Highway 169 Mobility Study Policy Advisory Committee Meeting #5 Meeting Record Thursday June 22, 2017 3:30 5:30 p.m. Bloomington Public Works Public Works Training Room 1700 West 98th Street, Bloomington, MN 55431 PAC Members and Alternates Scott McBride, MnDOT Deb Barber, Metropolitan Council Katie Rodriguez, Metropolitan Council Jon Ulrich, Scott County Mike Beard, Scott County Jan Callison, Hennepin County Debbie Goettel, Hennepin County Mary Brindle, City of Edina Steve Schmidgall, City of Golden Valley Tony Wagner, City of Minnetonka Jeff Wosje, City of Plymouth/Plymouth Metrolink Tim Brausen, City of St. Louis Park Jerry McDonald, SouthWest Transit Other Attendees Brad Larsen, MnDOT Angie Stenson, Scott County Lisa Freese, Scott County Jason Gottfried, Hennepin County Amy Vennewitz, Metropolitan Council Andrew Lutaya, MnDOT Tony Fischer, Metropolitan Council Kirk Roberts, City of Bloomington Mona Elabbady, SRF Consulting Paul Morris, SRF Consulting Adele Hall, SRF Consulting Hilary Lovelace, SRF Consulting 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Project Process Update Mona Elabbady, SRF Consulting Mona explained that at the last PAC meeting the group reviewed concepts, alignments, and stations. Mona continued that the purpose of this meeting is for the PAC to wrap up the concept development stage by covering the costs and benefits of each alternative and how well each alternative meets the purpose and need statements developed for this study. At the next meeting the project will head into the final phase which includes the implementation plan and final report.
PAC Meeting Record Page 2 3. Alternatives Evaluation Adele Hall, SRF Consulting Adele began the alternatives evaluation by explaining that Alternatives 1 and 2 (BRT along I-394 and TH 55, respectively) would be covered first and compared to one another, and that Paul Morris will cover Alternative 3 (MnPASS.) BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 begin in Shakopee and include MnPASS on Highway 169 between Marschall Road on the south end and Betty Crocker Drive on the north end. BRT Alternative 1 is then routed along I-394 to continue into downtown Minneapolis, while Alternative 2 is routed along TH 55 into downtown Minneapolis via North 7 th Street. Alternatives 1 and 2 also include the addition of MnPASS lanes on northbound and southbound Highway 169 between Marschall Road and TH 55. Alternative 3 does not assume any BRT or other new transit service, but includes the addition of MnPASS lanes along Highway 169 between Marschall Road and I-494. Alternatives 1 and 2 During development of the purpose and need for the project, six goals for the project were also developed, each followed by evaluation measures to help determine how each alternative responded to the purpose and need for the project. Goal 1: Improving Acces saw small differences between alternatives. Alternative 1 has more jobs, and Alternative 2 has more population. Different types and sizes of employment centers are present along each alternative, with slightly more, smaller job centers along Alternative 2, and some larger job centers along Alternative 1. Travel time reliability was identical for each alternative. Goal 2: Mobility measures how well the MnPASS lanes perform. Because the MnPASS is the same for each of the two BRT alternatives, they perform very similarly, and they perform well. Goal 3: Ridership covers several measures related to the BRT and other transit service along Highway 169. Alternative 1 serves more riders on the station-to-station BRT service, more off-peak riders, and has slightly higher overall ridership. Alternative 2 serves more transit dependent riders, and more reverse commute riders. Adele explained that riders within these categories were not mutually exclusive, but that one rider could be transit dependent and ride off-peak, and be counted in both groups. The projection shows that there are express buses from Shakopee that would be able to take advantage of the MnPASS portion of alternatives 1 and 2 and save time, increasing ridership. Mary Brindle shared that some express bus routes that had served exits with employment centers on Highway 169 failed because they didn t accommodate the last mile, and expressed concern that the BRT stations might suffer the same problem. Adele responded that express buses would continue to serve downtown directly after BRT installation, but agreed that the last mile connection would be very important for the BRT service. Jon Ulrich shared that express inter-suburb service was replaced with the Route 495 between Mall of America and Shakopee, and that employers like Amazon and Mystic Lake contributed money and shuttle service respectively to help cover the last mile connection for commuters.
PAC Meeting Record Page 3 Jeff Wosje echoed previous concerns that suburb to suburb service fails if there isn t a solution for the last mile, and that it is critical to engage employers in developing a solution. Goal 4: Return on Investment shows only minor differences between the capital and operating cost ranges of Alternatives 1 and 2. The high range of the cost is the most expensive iteration of the alternative, and includes a direct MnPASS connection between Highway 169 and I-394. Without this expensive connection, the low range is in the mid $300 million. Scott McBride noted that this would be the first MnPASS lane in the region to intersect another MnPASS lane and possibly have a direct connection. Jeff Wosje was interested to explore the travel shed or ridership shed to see ways that Plymouth would connect to the ridership at the Betty Crocker station where Plymouth Metrolink routes currently serve. Debbie Goettel asked if growth of job centers was researched, Adele shared that forecasted growth would be covered in the next goal. Adele explained that the higher annualized capital and operating cost per reliable trip measure used for the Federal New Starts projects was calculated for this project, as a way of comparing it to other projects. Because of its capital cost, the project would fall under the guidelines for a Small Starts project, but using New Starts guidelines helps compare this project to other local projects that are in operating phases like the Green Line or planning phases like Southwest LRT. Mike Beard asked if capital costs included constructing additional lanes, and if so where those lanes would be. Adele responded that MnPASS lanes would be constructed in the center, to the left of the general purpose lanes. Electronic components of MnPASS and other non-pavement components were included in the cost estimates. Goal 5: Supportive Condition showed that forecast trends follow current trends with higher projected population for Alternative 2, and higher projected employment for Alternative 1. Tim Brausen noted that the difference between alternatives was really just the difference between St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. There are more stations in Golden Valley, and it is somewhat easier to cross TH 55. Conversely, St. Louis Park plans target higher development densities near I-394, but it is challenging to make it pedestrian-oriented and transit supportive. Tony Wagner asked if the capital cost assumption includes making the existing reversible MnPASS lane on I-394 bi-directional. The consultant team shared that the assumption is that the MnPASS lanes on I-394 would continue to operate in their current configuration. Tony asked if congestion might deter reverse commute because of directional MnPASS lanes and asked that that be taken into account. Mike Beard asked what projection model the results were based on. Adele responded that the 2040 forecast model from Metropolitan Council was used.
PAC Meeting Record Page 4 Goal 6: Preserve Environment. Few impacts are expected for either alternative based on a highlevel inventory of built and natural environmental resources. Alternative 2 serves more minority populations and low-income residents than Alternative 1. In summary, both alternatives meet the purpose and need goals. There are some differences between the alternatives, largely on improving access. Although the alternatives perform similarly for ridership, there are differences in rider composition between alternatives. Return on Investment is in the same magnitude, but there are slight differences. Jan Callison asked what the impact was of more stations along TH 55 in Alternative 2, and asked how the number of stops along each alternative were determined. Adele explained that station locations came out of a workshop with the TAC, as well as meetings with city staff. Originally, there were more stations along TH 55 in Alternative 2. Alternative 2 has standard spacing between stations for a BRT line, while I-394 stations are spaced a little further apart than normal. Jeff Wosje asked how connections between the METRO Blue and METRO Green lines were integrated, and what the impact could be. Adele explained that this was most directly captured in station-to-station ridership, as programmed transitways are included in the forecast model. Alternative 1 connects to one transitway (Green Line LRT Extension at Hopkins Station) Alternative 2 connects to three transitways (Green Line LRT Extension at Hopkins Station, Blue Line LRT Extension and C Line Arterial BRT at Penn Avenue Station). Adele shared that the TAC came to consensus in supporting Alternative 2 as the best alternative because they thought it supported a new market for BRT, serves more low-income and minority populations, and has higher transit-dependent ridership, and cost and ridership weren t differentiators. Jan Callison asked what happens to the direction of the study if the PAC does not agree with the TAC at this meeting. Mona replied that additional pieces of analysis would be done, but that ultimately choosing a route to optimize and creating an implementation plan was the goal. Jan said the differences between the two were just so small it was hard to differentiate. Tim Brausen shared that the presentation doesn t help him decide what is best for his community, St. Louis Park, and is concerned that his staff haven t had time to review it so it would be premature to share his preferred choice at this meeting. Scott McBride clarified that the PAC is not completing a formal alternatives analysis, that this is concept level analysis. No one is required to formally deliberate on this and give consent. He left an option available to the PAC not to make a selection between the alignments. Adele explained that there are several existing routes on I-394 that serve the West End and other proposed station areas on I-394. The existing service on I-394 is more robust when compared to TH 55, which only has one express route. Jon Ulrich asked about the intent of the Shakopee rider, would they really ride the BRT all the way to downtown Minneapolis? Is this expected to compete with express service? Scott McBride replied that BRT does not serve the same purpose as express routes and is not meant to compete. Jerry
PAC Meeting Record Page 5 McDonald wanted to know more about existing routes that serve the proposed station areas on each route. Steve Schmidgall expressed excitement about Alternative 2 because it matches his vision of the future for Golden Valley where TH 55 is a more energizing and connecting force rather than a barrier that is difficult to cross. Jeff Wosje expressed a slight leaning toward Alternative 2 because it provides transit-dependent populations access to job centers with reverse commute service. Kirk Roberts continued the theme on reverse commuters and wanted to know where they were getting on and off, and what kind of patterns there were. This is not something the SRF team was able to answer at the time, but indicated that they could provide more of that type of information on an optimized alternative later in the study. Tony Wagner asked if there was a possibility to leverage infrastructure on TH 55 for more northwest activity and connections. Jan Callison said connections to Bottineau increase this possibility. Jeff Wosje explained that Plymouth Metrolink had created reverse routes specifically to get downtown residents to Plymouth s business district, and this template of business community connections could be used as a template for the implementation of this study. Tony Wagner noted that Cedar Lake Road is residential, and there is already service there but there is also high density residential near the proposed BRT station. He was curious to know the effect that these conditions would have on travel time and ridership. Mentioned that there are some employment centers in Golden Valley that Minnetonka residents cannot reach using transit alone. Jan Callison asked for a clearer picture or narrative of who is served by each Alternative. She asked where passengers are riding to and from, if they are new transit users, and if they use it for commuting to work or for some other use. Alternative 3 Paul Morris explained why Alternative 3 was being addressed on its own. Although it was evaluated using the same criteria, it is only meaningful to share the measures that are applicable for this type of project (MnPASS) and expand our understanding of how to compare this alternative. Goal 2: Mobility was described in terms of person-throughput for Alternative 3, which is somewhat lower than Alternatives 1 and 2 near I-394 where MnPASS lanes are not assumed to be added. Also compared to the BRT Alternatives, improvements in delay per user, vehicle-hours traveled, and reduction in crash risk factors are more modest. Goal 4: Return on Investment is where there is the largest difference between Alternative 3 and Alternatives 1 and 2 was observed. This is a reflection of the existing cross sections along Highway 169, where segments south of I-494 have adequate median widths to accommodate new MnPASS lanes without reconstructing the entire roadway, while segments north of Highway 62 are much more constrained and would require additional construction activity to add MnPASS. Tony Wagner asked what the incremental capital cost would be of building MnPASS to TH 62. Paul shared that
PAC Meeting Record Page 6 congestion is currently low between I-494 and TH 62, so the benefits of extending MnPASS are low. Scott McBride asked if there will be an impact to I-494 with more traffic from the new MnPASS lanes. Paul clarified that vehicle hours traveled is across the entire system which showed that overall there is an improvement in system efficiency. Jan Callison asked why the MnPASS lanes were not extended to Hopkins. Tony Wagner responded that this could be feasible as the Nine-Mile Creed Bridge is currently being reconstructed with a design that will provide future capacity for MnPASS. It was clarified that both Alternatives 1 and 2 included the cost for MnPASS lanes for the entire route on Highway 169 between Marschall Road and TH 55. Scott McBride reiterated that only MnPASS between Marschall Road and I-494 was considered for Alternative 3. Jeff Wosje asked about the connection from Highway 169 MnPASS lane to I-394. Paul shared that this is included as an alternative in the cost estimations, and would like to explore later to see if that is cost effective. Goal 6: Environment shows that there are even fewer expected impacts from Alternative 3 as compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. 4. Example MnPASS versus General Purpose Lanes Paul Morris, SRF Consulting Paul Morris presented a summary of the analysis completed for the I-35W North MnPASS project to compare the traffic impacts of constructing additional general purpose lanes versus MnPASS lanes. This showed that MnPASS lanes were expected to do a better job of meeting the goals and objectives identified for that project, specifically by providing improved travel time reliability and person-throughput. Steve Schmidgall asked if MnPASS lanes have been built on I-35W North, Scott McBride shared that those would be under construction in 2019. Jerry McDonald asked why MnPASS had greater travel time improvements than HOV lanes, and Paul shared that it is because there are fewer single occupancy vehicles in the general purpose lanes as some SOV drivers would be able to utilize the MnPASS lanes. Mike Beard was interested to know how existing MnPASS lanes on I-35W south of Minneapolis performed relative to projections. Paul said a review of performance of existing MnPASS lanes on I- 35W was completed, and showed that MnPASS is able to serve 50 percent higher personthroughput flows through than single occupancy vehicle lanes. Clarifying questions from Jeff Wosje, Paul explained that travel time savings is averaged across all users, and that there isn t a disincentive to carpool because MnPASS allows free flow trips for everyone even when there are single occupancy vehicles in the MnPASS lane. 5. Spot Mobility Improvements Paul Morris, SRF Consulting
PAC Meeting Record Page 7 Paul explained that spot mobility improvements look at optimization of the condition of the roadway as it currently exists. Paul answered a question concerning the Congestion Management Safety Plan (CMSP,) explaining that the CMSP supports the regional transportation policy plan (TPP) by targeting improvements at top congestion and safety problem locations. Spot mobility improvements are defined as lower-cost projects that help to smooth traffic flow, such as auxiliary lanes or ramps modifications, but are less significant projects than adding new freeway capacity. Paul showed four focus areas along Highway 169 where spot improvements are under development. These include southbound from I-494 to TH 101, northbound from CSAH 21 to I-494, both directions between Excelsior Boulevard and 16th Street, and both directions through the I-394/ Betty Crocker Drive/Highway 55 interchanges. The next steps in this process are to review the concepts with MnDOT s traffic staff, analyze the costs and benefits of the improvements, and share the findings at the next PAC meeting. 6. Sensitivity Tests Mona Elabbady, SRF Consulting Mona Elabbady explained that the remaining traffic and ridership analysis for the corridor alternatives is to conduct sensitivity tests to learn more about how they would perform under slightly different assumptions. These are ideally done by changing just one or two factors in the model so that the effects on traffic or ridership can be isolated to these adjustments. Mona noted that the PMT and TAC have already had some discussion of sensitivity tests to be considered, with leading options including the following: Peak period BRT service frequency reduction to 15 minutes (baseline assumption is 10 minutes) Highway BRT service without new MnPASS lanes Removal of one or more BRT stations Scott McBride expressed his appreciation for the sensitivity tests to provide additional insight on the performance of the alternatives. PAC members made suggestions for other elements to consider in further analysis. Deb Barber was interested in more information about the impacts to I-494 if Alternative 3 is implemented. Jon Ulrich asked if there were bus shoulders on Highway 169, Scott County confirmed that there were not bus shoulders the entire length of Highway 169. Mona shared that there is an inventory of bus shoulders used in the study and the capital costs assume those would be filled in.
PAC Meeting Record Page 8 Mary Brindle wants to assess the value of BRT along TH 55, which currently doesn t have much transit, and discover how much traffic will be diverted from I-394 with BRT on TH 55. Deb Barber shared that a change from 15 to 20 minute frequency cuts about $350,000 each year in operating costs generally. Jan Callison would like more time to think this over. Jon Ulrich asked how this would fit into the update of the Metropolitan Council s Transportation Policy Plan, and Mona confirmed that this study would be completed by the time the plan was finalized. Tim Brausen expressed a need to see more data in advance of meetings to have time to discuss with professional staff. Mona encouraged PAC members that their TAC members are available to brief them in advance of meetings. 7. Community Engagement Direction Mona Elabbady, SRF Consulting Mona explained that the PAC is revisiting this topic since it was tabled at the last PAC meeting. Mona suggested second phase of community engagement would be online, and asked the PAC if they would like to share all of the alternatives, and ask them to select or just share information. Consensus after discussion was that the PAC wants the public to see the same information that they saw during the meeting. This would include all alternatives and information, with less of an emphasis on asking the public to select a favorite, and instead, asking for reactions and what stations they might use the most. 8. Next Steps Scott McBride said that after this study, there are no defined next steps and a project champion would need to carry it forward further. The expected result will be a report with alternative(s) suggested to move forward to further study and design. He noted that preparing a report with two good alternatives may be a reasonable outcome of this study, and asked that there be a more indepth discussion about the next steps and role of the PAC at the next meeting. Scott also asked the consultant team to clarify the definition of reverse commute used in the ridership forecast.