The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Packet 01-13-2015 SpecialCITY OF PLYMOUTH AGENDA SPECIAL COUNCILMEETING JANUARY 13, 2015, 5:30 p.m. MEDICINE LAKE CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. TOPICS A. Metropolitan Council Highway 55 BRT Study 3. ADJOURN Special Council Meeting 1 of 1 January 13, 2015 rp) c;cy of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life MEMORANDUM 4 "i To: Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by: Luke Fischer, Administrative Services Director Date: January 13, 2015 Item: Bus Rapid Transit — Highway 55 Corridor Study The City Council will hear an update on the Metropolitan Council's Highway Transitway Corridor Study in a Study Session on January 13. The update will focus on the potential development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor on Highway 55. The Scope of the study is high-level at this time — intended to provide basic context and comparative scoping between a number of potential BRT corridors within the metro area for use in advocacy efforts with the Minnesota Legislature. At this time, neither the Metropolitan Council nor MnDOT has identified funding to complete any BRT project. The study determined that the Highway 55 Corridor was the lowest alternative of the top five in the study. That said, there are some components of the Highway 55 Corridor that may make the project rise in prominence, which will be discussed further by the Metropolitan Council. The most prominent benefit of this corridor is reverse commute potential. Because the study was deliberately high-level, there are a number of unresolved or unaddressed questions. Planning and Land Use The Metropolitan Council's Housing and Transportation Plans have indicated a desire for higher densities around transitways. If the Metropolitan Council selected the Highway 55 Corridor for BRT, would the City be required to reguide property along the corridor to encourage this type of development? Operation of the Plymouth Metrolink Who is the intended user of BRT in Plymouth? How is the intended user underserved today? What assurances does the City have that express service will not be impacted by BRT? If express service is adversely impacted by BRT, what measures can be taken to ensure Plymouth Metrolink's continued relevance as a service provider? If BRT uses City facilities (primarily Station 73), how does BRT affect Plymouth Metrolink's market share of riders? The study calls for 15 and 30 minute headways. Who will be responsible for providing the necessary circulator services to compliment the headways? Capital Investment If BRT is extended through Highway 55, who is responsible for land acquisitions for stations, site redevelopment, and on-going maintenance costs? The eventual build -out of a BRT line along Highway 55 will require a significant investment in pedestrian features. What is the general scope necessary to accommodate BRT station siting? Who funds these improvements? Advocacy If the primary users are non -Plymouth residents (reverse commuters), what is the City's role in corridor advocacy and funding? What is the importance of reverse community to Plymouth's businesses and their continued growth. Page 1 Initial scoping plans call for a station on the western edge of the city to accommodate, in part, riders from Medina. What is Medina's role in advocating and funding these system enhancements? Page 2 Highway Transitway Corridor Study Highway 55 Analysis and Results I January 13, 2015 E N G I N E E R S P LAN NER.S ®J DESIGNEpS rP7age METROPOLITAN C 0 u N c i L Concept Overview and Capital Costs Service Plans and Operating Costs Ridership Forecasts Modeling Sensitivity Tests Questions Page 2 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Local Examples: A Line, 11 other lines planned Cost/mile: $2-5 million Dense urban corridors with constrained ROW Typical 1/2 mile stop spacing Red Line (opened 2013) Orange Line 9-10 million Developed freeway or expressway corridors Typical 2 mile stop spacing Gateway Corridor 35-40 million Varies, wide arterial streets, rail ROW, or other contexts Typical 1 mile stop spacing All share frequent service, improved stations and customer information tech nologesigna1 3 priority, maintenance, dedicated BRT fleet, and specialized branding distinct from buses Station Types Online Inline Of*+ L Offline AS I &NMIAt ; Tffmlf I I AWJ Page 4 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study 3 fbssihle Exp ress& o:aIBusConneetions{ 2e 10 R4etti na + 41 r t Plymouth Preliminary Station Location In -Line Off -Line L Proxim ikyto Futu re Park and Ride I Proxim ikyto Existing Park and Ride Other Highway BRT Corridors Arterial BRT Cor rid ors Blue Line (LRT) Green Line (LRT) Orange Line (BRT) Northstar Cum muter Rail Downtown Routing TBD D 1 z Miles f innea lis 110 P O IV e Downtown Minneapolis Copyright: 02012 Esri, DeLorme, Page 5 5 Concept Overview Existing bus shoulders on highway BRT corridors Downtown stations NOT in capital cost (if needed) Bus maintenance facility costs are per bus cost Station shelter costs are assumed to be a smaller version of Red Line Stations Station shelter amenities include: Off -board fare collection Trash Receptacles Bike Racks Real -Time Signage Page 6 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Highway 55 Capital Costs Assumptions 0 • Existing shoulders used; no runningway improvements made 11 total stations: 20,099,000 • 3 offline (park and rides) 8 inline 3,300,000 • Space for 11 BRT vehicles 3,168,000 Cost for ROW at Peony Lane and Pinto Drive for park and rides 6,732,000 • 11 BRT vehicles Includes design, construction, 7,797,000 permitting, public art 10,274,000 • For unexpected project costs Page 7 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Capital Cost Estimate (2013 dollars) 13.6 1 13.3 11.2 9.3 8.1 19.6 7.6 18.4 9 11 1 9 7 7 5 9 7 8 4 20,099,0001$18,533,000 $48,154,000 $11,815,000 $9,701,000 $13,723,000 $20,547,000 $11,577,000 $3,989,000 6,732,000 6,120,000 5,508,000 3,672,000 3,672,000 8,568,000 6,732,000 10,404,000 3,672,000 14,265,000 11,940,000 24,936,000 6,634,000 6,033,000 10,508,000 10,433,000 10,668,000 3,634,000 10,274,000 9,149,000 19,650,000 5,531,000 4,852,000 8,200,000 9,428,000 8,163,000 2,824,000 Page 8 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Service Plans Corridor service plans based on Regional Transitway Guidelines Span 16 hours on weekdays and Saturday 13 hours on Sunday Frequency 15 minutes all day on weekdays 30 minutes on Saturday evenings and Sundays Page 9 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Travel Times Station Type offline offline inline inline offline inline inline inline inline inline inline offline Incremental - 2.1 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.4 1.1 0.7 2.3 Distance Cumulative 2.1 3.7 5.4 7.5 9.0 9.5 10.5 11.9 13.0 13.7 16.0 8 3 4 8 8 11 15 23 8 3 3 8 8 11 14 22 3 2 3 26 28 31 3 2 2 25 27 29 3 3 3 12 34 37 40 52 3 2 3 32 34 37 Page 10 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study 11 48 Service Plans Eliminate 747 and 774 Duplicative of all -day service Turn back 795, operate as two roundtrips New Circulators for: Xenium/Fernbrook Revere Lane General Mills Park Place Page 11 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Annual 0&M Costs (2012 dollars) Highway BRT $5,947,700 $5,716,300 $5,096,400 $3,241,400 $3,694,000 $7,541,500 $5,075,200 $8,895,200 $3,094,100 Station -to -Station Background Bus $876,600 $115,100 $121,300 $406,600 $406,600 $813,200 -$1,892,100 $0 -$497,000 Net Change in Corridor) IO&M $ 6,824,300 $5,831,400 $5,217,700 $3,648,000 $4,100,600 $8,354,700 $3,183,100 $8,895,200 $2,597,100 Page 12 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Ridership Forecast Assumptions 2030 No Build Highway BRT Station -to -Station Station Locations and Service Background/Connectivity Service Changes Travel Times Consideration of Modal Benefits Page 13 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Corridor Daily Ridership Summary Page 14 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Corridor Hwy 55 Hwy 36 1-94 Hwy 65 1-35E 1-35E 1-394 Hwy 169 Hwy 212 P North South M L 2010 No Build L Guideway Bus 1,000 1,800 8,200 180 800 3,400 2,900 2,300 ai N Routes Ln 2030 No Build w Guideway Bus 3,400 2,100 9,300 600 300 1,500 6,500 3,400 2,400 Routes 2030 Build v Highway BRT 4,300 9,300 5,400 800 2,500 4,000 6,600 7,800 600 Station -to - L Station 2030 Build 0o Other 4 Guideway 4,000 2,100 8,300 400 900 1,700 7,800 4,200 3,200 Routes 2030 Build Guideway Total 8,300 11,400 13,700 1,200 3,400 5,700 14,400 12,000 3,800 Page 14 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Ridership Statistics Corridor 2030 Percent Transit 2010 Trips with 2030 New Reliant Riders Build Alternative Transit Riders TH 36 35% Medium 5,200 High 1,306 Medium TH 169 33% Medium 4,600 Medium 2,000 High 1-394 37% Medium 3,600 Medium 1,600 High 1-94 45% High 2,600 Low 1,400 Medium 1-35E South 38% Medium 2,500 Low 1,200 Medium 1-35E North 35% Medium 1,300 Low 500 Low TH 65 26% Low 400 Logit 700 Low TH 212 29% Low 40C Low 300 Low TH 55 I 43% I High 3,0001 Medium I 1,200 Medium Low < 30% < 3,000 < 1,000 High > 40% > 5,000 > 1,500 Page 15 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Ridership Statistics Transitwal Daily Ridership Time of Day Off-peak Peak Period Period CBD Directionality I w .. I TH 36 9,30 6,300 3,000 1,100 2,200 68% 32% 76% 24% TH 169 71,800 4.1700 3,100 5,100 2.1700 60% 40% 65% 35% 1-394 6,600 4,000 2,600 3,700 2,900 61% 39% 56% 44% 1-94 5,400 3,600 1,800 3,400 2,000 67% 33% 63% 37% 1-35E SoutF 4,000 2,400 1,700 2,800 1,300 59% 41% 68% 32% 1-35E Nortl 2,500 2,000 530 2,400 70 79% 21% 97% 3% TH 65 800 350 450 560 240 44% 56% 70% 30% TH 212 501, 320 280 340 260 53% 47% 57% 4 a of TH 55 4,300 2,900 1,400 1,900 2,400 67% 33% 44% page 16 56% Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Station -to -Station Activity Pinto Dr. (Future P&R) Low Peony Ln. (Future P&R) Medium Vicksburg Ln. Medium Northwest Blvd. Medium Station 73 (Existing P&R) Medium General Mills Blvd. Medium Winnetka Ave. Medium Douglas Dr. Medium Meadow Ln. Low Penn Ave. High Van White Blvd. Low Low = Less than 300 Med= 301-1000 High = More than 1000 Page 17 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Evaluation Page 18 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study 1 18 mm m I 1 Goal 1: Provide mobility benefits and respond to trip patterns/needs and deficiencies for Guideway total ridership markets identified in the purpose and need.. Growth in guideway total ridership Off-peak hour ridership and reverse -commute direction Transit -reliant ridership Goal Minority residents in the service area 2: Provide affordable, effective transportation improvements. 0 Cost effectiveness Goal 3: Meet Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) ridership goals. 0Station-to-station• - DOOO®DDD 01 New transit riders Goal 4: Seamlessly integrate with existing systems and provide valuable regional connections. 201OTrips with the build alternative Goal 5: Support area development plans, forecast growth assignment, redevelopment potential Forecast growth in population Forecast growth in employment Page 18 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study 1 18 Modeling Sensitivity Tests pouble Express E local Elm Connecuan, t Eliminate Station O® Preliminary Station Location In -Line Off -Line Proximity to Future Park and Ride Proximity to Existing Park and Ride Other Highway BRT Corri dor s Arterial ORT Corridors Blue Line (LRT) Green Li ne (L FIT) Orange Line (8 RT) r Northstar Commuter Rail Downtown Routing TBD 4 1 ? 0 Brooklyn Park ta tK d Not at c Eliminate Station and adjust circulator route t O 1 ` 6 c \r' I> Q God eta e a Convert to Online Station Brooklyn rater Robbinsdale lnnea 0a0 titd Note; The 1-394 and TH 169 BRTs were not assumed. Fr cawnt.— Mnneapo!6 Esn, DeLor ne, Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Travel Time Changes Page 20 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study 1 2( p o C J 0 vd J uLn 0 LAY CO a, 0 z M 0 m N L Q caY 41 N o J 3 o oNO f ° i Q d m a, N 0 Q M i 3 0+ 3 0 0Station TypeIncrementalDistanceCumulativeDistancePeakPeriodTimesIncremental RunTimeCumulative RunTimeMidday PeriodTimesIncremental RunTimeCumulativeRunTime Page 20 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study 1 2( Corridor Daily Ridership Summary Hwy 55 1,000 3,400 4,300 4,000 8,300 Modified Hwy 55 1,000 3,400 4,700 4,300 9,000 Corridor modifications were made to test impacts to ridership No significant increases in ridership because: Competition from express buses, Blue Line LRT extension and Penn Avenue BRT Low development densities within 1/2 miles of stations Page 21 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study Questions? Page 22 Metropolitan Council Highway Transitway Corridor Study