1 / 26

Cedar Avenue Corridor Transitway Project

Cedar Avenue Corridor Transitway Project. Collaborating to make the Cedar Avenue Transitway possible : Metropolitan Council, Dakota County Regional Rail Authority, the Counties Transit Improvement Board, the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, city, state and federal government partners.

gitel
Download Presentation

Cedar Avenue Corridor Transitway Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cedar Avenue CorridorTransitway Project Collaborating to make the Cedar Avenue Transitway possible: Metropolitan Council, Dakota County Regional Rail Authority, the Counties Transit Improvement Board, the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, city, state and federal government partners. MVTA Board September 23, 2009

  2. RegionalTransit Network

  3. Key Events Impacting theCedar Avenue Transitway • Lakeville joins the transit taxing district. • Lakeville BRT Express service will be a reality on Cedar and I-35W. • UPA advancing Cedar BRT phase II and I-35W BRT elements. • Dedicated regional transitway funding through CTIB established. • Comp plans submitted to the Met Council.

  4. Transitway Ridership • 2030 Regional Model • Sensitivity to travel time and access • More robust transit network • Transit Markets • Station-to-station • Commuter/Express • Local/feeder

  5. What the model is indicating… • Healthy transit markets for station-to-station, express and local services in the transitway • Opportunities to re-align services to meet market demand • Cliff Road • Palomino Hills/140th • Opportunities to reduce costs/phase investments

  6. Transitway Ridership and Cost RIDERSHIP (2030) COST Northstar CR: $320 million Central LRT: $941 million Southwest LRT: $1.1 - $1.25 billion Cedar : $102 million • Northstar CR: 4,100 • Central LRT: 42,000 • Southwest LRT: 28 – 30,000 • Cedar: 11,500

  7. Cliff Road • Walk-Up Facility • Connections to: • Burnsville • Eagan • Attractions: Employment, Housing Options, Dining • Station ridership: • Express: 0 • Station to Station: 20 • Local/Feeder: 75 • TOTAL: 95 • Opportunities with Cedar Grove? • Better connections to the region and south of the river communities

  8. Palomino Hills • Park and Ride Facility • Connections to: • St. Paul • Burnsville • Eagan • Apple Valley • Attractions: Mn Zoo, Housing Options • Station ridership: • Express: 2,860 • Station to Station: 280 • Local/Feeder: 80 • TOTAL: 3,220 • Opportunities with AV North? • Avoid expensive engineering solution • Expansion issues • Station ridership highly dependent on St. Paul service

  9. 147th Street • Walk Up Facility • Connections to: • Burnsville • Apple Valley • Attractions: Housing Options, Employment, Retail, Dining, Services • Station ridership: • Express: 160 • Station to Station: 290 • Local/Feeder: 50 • TOTAL: 500

  10. 195th Street • Opportunities: • High ability to integrate station with future development • Walk Up Facility • Connections to: • Eagan • Apple Valley • Lakeville • Attractions: Housing Options, Employment • Station ridership: • Express: TBD • Station to Station: 550 • Local/Feeder: TBD • TOTAL: 550

  11. Potential New Stations/Stops • Airport South/28th P-n-R in Bloomington • Faster Connections to Airport, Fort Snelling, 494 Strip • 162 Street in Lakeville • Commercial Development, Greater Access from Neighborhoods • Glacier Way in Lakeville • Commercial Development

  12. Ridership Refinement:Next Model Run • Station Refinements • Develop with city staff/councils • Station modifications from the AA • Additional stations • Updated Service Plan • Develop with transit providers • Begin to frame the vehicle fleet plan • Maintenance facilities

  13. Let’s Stop. Thoughts Comments Questions Feedback Concerns

  14. Station-to-StationVehicle Considerations Transit Providers Meeting • Passenger Amenities and Comfort • Easily recognizable • Interior noise • Comfort • Technology • Safety • Passenger-Carrying Capacity • Number of seats and standees • Aisle width for circulation • Wheelchair spaces • In-vehicle bike racks • Propulsion System • Emissions • Docking • Lane assist • Docking/guidance at stations

  15. Station-to-StationVehicle Considerations Transit Providers Meeting • Environmental • Exterior Noise • Emissions • Doors • Number and locations • Floor Height • Percent of vehicle to be low-floor • Cost • Capital cost • O&M • Procurement process and lead time • Funding source/Buy America Requirements • Reliability • History of revenue service in the U.S. • System Integration • Fare collection, communications, other BRT corridors, spare ratio • Operations and Maintenance • Alternative fuels, parts

  16. Typical Vehicle Purchase Price(2009 Dollars) • 40-foot conventional low-floor bus: $400k • Hybrid premium: $200k • On-board fare collection system: $13k/vehicle • 2010 emissions standards: +$25k-$30k/vehicle

  17. Station-to-StationVehicle Options

  18. Branding/Image

  19. Gillig 40’ Low-FloorKansas City MAX

  20. Van Hool 40’ Low-Floor

  21. Let’s Stop. Thoughts Comments Questions Feedback Concerns

  22. IPU Schedule • October • Finalize ridership numbers • Meet with transit operators to develop transitway service plan • Discuss work to date with city staff, councils and chambers; receive feedback • TAC to develop initial recommendations on • Stations • Vehicles • Service Plan • Regional Railroad Authority Update

  23. IPU Schedule • November • Begin Financial Plan • TAC to develop initial recommendations on: • Fare collection • Enhancements • Cedar Group Meeting: Concurrence with findings • Stations • Vehicles • Service Plan • Public Open House • Community Presentations • Regional Railroad Authority Update

  24. IPU Schedule • December/January • TAC to finalize IPU recommendations • Cedar Group Meeting • Present TAC recommendations • Financial Plan • Community Presentations • Present recommendations to RRA

  25. Next Steps – Near Term • September 2009 • 60% design: design issues resolved • Draft Construction Plan • Review of construction concepts • Determine Right of Way requirements; begin property appraisals (100 -230 parcels) • Finalize Streetscape/Landscape Draft Plan • November 2009 • Implementation Plan Draft Recommendations Prepared • Land Use Study activities begin • January 2010 • Detailed design complete • Make Offers for Property • July 2010 – Possession of Property • July/August 2010 • Utility work can begin • Bidding • September 2010 – 2012: Construction

  26. Next Steps – Mid/Long-Term Develop environmental documentation for the station-to-station service Develop/construct stations for the station-to-station service Develop vehicle specifications for the station-to-station service, order vehicles Consider impacts of MnDOT’s managed lane study Conduct 20XX Implementation Plan Update

More Related