeting If someone would like to speak a comment card should be filled out Comments should be limited to 3 minutes Comments will be summarized in PAC meeting summary Comments should be presented in a respectful manner Community Advisory Committee Update Summary of discussion from September 30, 2013 CAC Meeting CAC Chair and Vice Chair Elected Michael Meyer and Tom Sorel Opportunity for Visitor Comments Discussion Regarding Alignment Options B1 and B2 Next Meeting TBD(late October/November) 2

6 10/8/2013 Update from CAC Chair Introduction of CAC Chair Michael Meyer Review of Recent Coordination Activities TAC Meeting September 25 Reviewed recent project activities Overview of BRT and LRT design elements Alignment B1 and B2 comparative evaluation and recommendation Upcoming coordination activities 3

7 10/8/2013 Review of Recent Coordination Activities City Meetings August/September Data Gathering Discussion on Alignments and Stations Council/Commission Briefings in Fall FTA Coordination August and September Calls Schedule Document Review Scoping Evaluations Comparative Evaluation Alignment B1 and B2 Findings from Tech Evaluation TAC Recommendation CAC Input PAC Action Requested Next Steps 4

8 10/8/2013 The Scoping process 5

9 10/8/2013 Alignments B1 & B2 Comparative Evaluation: Alignment Options B1 v. B2: Why on the table? Both evaluated during Alternatives Analysis B2 discarded due to level of impacts (property takings, parking, and cost) relative to level of potential benefits FTA reviewed AA / comments received and determined that B2 be re examined in the EIS due to environmental justice concerns 6

10 10/8/2013 B1 vs. B2: Populations Served Jobs within ½ mile of stations People within ½ miles of stations People dependent on transit B1 B2 4,900 10,400 18,900 28,200 1,300 1,750 B1 vs. B2: Ridership and Travel Time B1 B2 Travel Time mph, 2.5 miles mph, 4 miles BRT Ridership 8,800 6,600 LRT Ridership 9,300 10,500 7

11 10/8/2013 B1 v. B2: Property and Parking Impacts B1 B2 Full property take Partial property take Impacted intersections 0 37 Impacted driveways Loss of on street parking B1 vs. B2: Cost Cost Alignment B1 Alignment B2 Capital Cost BRT: $84 million LRT: $119 million BRT: $188 million LRT: $243 million Annual Operating &Maintenance Costs BRT: $1.5 million LRT: $1.6 million BRT: $2.5 million LRT: $3.1 million 8

12 10/8/2013 B1 vs. B2: Regional Transit Investments Alignment B1 would not duplicate local service along East 7 th Street, and is consistent with providing more efficient service for longer distance travel along the I 94 Corridor. Alignment B2 would conflict with plans for service development on East 7 th Street. Met Council 2030 Transportation Policy Plan updated May 2013) 9

13 10/8/2013 B1 vs. B2: Neighborhood Concerns during the Alternatives Analysis process Wide range of input received on both alignments during AA process Alignment B2 was subject of substantially greater neighborhood concern than Alignment B1 Potential acquisition of homes and businesses Impacts to neighborhood, historic character Business and traffic impacts Added transit travel time General quality of life for East Side neighborhoods B1 vs. B2: Summary Alignment B2 would be proximate to a larger population and employment base and would generate somewhat greater ridership than B1 (LRT) B2 also has disadvantages: Greater cost Slower travel time Extensive neighborhood, traffic, and property impacts Neighborhood concerns Partial overlap with other planned regional transitway investments 10

14 10/8/2013 TAC Recommendation The TAC reached consensus that the Gateway Corridor Scoping Booklet should reflect the recommendation that Alignment B2 should not be advanced for further study; thereby affirming the decision reached during the Alternatives Analysis process. CAC Input to PAC September 30 Meeting Summary in PAC Packet CAC concerned about Alignment B2 impacts Traffic on White Bear Loss of parking Cost Business/Neighborhood Impacts Boulevard Trees 11

15 10/8/2013 CAC Input to PAC (cont) General interest in Arterial BRT on East 7 th Street General agreement by CAC that the B2 alignment should not be carried forward PAC Action Requested Provide recommendation to Gateway Corridor Commission on Alignment B1 versus B2 Recommendation will be included in Scoping Booklet Recommendation should indicate which alignment(s) should be advanced for further study in the Draft EIS 12

16 10/8/2013 Draft Recommendation Alignment B2 should not be advanced for further study; thereby affirming the decision reached during the Alternatives Analysis process. East 7 th St. Segment of Alignment B2 between Metro State University and Arcade St should continue to be studied by others as part of a separate corridor to ensure that a more comprehensive transit system is developed for the East Side. Next Steps Gateway Corridor Commission Action October 10 th Coordination with FTA, Alliance for Metropolitan Stability/Engage East Side Public Outreach Scoping Booklet 13

17 10/8/2013 Upcoming Coordination Activities MnDOT and Met Council Coordination Meeting October 11 Gateway Corridor Commission/Agency Leadership TBD TAC Meeting Oct. 16 FTA Corridor Tour Oct. 18 (on hold due to government shutdown) Station Area Planning Schedule 14

18 10/8/2013 Next PAC Meeting Next PAC meeting scheduled for December 12, 2013 Thank you! Andy Gitzlaff, Washington County Lyssa Leitner Jeanne Witzig, Kimley Horn and Associates horn.com Beth Bartz, SRF Consulting

19 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Technical Memorandum: Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 October 2013 Regional Railroad Authority

20 Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 Page i List of Acronyms AA Alternatives Analysis BRT Bus Rapid Transit LOS Level of Service LRT Light Rail Transit NRHP National Register of Historic Places TAC Technical Advisory Committee

21 Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 Page ii Table of Contents List of Acronyms... i Table of Contents...ii 1.0 Introduction Description of Alignment Options Comparison of Key Factors Physical and Operational Impacts Population Served Ridership and Travel Time Cost Neighborhood Concerns Regional Transit Investments Summary... 7

22 Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 Page 1 The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has reviewed the findings of the comparative evaluation on Alignments B1 (Mounds Boulevard/Hudson Road/I-94) and B2 (Mounds Boulevard/East 7 th Street/White Bear Avenue). Through review and discussion at the September 25, 2013 Gateway Corridor TAC meeting, the TAC reached consensus that the Gateway Corridor Scoping Booklet should reflect the recommendation that Alignment B2 should not be advanced for further study; thereby affirming the decision reached during the Alternatives Analysis process. 1.0 Introduction This memorandum describes the differences between Alignment Options B1 (Mounds Boulevard/Hudson Road/I-94) and B2 (Mounds Boulevard/East 7 th Street/White Bear Avenue) being considered for the Gateway Corridor project (Figure 1). The discussion below is supported by the data provided in Table 1 (attached). The table is organized according to the project goals and objectives, as defined during the Alternatives Analysis (AA) process. Most of the data in the table is drawn from the 2013 Gateway Corridor AA, with updates and other specific sources noted. The discussion does not review every item in the table, but rather focuses on those items (objectives) that distinguish the two alignments from each other. For ease of cross-reference with Table 1, the relevant project objectives are identified in the text. 1.1 Description of Alignment Options ALIGNMENT B1 (MOUNDS BOULEVARD/HUDSON ROAD/I-94 OPTION) Alignment B1 begins at the intersection of Kellogg Boulevard and Mounds Boulevard and turns southeast along the north side of Mounds Boulevard. It operates in a dedicated guideway from which other traffic is excluded. The Metro State Station would be located at-grade along Mounds Boulevard just south of East Conway Street. The alignment continues on the north side of I-94 adjacent to Hudson Road until the Earl Street Station. The alignment continues east along the north side of I-94 where it crosses Johnson Parkway on a new bridge structure before turning northeast to the intersection of Wilson Avenue and North Etna Street. The Etna Street Station would be located at-grade just east of Etna Street, adjacent to the I-94 interchange ramp. The alignment follows the interchange ramp back southeast to the north side of I-94. At White Bear Avenue, the alignment follows the interchange ramps, crossing at-grade before returning to the north side of I-94. The White Bear Avenue Station would be located just east of the White Bear Avenue interchange ALIGNMENT B2 (MOUNDS BOULEVARD/EAST 7 TH STREET/WHITE BEAR AVENUE OPTION) Alignment B2 begins at the intersection of Kellogg Boulevard and Mounds Boulevard and turns northwest along the north side of Mounds Boulevard in a dedicated guideway. The Metro State Station would be located at-grade along Mounds Boulevard just north of East 6 th Street. The alignment turns northeast and continues in the median of East 7 th Street. The Arcade Street Station would be located near the intersection of East 7 th Street and Cypress Street, and the Johnson Parkway Station is located near the intersection of East 7 th Street and Johnson Parkway. The next station would be located at the intersection of East 7 th Street and White Bear Avenue where the alignment turns south, continuing as a dedicated guideway in the median of White Bear Avenue. The final station on the alignment would be located near the intersection of 3 rd Street and White Bear Avenue as the alignment continues south before turning east along the interchange ramp at I-94.

23 Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 Page Comparison of Key Factors 2.1 Physical and Operational Impacts RIGHT-OF-WAY Alignment B1 has relatively few identified property impacts that would result from right-of-way acquisition due to its location in MnDOT right-of-way north of I-94. The majority of parcel acquisitions are in the residential area of Mounds Boulevard where there is limited right-of-way to accommodate the guideway and station area. There are also parcel acquisitions along Hudson Road where there is limited space between I-94 and Hudson Road. It is estimated that 10 full parcels and 40 partial parcels would need to be acquired (Table 1, Objective 8). Alignment B2, in contrast, has extensive potential property impacts due to its location within dense urban streets with limited right-of-way. For the entire length of Alignment B2, an estimated 190 full parcels and 195 partial parcels that would need to be acquired. This is a result of the difference between existing roadway widths and that needed for the transitway. For example, the existing curb-to-curb width along East 7 th Street and White Bear Avenue varies from 40 feet to 56 feet (Figure 2). The curb-to-curb width would need to be expanded in many areas to accommodate the 28-foot wide guideway in the center median and 16-foot travel lanes to meet minimum design standards as identified in Minnesota Rule (Figure 3). Figure 2. Existing Section on East 7 th Street

24 Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 Page 3 Figure 3. Proposed Section on East 7 th Street ACCESSIBILITY Changes in access are represented by two key measures: intersection closures, and intersections or driveways converted to right-in/right-out (Objective 9). While all properties (except those that would be acquired due to right-of-way impacts) would continue to have access regardless of the alignment, the intent of these measures is to show how property access would be potentially changed or diminished. Alignment B1 would not result in any intersection or driveway closures or conversions to rightin/right-out access. This is largely due to its location between the neighborhood and I-94. Alignment B2 also would not result in any intersection closures but would result in 37 intersections and approximately 140 driveways being converted to right-in and right-out. This is primarily the result of the fixed guideway being constructed on an existing urban street grid with frequent intersections and driveway accesses PARKING IMPACTS In addition to the access impacts noted in the section above, there is a substantial difference in the potential number of on-street parking spaces lost when comparing Alignments B1 and B2. Specifically, Alignment B1 would result in loss of approximately 130 on-street parking spaces, primarily on Hudson Road. In comparison, Alignment B2 would result in the loss of an estimated 865 on-street parking spaces, on East 7 th Street and White Bear Avenue TRAFFIC IMPACTS Alignment B1 has minimal traffic accessibility and capacity impacts on the Saint Paul street network and would not result in changes to levels of service (LOS) on I-94. Alternative B2 has substantial traffic impacts that would result from the conversion of traffic lanes on existing surface streets to a dedicated guideway for transit (see Section ), greatly reducing vehicle capacity (Objective 4). Portions of White Bear Avenue and East 7 th Street both would be reduced from four-lane to two-lane streets. With traffic volumes up to 23,000 vehicles per day on White Bear Avenue and 18,000 vehicles per day on East 7 th Street, the reduced width would reduce traffic operations from acceptable (LOS D) to failing (LOS F) on

25 Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 Page 4 these segments. Additional adverse impact on traffic could result from the large numbers of intersection and driveway access conversions described in Section Because White Bear Avenue is one of the few north-south through routes on the east side of Saint Paul, the adverse impacts of these capacity restrictions would adversely affect not only local businesses and residents but also those in neighborhoods to the north and south. It should also be noted that Minnesota Rule (Minimum Design Standards, Urban; New or Reconstruction Projects) identifies that for volumes greater than 15,000 projected vehicles per day, at least four through-traffic lanes are required, unless a capacity analysis demonstrates that a different lane configuration achieves LOS D or better CULTURAL RESOURCES Relatively large numbers of potential cultural resources are located within proximity of both alignments (500 feet on either side). However, there are more than twice as many potential sites within this proximity for Alignment B2 than Alignment B1. Both alignment options pass through Dayton s Bluff, locally designated as a heritage preservation district by the City of Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. For Alignment B1, there are six sites either listed or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and another 320 other historical structures (previously inventoried structures included in the State Historic Preservation Office file) that have not been evaluated for eligibility. For Alternative B2, there are 28 sites either listed or potentially eligible for NRHP listing and another 745 other historical structures that have not been evaluated. Alignment B2 may also include one archaeological site within the 500-foot buffer area. Further study would be required to determine status with respect to NRHP eligibility or potential and likelihood of adverse impact PHYSICAL IMPACT SUMMARY The majority of the adverse right-of-way, property access, cultural resource, parking, and traffic impacts associated with Alignment B2 described above stem from the lack of available space to construct the dedicated guideway for transit on East 7 th Street and White Bear Avenue. In contrast, transit modes that don t require a dedicated guideway (traditional bus, arterial BRT or streetcar, for example) can be constructed largely within existing rights-of-way and run onstreet in mixed traffic. 2.2 Population Served Alignment B1 is proximate to only about two-thirds the population base and one half the employment base as Alignment B2 (Objectives 1 and 6). In the year 2030, 18,900 people are forecast to be located within ½-mile of the four Alignment B1 stations compared to 28,200 people for the five Alignment B2 stations. For employment, 4,900 jobs are forecast within ½- mile of the Alignment B1 stations compared to 10,400 jobs for the Alignment B2 stations. The larger population and employment base of B2 results in part from its greater length (4 miles for B2 compared to 2.5 for B1) and number of stations (5 for B2 compared to 4 for B1). Alignment B2 also is proximate to more people who depend on transit. Alignment B1 would serve about 25% fewer zero car households than Alignment B2 (1,300 compared to 1,750). 2.3 Ridership and Travel Time Despite the larger population and employment base within the Alignment B2 stations compared to Alignment B1, Alignment B2 would deliver only nominally greater ridership benefits than B1 (9,300 weekday transit trips for B1 and 10,500 for B2) under LRT, and lower ridership than B1 under BRT (8,800 weekday transit trips for B1 and 6,600 for B2). Additionally, the number of potential new transit trips under either BRT or LRT are within 200 riders when

26 Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 Page 5 comparing Alignments B1 and B2 (2,100/3,800 new riders for BRT/LRT B1 and 2,300/4,000 for B2). This is primarily due to the slower travel time and greater distance traveled for Alignment B2 (Objectives 2 and 3). Upon initial review, apparent advantages of B2 with respect to ridership would be its potential to attract more riders due to its greater length (4 miles vs. 2.5 miles) and number of stations (5 vs. 4) through relatively dense urban neighborhoods. However, transit vehicles on Alignment B1 would travel more than twice as fast on average than on Alignment B2 (40-50 mph vs mph) while also needing to cover only 60% of the distance. This makes Alignment B1 more competitive with other travel options and hence more attractive to riders. While Alignment B2 could attract a larger ridership due to its proximity to more people and jobs, this potential is not realized due to slower travel time and the availability of other transit service options. The travel time for the larger project segment (Segment 2) that includes this location would be minutes for Alignment B1 compared to minutes for Alignment B2. The slower travel time for Alignment B2 comes not just from its longer distance but because it would travel through a dense urban street grid with many intersections. While the concept design calls for restricting and/or closing intersections, the need to maintain the primary functions of the street system require slower travel speeds and periodic stops at intersections. In contrast, the majority of Alignment B1 is at the edge of the street grid without interruptions for intersections. Occasional grade separations (bridges) to prevent interruption of the street grid are more contextually appropriate on Alignment B1 (adjacent to the freeway or freeway intersections) than on Alignment B2 (traditional neighborhood commercial and residential context). Alignment BRT B1 contributes to improved travel times and potentially ridership for the I-94 express buses, which would be able to use portions of the fixed guideway. Specifically, total transit riders under the B1 alignment, 8,800 riders, includes 2,700 daily riders on other express transit routes that could use the proposed dedicated guideway. In contrast, the slower travel time on Alignment B2 would not provide this benefit and I-94 express buses would continue to travel on the highway. Because of their different locations and travel times, the two alignments serve slightly different travel markets. Alignment B1, with its location adjacent to the freeway, is consistent with the freeway and commuter market of the rest of the Gateway Corridor project. Alignment B2, in contrast, diverts from the freeway and commuter oriented market to a more local transit market as it travels on East 7 th Street and White Bear Avenue. 2.4 Cost Capital costs and operation and maintenance costs were estimated for the purposes of comparing the two alternative alignments (Table 2). These estimates were based on high level assumptions as well as preliminary quantities of construction items with typical unit costs. Estimated costs for Alignment B1 are substantially less than for B2. Specifically, construction costs for Alignment B1 are approximately 45% of those for Alignment B2 for both BRT and LRT options (Objective 5). Operation and maintenance costs on Alignment B1 are 60% of those for Alignment B2 for BRT and 50% of those for Alignment B2 for LRT.

27 Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 Page 6 Table 2. Cost Estimates Cost Alignment B1 Alignment B2 Capital Cost 1 BRT: $84 million BRT: $188 million LRT: $119 million LRT: $243 million Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs BRT: $1.5 million LRT: $1.6 million BRT: $2.5 million LRT: $3.1 million 1 Capital costs include estimated public utility relocation costs. Right-of-way costs are also included in the capital cost estimate. Right-of-way costs were estimated based on information in the Alternatives Analysis (AA) and updated potential parcel acquisition estimates. 2.5 Neighborhood Concerns From February 2011 to January 2013, nearly three dozen public meeting and other events were held in Saint Paul, including the East Side communities, as part of the Gateway Corridor Alternatives Analysis study (see Appendix A). As part of this effort, a concerted effort was made to identify and engage potentially affected environmental justice communities. During these meetings, a wide range of input was received on the project, including Alignments B1 and B2. Positive comments on both alignments were received relating to the transportation and economic benefits they would bring to the adjacent neighborhoods. However, far more concerns were expressed regarding potential adverse impacts of Alignment B2 than Alignment B1. The primary topics addressed in the concerns about Alignment B2 included the potential for acquisition and demolition of homes and businesses, reduced property values, impacts to the urban and historic character of the neighborhoods, business and traffic impacts (both shorter term during construction and longer-term during operations), added transit travel time; and general quality of life for East Side neighborhoods. (The project website includes a complete record of the comments received on the DRAFT Final Alternatives Analysis Report.) 2.6 Regional Transit Investments As planning for the Gateway Corridor has been underway, planning for other transitways in the region, including the northeast sector where the Gateway Corridor is located, has also proceeded. In May 2013, the East 7 th Street Arterial BRT was added to the official map of the Metropolitan Council s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan as a planned regional transitway in the vicinity of the west end of the Gateway Corridor (Figure 4). The East 7 th Street Arterial BRT corridor would operate between downtown Saint Paul and the Maplewood Mall Transit Center and would include the diagonal portion of East 7 th Street that is also part of Alignment B2. Not only would this duplicate service with Alignment B2 but it could require separate runningways (Gateway Corridor would run on a fixed guideway and the East 7 th Arterial BRT would likely run on the roadway in mixed traffic, to be consistent with other planned arterial BRT corridors). Metro Transit is expected to conduct more detailed planning on the East 7 th Arterial BRT project in the near future.

28 Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 Page 7 Figure 4. Regional Transitways Source: 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (Metropolitan Council, May 2013) 3.0 Summary The comparative advantages and disadvantages of the two alignments discussed above are summarized as follows by key topic area: Physical and Operational Impacts: Alignment B1 has substantially less physical and operational impact than B2, including property acquisitions, property access changes, on-street parking loss, traffic operations, and reductions in roadway capacity. The degree of adverse impacts for Alignment B2 is twice to many times greater than for B1. Populations Served: The Alignment B2 station areas are proximate to about 50% more population, nearly twice as many jobs, and somewhat greater numbers of people who depend on transit as Alignment B1. Ridership and Travel Time: Despite the larger population and employment base within the Alignment B2 stations compared to Alignment B1, Alignment B2 would deliver only nominally greater ridership benefits than B1 (9,300 weekday transit trips for B1 and 10,500 for B2)) under LRT, and lower ridership than B1 under BRT (8,800 weekday transit trips for B1 and 6,600 for B2). Additionally, the number of potential new transit trips under either BRT or LRT are within 200 riders when comparing Alignments B1 and B2 (2,100/3,800 new riders for BRT/LRT B1 and 2,300/4,000 for B2). This is primarily

29 Comparison of Alignment Options B1 and B2 Page 8 due to the slower travel time and greater distance traveled for Alignment B2 (Objectives 2 and 3). Cost: Estimated costs for Alignment B1 are less than for B2. Specifically, construction costs for Alignment B1 are approximately 45% of those for Alignment B2 for both BRT and LRT options. Operation and maintenance costs on Alignment B1 are 60% of those for Alignment B2 for BRT and 50% of those for Alignment B2 for LRT. Neighborhood Concerns: During the Gateway Corridor AA study process, Alignment B2 was the subject of substantially greater neighborhood concern than Alignment B1. Most of the concerns pertained to the degree of adverse neighborhood, traffic, and property impacts that would result from B2. Regional Transit Investments: East 7 th Street in St. Paul has been identified in the Metropolitan Council s adopted Transportation Policy Plan as a corridor for development as an Arterial BRT Transitway. Arterial BRT service is intended to serve the local transit market in east St. Paul. Alignment B2 would conflict with plans for service development on East 7 th Street. In contrast, Alignment B1 would not duplicate local service along East 7 th Street and is consistent with providing more efficient service for longer distance travel along the I-94 corridor. Of the six categories of issues discussed above, Alignment B2 would be proximate to a larger population and employment base and would generate somewhat greater ridership. However, this advantage does not outweigh its substantial disadvantages in the form of greater cost; slower travel time; extensive neighborhood, traffic, and property impacts; neighborhood concerns; and would overlap with future East 7 th Street arterial BRT service as planned in Metropolitan Council s adopted TPP.

30 ARCADE ST. TH 61 WHITE BEAR AVE. EARL ST. ETNA ST. HAZELWOOD ST. GERMAIN ST. KENNARD ST. FLANDRAU ST. JOHNSON PKWY. JOHNSON PARKWAY STATION 7TH ST. 7TH ST. 7TH STREET / WHITE BEAR AVENUE STATION ARCADE STREET STATION E ROSS AVE ALIGNMENT B2 MEDIAN GUIDEWAY WITH ONE TRAFFIC LANE ON EITHER SIDE - ELIMINATES 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC LANES AND REQUIRES R.O.W. ACQUISITION E BUSH AVE E REANEY AVE MINNEHAHA AVE MINNEHAHA AVE. E BEECH ST. MEDIAN GUIDEWAY WITH ONE TRAFFIC LANE ON EITHER SIDE - ELIMINATES 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC LANES 7TH ST. SINNEN ST. HOPE ST. E MARGARET ST. CYPRESS ST. MEDIAN GUIDEWAY WITH ONE TRAFFIC LANE ON EITHER SIDE - ELIMINATES 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC LANES AND REQUIRES R.O.W. ACQUISITION MARGARET ST. 5TH ST. BATES AVE. MAPLE ST. 3RD STREET / WHITE BEAR AVENUE STATION 3RD ST. METRO STATE STATION KELLOGG BLVD. ALIGNMENT A GUIDEWAY ON NORTH SIDE OF MOUNDS BLVD MOUNDS BLVD. METRO STATE STATION MARIA AVE. GUIDEWAY REQUIRES RECONSTRUCTION OF HUDSON ROAD AND R.O.W. ACQUISITION PACIFIC ST. I-94 HUDSON RD. EARL STREET STATION ALIGNMENT B1 JOHNSON PKWY. HUDSON RD. GUIDEWAY REQUIRES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BRIDGE PACIFIC ST. ETNA ST. STATION PACIFIC ST. ALIGNMENT TRANSITIONS FROM CENTER MEDIAN TO NORTH SIDE OF I-94 OFF-RAMP HUDSON RD. GUIDEWAY REQUIRES RECONSTRUCTION OF HUDSON ROAD AND R.O.W. ACQUISITION WILSON AVE. ALIGNMENT C OLD HUDSON RD. WHITE BEAR AVENUE STATION SUBURBAN AVE. DRAFT SCALE IN FEET GATEWAY CORRIDOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ALIGNMENT B1-B2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS DATE: 9/17/2013 SHEET NO. 1 1

31 Table 1. Gateway Corridor Alignment B1 and B2 Comparative Evaluation Physical/Operating Characteristics Station Locations Alignment B1 (Mounds Blvd/Hudson Road/I 94) 4 Stations: Metro State Earl Street Etna Street White Bear Alignment B2 (Mounds Blvd/E 7th St/White Bear Ave N) 5 Stations: Metro State Arcade Street Johnson Parkway 7th St/White Bear Avenue 3rd St/White Bear Avenue Information Source Alignment Length Running Time Average Speed Existing and proposed signalized grade crossings Net number of pedestrian and bicycle crossings Number of curves Number of bridge structures (modify existing) 2.5 miles (Kellogg to White Bear) 4.0 miles (Kellogg to White Bear) Review of alignment Approximately 4 minutes Approximately minutes Eval of Alts Tech Memo Approximately mph Approximately mph Eval of Alts Tech Memo 3 13 Review of alignment 0 21 Review of alignment 7 5 Review of alignment 3, Earl Street Bridge over I 94/Guideway, Pedestrian Bridge East of Earl, Ped Bridge West of TH 61. MSU Overpass potential vertical clearance issue for OCS on LRT Option. Earl Review of alignment Street Overpass looks to be a non issue Number of bridge structures (new) Goals Tier 1 Goals Objectives 1 2 Maximize number of people served (future) Maximize transit ridership Evaluation Measures 2030 population and employment within 1/2 mile of stations 1, Guideway Bridge over Johnson Parkway 0 Review of alignment Evaluation Results Population: 18,900 Employment: 4, 900 Population: 28,200 Employment: 10,400 Number of zero car households within 1/2 mile of stations ,200 1,500 ACS estimated zero car households 1,300 1,750 Number of weekday transit trips on Gateway Corridor transitway compared to No Build Number of new transit trips Number of total corridor wide transit trips BRT: 8,800 (includes 2,700 express riders on guideway) LRT: 9,300 BRT: 2,100 LRT: 3,800 BRT: 28,200 LRT: 30,800 BRT: 6,600 LRT: 10,500 BRT: 2,300 LRT: 4,000 BRT: 28,300 LRT: 31,100 MetroGIS TAZ2000 shapefile (dataset current as of January 20, 2012) MetroGIS TAZ2000 shapefile (dataset current as of January 20, 2012) and ACS Optimization Technical Memo (10/12) Table 6; AA Final Report Table 6 3 and imputed (B2) AA Final Report, Figure 6 1 Optimization Technical Memo (10/12) Table 6; Travel Demand Technical Memorandum (8/12) Table 1. Only East Side portions of route ridership included for Routes 61,63,74. Also eliminated W100 route. Goal 1. Improve Mobility 3 Maximize travel time savings 4 Minimize traffic impacts Performance against regional guidelines Travel times during the morning peak hour compared to single occupant vehicle and express bus service, compared against regional guidelines (for LRT and highway BRT: at least 20% faster than local bus) Savings in regional vehicle hours travelled (VHT) Changes in local street capacity and accessibility (intersection restrictions, lane reductions, traffic diversions) BRT (Auto): "+" Score "Exceeds R.G. in all 4 corridor segs (Not < 35% slower than avg. auto or exp bus time") LRT (Auto): "+" Score "Exceeds R.G. in all 4 corridor segs (Not < 35% slower than avg. auto or exp bus time") BRT: 16 minutes (Segment 2) LRT: 14 minutes (Segment 2) BRT: 5% savings in Segment 2 LRT: 5% savings in Segment 2 Minimal Impacts, Portions of Hudson Road may change from Two Way to One Way BRT (Auto): " " Score Meets R.G. in 2 or less of 4 corridor segs LRT (Auto): "O" Score Meets R.G. in all but 1 of 4 corridor segs BRT: 26 minutes (Segment 2) LRT: 23 minutes (Segment 2) BRT: 5% savings in Segment 2 LRT: 5% savings in Segment 2 Reducing capacity on 7th Ave and White Bear Ave, reducing from 4 to 2 lanes. 3 Intersections change from full access to restricted left turns on 7th ave 37 thru/stop intersections change from full access to RIRO Table 1 (pg. 9), Eval of Alts Tech Memo App. D & E, Eval of Alts Tech Memo App D: Detailed Evaluation Results Tables, Eval of Alts Tech Memo, pgs 3 9 Overall Summary of Alternatives 3 through 6 St. Paul Memo Goal 2. Provide a Cost Effective, Economically Viable Transit Option 5 Cost Capital cost (includes public utility relocation costs and preliminary ROW costs) BRT: $84 M LRT: $119 M BRT: $188 M LRT: $243 M Updated capital cost estimates (year 2018), based on current design quantities. This is NOT a total capital cost estimate, but a comparative cost of major items for the alignmnent segments. Tier 2 Goals Annual operating and maintenance costs BRT: $1.5 M LRT: $1.6 M BRT: $2.5 M LRT: $3.1 M 2020 Optimized O&M Cost Estimates from AA, in proportion to alignment length Goal 3. Support Economic Development 6 Maximize number of people served (existing) 2010 population and employment within 1/2 mile of stations Population: 17,900 Employment: 3,800 Population: 26,800 Employment: 6,300 MetroGIS TAZ2000 shapefile (dataset current as of January 20, 2012) Number of acres of open water within 125 feet of centerline of alternative; acres of wetland, water body, floodplain and parkland impact Waterbodies/open water: none Wetlands: none Floodplains: none Parklands: none Waterbodies/open water: none Wetlands: none Floodplains: none Parklands: none DNR Public Waters, National Wetlands Inventory, FEMA 100 Year Floodplains, Regional, State, and National Parks and Forests Goal 4. Protect the Natural Environmental Features of the Corridor 7 Minimize potential environmental impacts Number of potentially environmentally sensitive areas (historic district, wild and scenic river, national river and recreation area) within 125 feet of centerline of alternatives NRHP listed or eligible structures: 6 Other historical structures (not evaluated, but previously inventoried): 320 Previously identified archaeological sites: 0 Other archaeological sites (not evaluated): 0 NRHP listed or eligible structures: 28 Other historical structures (not evaluated but previously inventoried): 745 Previously identified archaeological sites: 0 Other archaeological sites (not evaluated): 1 NRHP Cultural Resource Districts, DNR Wild & Scenic Rivers, MetroGIS/NPS MNRRA Boundary, 106 Group Wild & Scenic Rivers: none Mississippi National River Recreation Area: 0.48 acres Wild & Scenic Rivers: none Mississippi National River Recreation Area: acres Goal 5. Preserve and Protect Individual Community Quality of Life 8 9 Maximize potential community benefits and minimize potential community impacts Minimize area traffic impacts Approximate number of full and partial parcel acquisitions Noise and vibration sensitive land uses (residential units) within 500 feet of centerline of alternative Intersection closures 0 Full: 10 Partial: 40 "+" Score Strongly supports goal (proximity to <500 residential units) Intersections converted to right in/right out 0 37 Full: 190 Partial: 195 Estimaetd loss of on street parking 130 Spaces 865 Spaces Overall Summary of Alternatives 3 through 6 St. Paul Memo. Updated to reflect 16 foot travel lanes under B2). "0" Score Supports goal (proximity to 500 Table 5 (pg. 12), Eval of Alts Tech Memo 1,000 residential units) 0 full intersection closures, 140 driveway Overall Summary of Alternatives 3 through impacts (RIRO) 6 St. Paul Memo Overall Summary of Alternatives 3 through 6 St. Paul Memo Overall Summary of Alternatives 3 through 6 St. Paul Memo Number of at grade transitway street crossings 3 crossings All At Signals 33 crossings 10 Signals, 23 Thru Stop AA capital cost quantity spreadsheet

32 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A Summary of Meetings Held in Saint Paul during the AA

33 Summary of Meetings Held in Saint Paul during the AA Meeting Outcome/How meeting Date Activity Intent of Meeting Additional Information/Attendees informed next step Project Milestone: The below set of outreach activities were largely based on providing information and awareness of the Alternatives Analysis and informing the public about the decision making process and the project goals. The universe of alternatives was shown at all public meeting at input was gathered on what alignments or segments of alignments did or did not work for the community. Meeting with technical staff from St. Paul and Ramsey County were also taking place at this time to discuss the technical merits of each alternative. 2/23/11 Open House Provide overview of the AA, the universe of alternatives (approx. 20) were vetted. Information was gathered from the public on their opinions of the universe of alternatives Presentation can be found at: 3/28/11 Booth at St. Paul District 1 Community Council Annual Meeting 5/4/11 Presentation at Metro State University 5/16/11 St. Paul District 4 Community Council Meeting Presentation 5/19/11 St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee Presentation Provide information regarding the project and the universe of alternatives Provide information regarding the project and the universe of alternatives Provide information regarding the project and the universe of alternatives Provide information regarding the project and the universe of alternatives and information on how transit impacts business development Based on the input received from the public and technical data, alternatives were either eliminated or modified. A summary of comments from this meeting can be found at: Answered questions from the public, gathered information on the alternatives alignments on the East Side Students, faculty and staff provided input on how Gateway Corridor could provide access to the campus. Stress was made that any alternative needs to have a station within walking distance to Metro State. District 4 had multiple alternatives run through their boundaries. The Community Council act as a neighborhood planning voice for the area. The Council asked questions and provided input on the alternatives. Open houses held in St. Paul, Woodbury, and Hudson, WI. They were publicized with press releases, e-newsletters and posters in key community locations. Translation services were available upon request and the meeting was held at a transit accessible location. Attendees: general public Attendees: general public Attendees: Faculty, staff and students Attendees: District 4 Board and general public Attendees: Transportation Committee members

34 Date Activity Intent of Meeting Meeting Outcome/How meeting informed next step Additional Information/Attendees 5/23/11 St. Paul District 1 Community Council Provide information regarding the project and the universe of alternatives District 1 had multiple alternatives run through their boundaries. The Council Attendees: District 1 Board and general public Meeting Presentation asked questions and provided input on the alternatives. 6/7/11 St. Paul District 5 Community Council Meeting Presentation Provide information regarding the project and the universe of alternatives District 5 had multiple alternatives run through their boundaries. The Council asked questions and provided input on the alternatives. Attendees: District 5 Board and general public Project Milestone: Based on the input gathered at the above meetings, at other outreach events held in other segments of the Corridor and with technical and policy committees, the Universe of Alternatives was narrowed to eight alternatives. Alternative alignments that were eliminated in St. Paul were done so based on the feedback that the largely residential streets did not support the transitway investment. The eight alternatives focused on Hudson Road, E. 7 th Street and White Bear Avenue. 6/27/11 Joint meeting with District Councils and Business Groups 7/19/11 Meeting with District 1 Council Staff 7/25/11 St. Paul Transportation Committee presentation Provide information about the eight alternatives to the leaders of St. Paul groups Provide a preview of the information that would be showed at the open houses. Provided the same presentation that would be at the St. Paul open house which included information on the AA process and the eight alternatives and station locations Key staff from St. Paul groups had the chance to see the eight alternatives and asked questions and provided comments. This was Corridor staffs first opportunity to gain feedback on the eight alternatives and to have the group provide information on how they wanted staff to engage their community. Gained insight about how staff could better present materials at the St. Paul open house Gained insight from the policy level on the eight alternatives and group provided input on how to better engage St. Paul residents and businesses This working group of key leaders from District Councils, non-profits and business groups met for the first time on this date. Going forward they requested to be scheduled to meet every time there was a change in project information or an opportunity for them to provide details on how staff could better engage St. Paul communities. Attendees: staff from District Councils 1, 2, 4 and 5 and business association members from White Bear Ave Business Association Attendees: St. Paul Transportation Committee members

35 Date Activity Intent of Meeting 7/28/11 Open House A presentation was done and presentation boards were on display. Information on the AA process and the Corridor was provided. The main information presented focused on the eight alternatives and station locations. The presentation can be found at: 7/28/11 Dayton s Bluff Business Association presentation Provided the same presentation that would be at the St. Paul open house which included information on the AA process and the eight alternatives and station locations Meeting Outcome/How meeting informed next step Based on comments from the open houses, alternatives were refined and station locations were shifted to meet community needs. The major station shift in St. Paul was with the Johnson St. station being moved to Early Street based on comments. As summary of comments can be found at: The group provided input on the business perspective of the alternatives and station locations. Additional Information/Attendees Open houses held in St. Paul, Woodbury, and Hudson, WI. They were publicized with press releases, e-newsletters and posters in key community locations. Spanish and Hmong translators were the meeting and it was held at a transit accessible location. Attendees: General Public Attendees: Members of the Dayton s Bluff Business Association Project Milestone: After the engagement activities that surrounded the eight alternatives there were many comments about removing Alternatives 4 and 6 due to the high level of impacts to existing properties and to vehicle travel lanes. Many of the meetings below were held in order to discuss if the alternatives should be eliminated at this point or if they should remain in the process. After many public meetings and information gathered from the technical and policy committees it was determined that the alternatives should remain until there is further information on ridership, costs and overall positive and negative community impacts. 8/17/11 East Side Groups Meeting Staff provided updates on Gateway Corridor, Rush Line Corridor (northeast diagonal through St. Paul) and Metro Transit provided information about local bus and arterial BRT study 9/14/11 East Side Business Association Presentation 10/18/11 Sun Ray Business Meeting Staff gave a presentation on the eight alternatives, ongoing schedule and decision making process Staff sat down with business owners/managers of the Sun Ray Shopping Mall to talk about the potential for that station area and the impacts of the Corridor on their businesses Informed key leaders in the East Side of all the transit projects in the area. Groups provided updates to their outreach projects and provided information on what groups Gateway staff should contact to set up meetings. Decided to have this group meet in the future. Business community members from the East Side provided input on the eight alternatives and station locations Owners/managers provided information on how they thought their costumers would use Gateway and the potential for new development in the underused shopping center Attendees: Staff from District Councils 1, 2, 4 and 5, East Side Prosperity Campaign, Community Design Center, Alliance for Metropolitan Stability Attendees: East Side Business Association members Attendees: Manager of Bruegger s, owner of Culver s, Pastor of Grace Lutheran Church and staff from District 1 Community Council

36 Date Activity Intent of Meeting Meeting Outcome/How meeting informed next step Additional Information/Attendees 7/7/11 Meeting with staff lead Engage East Side was applying for a Engage East Side staff wanted Attendees: Lead staff from Engage East Side of Engage East Side Corridors of Opportunity grant to do transit outreach in the East Side. information about how their engagement efforts could align with the Gateway Corridor efforts and how they could engage with environmental justice populations in the East Side 1/10/12 St. Paul District 17 Development Review Committee Staff gave a presentation on the eight alternatives, ongoing schedule and decision making process Committee provided input of the alternatives from the perspective of the downtown development perspective Attendees: District 17 Development Review Committee members Project Milestone: November - January, 2011 the consultant team, staff and the technical and policy committees were working through the technical evaluation of ridership, capital and operating cost data. In early 2012, this information was presented to their public in order to get feedback on the alternatives in relation to technical data and how the alignments would impact their community. During the next set of meetings, the intent was to start to get an idea on which alternatives were more preferred over others based on technical analysis and community visions. Staff also encouraged every group to provide input on how there could be additional engagement with the East Side community. 1/30/12 St. Paul Transportation Committee 2/6/12 St. Paul District 4 Community Council 2/8/12 East Side Business Association Staff gave a presentation on the ridership and cost projections on the eight transit alternatives Staff gave a presentation on the ridership and cost projections on the eight transit alternatives and provided information about upcoming open houses. Staff gave a presentation on the ridership and cost projections on the eight transit alternatives and provided information about upcoming open houses. Committee members provided their input on the alternatives, now based on ridership and cost data, and provided some input on how this information could be presented to the public Council members provided their input on the alternatives, now based on ridership and cost data, and provided some input on how this information could be presented to the public East Side business representatives provided their input on the alternatives, now based on ridership and cost data, and provided some input on how this information could be presented to the public Attendees: St. Paul Transportation Committee members Attendees: District 4 Council members Attendees: East Side Business Association members

37 Date Activity Intent of Meeting 2/8/12 St. Paul District 5 Community Council 2/15/12 St. Paul District 2 Community Council 3/2/12 Engage East Side sitdown Staff gave a presentation on the ridership and cost projections on the eight transit alternatives and provided information about upcoming open houses. Staff gave a presentation on the ridership and cost projections on the eight transit alternatives and provided information about upcoming open houses. Engage East Side wanted an update on the technical data for all of the alternatives. Staff met with group and walked through the technical data and the evaluation. 3/27/12 Open House Staff presented all of the alternatives, costs, ridership and the evaluation measures. Boards were available and a large scale map for people to post questions and concerns was also available. A questions/answer session was conducted after the presentation. The presentation can be viewed here: Meeting Outcome/How meeting informed next step Council members provided their input on the alternatives, now based on ridership and cost data, and provided some input on how this information could be presented to the public Council members provided their input on the alternatives, now based on ridership and cost data, and provided some input on how this information could be presented to the public Group asked questions and provided comments on the data. We also formed a plan on how all the involved agencies and groups in St. Paul could work together to advertise the upcoming open house. It was decided that a flyer would be set to every property along the alternatives and the Engage East Side partners would help with translation. Verbal and written comments were collected from all participants. The main goal was to gain feedback on the TAC, PAC and Commission s ranking of the alternatives. Comments can be found here: This set of open houses (and all engagement in early 2012) lead to the decision to extend the AA (see project milestone below). Additional Information/Attendees Attendees: District 5 Council members Attendees: District 2 Council members Attendees: staff from Prosperity Campaign, Hmong American Partnership, American Indian Family Center, Casa de Esperanza, Ramsey County, St. Paul and Districts 4 and 5. Open houses also held in Woodbury, Hudson and Eau Claire. The open houses were advertised via a press release, e-newsletter, Facebook event and flyers in key community centers. Flyers with information about the open house translated into Hmong, Spanish and Somali were sent to every property in St. Paul along the alternatives. Attendees: General public, over 100 people attended the St. Paul open house

38 Date Activity Intent of Meeting Meeting Outcome/How meeting informed next step Additional Information/Attendees 4/17/12 White Bear Avenue Business Association Staff sat down over lunch at a longstanding pizza restaurant in the The businesses along White Bear Avenue would have the most to gain and lose (via Attendees: members of the White Bear Avenue Business Association. community to talk about the (positive and negative) impacts the alternatives could have on their businesses and community. Information about the alternatives and the evaluation was distributed in a handout. property impacts). The general sentiment was that business owners just wanted a decision to be made on the alternatives so they knew if their property would be impacted or not. There was also recognition that with connecting bus service, alternatives 3 and 5 would attract more people to White Bear Avenue. 4/17/12 Meeting with partners of the Corridors of Opportunity and Engage East Side Staff met with the administrators of the Corridors of Opportunity grant program and the leaders of Engage East Side (received a grant to do engagement around Gateway Corridor in the East Participants provided input about how the Engage East Side grant money could be used to do additional outreach with minority populations. There were also many questions brought up about the Attendees: Staff from Corridors of Opportunity office (Metropolitan Council), Washington and Ramsey Counties, St. Paul, Engage East Side, Nexus Community Partners, Alliance for Metropolitan Stability Side). Updates were given on the outreach efforts over the last few months and the feedback that had been received. potential for alternatives 4 and 6 to have a reduced footprint in order to have fewer property impacts. 4/25/12 St. Paul District 2 Community Council Open House Booth and handouts Staff had a booth for the open house and answered questions and received comments about the alternatives, the evaluation and ranking. Feedback was received about the viability of all the St. Paul alignments. Similar questions and comments were collected as those from the open houses. Attendees: General public, community members from District 2 Project Milestone: There were many comments collected in early 2012 about adding/changing station locations, modifying alignments in the eastern portions of the corridor and about the impacts (both positive and negative) of the alignments in the East Side of St. Paul. Numerous technical and policy committee members and the public commented that alternative 4 and 6 could have many positive outcomes for the East Side but the severe property impacts greatly limited the potential for success. The Commission decided to extend the scope of the AA in order to investigate the above matters. Gateway staff spent May-October working through the new scope of work. A large effort was put towards determine the specific cross-sections of White Bear Avenue and E. 7 th Street to determine if the footprint could be reduced in order to reduce impacts. Overall, it was determined that the cross-sections of alternative 4 and 6 could not be reduced enough to decrease the property impacts. The following engagement was done in order to inform key leaders about these findings and to establish a plan to get information out to the public. Staff also made the request for all key leaders to help set up other meetings and presentations in their community.

39 Date Activity Intent of Meeting 9/22/12 Meeting with East Side Business Association staff 9/28/12 Engage East Side and other St. Paul partners sit-down 10/11/12 St. Paul District 5 Community Council 10/10/12 East Side Business Association meeting Gateway staff sat down with East Side Business Association staff to talk through the above project milestones and to get feedback about how staff could better engage the East Side business community. Gateway staff presented the results of the attempt to narrow the footprint of alternatives 4 and 6. The overall intent of this meeting was to provide the key leaders in St. Paul the knowledge of all the alternatives, technical data and the ranking of those alternatives. Staff presented information on the alternatives ranking and requested feedback about this ranking. Staff gave a presentation and conducted a question answer session with the group. The presentation revolved around the findings that it was not possible to reduce the footprint of alternatives 4 and 6 enough to make any significant reduction to property impacts. Meeting Outcome/How meeting informed next step East Side Business Association staff provided input on how they could work with Gateway staff to increase engagement opportunities. Staff requested that everyone in attendance continue to inform their stakeholders and that staff was willing to meet with any group to gain more feedback. District 5 council and members of the public asked many questions about funding and what the next steps in the process were. There was the general sentiment that alternatives 4 and 6 were not variable for the East Side. The group asked many questions about funding and what the next steps in the process were. Additional Information/Attendees Attendees: East Side Business Association staff Attendees: staff from Ramsey and Washington Counties, St. Paul, Metro Transit, Alliance for Metropolitan Stability, Hmong American Partnership, American Indian Family Center, Nexus Community Partners, Engage East Side, St. Paul District Councils 1 and 5. Attendees: District 5 council members and approximately 20 members of the general public. Attendees: East Side Business Association members Project Milestone: Based on the analysis conducted in May and October and the information received from the TAC, PAC and outreach efforts, it was determined, and approved by TAC, PAC and the Gateway Corridor Commission, that alternatives 4 and 6 remained at a low ranking. In October 2012, the Gateway Corridor Commission approved the recommendation of the TAC and PAC to take alternatives 3 and 5 into the DEIS.

40 Date Activity Intent of Meeting 11/5/12 1/3/13 Draft Final AA Report Public Comment Period 11/5/12 St. Paul Transportation Committee 11/19/12 Sit-down with St. Paul District 1 Staff 12/18/12 East Side Gateway Corridor Forum The Gateway Corridor Commission directed staff to publish the draft AA report, included in it the recommendation of carrying alternatives 3 and 5 into the DEIS, for public comment. Staff gave a presentation based on the Gateway Corridor recommendation of advancing alternatives 3 and 5 into the DEIS. Gateway staff met with District 1 staff to review the recommendation of the Gateway Corridor Commission on advancing alternatives 3 and 5 into the DEIS. Residents of the East Side invited Gateway Corridor staff and elected officials to speak about transit and specifically the Gateway Corridor final recommendation. Meeting Outcome/How meeting informed next step Numbers written comments were received from public agencies and community members about the draft final report and recommendation to carry alternatives 3 and 5 into the DEIs. The full list of comments can be seen in full here: Committee members provided feedback about the process and the recommendation. They were also made aware of the public comment period. District 1 staff said they would present the information to their board and submit a letter in support of the findings. The feedback at this meeting was collected and included as part of the final report comments documents. The general sentiment was that attendees wanted more time to review and comment on the final report. After this meeting the Gateway Corridor Commission extended the comment period another month. Staff also expressed that they were more than willing to meet with any individual or group to gain additional input. Additional Information/Attendees Press releases, e-newsletter, Facebook posts and s to key stakeholders (including those in the East Side) about the comment period were used as advertisement. Attendees: members of the St. Paul Transportation Committee Attendees: staff from District 1 Community Council Attendees: Approximately 50 residents from the Dayton s Bluff neighborhood of the East Side.

41 Date Activity Intent of Meeting Meeting Outcome/How meeting informed next step Additional Information/Attendees 1/9/13 St-down with St. Paul District 4 Staff Gateway staff met with District 1 staff to review the recommendation of the Gateway Corridor Commission on advancing alternatives 3 and 5 into the DEIS. The conversation revolved around how the District staff and Gateway staff can work together going forward on outreach efforts. There was also a lot of conversation about how to best align the community to support multiple transit investments (Rush Line, arterial BRT, streetcar and local bus improvements). Attendees: staff from District 4 Community Council Project Milestone: The Gateway Corridor Commission approved the final report, based on public comments, in February Gateway Corridor cities and counties are in the process of passing resolutions to approve the findings of the AA report. As of the writing of this memo Washing and St. Croix Counties, St. Paul, Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, Afton, West Lakeland and Woodbury have passed resolutions to support the findings of the AA.