Highway 169 Mobility Study Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #9 Meeting Record Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:30-10:30 a.m. City of Eden Prairie Heritage Rooms I and II Attendees Brad Larsen, MnDOT Angie Stenson, Scott County Jason Gottfried, Hennepin County Josh Johnson, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Amy Marohn, City of Bloomington Rod Rue, City of Eden Prairie, Steve Stadler, City of Hopkins Joe Shamla, City of St. Louis Park Jen Lehmann, MVTA John Dillery, Metro Transit Kristine Stehly, Hennepin County Troy Beam, Scott County Jason Junge, MnDOT Tony Fischer, Metropolitan Council Carl Jensen, MnDOT Bobbie Dahlke, MnDOT Paul Morris, SRF Consulting Adele Hall, SRF Consulting Laura DeVore, SRF Consulting 1. Welcome and Introductions Brad Larsen, MnDOT Brad welcomed the group and everyone introduced themselves. 2. PAC Debrief Mona Elabbady reviewed the previous PAC meeting where the group discussed the BRT concepts and service plans, reviewed the high-level MnPASS concepts, provided an overview of Task 2, and asked the PAC for their input on community engagement next steps. The PAC directed the team to hold off on engagement for now until after technical results are provided to the PAC. Brad Larsen noted that the outcome of the study will be a recommended implementation plan of improvements, and the PAC will need to endorse this. 3. Alternatives Evaluation Adele Hall, SRF Consulting Adele Hall presented the project goals and evaluation criteria and results for the two combined BRT and MnPASS alternatives. Alternative 1 is BRT from Marschall Road to
TAC Meeting Record Page 2 downtown Minneapolis via Highway 169 and I-394 and MnPASS between Marschall Road and TH 55. Alternative 2 is BRT from Marschall Road to downtown Minneapolis via TH 55 and MnPASS between Marschall Road and TH 55. The project goals and evaluation criteria were established by the PMT, TAC, and PAC early in the study, as part of the development of the project purpose and need statement. The project goals are: Improve access to local and regional destinations, activity centers, and employment concentrations Provide better mobility in the corridor and options to avoid congestion Improve the attractiveness of transit to serve more people in the corridor Provide a high long-term return on the transportation investment Prioritize service to existing transit-supportive areas and to those committed to implementing development patterns that support transit service Preserve and enhance the quality of the built and natural environments The two alternatives both satisfy the goals and thus the purpose and need for the project, however there are some differences: Alternative 1 serves larger employment centers while Alternative 2 serves smaller employment centers. Alternative 1 has more off-peak ridership while Alternative 2 has less overall stationto-station BRT ridership but more transit dependent and reverse commute ridership. Riders on express buses that will take advantage of the project capital investments can be counted in ridership totals. The team estimates that with the improvements on Highway 169, several express routes carrying approximately 2,500 rides a day could be attracted to the corridor from other highways. Capital and operating costs are similar for the two alternatives. Alternative 1 has slightly lower capital and operating costs and is slightly more cost effective. The $591 million cost is the high end of the cost range and includes a direct connection and turbine design at I-394. Lower cost components will be considered for implementation. Alternative 2 has more residential development near the stations, while Alternative 1 has more employment. Alternative 2 has more stations and therefore more opportunity for new, transit-oriented development. West End is already showing the basic traits of transit-oriented development in its newly developed areas. Bike and pedestrian policies in St. Louis Park are more aggressive than Golden Valley but physical conditions might be harder to retrofit for bikes and pedestrians at the stations along I-394, especially at Louisiana Avenue. Joe Shamla noted that St. Louis Park will be implementing a bike lane on Louisiana Avenue in the next few years. There will be a study starting this summer and the City hopes to implement it in 2018 or realistically 2019.
TAC Meeting Record Page 3 Adele concluded that TAC and PAC need to assign value to goals and select the option that seems to satisfy those goals better. This decision will be more valuable than the numbers. TAC members offered the following comments: John Dillery noted that ridership is projected in the future based on assumptions about future jobs, population, and cities comprehensive plans. Cities will sometimes change their comprehensive plans because of a project like this. He asked whether the type of job/wage level is taken into account in the employment counts. Mona responded that it is not. John noted that there are a large number of jobs paying less than $40,000 a year in the West End and we have to think about what kinds of jobs are in any given area and the propensity of those jobs to generate transit ridership. Jason Gottfried asked if one alternative could be chosen now and the other added later. Mona noted that the primary issue with this is the cost of operations. Josh Johnson noted that higher paying jobs take the express bus while lower income workers tend to take intra-corridor routes. Jen Lehmann wondered if existing/planned I-394 service could connect to BRT on Highway 169. Mona asked the group if they prefer one alternative over the other. Steve Stadler said that since Alternative 2 serves a larger environmental justice population, it makes sense to serve the population most likely to use the service. John Dillery noted that from a transit route design perspective, Alternative 2 provides service to a new market and an otherwise unmet need. It makes more sense to provide new point to point service on Highway 55. Jason Gottfried agreed. He said that the investments are relatively similar, commute time is similar, and that Alternative 2 would add a service that does not already exist. Mona summarized that she is hearing some consensus around Alternative 2 on Highway 55. The group agreed. Paul Morris presented Alternative 3 evaluation results, which are being considered separately. Alternative 3 is defined as a MnPASS-only investment between Marschall Road and I-494. Alternative 3 was found to be effective at improving throughput and reducing delay along Highway 169 south of I-494. Because the MnPASS segment is shorter it is lower cost, but benefits are still robust. No significant environmental impacts are expected. Brad Larsen noted that this study will inform the MnPASS 3 study regarding implementation of MnPASS on Highway 169 and whether implementation of a
TAC Meeting Record Page 4 given segment is critical to the success of other segments. This analysis shows that building just this short segment still benefits the system. 4. Spot Mobility Improvements Paul Morris, SRF Consulting Early in the study the consultant team produced an existing conditions report that identified bottleneck locations along the corridor. Paul reviewed the following proposed spot mobility improvements that respond to these bottleneck locations. Focus area 1 Southbound Highway 169 between I-494 and Highway 101 Southbound (SB) Highway 169 Old Shakopee Road to Hwy 101 SB Highway 169 Pioneer Trail to Old Shakopee Road connect auxiliary lanes through the Old Shakopee Road interchange SB Highway 169 Anderson Lakes Parkway to Old Shakopee Road: connect an auxiliary lane to downstream three-lane section. Reconfigure ramps to merge I-494 westbound (WB) ramp onto SB Highway 169 into two lanes, then add combined ramp from I-494 eastbound (EB) and local roadway into third lane. Focus area 2 Northbound Highway 169 between Highway 101 and I-494 Northbound (NB) Highway 169 Hwy 101 to Old Shakopee Road o High cost solution: Braid to reduce weaving conflicts between 101 and Old Shakopee o Low cost solution: Restripe to four lanes. Note that this would not be compatible with MnPASS in this section. NB Highway 169 at Anderson Lakes Parkway o High cost solution: Widen bridge to provide three lanes and a shoulder o Low cost solution: Restripe to three lanes NB Focus area 3 NB and SB Highway 169 Lincoln Drive to I-394 Minnetonka Boulevard and Cedar Lake Road interchanges o High cost solution: Widen bridge over Minnetonka Boulevard and Minnehaha Creek o Low cost solution: Access consolidation example Highway 7 to Highway 169 o High cost solution: Extend auxiliary lane from Highway 7 SW ramp to Highway 7 loop. o Optional closure of Highway 7 SW ramp and provide left turn movement from EB Highway 7 to loop. Focus area 4 Betty Crocker Drive and TH 55
TAC Meeting Record Page 5 o John Dillery commented that the south ramps at Betty Crocker Drive should be preserved for HOV/transit only. It was noted that not all concepts have been vetted by MnDOT and should be reviewed by Traffic and Program Delivery staff. 5. Sensitivity Tests The consultant team has three sensitivity tests focused on BRT ridership in the scope of work. These tests illuminate the effects of one or two variable changes. For example, the current service plan assumes that BRT would operate every 10 minutes. A sensitivity test would reveal the impact of reducing frequencies from 10 minutes to 15 minutes on ridership. All concepts assume that a MnPASS lane will need to be built. Mona notes that the PMT suggested that we hold off on these tests until we have gone to the PAC. John Dillery noted that stations at Bren Road, Cedar Lake Road, and Douglas Drive should be considered for elimination in a sensitivity test. Others agreed. 6. Schedule and Next Steps The next PAC meeting is June 22 nd at Bloomington City Hall. The next TAC meeting will be set following the PAC meeting.