The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20070716 - VIII-A-1Red Rock Corridor • Commuter Rail Feasibility Study • Alternatives Analysis • Next Steps ~, ~;; ~~.._ 1 i ~, p. ARID 1 Red .Rock Corridor E - ~, ~A .. _A ~~~ rg i a~ ~, ~. ...... ~ o~ _.: RR1O Red Rock Corridor • Commuter Rail Feasibility (2001 ~ • $421, 000, 000 (2010 $) • 5, 900 riders • $8 million/yr operating cost (2010 $) ~:-~ • Feasible, proceed to an Alternatives ~ Analysis • Hastings to Minneapolis \J O~ ORRIO 2 Alternatives .Analysis • Purpose and Need • Provide a choice for travelers to avoid congestion and reduce travel time in the corridor, provide increased -modal :~ ~~ . alternatives and multimodal options, n~,. , and increase mobility for peak-hour travel to employment in the study area. 3 Alternatives Analysis • Transit Modes that Meet Purpose & Need • Express Bus t.r ~ • Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Rail ~~< ~~~ j ~~ ~~ 0 Alternatives Analysis • Preliminary Analysis Results • Ridership • Capital Costs -~` Operating Costs ;= a n+ ; I I EO ROC _,, 4\,> Owe RRID 4 Alternatives Analysis ~- k • Ridership Forecast • Latest FTA Approved Regional Model. • Northstar, Central, & Southwest • 2020 Bus Plan Update ~ 2030 Projection Timeline • • Expanded coverage to include Goodhue and Pierce Counties Alternatives Analysis • Ridershit, Forecast -Model Chanaes • Mode Choice • Previously 50% transit to CBDs • Now 30% Minneapolis, 15% St. Paul • Rail Bias • Old =Unjustified constant rail bias T~. ! New =Quantified /Off-peak only a~„ Corridors Old = No Central LRT • New =Central LRT • Fewer Stations • Old = 10 o RAC- New=8 ~* I • 2000 Calibration vs. 1990 Cp~ E ~ .. _ RRI~~ 5 Alternatives Analysis • Express Bus -Enhanced No-build • 30 minute headways • Bus-only shoulders to Lower Afton ~4 _. Road ; `~`~~~ eFaT • "~ Route 361 -Hastings/Cottage Grove ~ +sv.` ~ ~ t0 . ~ St Paul ~: . • Route 365 -Hastings/Cottage Grove Qa o _ ~ to Minneapolis ,~ Rq~o--- ' • RnutP ~Fd - 1 nral .Sar~iira #n C:nttana Alternatives Analysis • Ridership Forecast -Bus • OptlOn 1 (bus shoulders to Lower Afton Road) • 15 minute headways on 361 & 365 .ti. • Option 2 ~_ • Option 1 with bus shoulders to Hastings s ~`° Option 3 _ Option 2 with a 20% improvement in travel • time -_~- 6 Alternatives Analysis • Ridership Forecast -Commuter Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 (Midway (Midway (Merriam (Merriam (St. Paul Sub.) Sub.) Park) Park) only) Hastings / / / / / ~,, e ,~':,, .I ii Cottage Grove / / / / / ti ' ~"' ' Newport / / / / / L Afton Road / / / / / `~ '~ ~ St. Paul / / / / / Snelling / (BNSF) i -EO-RO o- ~ Snelling (CP) / . . r , ~ ` University / / °~ ,~ Minneapolis / / / / Alternatives Analysis ~~;-; • Ridership Forecast -Commuter Rail • Option 3 Test • 20% improvement in St. Paul to Minneapolis Travel Time • Option 5 Test • Option 5 with 15 minute. headways Alternatives Analysis • Ridership Forecast -Rail rinc. 3s4~ Ridership # of Riders Beyond Union Depot* ,~ Options 1 and 5 1,800 800 Options 2, 3, and 4 fir 1,900 800 ? u4 +'~°~ '' , ~ Option 3 Test 2,100 900 Option 5 Test 3,100 1,400 _ ~*Includes riders bound for destinations west of the Union ~~~~. Depot. Over 75% of these Riders transfer at the Union ~• 'Depot in all options except #3 Test. ~o 8 Al Perna fives Analysis • Results Summary • * Frequency ~ Ridership • Raiff almost 2X (1,800 to 3,100) • Bud more than 2X (900 to 2,100) .,~:: ' • * Frequency ,. ;w~" Biggest impact to close-in stations ~R ~' High Transfer rate at Union Depot Alternatives Analysis ~~~ ~r~4 ;~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i 0 R O._. ~ o- c~ • Capital Costs • Stations and Vehicles • Maintenance Facility • Capacity Improvements 9 Alternatives Analysis • Capital Costs -Important Factors • Two Class I Railroads :,~ ~~ Canadian Pacific ~`~ Burlington Northern • 1 • More freight traffic than Northstar ~~ • Hoffman Junction/Union Depot/Union eo-o~- ~ Pacific "~. • Highway Improvements °o~ pa RRID Alternatives Analysis • Capital Costs -Bus • Hastings to St. Paul (2007$) • $35-$50 Million • Does not include right-of-way ~, 10 Al Perna fives Analysis =-~ ,. • Capital Costs -Commuter Rail • Hastings to St. Paul (2007$) • $350 million • St. Paul to Minneapolis (2007$) • $200 million (CP) • $225 million (BNSF) Alfernafives Analysis • Operating Costs -Important Factors • Vehicle and Facility Maintenance- -~ • Employee Costs .y.'a~ ` 1 • Insurance/Marketing/Administration ~~ ~~- ~l -- _____ E~ F~ a -~~t °o -~~ oa ~ "... Bq~p 11 Alternatives Analysis Operating Costs -Bus Bus • Existing 361 & 365 Service is $1.5 million/yr • Bus options developed in the ridership model are approximately five times as expensive ($7 million/yr) Commuter Rail • Service to St. Paul - $6.7 million/yr (2007$) • Service to Minneapolis - Not Analyzed 12 Alternatives Analysis • Conclusions • New Starts Process • Does not analyze system wide benefits or economic development • Not a good fit }; ~'.`; z>' Travel Time Savings • 17 minutes faster than baseline service • Ridership • Significant long-term growth potential e° Ric c~ ~ ~^~~~ RR100 Alternatives Analysis ~~7 ~~ ~' ~ f 1 • Conclusions ccont.~ • Operating and Capital Costs • Phased Approach • Hastings to St. Paul • St. Paul to Minneapolis VRRIO~ 13 -Increase bus frequency 8 expand servioe area - Provide additional 8 expanded pads 8 rides Plan far the Future -Conduct Station Area Master Planning - Inlegrzte wmprehensive plan updates - Conduct a bus (eas'6ifdy sNdy -Reevaluate the Corridor - Evaluate the Northstar commuter rail opening Cortttlor Advocacy - Increase transd funding -Promote High Speed Rail mvesMenls - Padner with Amtrak 8 (reioht railroads Immediate (Q5 years) corridor Advocary Bevelap a Coalition: <. ~`. - Cibes and CounOes - -MnIUCT -Praide Island Indian Community -Freight railroads, Amtak, 8 other stakehaklere -Advocate Pos. -Amtrak Reauthorrsalion -High Speed Rat Authorisation E~ -State Funding o- _ - -Build the Base: -Identify track improvements ?\\ -Camptefe a passenger rail study -Fund environmentalwak .~. ~y~ .,: Build the Base -Complete 8 Expand upon 0-5 year projeas - Identifyfimplement fuWre projects Plan forthe Future -Reevaluate 1M Corridor - Northstar commuter rail (2009) - Central Ight rail opening (2014) - New Starts changes Corridor Advocacy - Increase transit funding -Cdlabomtion with Hgh Speed Rail - Partner with Amtrak 8 freight railroads Near Term (5-10 years Conidor Advocary -Expand the Coalition -Advocate for. - Shtte funding - Federal funding -Collaboration wish Red Rock -Budd the base: -Increase service to Chicago -Start service ro Rochester -Complete environmental work -Evaluate pedonnance of similar mrddom Build the Base -Complete Near Tertn projects - t:orlsWtt the Red Rack Cortidar - Travel Time and Cosl Savings - Collaboraticn with High Speed Rail Plan for the Future - Cortidor phasing llength -Comprehensive Plan Updates Cartidor Advocary - Inrrnase transit funding -Continue paMedng vrith Amtrak 8 (refight ra~roads Wp R p a ~ ~~. I • Long Term ~ ~ °ARIO° open for Service HfgA Spwd Raif Open for Servke Alternatives Analysis • Executive Committee Recommendations • Implementation Plan • Additional Analysis • Station Area Planning • Station Site Planning • Bus Feasibility Study • High Speed Rail • Develop a Coalition 14 Alternatives Analysis •Questions? `k Iv }; 4r2'{+ ~ • Michael Rogers • 651-430-4338 • michael.rogers@co.washington.mn.us eDROC... ~~'~'~\~ ~~ Dom. qR~p 15 ' ~ ~ n W n po a a < =. m a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 -nnQm ln2D~ y ~t~~n~ j O~ W N (Q ~ ~. ~ fD N? .-r N Q Q~~~m~~~~~~,pwoC ~m~mTi~~ o fDpmv~ ~'~ ~ QQm m -~ o ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ _ ~ ~ Q O ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~p (D ~- p• ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O O O 7cN 3 N~ ~~ N ~ ~ Qo C ~ ~ O ~ Q 3 ' . ~ (D ~. z A a 0 n a 0 n 3 a 0 b d o ~ 9 ~ s xn a~ ~ o o H _S 0 ~ ~~ ~ o ~ 6 G o= <d ~~ ~~ b ~ ~ 3 =~ b~ ;o ~~ ~~ F ~ o A T R O . ~ ~ b. S O O y. ? `~ =m ~; ~~ ~~ ~, H VA ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ < _WO QX ~ ~ Q N O ~ Q. O ~ ~ i m p ~ i~ Q 0 ~ nN~ m ~ ~ ~~ ~D m~ ~~ v o'nv o m a ~v,3~m~no ~~NV ~ m m~ m g v c o n ~m2.N ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ O COi Q ~ ~. 3.`< (Q (p ~ ~ p O ~. ~ ~ C7 ~ ~ ~ (D N o a ~ o a '~ O Cat N Q T fn ~ S ~ ~ a - m - ~~5o m~ct~ C)y ~~ c m o n o v v~ v~~ ~ N~ ~ fD (D (D ~ .-. (D .~ rt (D fD ~•2~ Q. ~ ~~ ~ n CAS N ~ ~ ° ~ p.6 W ~ a N D ~ ~ -' ~ ~° ~~ ~ o ~ i m ' ~ 3 cn ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cD ~, ~C~~ ~ ~ O ~ N c ~ ~ v~ Q QpQ-~• D ~ N ~ Q~~ ~ ~ cD fD 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ fD O N ~ (Q O ~ .~~. "~ rt S?o 7 ` n ' 7 v w p~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ Q j Q N ~ Q ~ P (D ~ N !A !/r O Vl tQ Q° ~ ~ ~ ~. fD ~ • (D tp N ~ N v ~ Z ~ ~ O ~ s ~ ~ y N ~ 7 ~ - ~. ~ I c .R ~ ~ n O ~ d Q ~ C O O H O O N C ~`~ S ~~m y ~ ~ A ZnZ~s ~~~ ~ ~o'v ~- m m o ~~~~~ ~~W D3 c'n c Nn~ ~3-n ~ my g~ ~ m~ -~ ~xco ~ c n _ ~ cQ' ~ n ~ ~ v N ~ ~< N S n O ~D '~ 7 ~° ~, ~ ~ ~ fl1 N. ~ O ~ ~ lD (n ~' ~ (Q O rt ~ m ~ m fD 7 ~ cD rn ~ ~ O O ~' ~ ~ N N N ~ = o° v n cn ~~ ~ o ~ N n N r O _ ~ O J a ~ ~ y ~ c~ Q c~' ~ _ ~D y O ~ y C ` cD ~, OR n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W N O n ~ 0 0~ 0 0 ~' . ~~.m - ~~~, 33Q- v v ~ ~ ~ ~D W ~ < ~~ p O. N~ ~ Z ~ N N N N1 ~ ~, ~ ~ ~•~ O ~~SU ~D ~' C Q3 C1 `~ 'p ~ ~ ~. ~ Q N c ~ w om ~ ~3 ~ ~v ~ ~ o D n v _ ~ =oofD .. N ~_ ~ `" ~~a: ~ ~v o ~ ~ <. Q tN ~ . -~ N