Highway 169 Mobility Study Policy Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Meeting Record Wednesday April 5, 2017 3:30 5:30 p.m. Scott County Government Center County Board Room, 2nd Floor 200 4th Ave W, Shakopee, MN 55379 PAC Members and Alternates Scott McBride, MnDOT Jan Callison, Hennepin County Mike Beard, Scott County Nancy Tyra-Lukens, City of Eden Prairie Jeff Wosje, City of Plymouth/Plymouth Metrolink Other Attendees Brad Larsen, MnDOT Angie Stenson, Scott County Lisa Freese, Scott County Joe Scala, Hennepin County Cole Hiniker, Metropolitan Council Kevin Staunton, Edina City Council Katy Campbell, City of Hopkins Jerry McDonald, SouthWest Transit Jon Ulrich, Scott County Steve Schmidgall, City of Golden Valley Tim Brausen, City of St. Louis Park Eric Weiss, City of Shakopee Mona Elabbady, SRF Consulting Paul Morris, SRF Consulting Joe Kapper, SRF Consulting Adele Hall, SRF Consulting Paul Glaser, HNTB 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Task 2- Intercity Bus from Mankato Update Joe Kapper, SRF Consulting Joe Kapper presented on the study of intercity bus service between Mankato and the Twin Cities. Existing service is provided by Land to Air. The Task 2 part of the Highway 169 Mobility Study considered expansion and addition of service in this corridor The study conducted outreach on college campuses and to employers and transit customers in Mankato. There was a good response diversity with more than 2,000 responses. Many were not aware of the current service in the corridor; it was unaffordable for many. (Current fare on Land to Air is $65 from Mankato to the Twin Cities.) Respondents stated that it is important to connect to public transit on either end of their trip. As part of Task 2 the team documented existing conditions, reviewed peer systems, identified stop locations within and outside of the Twin Cities, proposed level of service and service details, and prescribed a fare structure.
PAC Meeting Record Page 2 The Hawthorne Ramp in downtown Minneapolis was chosen as the route terminus because it allows for connections to Greyhound, Megabus, and other intercity bus services, in addition to local service, which makes it eligible for certain MnDOT funds. A one-way trip is $12.50 and is distance based. There is fairly strong demand today of approximately 25,000-30,000 annual rides on Land-to-Air trips; estimated demand for service in the corridor is about 98,000 boardings per year. Evidence from stakeholders and surveys support this estimate. Next steps: Land to Air applied for funds from MnDOT; their grant request was approved and they will begin operating two trips a day. The PMT will continue to meet to develop standards for the station locations and continue outreach to universities and other groups that may need to use the group. Fares today reflect no subsidy; subsidy is needed to maintain lower fares. Scott McBride asked if this concluded the work for the study; Joe Kapper confirmed that work is substantially complete. Scott McBride asked if this work led to Land to Air s grant submittal to MnDOT s transit program and Joe Kapper clarified that it did not directly, but the two trips a day that they will provide are a good first step on the program identified during this task. Nancy Tyra-Lukens asked if it was a new provider and if the 98,000 boardings were in addition to the 25-30,000 rides. Joe Kapper clarified it was not a new service but Land to Air and the 98,000 boards would be in addition to the 25,000-30,000 rides. Nancy Tyra-Lukens followed up by asking if the pricing model was based on other areas, or the price needed to get people to use the service and what the subsidy is per ride. Joe Kapper explained that the subsidy per ride would depend on how it s funded. Fares were developed looking at peer Colorado and Minnesota systems that receive state assistance. Jan Callison asked if the PAC was just receiving this information; she was skeptical and so did not want to be perceived as endorsing it. Scott McBride explained that this an advisory board and that this was intended to be an informational item, so no action is needed from this group. Brad Larsen added that the study is complete and showed there is some demand for this service. The study influenced Land to Air s application for enhanced service. It was championed by the 169 Corridor Coalition and MnDOT District 7. Jan Callison noted that current service goes to the airport; this one would go to downtown. She expressed caution regarding addition of another transit project to compete with others in this political climate Lisa Freese explained that service in this corridor is funded through MnDOT s statewide transit service which is meant to serve greater Minnesota, although it does touch the metro. It s different than metro area service and the project sponsors struggled a bit with how it would interface with local transit service. The current service to MSP Airport will continue, and the new service will go to downtown Minneapolis. Brad Larsen clarified that they are really talking about three separate services: the current service goes to the airport; the service one studied here goes
PAC Meeting Record Page 3 from Mankato to Twin Cities, and this prompted Land to Air to pursue a third service between Mankato to Downtown Minneapolis that is in addition to their service to MSP with a reduced fare of $16. The service is comparable to a Greyhound type service. Scott McBride asked if the Task 2 report will be completed separate from the BRT and MnPASS report. Brad Larsen stated that yes, the reports will be separate and will be brough separately to various agency boards for action. Lisa Freese explained that the Regional Development Commission in Mankato may be facilitating future steps. Mike Beard stated that regardless of the action taken here, Land to Air proceeded anyway. They found benefit in the work we did and took their own action. 3. Study Process Mona Elabbady, SRF Since the PAC last met in October, the TAC has met twice, the transit providers have reviewed the BRT service plans, and the city staff have reviewed the BRT and MnPASS concepts. At the last meeting the PAC decided on the alternatives for more detailed study. And since then the team has progressed with development of concepts for each alternative, and has started technical analysis on the alternatives. 4. BRT Alternatives a. Service Plans Mona Elabbady, SRF The BRT service plan provides the details of how the service will operate and are inputs to the ridership forecast. BRT service will stop at every station identified. The BRT service would operate seven days a week with 10-minute frequencies during peak times, 15-minute frequencies during offpeak times, and every 30 minutes late night. There would be 18 hours of service a day. This is a longer corridor; travel times end to end on the I-394 alternative are 90-95 minutes and on the Highway 55 alternative are 105-110 minutes. The alternatives would need 28 and 32 buses respectively. Generally, its assumed that people who are making the end-to-end trip are on express buses, not on this service. Network assumptions also are important inputs to the ridership forecast model. These included programmed transit improvements, as well as some proposed changes to local bus service to connect to the stations. The service plan assumed no changes to express bus service in the corridor except that they would use MnPASS. Katy Campbell asked if the frequencies would be bidirectional. Mona responded yes, although they differ according to time of day. Mike Beard asked if it is more about capacity or service levels that buses are more frequent during peaks. Mona Elabbady explained that is for both reasons; these are preliminary, however. Once we have some results, will discuss how much service is needed. Mike Beard was interested in diminishing returns on increased levels of service. b. BRT Concepts Paul Glaser, HNTB Paul reviewed the BRT routing and station locations starting at Marschall Road Station. Jon Ulrich asked if a stop at Old Shakopee would be beneficial to connect to jobs on Old Shakopee and I-494. Paul Glaser explained that Pioneer Trail was discussed along with Old Shakopee for this station and
PAC Meeting Record Page 4 Pioneer Trail was chosen because it offers a better connection to local bus service. Nancy Tyra- Lukens stated that Pioneer Trail has no parking. Paul Glaser explained that no parking has been identified as part of this project, though this location was identified in prior planning documents as a park and ride location by the Metropolitan Council. Mona Elabbady went on to explain that no parking is assumed here because the assumption is for local bus connections and walk up connections. Nancy Tyra-Lukens asked if local bus connections would require people to walk across Pioneer Trail and if one bus service would cover one side of the station and one service would cover another, since Highway 169 is a territory boundary between Metro Transit and SouthWest Transit (SWT). Cole Hiniker stated that in discussions with SouthWest Transit about it they didn t commit, but were open to discussing it for planning purposes. Jan Callison said she assumed that SWT would provide this service, but Bren Road is not their service territory. So who would be the service provider? Mona Elabbady stated that this hasn tbeen explored yet. All of the transit providers have participated in the study, but this will probably be explored in the implementation plan. Jon Ulrich explained that this service would not be terribly different than Orange Line, which is in Metro Transit and MVTA territory and Metro Transit is going to operate it. Katy Campbell asked if one provider was operating BRT and one was operating local service would the transfer opportunities still be coordinated. Mona Elabbady stated that they would be, and the Mall of America Station is a good example of the services working together to provide seamless service to the customer. Katy Campbell asked if 8 th Avenue in Hopkins is one way northbound and if buses can make the move shown. Just the block where the buses will operate is bidirectional, so the movement will work Katy Campbell also questioned whether the infrastructure for this line could be accommodated into the Southwest LRT station to be constructed in the next few years.. Mona Elabbady explained that the existing interchange at Cedar Lake Road is very difficult to serve, which is why we have several potential options here. Tim Brausen asked if a station at Minnetonka Boulevard would be a better fit. There s some multifamily housing on the Minnetonka side of Cedar Lake Road but there is also similar on Minnetonka Boulevard and it could be a better fit. This seems like a lot of infrastructure. Paul Morris explained that at first there were no stations in that stretch. But both St. Louis Park and Minnetonka staff were in favor of Cedar Lake Road because of existing service and higher density housing. Jan Callison asked how many and who would be riding to and from Cedar Lake Road. It doesn t seem like a stop that would be well-used. Paul Glaser said that we are still developing ridership results and as we do this, we will see boardings and alightings at these locations. Jan Callison asked if these stops are based on reasonable station spacing, as opposed to ridership results. Mona Elabbady said yes and that at the next meeting we ll be able to share the overall ridership and the station demand. Mike Beard asked if these alternatives assume that MnPASS is implemented and Paul Glaser said that they do. Mike Beard went on to ask if we can consider these as stand-alone options. Mona Elabbady said that as part of the implementation plan this could be provided. The BRT will operate
PAC Meeting Record Page 5 in the bus-only should lanes, so the BRT infrastructure is mostly separate from the MnPASS infrastructure anyway. Katy Campbell asked if a station location west of Highway 169 was considered near Shelard Park, and whether General Mills is okay with a potential station on their property. Since the route is continuing eastbound there is no station in Shelard Park. Cole Hiniker said Metro Transit has an existing stop on General Mills property so that would be the first option and there is connection to local bus there. Local pedestrian improvements would need to be considered there, too. Cole Hiniker noted that at the West End there are two eastbound routing options so that the BRT can use the MnPASS lane when it is open. Tim Brausen asked about existing bus service on Highway 55. There is good local service on Highway 55 in Minneapolis, but less so further west, where there is some express service. Jerry McDonald noted that once you get to Marschall Road there is a lot of duplicity. At the legislature, there is not enough money to go around for transit. If this project is taking riders from SWT or Plymouth Metrolink, it will impact their ability to be funded for transit. Jerry McDonald asked if at the study considers the impact on existing transit systems because they all have routes on these highways. Mona Elabbady said that as part of the ridership forecast we estimate how many people but also how many riders are on local and express routes, too. We have acknowledged from the beginning that this isn t a funded corridor, but are exploring the feasibility. Jeff Wosje said that as we look at the results we ve already considered BRT on I-394 and Highway 55. Highway 55 had strong reverse ridership. There is a group of riders that are looking to ride to the suburbs for jobs. Mona Elabbady said that yes, the team will provide reverse commute numbers next time, too. 5. MnPASS Alternatives Paul Glaser, HNTB Paul reviewed six locations where MnPASS implementation would require more infrastructureintensive improvements. Mike Beard asked if the Nine Mile Creek Bridge currently under construction will accommodate MnPASS and was told it will accommodate MnPASS and bus-only shoulders. Mona Elabbady explained the team looked at an online station at 78 th Street because routing BRT buses offline to serve this area takes a long time, so this option would allow buses to stay on the freeway. Tim Brausen asked if the design at Cedar Lake Road anticipates reconstruction of the bridge and it does. Mona Elabbady explained that the key takeaway here is that if we re going to make MnPASS work here it will require some investment. There are many ways to do it, but they are all infrastructure -intensive. They are intended to minimize right-of-way (ROW) impacts, however, so there may be less intense options that require more ROW. Katy Campbell asked that given that we ve just closed 169 what the timing would be. Scott McBride said that it depends on funding. The study is trying to create a vision for this corridor. BRT service
PAC Meeting Record Page 6 and MnPASS lanes are not funded here for the next 20 years, however we know that the corridor is old, and pavement and bridges will need to be replaced. For example, at Cedar Lake Road, MnDOT does not know yet when this bridge will be replaced, but a vision to tell us what to do with this bridge is important. This is one of many corridors considered. Jeff Wosje wanted to know that if in that context, are there other things this group will consider like repairing existing infrastructure and adding general purpose lanes. Scott McBride said the purpose of this effort is to look at BRT and MnPASS. There is an effort to update the Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) and that document states that addition of capacity to regional highways is in strategic capacity and low-cost high-benefit solutions. The reason that this is policy is because of the funding available to us, after preservation, there is little left for new construction. In MnDOT s recently-released state highway improvement plan, the agency has $240 million over the next 20 years to spend on mobility improvements in the Twin Cities. That s $2.4 million each year. The plan says we ll spend that amount in the first five years. The plan calls for $100 M for I-35W north MnPASS lanes, $100 M for MnPASS I-94 between the downtowns, and $40 M for the rest of the region. There s a lot of debate about this at the legislature right now, but it won t change the long range plan because there s not enough money coming from those coffers to start building general capacity again. Considering other things at this point would go against the plan. If we were to implement MnPASS in this corridor we would have to go through an environmental process that would weigh general purpose lane alternatives against MnPASS alternatives. Brad Larsen went on to say that as part of this study we are also considering spot mobility improvements such as auxiliary lanes or buffer lanes at interchanges. Paul Morris explained that improvements to help at ramps, etc. in the implementation plan will also consider replacement of bridges and pavements to add these projects in a coordinated way. 6. Community Engagement Mona Elabbady, SRF Consulting Mona Elabbady proposed that we use the online communication tools to communicate results. Jan Callison questioned how results can be shared and feedback garnered while managing expectations. She thought that it seems unlikely. Mona Elabbady agreed that the funding situation and timeline/possibility would need to be communicated. Jerry McDonald said that there s a fine line between what s shared with the PAC and the public. It is good to share a limited amount with the public get it down to what s feasible, then ask what people preferfrom the options available. Mike Beard asked if we are guiding people s thinking that we are limited to MnPASS or BRT, or are we asking if they prefer general purpose lanes. Mona Elabbady stated that any questions haven t been written yet and the team is looking to this group to make a decision. Jeff Wosje explained that people care about congestion relief so we need to be able to communicate that. Scott McBride said that they need to know how MnPASS performs in this corridor because if we re going to invest in capacity it s going to be MnPASS. If we add a general-purpose lane, it ll be full in ten years and we can t keep adding more lanes. MnPASS is our last effort at adding capacity and providing a reliable trip. Jeff Wosje asked if MnPASS lane will fill up in ten years, too. Brad Larsen stated that that analysis wasn t part of the scope of this work. If we determine that MnPASS is feasible in this corridor, then we would do the analysis where it s compared to a general-purpose lane in the
PAC Meeting Record Page 7 environmental phase. MnDOT can share what we did for I-35W north; but wouldn t be the same for this corridor. Jan Callison asked to revisit the question of going out to the community at the next PAC meeting. For now, the PAC needs more information on what will be done with the results of the study first;it seems premature to make decision now.. Scott McBride said that yes, need to recognize this as a concept-level study and recognize that there are many steps between this and realizing this corridor. As we approach the end of the study and the PAC needs to have a discussion about where this goes and what it means. Jerry McDonald said that transit can t take advantage of MnPASS lanes and asked what the overall impact on congestion would be. Scott McBride explained that BRT can t take advantage of MnPASS but express buses can. Jon Ulrich sad that Scott County wanted to study this corridor because it was going to get so congested and general purpose lane additions weren t going to happen. BRT and MnPASS are possibilities, but needed to be explored to see if they were feasible. That s how we got here. Cole Hiniker stated that this study is about providing an alternative to congestion. This is meant to be an option for people who want to drive, and people who can t drive. We ll use the technical results to evaluate the tradeoffs. 7. Next Steps Jan Callison said that she would prefer to meet at a location further north next time. Katy Campbell said that before we go out to the public, the PAC needs to understand the cost and benefits. Mona Elabbady explained that at the next meeting we will discuss all of the technical results.