Central Corridor LRT Review of Washington and Northern Alignments Jan Lysen and John Siqveland December 10, 2009 Image: MPR News Q

Process Overview Jun. 2001RCRRA announces intent to undertake Alternatives Analysis and EIS Apr Draft Environmental Impact Statement complete Jun. 2006Met Council selects LRT as Locally Preferred Alternative (incl. tunnel) Met Council assumes lead on CCLRT Dec. 2006FTA grants approval to begin preliminary engineering Jan. 2008FTA project requirements and review push budget to $990 million Project scope changed to eliminate tunnel; savings of $128-$148 million Feb. 2008Central Corridor Mgmt. Committee votes ‘yes’ to at-grade alignment Mar. 2008UMN hires consultant to revisit Northern Alignment feasibility May 2008Northern Alignment study submitted Jun. 2008Met Council votes to discontinue review of Northern Alignment Aug. 2009FTA grants approval for project incl. at-grade Washington Alignment; $941.3 million budget Sept. 2009UMN files lawsuit against Met Council seeking protection Dec. 2009Met Council expecting FTA approval to enter Final Engineering

What about BRT ? DEIS ObjectivesBaseline (best case)LRTBRT Economic opportunity and investment Does Not SupportStrongly Supports Supports Communities and environmentDoes Not SupportStrongly…Supports Transportation and mobilityDoes Not SupportStrongly..Supports Key Comparative Measures Daily ridership forecast (2020)33,70038,10031,200 Peak hour travel time73 minutes35 minutes42 minutes Capital costs (2008 build)N/A$840 million$241 million Annual operating cost (2020)$90.8 million$97.2 million$94 million Image: Maryland DoT

Washington Avenue Alignment ~18 km CBD Shopping Medical Campus Sports facility Residential Research/Office Park

Alignment comparision image

Washington Avenue AlignmentNorthern Alignment Physical descriptionFrom West Bank crosses Washington bridge, at-grade on Washington Ave. until 23 rd Ave., north to stadium and t-way From West Bank, NE to Bridge 9, connect to railroad ROW to 23rd Avenue, turn south to Transitway Stations  East Bank Station on Washington Ave. between Moos Tower, Parking & Transportation building  West Bank station closer to UMN  Stadium Village station on 23 rd Ave. Closer to University Ave.  Dinkytown station in railroad trench at 14th Ave SE and University Ave SE  West Bank station farther from U of M but closer to commercial and residential area  Stadium Village station similarly located Bus, pedestrian and bike connections  Excellent bus connections  Transit mall w/ excellent bike/ped connections to East Bank station  Good bus connections but may not have created as many efficiencies  Adequate pedestrian and bike connections Projected ridership41,79035,240 (approved) or 35,560 ("enhanced access") Travel time39.13 minutesTBD CEI $23.80 (Medium)$24.58 (not approved) to $28.44 (Med-Low range) Advocates  Metropolitan Council  Hennepin and Ramsey Counties  Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul  Transportation advocacy groups  University of Minnesota  Neighborhoods affected by traffic diverted from Washington Avenue  Dinkytown business community Opponents  University of Minnesota  Metropolitan Council Strengths  Ridership  Competitive CEI  All campus within 1/2-mile of a station  No unknown ROW needs  Historically sound travel way  Less conflict with research facilities and U hospital and clinics  Construction less disruptive  Fewer intersections with public roads  Redevelopment potential for Dinkytown Weaknesses  More mitigation required for labs  Construction more disruptive  Crosses more intersections  Little development opportunity  Replacement of historic Bridge 9  ROW needed to be acquired from railroad  Loss of affordable housing  CEI not competitive

Questions and Discussion