4.2. SR 01-18-2000'ity of
River
MEMORANDUM
Item # 6.2.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Scott Harlicker, Senior Planne
January 18, 2000
Northstar Corridor Update
At the January 6, 2000 meeting of the Northstar Corridor Development the
Authority heard an update from MnDOT regarding their draft plan for
commuter rail and discussed possible legislative action in 2000 state
legislative session.
The main issue in the draft MnDOT plan that will affect Elk River is their
proposal for local ownership, operation and maintenance of the station. Each
city will be expected to acquire the property, own and operate the station and
be responsible for day-to-day maintenance. It was mentioned that some
funding could be available from the state, however, the MnDOT
representative did not elaborate. The NCDA staff is discussing the draft plan
with MnDOT and changes in the plan regarding station policy are expected.
Because Elk River has been identified as a multi-model station, money for
property acquisition is likely to be available from the multi-model transit
fund, which is available through the NCDA.
The NCDA's legislative consultant presented their proposed strategy for the
2000 legislative session. It included using a portion of the state sales tax to
fund a portion of the operating costs for the corridor. It was not a proposal to
increase the sale tax, but to allocate a percentage of the current 6.5 % tax to
fund operating costs. Their proposal to fund capital costs included $19 million
cash funding for the year 2000 and a $35 million bonding proposal for the
year 2001.
The NCDA's public relations consultant will be mailing out, to 300,000 homes
within 5 mile of the corridor, a color informational newsletter. The newsletter
will include maps, photos and articles regarding the activities and plans for
the Northstar Corridor.
S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\NCDAJAN.DOC
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
Northstar Corridor Development Authority
Thursday, January 6, 2000
4:30 p.m.
Sherburne County Government Center
Elk River, MN
Minutes of December 9, 1999 Meeting*
Election of Vice Chair
Action Requested
Approval
Election
3. Resolution of Appreciation*-Gerry Donlin
Approval
4. Ex~utive Committee Report Approval
.,al. M,,ulti-Modal Transit Facility Development-
//,Site Selection*
//b. StOlon Planning Issues- Correspondence from
/t-h~ Metropolitan Council*
.Legislative Update
5. Ridership Update Information
a. Overview of Projections*
b. ProCess for Review of St. Cloud Area Ridership
Northstar Newsletter ,~,)~ ~[~ ~'~~rmation
Mn/DOT's Commuter Rail System Plan Information
Metropolitan Regional Transit Master Plan
Information
9. Other
Next Meeting'
*Attached
February 3, 2000
Enclosure: Copy of Star Tribune Article
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Re~lular Meetin~l Minutes
December 9. 1999
The Northstar Corddor Development Authority met on December 9, 1999, at 4:30 p.m. at the
Sherburne County Government Center, Elk River, Minnesota. .--
The followin~j members, alternates and citizens were present:
Walt Fehst, Gerry Donlin, Tim Yantos, Stephanie Eiler, Yvonne Chaillet, Rick Nau, Ken
Stevens, Gary Hammer, Jean Keely, Ray Friedl, John Norgren, Terry Nagorski, Paul Goenner,
Lewis Stark, Duane Cekalla, Duane Grandy, Gerald Goebel, Carl Yilek, Patrick Cairns, Art
Daniels, Jerry Leese, Tom Cruikshank, Tom Gamec, Peter Beberg, Gary Erickson, Dave
Saunders, Steve Billings, Jerry Newton, Dan Erhart, Mary Richardson, Linda Jungwirth, David
Loch, Brian Bensen, Lynn George
1. The meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m.
A motion was made by John Norgren, seconded by Patrick Cairns and carded
unanimously to approve the agenda of December 9, 1999, and the minutes of November
4, 1999, as presented.
A motion was made by Dan Erhart, seconded by Dave Saunders and
carried unanimously to approve two invoices from MainLine Management in the amounts
of $20,689.25 and $20,934.24.
4. Executive Committee Report:
a)
A motion was made by Duane Grandy, seconded by Gary Erickson
and carried unanimously to approve the recommendation
of the Executive Committee to approve the 1999 amended budget, the
proposed contract amendments for 1999 and 2000, and the proposed
2000 budget and authorize the Chair to finalize negotiations and execute
the contract amendments.
b)
A motion was made by Tom Gamec, seconded by Jerry Leese and carried
unanimously to approve the recommendation of the Executive Committee to
authorize working with Mn/DOT to develop up to four initial multi-modal
transit facilities in the Northstar Corridor.
o
Tim Yantos and Stephanie Eiler reviewed the goals of the NCDA Major Investment
Study (MIS) during the past two years.
Rick Nau, BRW, Inc. reviewed the suggested process for selecting the locally preferred
transportation investment strategy (LPTIS) and the results of the analysis of the five
alternatives being studied: 1) No Build, 2) Transportation System Management (TSM),
Northstar Corddor Development Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes
December 9. 1999
Page 2
3) Commuter Rail, 4) Commuter Rail plus TH 10 Improvements, and 5) Commuter Rail
plus TH 10 Improvements plus two River Crossings.
The Project Management Team recommended that the NCDA consider and adopt
Strategy 5 as noted above. This does not mean that the NCDA~. would be fully
responsible for all the projects encompassed in this strategy. Any future decisions to
construct would likely involve multiple agencies. Furthermore, choosing strategy 5
would preclude having to do a Major Investment Study (MIS) in the future on any
individual project noted here because the MIS currently underway covers these
particular projects.
A motion was made by Steve Billings, seconded by Dan Erhart to approve Resolution
#99-6 whereby the NCDA 1) affirms its commitment to improve the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods along the Corddor by selecting a comprehensive multi-
modal transportation investment strategy including commuter rail, feeder bus, TH 10
improvements and new river crossings, pedestrian and bike improvements and ITS
initiatives; 2) urges the Twin Cities, the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota
Department of Transportation ("Mn/DOT') to move forward to implement the proposed
Regional Transit Master Plan, to define the connections to St. Paul, and to implement
the connection to the Hiawatha Corridor, so that the Northstar Corridor riders can travel
efficiently throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area; and 3) urges the greater St.
Cloud metropolitan area, cities and counties, the St. Cloud APO, and Mn/DOT, in
concert with local elected officials and legislators, to similarly define the connections to
and extensions to the Corridor to ensure the safe and efficient travel within and beyond
the St. Cloud area.
A motion was made by Jerry Newton, seconded by Duane Grandy and carried
unanimously to amend Resolution #99-6 removing the terminology "and legislators" in
Resolve #3.
Mr. Billings moved approval of Resolution 99-6 as amended. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Erhart and carried with one no-vote by Gary Hammer, Becker
Township.
Mary Richardson, Richardson, Richter and Associates, discussed the upcoming
activities and actions to be taken in January and February, 2000.
Ms. Richardson urged all members to consider the Amendment to the Joint Powers
Agreement, if they have not already done so, and to notify her as soon as possible of
their decision on the Amendment.
A motion was made by Steve Billings, seconded by John Norgren and carried
unanimously requesting the Executive Committee to draft a letter in response to
Senator Opatz' letter to Governor Ventura. In his letter, which was copied to NCDA
members, Senator Opatz expressed his opposition to further development and funding
of the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line unless the counties who will benefit from it
2
Northstar Corddor Development Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes
December 9. 1999
Page 3
o
commit to planning for and restricting growth to designated urban areas.
The next meeting of the Northstar Corridor Development Authority is scheduled
for Thursday, January 6, 2000, at 4:30 p.m. at the Sherbume .County Government
Center. -
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Betsy Wergin Chairperson
Date
F:\DEPT~COORD~ADM NDATA\COMMITTE\CORRIDOR\1999\120999.doc\lmg
,4genda Item #3
NOR THST,4R CORRIDOR DE VEL OPMENT.4 UTHORITY
RESOLUTION 99- 7
WHEREAS, Gerry Donlin, as Vice Chai~; has served on the Northstar Corridor Development Authority since 1997; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Donlin has made significant contributions to the advancement of the NCDA's mission to improve the safe
and efficient movement of p~ople and goods along the Northstar Corridor; and
tlZHEREAS, Mr. Donlin has advocated for consensus in finding solutions to critical issues; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Donlin has consistently dedicated his time and efforts to bridge the gapsbetween the needs and interests of
the Greater St. Cloud Metropolitan Area and the Northstar Corridor Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Donlin's leadership has helped the Northstar Corridor Development Authority position itself to develop a
multimodal solution to the Northstar Corridor's transportation needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Northstar Corridor Development Authority extends its sincere
appreciation for Gerry Donlin's leadership, his commitment to working within the structure of the Authority to find a viable solution
to the transportation needs of the Corridor, and his steadfast service to the Northstar Corridor Development Authority; and further;
the Northstar Corridor Development Authority expresses its desire for Mr. Donlin's on-going support and involvement in the
development of commuter rail and the Northstar Corridor.
Adopted: danuary 6, 2000 By:
Betsy IVergin, Chair
I hereby certify that the above resolution is a true copy of the Resolution dulypassed, adopted, and approved by the Northstar
Corridor Development Authority on January 6, 2000.
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item #4a
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
December 29, 1999
NCDA
Executive Committee
Multi-Modal Transit Facility Development - Site Selection
At its December 9 meeting, the NCDA authorized working with Mn/DOT to
develop up to four initial multi-modal [ransit facilities in the Northstar
Corridor. At its December 16, 1999 meeting, the Executive Committee
considered the attached evaluation of potential multi-modal station sites.
Based on the technical evaluation, the Committee recommends that the
locations for immediate implementation include Big Lake, Elk River and
Riverdale. The Committee also recommends that a fourth site, East St.
Cloud, be evaluated as a potential fourth multi-modal facility.
Action Requested: Approval.
Northstar Corridor Development Authority
2100 3`4 Avenue, Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2265 (612) 323-5700 Fax: (612) 323-5682
Initial Multimodal Station Site Evaluation
Transit MultiModal Transit Operating Property Land Site Loss Ease of Rank
Demand Efficiency Cost Cost Vacant Potential Construction
Coon Rapids- 2247
Foley (1)
Fridley (2) 1672
Riverdale 1419 High (3) Med High Yes High High 3
Elk River 967 High (4) Med Med Yes Med High 1
Anoka 731 Med Med Med (5) No Low (7) Low (8)
Big Lake 425 High (4) Med Low Yes High High 2
E. St. Cloud 200 Low High Low (6) Yes Low High
Ramsey 121 Med Med Low Yes High High
Notes:
Stations are liSted in descending order of ddership.
(1) Coon Rapids - Foley not considered due to proximity of existing transit facility
(2) Fridley not considered due to level of current service and TSM routing over TH610
(3) High Potential for new transit connections
(4) No current transit service
(5) Includes building demolition
(6) MnDOT owns property
(7) City of ^noka purchase proceeding
(8) Split station proposed for commuter rail, includes building demolition
C:\TEMP\sitevall .wpd
Metropolitan Council
Worla'ng for the Region, Planning for the Future
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
December 28, 1999
Betsy Wergin, Chair, Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA)
Jim Barton, Sandra Pinel, Transportation, Communi~ Development
Metropolitan Council
SUB. CT:
Coordination of the Northstar Corridor Development Process with the
Completion of Community Comprehensive Plans in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area
Enclosed is a draft letter proposed to be sent to the communities within the Metropolitan
area that are members of the Northstar Corridor Development Authority .. We would
appreciate any comments or discussion on the letter from the NCDA at its January
meeting prior to its mailing to the communities..
DRAFT
December 29, 1999
Mail Merge to Local Officials and Community Development Staff
The Metropolitan Council is working closely with the Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA)
and Anoka County to realize the potential of the proposed Northstar Commuter Rail Line in achieving the
Governor's Smart Growth Initiative. Within the metropolitan region, we have an opportunity to connect
transportation investments with housing, jobs and transit-oriented land use plans. To be competitive for
Federal Transit Administration funding, the commuter rail proposal and station area plans must also
demonstrate a benefit to regional growth management, job development, and pei:lestrian-oriented urban
design. This is best documented within the Metropolitan area if the proposal includes commitments made
by participating local governments in land use and/or redevelopment plans, policies and ordinances.
The purpose of this letter is to suggest how the Metropolitan Council will work with local governments
during within the metropolkan portion of the corridor in order to help strengthen the NCDA funding
application to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). We understand that most local governments
participating in the commuter rail plans will have submitted 1998 comprehensive plan updates before the
commuter rail "Major Investment Study" is completed, and therefore, may not include planning details
relative to the rail corridor. However, documentation of local transit-oriented land use and investment
commitment is needed by August submittal date for the funding request to be competitive.
The 2020 Comprehensive Plans from cities along the metropolitan portion of Northstar Commuter Rail
corridor that are submitted to the Metropolitan Council are expected to include a brief description of the
project status and proposed station locations, but given the short time frame, may not include more detailed
station area land use plans that demonstrate the desired benefits ora federal investment by the FTA.
The Metropolitan Council is offering to work with the NCDA and participating cities to undertake station
area planning consistent with realizing a competitive regional economy. We are proposing to document
this commitment in the review of local comprehensive plans. For those cities in the metropolitan area
where a NCDA station is planned, the city will be asked, as part of the comprehensive plan review, to
submit a resolution of commitment to developing a full station-area plan for submittal as a plan
amendment. In this way, we can work together to document the regional benefits of a federal investment in
the proposed commuter rail corridor.
The proposed commuter rail passes through urban and rural areas, therefore, not all stations will be the
same. Some may be oriented to parking and transit connections, while others would provide an opportunity
for generating additional development through a station area plan for compact and mixed uses with a
design character that are pedestrian friendly. Compact land use patterns consisting of transit supportive
density are important parameters, along with other development strategies in measuring the potential
success of transit system investments.
We look forward to working with you on land use and station area plans. If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact Jim Barton at 651 602-1735 or your sector representative Sandra Pinel at 651 602-
1513.
Sincerely,
Eli Cooper, Director
Planning and Growth Management
TSM Boarding Summary
TriPs in Production/Attraction Format
2005 Anoka
Home 8asecl Work 3 Total Dal¥ ~
Station InOound Outl3ouna Inbounct Outtmuncl Total
Wal~Acc JDrive Acc Walk Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Daily
2 2 2 8oarrlings
Rice 4. 39 0 0 8 41 49 0 0 0 49
E. St:. Cloud 14 102 0 1 28 114 142 0 1 1 143
Clear Lake 35 35 16 2 65 40 105 31 2 33 138
Becket 22 52 6 2 49 60 ,, 109 i'- 9 2 11 "- 120
Big Lake 107 186 5 5 196 210 406 14 5 19 425
Elk River 285 387 4 3 525 444 969 11 3 14 983
Ramsey 37 37 1 1 71 46 117 3 1 4 121
Anoka CBD 287 242 7 1 444 271 715 15 1 16 731
Coon Ral3icls/Foley 820 1,005 5 3 1,095 1,091 2,186 13 4 17 2,203
Fridley 376 1,059 0 0 520 1,148 1.668 0 0 0 1.668
Minneapolis CBD #NtA #N/A 59 12 #N/A #N/A #N/A 105 14 119 tfN/A
Total 1,987 3.144 103 30 3,001 3.465 6.466 113 35 115 6,581
Grano Total 5,264
2005 Riverdale
Home Basecl Work Total Daily
Station InDouncl Outl3ound Inbouncl Out~ouncl Total
Walk Acc IDnve Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc ~Total Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Dmly
Boar~incjs
Rice .; 39 0 0 8 41 49 0 0 0 49
E. St:. Cloud 15 102 0 1 30 114. 144 0 1 i 145
Clear Lake 33 35 16 2 57 40 97 32 2 34 131
Becker 23 52 4. 2 46 59 105 5 2 7 112
Rig Lake 104 186 9 4 186 212 398 23 .t 27 425
Elk River ] 282 383 5 6 513 433 946 13 8 21 967
R amsey 38 36 0 3 75 43 118 0 3 3 121
Riverclale 693 435 5 3 921 484 1.405 11 3 14 1.419
Coon RamOs/Fotey 851 1.005 3 2 1.143 1,089 2.,232 7 3 10 2,242
Fridtey 375 1.064 0 0 520 1,152 1.672 0 0 0 1,672
Minneal3olis CBD #N/A #N/A 71 12 #N/A #N/A #NtA 14.7 13 160 #N/A
Total 2,418 3,337 113 35 3,499 3,667 7,166 116 37 117 7,283
1
Grancl Total 5,903
e:~nstar~-ounas'~oaatsm 3 10-Nov-99
Point of beginning of A.M. trips and end point of P.M. trip
Includes people taking bus to station to ride train
Trips from home to work and back only
All trips, not just work
TSM Boarding Summary
Trips in Production/Attraction Format
2020 Anoka
Home Based Wort( Total Daily
Station tnbouncl Outl3ouna Inbound Outt3ouna Total
Wall( Acc Dnve Acc Wall( Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Wall( Acc Dnve Acc Total ;Daily
BoarclinoA
Rice 5 45 0 0 10 ~,7 57 0 0 0 57
'E. St. Cloud 15 104 0 2 32 122 154 0 4 4 158
Clear LaKe 41 33 18 5 78 38 116 33 6 39 155
Becl(er 31 70 6 4 67 79 146 9 5 14 160
Big Lal(e 124 222 7 7 225 253 : 478 ·. - 18 8 26 504
Elk River 349 476 5 6 639 541 t, 180 14 7 21 1,201
Ramsey 46 41 0 1 92 52 144 0 1 1 145
Anoka CBD 358 321 10 5 520 356 876 21 5 26 902
Coon RaDi(~s/Foley 979 1.222 6 0 1,289 1,329 2,618 15 0 15 2,633
Fdclley 376 1.110 0 0 519 1,202 1.721 0 0 0 1,721
Minneapolis CBD =N/A ~N/A 69 14 #N/A #N/A #N/A 117 16 133 #N/A
2020 Riverdale
Home Basecl Worl( Total Daily
Station Inoouncl Outbouncl InPouncl Outt3ounct Total
Wall( Acc Dnve Acc ~Walk Acc Drive Acc Wall( Acc Drive Acc Total Wall( Acc Dnve Acc Total Dally
Boardincjs
Rice 5 45 0 0 10 47 57 0 0 0 57
'E. SC. Cloud 16 104 0 2 36 120 156 0 4 4 160
Clear LaKe 36 33 21 5 65 37 102 41 6 47 149
Becl(er 30 70 4 1 63 79 142 5 ! 6 146
Big Lal(e 1 125 220 7 6 228 245 473 17 9 26 499
Elk River I 346 ~73 6 3 634 537 1.171 17 ,~ 21 t.192
RamseyI 45 40 2 2 87 52 139 4 3 7 146
Riverclale ! ~J72 580 8 3 1.130 54.6 1,776 16 3 19 1.795
Coon RaplOs/Foley I ~.008 ~.220 4 0 1,329 ~..326 2.655 8 0 8 2.663
Fficlley I 379 ~,. 112 0 0 527 1,21 0 1.737 0 0 0 1,737
Minneapolis CBDt #N/A #NIA 64 15 ~NIA #N/A #NIA 109 16 125 #N/A
Total 2.862 3.897 116 37 4,109 4,2.99 8,408 217 46 138 8,546
Gran~l Total 6,912
e:~lst arVoum3s~ioacllsm3 10-Nov-99
2.
3.
4.
Point of beginning of A.M. trips and end point of P.M. trip
Includes people taking bus to station to fide train
Trips from home to work and back only
All trips, not just work
Commuter Rail Boarding Summary
Trips in Production/Attraction Format
2005 St. Cloud/Anoka
Home BaseO Work Total Daily
Station Inbouncl Oult)ound Inbound Outbound Total
Walk Acc I Drive Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Dally
Boardino~s
St Cloud CI~O 58 77 0 0 90 95 185 0 0 0 185
E St Cloud 34 68 0 0 55 91 146 0 0 0 146
Clear Lal(e 39 88 3 3 88 98 186 6 3 9 195
Bectcer 28 lg 0 0 46 27 73 -' 0 0 0 " 73
Big Lake 164 426 4 20 266 506 772 10 21 31 803
Elk River 227 969 2 9 326 1,194 1,520 5 12 17 1.537
Ramsay 26 133 0 0 47 171 218 0 0 0 218
Anoka CBD 281 719 0 2 349 803 1,152 0 2 2 1,154
Coon Rapids/Foley 651 1.200 0 2 776 1,277 2,053 0 3 3 2,056
Fridley 364 1,273 0 8 435 1.370 1.805 0 10 10 1,815
NE Minneapolis 314 0 0 0 490 0 490 0 0 0 490
Minneapolis CBD 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3
Total 2,186 4.972 10 44 2,968 5,632 8.600 24 51 75 8,675
Grand Total 7.212
2005 St. Cloud/Riverdale
Home Based Work Total Daily
Station Inbouno Outt3ound Inbound Oult~ound Total
Walk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc Ddve Acc Total Walk Acc Ddve Acc Total Dally
Boardings
St Cloud CBD 57 79 0 0 88 94 182 0 0 0 182
E St ClouQ 34 68 0 0 55 85 140 0 0 0 140
C[ear Lake 32 90 3 1 65 104 169 7 1 8 177
Becker 28 18 0 1 44 27 71 0 2 2 73
Big Lat(e I 148 463 5 17 236 546 782 7 19 26 808
E[lk RiverI 227 996 1 8 325 1,216 1.541 .t 11 15 1,556
~ 29 173 0 0 51 216 267 0 0 0 267
~ Ramsey ~
Riverclale 436 ~. 166 1 1 530 1.279 1.809 2 2 4 1,813
Coon RapidS/Foley 641 1,100 0 3 765 1.176 1,941 0 5 5 1,946
Fridley 364 1.276 0 7 435 1,377 1,812 0 8 8 1,820
NE Minneapolis 314 0 0 0 490 0 490 0 0 0 490
CBD I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3
Minneapolis
Total ! 2.310 5,429 11 38 3.084 6.120 9.204 23 48 71 9,275
Grand TotalI 7,788
e:~sta~ounOs3~loa~3.wk4 I 0-Nov-99
2.
3.
4.
Point of beginning of A.M. trips and end point of P.M. trip
Includes people taking bus to station to ride train
Trips from home to work and back only
All trips, not just work
Commuter Rail Boarding Summary
Trips in Production/Attraction Format
2005 Rice/Anoka
Home Base(3 Wont Total Daily
Station Inpouncl Outbound Int3ound Outbound Total
Walk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Walk Acc Drive Acc!Total Daily
iBoarclino~s
Rice 2 78 0 0 2 88 90 0 0 0 90
E St Cloud 46 183 0 0 70 225 295 0 0 0 295
Clear Lake 40 88 1 3 90 97 187 2 3 5 192
Beck, er 28 19 0 0 46 27 73 -' 0 0. 0 ~ 73
Big Lake 163 428 6 14 263 509 ~72 ' ' 15 15 30 802
Elk River 227 969 I 9 326 1,194 1,520 3 12 15 1,535
Ramsey 26 133 0 0 47 171 218 0 0 0 218
Anoka CBD 281 719 0 2 349 803 1.152 0 2 2 1,154
'Coon Rapids/Foley 651 1.200 0 2 776 1.277 2,053 0 3 3 2,056
Fddley 364 1.273 0 8 435 1.370 1.805 0 10 10 1 ,B15
NE Minneapolis 314 0 0 0 490 0 490 0 0 0 490
Minneapolis CRD 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3
Totat 2.142 5.090 9 38 2.894 5.761 8.655 23 45 68 8.723
Grand Total 7.279 17.378
2005 Rice/Riverdale
; Home Based Work` I Total Daily
Station Inl~ouncl Outbound ~nDound OutbounQ Total
Walk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Walk Acc Ddve Acc Total Daily
Boardings
Rice 2 88 0 0 2 97 99 0 0'1 0 99
E St Cloud 46 185 0 0 70 223 293 0 0 0 293
Clear Lak,e 32 91 3 0 65 105 170 8 0 8 178
Beck`er 28 17 0 2 44 26 70 0 3 3 73
Big Lake 147 463 4 18 233 546 779 7 20 27 806
Elk River 227 996 0 6 325 1.216 1.541 0 9 9 1,550
Ramsey 29 173 0 0 51 216 267 0 0 0 267
Riverclale 436 ;.166 1 2 530 1.279 1.809 2 -t 6 1.815
Coon Rapids/Foley 641 1.100 0 3 765 1.176 1.941 0 5 5 1,946
Fridley 364 1.276 0 7 435 1.377 1.812 0 8 8 1,820
NE Minneapolis 314 0 0 0 490 0 490 0 0 0 490
Minneapolis CBD 0 0 1 0 0 0 - 0 3 0 3 3
Total 2.266 5.555 9 38 3.010 6.261 9.271 20 49 69 9,340
Grand Total 7.868 18.611
e:~n star~ouncls3~loa(~3.w~4 10-Nov-99
Point of beginning of A.M. trips and end point of P.M. trip
Includes people taking bus to station to ride train
Trips from home to work and back only
All trips, not just work
Commuter Rail Boarding Summary
Trips in Production/Attraction Format
2020 St. Cloud/Anoka
Home Basecl Work Total Dmly
Station InDound Outbound Inbound Outbouncl Total
Walk Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc I Dnve Acc Walk Acc Ddve Acc Total Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Daily
_Roe__rdings
St Cloucl CBD 58 74 0 0 91 91 182 0 0 0 182
E St Cloud 40 75 0 0 66 98 164 0 0 0 1 64
Clear Lake 43 89 3 4 95 105 200 6 4 10 . 210
Becker 37 22 0 1 60 32 , 92 ~ 0 '1 1 93
Big Lake 202 503 7 25 326 596 922 18 28 46 968
Elk River 284 1,196 1 14 407 1,476 1,883 3 18 21 1,904
Ramsay 27 146 0 0 48 196 244 0 0 0 244
Anoka CBD 336 84.8 0 1 419 931 1,350 0 1 I 1,351
Coon Rapids/Foley 722 1,283 1 2 862 1,367 2,229 3 3 6 2,235
FridleyI 371 1,303 0 7 447 1.404 1,851 0 8 8 1,859
NE Minneapolis I 334 0 0 0 521 0 521
0
0
0
521
Minneapolis CBDJ 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3
I
I
Total J 2.454 5.539 13 54 3.342 6.296 9,638 33 63 96 9.734
Grand Total 8,060 19.372
2020 St. Cloud/Riverdale
i Home Based Work Total Daily
Station InDound OutOound Inbound Outbound Total
Walk Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc Drive Acc Total Walk Acc Drive Acc Total Daily
Boarclinc~s
St Cloud CBD 57 75 0 0 89 90 179 0 0 0 179
E St Cloud 40 76 0 0 66 94 160 0 0 0 160
Clear Lake 34 90 4 2 71 102 173 9 2 11 184
Backer 37 21 0 2 61 32 93 0 3 3 96
Big Lake 178 544 ; 1 25 282 647 929 26 29 55 984
Elk River 264 1.226 I l 5 405 1,494 1.899 2 18 20 1.919
Ramsey i 32 ~ 93 0 0 55 249 304 0 0 0 304
Riveraale I 500 7.327 0 2 606 1.447 2,053 0 3 3 2,056
Coon RaDials/Foley 713 1.186 I 2 852 1.266 2.118 3 ,.t 7 2.125
Fridley 370 1.303 0 7 445 1,401 1,846 0 9 9 1.855
NE Minneapous l 334 0 0 0 521 0 521 0 0 0 521
Minneapolis CBDI 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3
Total 2.579 6,041 18 55 3,453 6,822 10,275 43 68 111 10,386
Grand Total 8,693 20,661
e:~nstaCroun(ts3~Joac~3.w~4
1 O-Nov-99
Point of beginning of A.M. trips and end point of P.M. trip
Includes people taking bus to station to fide train
Trips from home to work and back only
All trips, not just work
Commuter Rail Boarding Summary
Trips in Production/Attraction Format
2020 RiceJAnoka
Nome Based Wor~ Total Dally
Station InOound Ou~ound tnDound Ou~ouna Total
Walk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc IDnve Acc Total Walk Acc Drive Acc Total Dally
I Boarclino, s
Rice 2 82 0 0 2 91 93 0 0 0 93
E St Cloud 52 188 0 I I 81 231 312 0 1 1 313
Clear Lake 43 88 3 [ ,~ 95 104 199 6 4 10 209
Becker 37 22 0I 1 60 32 =, 92 ..'2 0 -1 I ' 93
Big Lake 203 501 8 24 329 594 923 19 27 46 969
Elk River 284 1.196 1 13 407 1.476 1.883 2 16 18 1,901
Ramsey 27 146 0 0 48 196 244 0 0 0 244
Anoka CBD 336 848 0 t 419 931 1,350 0 1 1 1,351
Coon Rapids~Foley 722 1.283 1 2 862 1.367 2.229 3 3 6 2,235
Fridlev 371 'I .303[I 0 6 447 t 1.404 1.851 0 7 I 7 1.858
NE Minneapolis [ 334 0 0! 0 521 0 521 0 } 0 I 0 521
iMinneaooiis CBD 0 I 0 "I 0 0 0 0 3 I 0 I 3 3
Total :1! 2.41'.il 5.657} 'J' I ,_ =~ 3.27! I 6.426t 9.697I 33I 60i} 93!, 9.790
iGrand Total 3.134 i ~9.487 I
I
2020 Rice/Riverdale
i -tome Based Work Total Dally
Station L inOounO Outl3ouno inbound Outbound :Total
!21Walk Acc,DnveAcc Walk Acc DnveAcc Walk Acc DnveAcc Total iWalk Acc IDnve Acc,Total Daily
, Boa~ings
I Rice 88 0I 0 2 97 99 0 0 0 99
iEStCIouO ' 52 ,88 C, "I 8t , 226 307 i 308
1 Clear Lake I 34 91 -[ !I 71[ 103 i 174 10 i i t 11 185
Becket I ~ 21 '3 I ~ 61 32 93 0 i 3 [ 3 96
3ig La~e ! 179 545 a 1 23:3 i 285 648 933 26 I ~.5 978
Elk River 284 :226 ' 405 1.494 I 1.899 2 17 I 19 1.918
.~amsey Ii 32I !93I 3! ':i 55 249I 304 o i :. I 0 304
i Riveroale i 500, ;327' ,3I 3 606 1.447 2.053 0 t ': i 4 2.057
i Coon RamdsiFoleV j 713 : 186 ~ 2 852 1.266 2.118 ~'j "i 7 2.125
; FriOley J 370 : .303 i 6 445j 1.401 1.846 ~ 8 j 11 1.857
i NE Minneapolis , 334 , 0 O; i 0 521J ,. 0I 521 0t OJ 0 521
Minneapolis CBD 0 O : 0 r~ O O 3 0 3 3
Total 2.537 6.168 16 51 3,384 6.963 10.347 40 I 64 104 10.451
~ Grand Total , 8.772 20.798
e:,z~star~ounds3~Joao3.wl(4 : 0-Nov-99
2.
3.
4.
Point of beginning of A.M. trips and end point of P.M. trip
Includes people taking bus to station to ride train
Trips from home to work and back only
All trips, not just work
Commuter Rail Boarding Summary
Trips in Production/Attraction Format
2020 East St, Cioud/Riverdale
Home Oasecl Work Total Oail.v
Stat,on Inl3ounO OutDouncl Ini~ounO Outt~3unO Total
Walk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Walk Acc Drive Acc Total Daily
-
c St Clouci 84 177 0 0 96 214 310 0 0 0 310
Clear LaKe 36 90 2 2 76 102 178 4 2 6 184
Becl(er 37 21 0 2 61 32 93 0 3 3 96
Big Lake 178 544 11 24 282 647 929 25 28 54 983
EJk River 284 1.226 l 14 405 1.494 1.899 2 17 19 1.918
Ramsey 32 193 0 0 55 249 304 0 0 0 304
Riverclale 500 1.327 0 2 606 1.447 2.053 0 2 3 2.056
Coon Rap~OstFoley 713 1.186 1 2 852 1.266 2.118 . 3 -t 7 .2.125
Fnclley 370 1.303 0 7 445 1,401 1.846 ~ 0 2 9 1,855
NE Minneal~olis 334 0 0 0 521 0 521 0 0 0 521
Minneapolis CBD 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3
0 0 0
Total 2.548 5.067 16 53 3.399 6.852 38 66
I 0.251 104 1
GranO Total 8.684
2020 East St. CIoud/Anoka
Walk Home Basecl Work Total Da,v
Stat, on Acc Walk 1'
I nnounO OutbounQ Inbound OutDoun(3 Total
, Acc Dnve Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Walk ACc Dnve Acc Total Dally
: St CIou(3 i ' Boarclincjs
- 64 I 177 0 0 96 219 315 0 ; 0 315
CZear LaKe ! 43 89 3 4 95 105 200
9ecker 37 ?--2 0 1 60 32 92 0 1 93
Big LaKe I 202 503 7 25 326 596 922 18 28 46 968
_.Elk River 284 1.196 1 14 407 1.476 1.883 3 18 2~ 1.904
Ramsev 27 146 0 0 48 196 244 0 ~ 0 244
Anoka CBD 336 848 0 1 419 931 1.350 0 ~ 1 1.351
:Coon Rapids/Foley 722 1.283 1 2 862 1.367 2.229 3 ~ I 6 2.235
Fri(tlev I 371 1.303 0 7 447 1.404 1.851 0 ~ 8 1.859
NE MinneaoolmI 334 i 0 C 0 521 0 521 0 ; 0 521
! Minneapolis CBD I 0 ! 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 3 3
~ I t 0 0 0
;Tota~ :, ~.420 5.567 ~3 54 3.281 6.326 33 53
, i ! I ! ,9.703
i,Grano Total , 5.054 ]
Point of beginning of A.M. trips and end point of P.M. trip
Includes people taking bus to station to ride train
Trips from home to work and back only
Ail trips, not just work
Commuter Rail Boarding Summary
Trips in Production/Attraction Format
2020 RicelRiverdale
~1 I Home Base~ Work I Total Daily
i Station ! ,nOouna J Oufoouna I lnt~ouno Ou~ouna Total
; Walk Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc IOnve Acc Total Walk Acc i Ddve Acc Total IDaity
II ! Boarclings
'Rice 2 88 0 0 i 2 97 99 0 0 0 99
E St Cloud 52 188 0 1t 81 226 307 0 I 1 308
Clear Lake 34 91 4 1 71 103 174 10 I 11 185
Becket 37 21 0 2 61 32 93 -- 0 .3 3, 96
Big Lake 179 545 8 23 285 648 ;933 - 19 26 45 978
Elk River 284 1,226 1 13 405 1,494 1,899 2 17 19 1,918
Ramsey 32 193 0 0 55 249 304 0 0 0 304
Riverdale 500 1.327 0 3 606 1,447 2.053 0 4 4 2,057
i Coon Rap~ds~Foley 713 1.186 t 2 852 1.266 2.118 3 .t 7 2,125
. Fridley 370 1.303 i 6 445 1.401 1.846 3 8 11 1,857
NE Minneaooiis 334 0 0 i 0 i 521 0 521 0 0 0 521
i Minneapolis CBD , 0 0 1 0 ! 0 0 0 3 0 3 3
'Total i 2..537 I 8.168 16 51 3.384 I 6.963 10.347 40 64 104 10.451
iGrand Total I 8,772
2020 US 10 Improvements
Home Based Work I Total Daily ]
Station I redound OutOouna [ inl3oune [ 'OutDouna Total
Walk Acc Onve Acc Walk Acc IDnve Acc IWalk Acc Drive Acc Total .Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Daily
, Boardings
Rice I 2 87 ,3 I '3 2 94 96 0 0 0 96
! 50 183 0 0 220 294 0 0 0 294
Clear Lake [ 34 901 3 I ~ 70 102 172 6 : 7 179
, I o! .56 29 O l o 0 87
Elk River [ 282 I ,.1'T7 ~ !3 400 1.422 1.822 3 [ 17 20 1.842
Ramsey i 32 201 O :3] 54 261 315 0] Oi 0 315
Riverdale [ .t97 ~ .328 0 3 [ 603 1,450 2.053 0 ] 3 3 2,056
Coon Rao~as/Foley 713 1.186 : I 2 852 1,268 2,120 3 3 6 2,126
,-'r~dley . 370 1.303 i [ 8 I 4.45 1.403 1.848 3 7 t0 1,858
NE MinneaDoUs i 334 .3 t .3 0 521 0 521 0 i O 0 521
Minneaoous CBD * 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 I 0 3 3
Grand Total 8.691
~. :-n star~ounos3~oaos3h.wK4 16-Nov-99
2.
3.
4.
Point of beginning of A.M. trips and end point of P.M. trip
Includes people taking bus to station to ride train
Trips from home to work and back only
All trips, not just work
Commuter Rail Boarding Summary
Trips in Production/Attraction Format
2020 Crossing la
Home Based Work Total Daily
Station inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Total
Walk Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc Drive Acc Walk Acc Drive Acc Total Walk Acc Dnve Acc Total Daily
Boarclings
Rice 2 87 0 0 2 94 96 0 0 0 96
E St Cloud 50 182 0 I 74. 216 290 0 2 2 292
Clear Lake 33 88 3 1 67 t00 167 6 1 7 174
Becker 36 21 0 0 58 29 87 " 0 0 0 ' 87
Big Lake 176 523 5 26 272 610 882 12 31 43 925
Elk River 281 1,166 2 15 398 1,406 1.804 6 18 24. 1.828
Ramsey 32 202 0 0 54 262 316 0 0 0 316
Riverdale 497 1.328 0 3 603 1,450 2,053 0 3 3 2.056
Coon Rapids/Foley 713 1,186 1 2 852 1.268 2.120 3 3 6 2.126
Fridley 370 1.303 1 6 445 1,403 1.848 3 7 10 1,858
NE Minneapolis 334 0 0 0 521 0 521 0 0 0 521
Minneapolis CBD 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3
Total 2.524 i 5.086 13 54 3.346 6.838 I 0.184. 33 55 98 10.282
Grand i
Tota, 8.677I
2020 Crossing lb
Home Based Work I Total Daily
Station inDouno Outbound InDound Outbound Total
,'Watk Acc Dnve Acc Walk Acc Drive ACC Walk Acc ;Dnve Acc Total Walk Acc fDnve Acc Total BoardincjsDaily
~_ St Clouo~ 50 182 O ~ 74 2t 6I 290 0 2 2 292
Clear Lake 34 89 3 i 70 101 171 6 ~ · 7 178
Backer 36 2I 0 0 58 29 87 0 0 0 87
Big Lake 176 523 5 26 272 610 882 12 31 43 925
Elk River 281 1,166 2 15 398 1.406 1,804 6 18 24 1.828
Ramsay 32 202 0 0 54 262 316 0 0 0 316
Rivercla~e 497 1.328 0 3 603 1.450 2.053 0 3 3 2.056
Coon Rapids/Foley 713 1.186 1 2 852 1.268 2.120 3 3 6 2.126
Fridley I 370 ! .303 1 5 445 1.403 1,848 3 7 I 0 1.858
NE Minneapolis 334 0 0 0 521 0 521 0 0 I 0 521
Minneapolis CBD 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0t 3 3
Total 2.525 I 6.087 13 54 3.349 6.839 I 10,188 33 55 98 10.286
Grand Total 8.679
e:,nstarvoun(ts3~oa~s3h.w~4 16-Nov-99
Point of beginning of A.M. trips and end point of P.M. trip
Includes people taking bus to station to ride train
Trips from home to work and back only
All trips, not just work
rT'
lie
NEWSPAPER OF THE TWIN CITIES
Saturday
DECEMBER 18, 1999
Commuter rail,
the other line,
is taking shape
Propnsed
commuter-
ra~ stations ?i'.: :.'
Proposed
commuter-
rail route
A St. Cloud-to-Minneapolis line
could be in operation by 2005.
By Laurie Blake "'
Star Tribune Staff Writer
While the public spotlight has been focused on
the Twin Cities area's first light-rail line, work on
the region's first commuter-rail line has been chug-
ging ahead quietly.
Now, after three years of study and design, thb
proposed 80-mile Northstar line is about to pull
into view for serious scrutiny.
The plan is to run 18 passenger trains a day on
existing freight tracks between St. Cloud and Min-
neapolis. Four counties, 15 cities and four town-
ships along the route are pushing the project with
hopes of starting service by 2003, the same year
light-rail service is expected to begin'along Hiawa-
tha Avenue in Minneapolis.
RAIL continues on kl.7:
-- Prospects for state funding are unclear.
ALSO INSIDE:
Four big-name construction
compcmies are chosen to con-
tinue bids for light-rail con-
tract. B3
mnea
The Nonhstu would requl~e .... 'l~{OFe [qfonnation: "
$22.3 million in public flmding and ........... :.' .....................................
approval by the Burlington North..: ::),.' Phone: Northstar Contdor De- '~
em Santa Fe railroad, which ownj ~..::. ve[opmentAuthodty, 612-323-"
the tracks, And because commuter :' 5692.
rail proponents are counting on
$89 n'dllJon fi.om the state, the pro-
ject's fate is expected to be sealed
in the upconfing legislative se..sion.
'A lot now hangs on whai the
public decides to do with respect
to suppo~ng the project." said DI
Mitchell, assistant vice president
of passenger operations for.
Burlinglon. f
tUthough Burllnglon officials
are open to sharing Minnesota
tracks w~th passenger n'ains -- the
company already qhares tracks in
mher cities -- the railroad will not
cmnplete negotiations until pro-
ject linanchlg is secured, Mitchell
said.
The prospects fi)r ilate funding
Jre unclear. Gay. lesse Venmra
mentioned the prniect in'his imm.
.aural ~peech, but the ,idmin-
istration hasn't decided what irans-
ponation ~nding t0 recommend.
Northstar o~cials have hired a lob-
byist but have not identified legisla-
tors who will push for funding,
'transportation Commissioner
Elwyn rinklenberg, who tikes the
Northstar proposal, said his own
ioal is to establish a fund for transit
proiecu -- ~nuch tike the gasoline
:iLX dedicated [o road improve-
meats -- SO transit improvements
can be freed fi.om project-by-
project political approval.
Northstar proponents say they
are optimistic that legislators will
recognize the need to plan
coming growth and traffic con-
gesdon.
"Some people are against ev-
erything and some people are
ahald of change,' said Anoka
County Commissioner Paul
McCarron, a leading commuter-
rail proponent. "But I think that
under close examination they will
see that this wonld serve the
,q'eater good.
"lt w~ll muve a maximum hum~
bet o1' people with a minimum
amount of cost -- less cost than
expanding the roads or putting in
light rail,' he said.
'rhe Minnesota rransponation
L]flna r~ m~Fi [ hlpl rnnked the
~.. Web: hn'p:Hwww.brwinc.com/
northstar.
}. Whot'a n.t: Planning meetings
will begin in late Jannary or
early February to gather public
input on station amenities.
Northstar as Ihe store's most
protnising commuter-rail line.
Sludies have hagen on two olhers:
the Dan Patch line front I.akeville
to Minneapolis and the Red flock
tine from Ilasdngs to St. Paul..
Relief for Hwy. 10
Work .n ~l~c' xlmshqar began
when ~1 bec:line ,:lear dial the area
northwest of Minneapolis wouhl
not he ~ choice tar ',i~hl
.~.h:tL. mo said. Fha line was con-
ceiveti as an ahemadve
which is jammed with commnle~s
al rush hour md is expected m
becmne more congealed as the
area northwest of th~ Twin Chi.
grmvs, Now, lh~. 10 carries an
amage of fig,000 cars a day In the
cily of Anoka. acco.ting m the
l'ranspomtion DepamnenL
tn additi.n Io ils use I)y lhe
work fo[ce, supl)~lrle[S ~ay, the
train would allow sludems to live
at home and commule lo the Uni-
versity nE Mtnnesola
Cloud State Universi~. And some
are b~okJng [on~ard m taking a
commuler train to
Minneapolis lo connect with the
}ll~a Avenue light-rail line an
mute to the Ml~eapolis-St, Paul
Inlemadon~ g~on.
Bide.hip esOm~les ~orecast
~,340 dd~ a day in 2003, or about
2.8 mi~ion rides a ye~.
Iohn Weaver, an Anoka City
Council member, ~nks mlership
wouhl ~ow as the frustration in-
creases ~th delays on }1~. 10.
"This MIl be a ma~elous ~ellef
v~ve that we n~,' Weaver aid.
~e popnlafi~ of the project
has astounded Sherimrne
Cnmmissim~r Betsy Wergin,
chainvoman of lhe Northstar Cop
ddnr Development .~dthnri~y,
Commuters board a Bufllnglon
Northern Santa Fa train this week
at Chicago's Union Station. The rail-
road's b'acks sro also used for com-
muter rail In Los Angel..
joint powers board ,werseeing the
proiect. Wergin said she ms ini-
tially a skepdc, "What I hear when
I go eve~vhere i~, 'You've got to
do this,' ' she said,
Hailroad Is eooperating
Rtulin~on bas bom suppnrlive
;Ind involved in disc.salons ;IbOlll
the project, said ~lcCarron,
~oka Coun~ commissioner,
The railroad has commuler
~rab~s running on ils tracks in
Chicago ~d Los Angeles and ~11
~oon add ~em in Sealtle, the
comp~y's Mitchell said,
Besides bu~ng the trains, th~
capHal case co~ected ~th com-
muter r~l come in ~e con-
s{~ction o[ stadons ~nd iQ'
Irack ~p~ovemen~ necessa~ for
safe andefficient sharing of
· ac~ by passengers and fieighl, ·
Some of the negmiations be-
tween Northstar officials and ~e
railroad focus on what uack im-
provements are necessa~ and
ow much each side ~1 pay.
Bu~on would be paid for the
passenger train use of its track hut
d.es not e~ecl to make a
prnfit ham Ihe ~er.'ice, HilchNI
';aid.
,. The primary concern for the
: company Is that It must be sure
. that the passenger service does
[not get In the way o.!' or delay lis
· ~tel$ht Opi~tlons, he said. Among
the opponents of the project a~e
two Republican legislators from
the area that would be served by
'ther~illine. ,,, .: ', ,'
't Rep. Mark Olson, R-Big Lake,
'said people support the rail line
not because they plan to use It but
because they th~nk it will get other
drivers off the toad. "l think it's a
fun and exciting thing for os to
confider .... "he said. But when
roeople look at the facts, support
r the.project will fade, he said.
Sen. Mark Ourada, R-Buffalo, a
member of the Senate Transpof
radon Commitlee, said he is skep-
Ileal of the benefit commuler rail
would provide far the money. 'l'o
my way of Utinking we may be
much better off to say. 'Let's
spend that on technology and
lecnmmutin~ capability :go that
people don'! have to commute at
all.'"
~ervice In 2003
Unlike Ii~ht rail..vbich -uns ,m
its mvn tracks and provides ire-
quent, all-day service, cnmmtner
rail wonld mn only ,'st rush hours.
The tracks would have t,) lye kept
open for freight !ransportadon
most'o( the slav.
B~t like tht: proposed Hiawatha
!lght-rall line. which has received
$120 million Itt state Eroding, the
Northstar must receive a ftmdtng
commitment rtom die state to Will
approval from tire Federal Transit
,\dministrati,m .sod $1 i I million
fi'om the federal government.
Though ofllclais wince at the
suggestion that the tw~ projects
are competing far funding, both
need money front the same fed-
ual transpormion fund.
Commuter rail officiaJs hope to
receive a favorable rating for the
project from the Transit Ad.
rr~nisn'adon in Februa.,~ or March.
The long*range plan is to con-
nect the light-rail and commuter-
rail Lines with a station in down-
town Ivfinneapolls behind the T~-
get Center.
In August. the Northslar devel-
opment authority hired Shandwick
Reeearch International to conduct
a lelephone poll of 500 residents
Ii,ag within .5 miles ~fthe North.
stqr line. Seventy-three percent nf
respondents ~aid they considered
commuter rail ia go,t,l idea..md 17
percent said they would use dte
, Rail_pj_oJects at a glance
'North~ta~ commut, r 'raft
~ b ~ Commute~ rail
is passe~ge~ ~'a~ service
Ii, at oPeatea on existing
height railroad ~'ac~& In
cars ~led ~ c~esel
serves ionge~ ~z~s from
suburban madders and
opeates pimadb' from &
a.m. to 9 a~. and 3 pm. to
t.~g~ 80 miles~
dde~ip: 9.340 per
ddes a day
u about 2.8
million ruff a
year by 2001
'/ Wright
Bl~ Lage- LSat~
Co. Rd. ,I 3
light rail
~ is ltl: [ i~t tal eun~ on ilz own
~acks, off~k~g fre~ent se~e
~ough Ihe day. R uses e~tr~
~wer c~r~ ~y ove~e~d wle$. ·
~Oda~ed ~: 19,5~ dal~ g ps
at ~n~g and 24,4~ a day Oy 2020.
~g c~ $9~ milan a ye~,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~t a~i~b~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ava~b~
~ oo~t: S223
milan -- ~0 percent
federal, 40 percem state'
atx110 pece~t
mien a year inchiding
~ cost of f~ bu~s
Pas~8~ f~ wash
off~t ~e of U~is COSL
$.u5.
~ $3.47 ~ 2~3.
30 ~rcenl of
xl Ramsay B~
H~.Co. 6/st Ay.
and Cenfal Ay. NF.
~_.
Mlnneaool~ -
N, 511~ SL and St
. Mpls.-SL Paul hr1Ah'<xt
Sources: Minnesola DeoaMment at
Nonttstar CorrUot D~velo~ne~l
Star Ttbune mao by ~.'-a~ F~e~rnann
line to commute to work.
All four counties touched by
the rail line -- Sherbume, Benton,
Annka attd tlennepin -- have
agreed m pay part of the t0 per-
cent cnunry share of the project,
The connty poninn would come to
$23 milliun in ."003 dollars,
Besides its cost, the biggest
concerll ;ihmll the project Is wh.
wmzld pay Iho operating ,:n~ts --
$13,8 n.lli,m ,i year in 2110:1 daf
hrs. CoomV 'md ci~ nfficiah do
or. want their residents In pay.
The issue is unresdved. The
Transportation Depot!meat '.viii
jlresenl a commuter.rail master
clan early next year that would
alp the Legislature get a com-
muter-rail system going, but it
would leave funding an open po-
litical question.
lalurle Blazl:e rem he reached
h), e.omit nt Gettin~th~.re,'*~tar
NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-2
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) assisted by Anoka and
Sherburne Counties is proposing to develop up to four multi-modal park and pool/ride lots within
the TH 1 O/Northstar Corridor in 2000 to 2001.
These multi-modal facilities are intended to aggregate passengers to maximize the use of
express bus and other transit services between the cities within the Corridor and to alleviate
existing congestion on roads and highways including TH10, TH610, TH252, TH47 and
Interstates 94, 694, and 494.
Mn/DOT is performing planning and analysis relating to the location, size, design,
impact, etc. of each of these multi-modal facilities and will also be performing an environmental
review regarding these facilities and their locations prior to development.
Each of the multi-modal facilities will be sited and designed to address existing and
future transportation/transit needs within the Corridor, alleviate transportation/traffic impacts
associated with high and growing volumes within the Corridor and will be able to serve/support a
wide variety of alternative transit modes. The multi-modal facilities are needed improvements
within the TH1 O/Northstar Corridor regardless of the kind or type of transit mode(s) used to
serve the Corridor.
The NCDA is currently preparing an environmental impact statement on the Northstar
Corridor Transportation Project. The Project EIS is examining three general alternatives for
addressing transportation/transit system needs and improvements within the Corridor.
Law and regulation governing the preparation of environmental impact statements require
that no action be taken in connection with a project under review which would "prejudice the
ultimate decision on the project", "have an adverse environmental impact", or "limit the choice
of reasonable alternatives."
Adopted: January 6, 2000 By:
Betsy Wq~n, Chai~
I hereby certify that the above resolution is a true copy of the Resolution duly passed, adopted, and
approved by the Northstar Corridor Development Authority on January 6, 2000.
Doc# 118723151
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
January 6, 2000
Betsy Wergin, Chair
Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA)
Peter Beberg, Mayor, City of Anoka
John Weaver, Councilmember, City of Anoka
Status of Anoka 4~ Avenue Commuter Rail Station
The City of Anoka requests that the NCDA address the status of the Anoka 4~ Avenue commuter rail station based
upon the following facts:
On September 2, 1999 the NCDA approved station locations but left the Anoka 4m Avenue and Coon
Rapids - Riverdale stations as apparently mutually exclusive options which "are unresolved and
require further analysis".
Today, the NCDA is being asked to approve and authorize immediate implementation to develop
multi-modal stations at Big Lake, Elk River and Coon Rapids-Riverdale.
The Big Lake, Elk River and Coon Rapids-Riverdale multi-modal stations are coincident with the
designated locations for potential commuter rail stations.
The recommended action to select the Coon Rapids-Riverdale station as a multi-modal site is, in
reality, selection of this same location as a commuter rail station.
Authority planners are strongly urging Anoka to prepare a commuter rail transit area plan for the 4~
Avenue station although it has not yet been formally added to the system by the NCDA.
As the next agenda item indicates, "for those cities in the metropolitan area where a NCDA station is
planned, the City will be asked, as part of the comprehensive plan review, to submit a resolution of
commitment to developing a full station-area plan for submittal as a plan amendment". The letter
also notes that "documentation of local transit-oriented land use and investment commitment is
needed by August submittal date for the funding request to be competitive".
Therefore, the City of Anoka is being requested to make commitments and expend funds for station
area planning without having been designated officially by the NCDA as a station location.
Therefore, the City of Anoka requests formal designation of the Anoka 4th Avenue station so such planning
LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY FOR NORTHSTAR
2000- 2001
CAPITAL COSTS NEEDS $54 MILLION
2000 -$19 MILLION (CASH)
2001 - $35 MILLION (BONDS)
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL ESTIMATE YEAR 2003
TO ST.CLOUD $12 MILLION
LESS FARE BOX REVENUE $3.5 MILLION
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE NEEDS
$8.5 MILLION**
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL ESTIMATE YEAR 2003
TO ST.CLOUD $12 MILLION
TO RICE & FEEDER BUS $ 2 MILLION
LESS FARE BOX REVENUE $4.6 MILLION
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE NEEDS
$9.4 MILLION**
**STATE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR TRANSIT
OPERATIONS $4.5 MILLION
**REGIONAL TRANSIT FUNDING FROM A PORTION OF
THE 1991 COUNTY ADOPTED ONE HALF CENT SALES
TAX $4.0 MILLION
DEDICATION OF A PERCENTAGE OF CURRENT 6.5% SALES TAX. TWO
SEPARATE FUNDS - METRO AND NON METRO - CREATED. METRO FUND
WOULD REMOVE TRANSIT OPERATIONS FROM PROPERTY TAX AND
PROVIDE REVENUE TO GROW THE TRANSIT SYSTEM, INCLUDING
BUSWAYS AND COMMUTER RAIL. (SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR YIELDS)
Sales Tax
MVET
Total
State-Wide
3,686
52O
4,2O6
2O0O
Metro
2,395.9
338
2,733.9
Non-Metro
1,290.1
182
1,472.1
Rate
.25¢
.2¢
.1¢
Yield
323.54
258.83
194.09
161.77
129.42
64.71
Metro (65%)
210.30
168.24
126.16
105.15
84.12
42.06
Non-Metro (35%)
113.24
90.59
67.93
56.62
45.30
22.65
Sales Tax
MVET
Total
State-Wide
3,875
526
4,401
2001
Metro
2,518.75
341.9
2,860.65
Non-Metro
1,356.25
184.1
1,540.35
Rate
.5¢
.4¢
.3¢
.25¢
.2¢
.1¢
Yield
338.54
270.83
203.09
169.27
135.42
67.71
Metro (65%)
220.05
176.04
132.01
110.03
88.02
44.01
Non-Metro (35%)
118.49
94.79
71.08
59.24
47.40
23.70
(:.o,m m ule'.r
px E! i,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I -Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Implementation Strategy
Section 2 - Plan Administration Guidelines
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Governance
System Plan Approval Process
System Plan Maintenance
Planning and Programming
Section 3 - Funding and Financing Guidelines
3.1 Cost Sharing
3.2 Sources of Funding
3.3 Financing Techniques
Section 4 - Advanced Corridor Planning Guidelines
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Planning Guidelines
Design and Procurement Guidelines
Construction Guidelines
Operating Guidelines
Appendix
Section A- Central Corridor Service Schedule
Section B - Background Material
Section C - 1999 Commuter Rail Legislation
Section D - Growing Smart in Minnesota, Office of Governor Jesse Ventura
Commuter Rail System Plan TOC-1
Introduction
SECTION
Vision Statement
Commuter rail will be
planned, designed, and
implemented to provide a
unified, integrated, and
efficient multimodal
transportatiOn system.
,'"'.fn/Do~as built on the results
'~e Twin Cities Metropofitan
¢¢,'nmuter Rail Feasibility Study"
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In January 1999 the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) presented the
results of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Commuter Rail Feasibility Study to the Minnesota
Legislature. After hearing those results the legislature passed M.S. 174.80 to 174.90
which gave the commissioner of Mn/DOT the authority to plan, design, construct, and
operate commuter rail in the State of Minnesota. Further, the commissioner was charged
with the responsibility of developing a commuter rail system plan that would ensure that,
if built, commuter rail would be part of an integrated transportation system that would
interface with all other forms of transportation including light rail transit (LRT), buses,
Dark and ride, bicycles, and pedestrians. In devetoDing the commuter rail Commuter
Rail Feasibility Study and in particular the implementation strategy presented in the final
report.
The commuter rail system plan addresses the following:
· How Mn/DOT will manage the authority provided for in legislation.
· Describes in detail the process that commuter rail corridors must follow to obtain
Mn/DOT approval to move forward with'implementation of commuter rail.
· Provides a single point of authority to advance commuter rail implementation.
· Establishes ground rules for the funding and financing of all aspects of commuter
rail activity.
· Develops engineering standards for system components.
· Declares a framework for conducting negotiations with the host railroad(s).
· Declares the necessity of coordination of commuter rail with all other transportation
plans and transit services.
The commuter rail system plan has been developed as a prescriptive tool that ensures
commuter rail will be accomplished in a cooperative and consistent manner that
provides to the maximum extent possible, coordination among stakeholders. The system
plan reinforces the legislative direction that has placed Mn/DOT in charge of the
planning, design, construction, and operation of commuter rail and the system plan that
commuter rail will only be advanced where it is consistent with the transportation plans
Commuter Rail System Plan 1-1
"The Commuter Rail System Plan
builds on the results of the Twin
Cities Commuter Rail FeaSibilitY
Study"
of affected metropolitan planning organizations and with the implementation strategy
contained in the system plan itself.
1.2 Implementation Strategy
The Commuter Rail System Plan, as stated earlier, builds on the results of the Twin
Cities Commuter Rail Feasibility Study and in particular focuses on the
implementation strategy presented in the Final Summary Report. This
implementation strategy provided for a two tiered and staged implementation of six
(6) commuter rail corridors and the central corridor connecting the cities of
Minneapolis and St. Paul as shown in the map below.
Commuter Rail System Plan 1-2
'Within the Commuter Rail
Sys[em Plan [he implementation
strategy has been modified only
slightly."
"Revised legislation provides
Mn/DOT the authority to plan for
commuter rail beyond the seven
county metropolitan area"
Tier I staging was presented as follows:
· Stage 1 - Northstar corridor from Elk River to Minneapolis;
· Stage 2 - Red Rock corridor from Hastings to St. Paul;
· The Minneapolis to St. Paul connection may be implemented in Stage 1 or Stage 2
and must be implemented no later than Stage 2;
· Stage 3- Dan Patch corridor from Lakeville to Minneapolis.
Tier II included the following corridors with no staging or priority for implementation
suggested:
· Bethelto Minneapolis;
· Forest Lake to St. Paul;
· Norwood-Young America to Minneapolis; and
· Extension of existing corridors.
Within the Commuter Rail System Plan the implementation strategy has been modified
only slightly. It has been modified by extending the Northstar Corridor termini from Elk
River to the St. Cloud area reflecting the authority given to Mn/DOT to plan commuter rail
beyond the seven county metropolitan area. In addition, it has been modified to reflect
that the Minneapolis to St. Paul connector will be implemented with the Red Rock
Corridor.
Justification for these modifications include the following:
· Revised legislation provides Mn/DOT the authority to plan for commuter rail
beyond the seven county metropolitan area;
· The Northstar Corridor Development Authority has actively pursued implementation
of commuter rail service to the St. Cloud area consistent with its federal funding
authority; and
· The Twin Cities Metropolitan Commuter Rail Feasibility Study identified significant
value in implementing the central corridor with the Red Rock (Hastings) corridor
rather than implementing it with the Northstar Corridor. Specifically, ridership on
the Red Rock Corridor is extremely dependent on through trips to downtown
Commuter Rail System Plan 1-3
Minneapolis. The same is not true for the Northstar Corridor ridership dependence
on trips through to downtown St. Paul.
Commuter Rail System Plan 1-4
Plan
Administration
Guidelines
SECTION
PLAN ADMINISTRATION
GUIDELINES
The purpose of this
section is twofold: (1) to
outline the various
alternatives related to
public sector sponsorship
of commuter rail services
provided throughout the
State of Minnesota (2) to
recommend a viable
organizational approach
for ~e safe, reliable and
cost-effective provision of
such services.
"/t is recommended that Mn/DOT
serve as the initial sponsor of
commuter rail service."
2.2 Governance
in light of the passage of recent Minnesota State legislation~ that establishes Mn/DOT as
the state's commuter rail planning and implementation agent, it is recommended that
Mn/DOT serve as the initial sponsor of commuter rail service. Mn/DOT may delegate
commuter rail sponsorship to a federated Joint Exercise of Powers Agency (JPA)
comprised initially of representatives of affected parties.
An alternative to Mn/DOT would be the creation of "MnTransit," a state-level agency with
statewide responsibility for transit planning and operations similar to the New
Jersey/NJTransit model. However, this approach seems to conflict with the legislature's
intent to specifically empower Mn/DOT with these same duties and responsibilities as
they relate to commuter rail. Furthermore, adding to the already lengthy list of
Minnesota public agencies with some measure of transit and/or specifically rail-related
responsibilities may not be viewed by the current administration as being in the best
interest of the public.
Candidates for membership in a JPA include relevant Regional Railroad Authorities a~
Metro Transit as well as other affected counties, cities, communities, metropolitan
planning organizations, and/or transit service providers throughout the region. To the
extent that commuter rail Advanced Corridor Plans are initiated outside the seven-county
region, the membership of the federated Joint Powers organization could be modified
accordingly. This approach is similar to that adopted in the Central Puget Sound Region.
Another potential alternative would be the delegation of sponsorship status by Mn/DOT to
Metro Transit. This alternative would be consistent with Metro Transit's current duties and
responsibilities as primary transit service provider throughout the seven-county Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area. However, current state law limiting the provision of Metro
Transit's services to the seven-county area would have to be amended to allow for the
potential provision of commuter rail service outside the region or elsewhere throughout
the State of Minnesota. The approach which has been taken in the Central Puget Sound
with regard to the role of bus service providers has been to formulate intergovernmental
agreements with such agencies (Community, Everett and Pierce Transit) for the provision
Minnesota Session Laws 1999, Chapter 230 - S.F. No. 1762, Section 20
Commuter Rail System Plan 2-1
"'~ and when the Commissioner
2roposes modifications to the
C~ystem Plan, the modifications will
De presented to affected MPO's for
~pprovaL "
of feeder bus service to and from LRT and commuter rail stations. Giver~ their long
history of providing high-quality bus service throughout the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area, this may also De Metro Transit's "best and highest use" in the context of the
provision of commuter rail service as opposed to serving as sponsor of such service.
2.3 System Plan Approval Process
Approval by affected Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's) is required prior to the
preparation of final design plans. Approval of the System Plan by the Metropolitan
Council for the Twin Cities Metropolitan area and the St. Cloud Area Planning
Organization for the St. Cloud area is required.
tf and when the Commissioner proposes modifications to the System Plan, the
modifications will be presented to affected MPO's for approval.
Approval Process
Steering
Committee
Adoption
I· Mn/DOTCommbsioner
'-=~1 Consultation with Affected
] Regionnl Rnilrend Authorities (1)
Commuter R~il Corridor
Committees Review
AdoPtion by
Mn/DOT Commiasiener
(I) Consultation is achieved through liaison
by Smermg Committee mem~rs with their
respective Regional Railroad Authorities
Commuter Rail System Plan 2-2
"Mn/DOT is the logical organization
to maintain the System Plan"
"it is imperative that communities,
along with affected Metropolitan
Planning Organizations and
Mn/DOT, panner and address
issues that ensure the success of
the community and of commuter
rail service."
2.3 System Plan Maintenance
The Twin Cities Commuter Rail System Plan is a living document that wi II need to be
modified, especially as real-life experience with commuter rail is gained. As the
organization responsible for all aspects of planning, developing, constructing, operating
and maintaining commute rail, Mn/DOT is the logical organization to maintain the
System Plan. Mn/DOT will be responsible for ensuring the commuter rail plan is in
compliance with local, state and federal planning and programming requirements.
However, the Steering Committee structure that was used during the Twin Cities
Commuter Rail Feasibility Study and again to develop the System Plan, presents an
opportunity to maintain communication and coordination among the regional rail
authorities and Commuter Rail Corridor Coordinating Committees. It is recommended
that the Steering Committee structure be maintained and utilized as a review board for
maintaining the System Plan.
2.4 Planning and Programming
Commuter rail service is dependent upon the compatibility between efficient land b.
policy and transit investments. Commuter rail is most successful when land use policy
around stations, neighborhoods, communities, the region and ultimately the state allows
for innovative, flexible, and inclusive solutions.
Community Plans
Local communities play a large role in the success or failure of commuter rail service,
especially in the initial stages of implementation. It is imperative that communities,
along with affected Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Mn/DOT, partner and
address issues that ensure the success of the community and of commuter rail service.
In order to maximize commuter rail service and community opportunities, local land use
planning must recognize the potential impacts of commuter rail investments. Mn/DOT
will work with local units of government to ensure their voice is heard while commuter
rail is being explored as an investment option for the people of Minnesota. To meet this
commitment, Mn/DOT will:
Commuter Rail System Plan 2-;
"The Minnesota Department of
~,'ansL)ortation (Mn/DO]} will
:oordinate with the Metropolitan
Council (Council) to address
critical policy ~lirections'
"The Mn/DOT Strategic Plan
envisions a coordinated
transportation network"
· Coordinate with local planning process(es);
· Work with Commuter Rail Coordinating Committees in commu'ter rail corridors;
and
· Provide consistent and timely information and feedback.
Mn/DOT will work with communitiesr__ to use~..~commuter rail as a tool to create more vital,
economically
sound and livable'c°mmunities~or all to enjoy.
Metropolitan Council
The Commuter Rail System Plan reflects the planning and policy decisions outlined in
the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint, Transportation Plan and Metropolitan
Master Transit Plan and initiatives such as Smart Growth. These plans and initiatives
underscore the importance for commuter rail service in the region to be integrated with
other transit options, correspond to regional growth strategies, accessible, and maximize
public investments in livable communities.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) will coordinate with the
Metropolitan Council (Council) to address critical policy directions in terms of commuter
rail investments for the region that encourage economic growth, foster reinvestment in
distressed areas and preserve the natural environment.
Mn/DOT will work cooperatively with the Council to ensure that commuter rail service
will support travel-time advantages for transit, improve transit service reliability and
increase transit accessibility to jobs.
In addition to the above planning principles, Mn/DOT will work with the Council to
achieve the region's smart growth strategies.
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Mn/DOT Strategic Plan - The Mn/DOT Strategic Plan envisions a coordinated
transportation network that provides safe, user-friendly access and movement,
and responds to the values of Minnesota's citizens. In its mission to develop
Commuter Rail System Plan 2-4
"Mn/DOT has four strategic
objectives - information,
multimodal, inter-regional
corridors, and program
delivery.."
"Mn/DOT will update the Statewide
Transportation Plan to place more
emphasis on the development and
/ntegration of all modes, including
commuter rail"
"Mn/DOT will ensure that commuter
rail activities are incorporated into
strategic plans, business plans as
well as Transportation improvement
Plans of affected districts and
offices."
Minnesota's coordinated transportation network, Mn/DOT is committed to
promote and support connections among transportation systems, such as light
rail, commuter rail and bus transit. In its efforts to promote and support such
connections, the department has developed a Commuter Rail System Plan that
articulates how this piece of the transportation network will be developed.
Mn/DOT has four strategic objectives - information, multimodal, inter-regional
corridors, and program delivery. The multimodai objective aims to increase
travel options for people and for moving goods that enhance the economic
vitality of the state' provide safe, timely and efficient movement of people and
goods; and improve the quality of life.
Statewide Transportation Plan - One of several action items related to achieving
the multimodal objective specifically states that Mn/DOT will update the
Statewide Transportation Plan to place more emphasis on the development and
integration of all modes, including commuter rail. A second action item states
that Mn/DOT will partner with the Metropolitan Council to develop a regional
master plan for transit that integrates LRT, commuter rail, bus ways and
transit services.
District and Office Plans - Business and Strategic - In addition to a Statewide
Transportation Plan, each district and office within Mn/DOT has developed a
working unit level strategic plan and business plan. These plans focus more
locally on how to carry out specific action items, and deliver products and
services that best achieve the department's strategic objectives. Mn/DOT will
ensure that commuter rail activities are incorporated into strategic plans,
business plans as well as Transportation Improvement Plans of affected districts
and offices.
Proqramminq of Commuter Rail Proiects
Feasibility Studies - Feasibility studies are generally conducted when further
information or detail about a given topic is necessary, in 1997, the Minnesota
Legislature required that such a study be conducted to determine the
plausibility of a commuter rail system in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
Several factors were evaluated as part of Twin Cities Commuter Rail Feas,..,~y
Commuter Rail System Plan
"To become eligible for federal
capital investment funds, the
proposed project must emerge from
the metropolitan and[or Stalewide
planning process. In addition, a
corridor-level analysis of mode and
alignment oDlions must be
performe~. '
Study, including ridership, capital and operations anci maintenance costs,
measures of cost-effectiveness, perceived opportunities, and implementation
barriers. Upon conclusion of the Twin Cities Commuter Rail Feasibility Study,
six corridors were identified as leasible commuter rail routes in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area.
Advanced Corridor Plans -In 1998, the Minnesota Legislature asked Mn/DOT
to develop a Commuter Rail System Plan that would articulate necessary
engineering standards, as well as provide guidance for advanced corridor
planning. Advanced corridor planning is defined by legislation to address the
following:
- Contain a physical design component that identifies the physical design of
facilities;
- Specify track and signal improvements;
- Address handicapped access;
- Specify intermodal coordination and connections with bus and light rail
transit operation and routes;
- Project ridership, capital costs, operating costs and revenues;
- Identify sources of funds for operating subsidies and funding for final
design, construction and operation;
- Describe an implementation method;
- Describe a plan for public involvement and public information;
- Define anticipated agreements with the railroads; and,
- Address land use impacts.
- From advanced corridor plans, preliminary engineering plans are
developed and from there, final design documents are prepared.
Federal Planninq Requirements
Mn/DOT will align the commuter rail planning and programming process to follow the
Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) New Starts Criteria (Title 49, United States Code,
Section 5309) for construction of new fixed guideway systems and extensions. The New
Starts Program, a capital investment program, will guide planning and programming of
commuter rail service in the areas of mobility improvements, environmental benefits,
Commuter Rail System Plan 2-6
"The final design stage cannot be
initiated until environmental
requirements have been satisfied
and documented.,"
operating efficiencies, and cost effectiveness. To become eligible for federal capital
investment funds, the proposed project must emerge from the metropolitan and/or
Statewide planning process. In addition, a corridor-level analysis of mode and alignment
options must be performed. This alternatives analysis (advanced corridor planning) will
provide information on the benefits, costs and impacts of alternative strategies, leading
to the selection of a locally-preferred solution to the community's mobility needs. When
this work is completed, Mn/DOT will submit the application to the FTA for preliminary
engineering that contains documentation of the following items:
· Project justification;
· Mobility improvements;
· Environmental benefits;
· Operating efficiencies;
· Cost-effectivenss;
· Local financial commitment; and
· Land use policies and smart growth initiatives.
FTA will then evaluate the proposed project and determine whether or not to advance the
project into preliminary engineering. FTA approval to initiate preliminary engineering is
not a commitment to fund final design or construction activities.
Upon approval, project costs, benefits and impacts are further refined. In addition,
environmental impact statements are prepared, project management concepts are
finalized and required funding sources are put into place. FTA will then evaluate the
proposed project and determine whether or not to advance the project into final design.
Final design is the last phase of project development, and includes right-of-way
acquisition, utility relocation, and the preparation of final construction plans and detailed
cost estimates, and bid documents. The final design stage cannot be initiated until
environmental requirements have been satisfied and documented. Once FTA has
· Commuter Rail System Plan 2-7
approved the final design element of a project, FTA may propose to grant a Full Funding
Grant Agreement with the project sponsor.
A Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with the federal government is the mechanism
for the state to receive funding assistance under the New Starts Program. The FFGA ·
defines the project cost, time lines and outlines the maximum level of federal investment
of the project. This agreement with FTA will be managed by Mn/DOT, as the project
sponsor.
Commuter Rail System Plan 2-8
Funding and
Financing
Guidelines
SECTION
This section discusses
recommendations for
cost sharing of commuter
rail system costs between
the railroads and the
public sector and among :.
state and local
governments and
summarizes the most
promising funding
sources and financing
techniques to pay for the
capital and operating
costs of commuter rail
FUNDING AND FINANCING
GUIDELINES
3.1 Cost Sharing
Recommendations related to the sharing of commuter rail capital and operations costs
include the following:
Distribute commuter rail development and operating costs equitably among State
and local governments in the Twin Cities metropolitan area,
Assign the maior share for debt service to the State of Minnesota with any railroad
cost sharing or federal funding reducing the portion of the capital costs funded by
the State, and
Assign responsibility for public funding of commuter rail operating costs not
covered by operating revenues to the local and/or regional level of government.
Local and regional governments have more than sufficient fiscal capacity to fund the
portion of commuter rail operating costs not covered by operating revenues (i.e., fares,
parking fees, advertising, etc.). The metropolitan counties have the authority to levy real
property taxes directly or through their regional railroad authorities. Affected cities have
a diverse mix of taxing and fee-setting authority.
However, it is also important to point out that, historically, the State of Minnesota has
appropriated monies from its General Fund to support transit operating costs.
3.2 Sources of Funding
Prospective sources of funding include the following:
Operatin,q Revenues
Projected operating revenues derived from passengers fares, based on the zone fare
structure recommended in Section 4.4, will serve to partially offset operating costs.
Commuter Rail System Plan 3-1
Local, Reqional, and State Fundin.q
Existing property taxing authority granted by the State to the metropolitan counties
should be utilized. This taxing authority authorizes the counties to impose levies on real
estate of up to 0.04835% of market valuation.
State enactment of a prospective regiona! sales tax should be considered that could
generate $332 in annual revenues for each 1% sales tax imposed. A rate of 0.05% would
yield the $16 million needed to cover the initial year operating requirements for the First
~er system.
Use of State motor vehicle excise tax revenue that currently generates $400 million
annually for the State's general fund should also be considered.
Another potential funding source would be the existing State sales tax that yielded $3.1
billion in 1998 and that has produced revenue growth of 6.5% over the past three years.
Each 0.1% increase in the State sales tax would yield $48 million annually.
Federal Grants
Federal grant assistance may be able to be obtained from the following sources:
Section 5309 New Starts Program - part of FTA's Capital Program that funds
new fixed guideway systems (heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, busways,
etc.) and extensions in metropolitan areas. In FY 1999, $896 million was
appropriated nationwide.
Surface Transportation Program (STP) - a formula program through which funds
are allocated to states and metropolitan areas for highways, transit capital, and
bus terminals and facilities. Minnesota received $115 million in FY 1999.
National Highway System (NHS) - a FHWA formula program that provides
funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the National
Highway System (NHS). Under certain circumstances, funds can be used fr, r
transit. Minnesota's apportionment in FY 1999 was $89 million.
Commuter Rail System Plan 3-2
interstate Maintenance - a FHWA formula program for resudaci ng, restoring,
rehabilitating, and reconstructing most routes on the interstate System. Up to
50% of a State's apportionment may be transferred to NHS and STP programs.
Minnesota's 1999 apportionment was $75 million.
3.3 Financing Techniques
All or some combination of tl~e following financing techniques should be applied to
support the provision of commuter rail service:
· Transportation Revolving Loan Fund financing - a revolving loan program to
finance Title 23 (highway) or l~tle 49 (transit) eligible projects.
GARVEE bond financing: any financing instrument for which principal and/or
interest is repayable with future federal-aid highway and transit funds. The debt
is issued in anticipation of the receipt of federal-aid grant reimbursements in
subsequent years.
Other conventional financing techniques or sources which may be available include
revenue bonds that are backed by specific revenues and/or general obligation bonds
secured by the "full faith and credit" of the State.
Commuter Rail System Plan 3-3
Advanced
Corridor
Planning
Guidelines
SECTION
ADVANCED CORRIDOR PLANNING
GUIDELINES
The purpose ofthis
section is to pro, de
guidelines to ensure
consistency during l~e
planning, design,
procurement,
construction and
operation of commuter
rail improvements.
4.1 Planning Guidelines
System E. xpansion and Modal Inteqration
In the development of linear transportation corridors, there often exists an opportunity to
construct the corridor in segments based on criteria such as funding availability, right-of-
way availability, completion of environmental mitigation measures and facility need. A
review of the corridors contained in the System Plan may identify opportunities to stage
construction of these corridors.
While this issue was examined in the Twin Cities Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, further
developments and concepts for the System Plan corridors have lengthened the corridors
and possibly presented new opportunities for staging.
The decision regarding when and where to make system expansions will be based on
four criteria:
1. Service to major travel generators. System expansions, either line extensions or
station additions, will be staged to provide service to significant trip generators.
Cost effectiveness. It is expected that the end of each commuter rail line will be
served by a system of feeder busses that expand the travetshed of that line. When
the cost of providing that feeder bus service and the potential for even greater
ridership on an extended line exceed the cost of the tine extension, the extension will
be considered cost-effective.
Community support. The potential of a particular commuter rail project may be
enhanced by the level of financial support offered by interested and affected parties
to the project. When this criteria is applied, the total cost of a project must be
considered, including capital cost and lifetime operating and maintenance cost.
Policy considerations. The extension of an existing commuter rail line may also be
justified by policy considerations. For example, it may be determined that the
economic well being of the region or state would be enhanced by providing
commuter rail service to a major metropolitan area.
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-1
"The guidelines for staBon design! ?
are drawn from numerous other:
commuter rail systems."
"Station area/and use and site
olanning is recognized to be an
opportuniO/ to use transportation
investment to shape the set~ng in
which commuter rail se/vices are
offered."
To increase the level of service provided to transit users and to enhance the efficiency
with which transit services are operated, commuter rail service planning will include:
· Selective elimination of parallel bus routes serving similar origins and destinations
at the same time as the commuter rail service.
· The routes and schedules of other transit routes serving the central business
districts should coordinated to the extent possible with commuter rail service.
· The facilitation of convenient access between commuter rail service in downtown
Minneapolis and the Hiawatha light rail transit line.
Provision of feeder bus routes where service can be provided to areas outside of
reasonable walking distance of commuter rail stations and reasonable travel time to
principle destinations can be provided.
In communities that have established circulator transit services, include the loc
commuter rail stations in the service and arrange schedules to allow two-way
transfers between the trains and the circulator busses.
Station Development and Site Planning
The guidelines for station design are drawn from numerous other commuter rail systems,
although there is consistency on basic design issues. There is a lower level of
consistency for design details that are not directly associated with the operation of the
railroad. On some of those issues, where consistency is highly desirable, firm standards
are provided. On non-critical issues, information is provided, but no standard is
provided.
Station area land use and site planning is a critical issue in the success of a commuter
rail service, and are generally recognized by transportation planners to represent an
opportunity to use transportation investment to shape the setting in which commuter rail
services are offered. By offering a certain type of transportation service in a certain
location, communities are able to shape their growth in attractive and economical ~
The goals that communities generally include are attractive, friendly, more compact, and
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-2
less auto-oriented growth. The opportunities to shape growth with commuter rail
projects are generally limited to the area at and within the travelshed of the commuter rail
stations.
The Twin Cities metropolitan area and most of the state is committed to the concept of
"smart growth." Under this concept, communities attempt to maximize the return on
their investment in infrastructure and enhance the quality of life for their residents. Two
of the key elements in "smart growth" are the encouragement of developments with
densities higher than typically associated with communities of a particular type and
location, and support of the types of development which support higher levels of transit
use than currently occur.
Achievement of these goals requires a carefully crafted set of planning guidelines and
development standards for the commuter rail stations and supporting facilities and for
the area within the travelshed. The guidelines and standards presented here are drawn
from a number of sources. Where the standards and guidelines are consistently
suggested by a number of sources, they are recommended for adoption here. If there is
inconsistency, a rationale is presented for adoption of a specific guideline. In all cases,
local conditions and situations are considered in development of a recommendation.
With respect to the design of the station and supporting features on the station site,
recommendations can be summarized as follows:
· All facilities will be designed to accommodate forecast year peak period volumes
at a reasonable level of service.
All facilities will be designed, at a minimum, to meet the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); an effort will be made to provide a higher
level of service than required by ADA.
The platform will include a cover and windscreen, lighting, benches, fare vending
equipment or services, trash receptacles and current information regarding transit
services offered at the station.
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-3
"The success of the commuter rail
/ine, as well as the success of the
development around the stations
/s dependent, to a large extent, on
achieving the mixes and densities
oroposed in the following tables."
Other amenities may be provided at the station, depending on the needs and
opportunities peculiar to the site including telephones, drinking fountains, rest
rooms and retail and service business outlets.
Parking facilities will be designed with 15% excess capacity to reduce the time
needed to find an open space and to allow for spaces lost to improper parking and
incomplete snow removal.
· All parking and access features will be designed to facilitate use of the station by
pedestrians and cyclists and to minimize conflict with nearby residents.
· Opportunities to share parking with adjacent property owners should be explored.
With respect to the planning and design of the areas surrounding commuter rail stations,
recommendations are in two categories: land use mix and development density. The
tables with proposed guidelines are repeated here. It is important to note that the
guidelines are not rigid requirements. Different mixes and lower densities are possi.
But the success of the commuter rail line, as well as the success of the development
around the stations is dependent, to a large extent, on achieving the mixes and densities
proposed in the following tables.
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-4
Allowable size of
TOD (acres)
Land devoted to
mixed-use Core
Land devoted to
employment uses
(outside the Core)
Land devoted to
residential uses
(outside the Core)
Land devoted to
civic uses (outside
the Core)
General Land Use Guidelines
for Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Transit Oriented Development Locati OhS
Bus Corridors
Transitway, Rail
& Major Bus CBD/Core inner Outer Suburban
Transfer Zones Urban/Suburban Zone
Stations Zone and Pockets
60-125 30-125 30-125 30-125
10% - 40% of TOD area
At all stations, at least 40 percent of the Core should
be retail, such as restaurants or personal services,
and public amenities (such as plazas or town
greens), or day care, offices, other high-intensity
employment, public facilities (such as hospitals,
clinics, libraries, government services, post offices,
gymnasiums and meeting halls), cinemas, hotels,
offices, health clubs and hi!
20% - 30% of TOD area
20% 30% of TOD area
h-density/ housing.
O% - 7O%
of TOD area
5% - 30%
of TOD area
0% - 20% of
TOD area
0% - 70%
of TOD area
50% - 80%
of TOD area
10% minimum of TOD area for small parks or plazas, recreation,
government/civil, day care.
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-5
Mix ol uses
Minimum Net
mum gross
residential density
units/acre) [2]
Maximum block size
Frontage of street
along each block with
street-facing
Setback for street-
Minimum transparent
area (windows or
doors) in primary
fa(jade for street-
General Guidelines for the Mixed-Use Core
of th Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Transit Oriented Development Locations
Transitway, Rail / Bus Corridors
& Major Bus / CBD/Core Inner Outer
Transfer. Zones Urban/Suburban Suburban
Stations Zone and Pockets Zone
Retail, Restaurants, Personal Services, Office, Cinema, Grocery,
Hotel, Apartments/Condominiums, Live-Work, Day Care and other
Civic Uses, Park/Plaza
*At teast 40% of Mixed-use core most have ground-floor retainl,
restaurant/cafes, service commercial, or personal services except
in Iow-intensity bus corridors where as little as 5,000 square feet
ol these uses meets the requirement.
0.5 O.4
30 25
4 acres
75% o! each street
0.35
15
65% of each street
65% of each street
0 - 10 feet
40%
0.25
10
Station Deferrals and Service Truncations
Only one of the recommended service truncations from the Twin Cities Commuter Rail
Feasibility Study was on one of the First Tier routes. None of the recommended station
deferrals would effect the First Tier system.
The recommended service truncation is to terminate the Dan Patch Corridor in the vicinity
of the Lakeville station, thereby deferring development of the Northfield station.
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-6
A reasonable threshold for determining t_he cost effectiveness of a proposed station is a
minimum °f 100 riders servI~(~'~
Railroad Neqotiations ',,,,.
The provision of commuter rail service within multiple corridors owned and operated by
multiple freight carriers virtually demands that the authority to negotiate terms and
conditions with the respective railroads be vested in a single, multi-jurisdictional public
entity. The most logical choice at the present time is Mn/DOT.
Eight general guidelines are provided for negotiations between the project sponsor and
the affected railroads:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
o
Centralize negotiations;
Select and empower a multi-disciplinary negotiating team;
Define the nature of the service to be provided;
Determine procurement strategy;
Determine the railroad's risk, liability and insurance requirements;
Utilize capacity modeling to verify capital program requirements;
Determine public and private benefits and costs; and
Negotiate a reasonable cost-sharing formula.
4.2 Design and Procurement Guidelines
R qht-of-Way.
Recommendations related to public and private right-of-way and land ownership issues
as they pertain primarily to joint commuter and freight railroad operation are:
It is desirable for the affected municipalities (as opposed to the commuter rail
sponsor) to acquire the land or property on which stations and parking lots are
constructed,
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-
All radio equipment purchased for the Twin Cities commuter rail service will
comply with Federal Communications Commission regulations, and may be
affected by the availability of radio frequencies in the Metro area,
Central Control Facilities (COFs) provided for commuter and freight rail service
should be equipped to actively and simultaneously monitor dedicated and
common frequencies at all times. This facility may initially handle only message
generation and announcement broadcast duties, but should be designed for
eventual expansion into a facility engaged in train dispatching, and
Commuter rail passenger stations should be designed to accommodate the
provision of interactive/real-time information displays tied-in to the Orion program.
A significant development since the conclusion of the Twin Cities Commuter Rail
Feasibility Study has been the development and adoption of regional control centers by
BNSF, UP and other major carriers. These centers have been implemented in Texas and
California, and more are planned. They enhance intercarrier coordination, as well as
facilitating a more immediate reaction to local conditions and are an outgrowth of the
problems some rail carriers have experienced in the process of consolidating operatir'--
in key areas. No such center is yet envisioned for the Twin Cities.
Locomotives and Rolling Stock
Recommendations related to the acquisition of locomotives required for the safe, reliable
and cost-effective provision of joint commuter and freight rail service(s) are:
1. Purchase and utilize new locomotives as opposed to used and/or remanufactured
motive power,
2. Specify commuter rail service proven locomotives as part of the development of a
detailed technical specification for newly manufactured motive power, and
3. Acquire used and/or remanufactured locomotives in the event that future production
schedules do not allow for the timely availability of new equipment. Specifications
for the acquisition of these locomotives must be definitive as to rebuild/upgrade
requirements and performance expectations.
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-9
"A final determination as to the
most suitable pr~tuct should await
the outcome of a competitive
orocurement process. '
"A fundamental char',ge since the
time of the 'i:win Ci~s Commuter
.~all Feasibility Stu~ has been the
~?nposition of FRA rules and the
~.dootion of the Passenger Rail
Equipment Safety Standards
'?RESS) by the passenger rail
agencies."
Several choices of new commuter rail proven motive power are available on the domestic
market. A final determination as to the most suitable product should await the outcome
of a competitive procurement process.
Should the use of remanufactured locomotives become the only reasonable alternative,
the extent of rebuilding/upgrade should be clearly specified. Baseline pedormance
specifications are available from a variety of industry sources if and when_the need
arises.
A fundamental change since the time of the Twin Cities Commuter Rail Feasibility Study
has been the imposition of FRA rules and the adoption of the Passenger Rail Equipment
Safety Standards (PRESS) by the passenger rail agencies. These standards require
further strengthening of the carbody to withstand collision impacts. They were adopted
as a result of a series of accidents in the early 1990s, and focused on the particular
concerns of what happens when two vehicles of dissimilar construction collide. It has
been estimated that the adoption of these standards adds about 10% to the price of
commuter railcars, compared to those used for the Twin Cities Commuter Rail Feasibility
Study.
Following are summary recommendations related to commuter rail car types, capacities
and train lengths. These recommendations apply specifically to opening day service
levels appropriate for the First Tier system recommended in the earlier Twin Cities
Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. Consequently, these recommendations should be
revisited prior to their application to routes or lines outside the First Tier system.
1. Cars purchased for use on the Twin Cities commuter rail system will conform to all
FRA requirements and to the PRESS standards.
2. Adoption of the service or operating plan recommended by the Twin Cities
Commuter Rail Feasibility Study.
3. Use of three car trains with additional capacity per line initially being achieved by
running extra trains as opposed to lengthening the consists.
4. As ridership increases use longer trains to accommodate peak period loads. Note
that this will have an impact on train performance, on station platform lengths and on
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-10
trips per corridor that will
necessitate revisions to the capital
~rogram. This varies from
corridor-to-corridor. G
maintenance and storage facility requirements, Initial station platform lengths
should be capable of accommodating five to six cars.
The adjustment of train lengths, number of trains per line, etc., should be done following
the conduct of further market analysis or in response to specific concerns expressed by
the host railroads during the course of negotiations. Factors which will influence these
decisions include (1) refined ridership projections to reflect changing demographics, (2)
order backlog at the relevant car builder (determining the schedule by which car
deliveries can be made) and (3) the possibility of "piggybacking" on an order being
placed by one of the other commuter rail properties to realize cost efficiencies o! scale.
An example of this latter strategy may be found in the Seattle "Sounder" project, where
the cars for Seattle were ordered as an option on an existing car order for the Los Angeles
Metrolink system.
Note that the addition of trains or changes in the pedormance capabilities of trains (due
to lengthening consists) will require additional negotiations with the host railroads.
Recall also that the Twin Cities Commuter Rail Feasibility Study capital program incl,. J
improvements required to support the initial level of service on the outlying corridors.
There is a threshold in the number of additional commuter rail train trips per corridor that
will necessitate revisions to the capital program. This varies from corridor-to-corridor.
Following is a discussion of available car types, suggestions for minimum and maximum
train lengths and capacities, which justifies the recommendations provided above.
Maintenance and Storaqe Facilities
Summary recommendations related to the provision of commuter rail maintenance and
storage facilities are:
o
o
Retain the Capital Program allocations for both the remote storage facilities and
the central maintenance site.
The commuter rail sponsor should acquire the Canadian Pacific Shoreham Shops
site.
Each commuter rail corridor will include a remote storage facility at its outer
terminal for train storage and light maintenance.
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-11
'The timetable for implementation ol
~he routes and the quantily of
locomotives, coaches and cab cars
required for those routes may affect
the decision regarding a
maintenance lacili~"
Maintenance of commuter rail locomotive and roiling stock maintenance may be
handled by a third-party contract until the third commuter rail corridor is being
implemented
The commuter rail sponsor will equip its CMF site and assume maintenance
responsibilities for locomotive and rolling stock maintenance on implementation
of this third corridor (based on the initial-year equipment complements by corridor
from the Twin Cities Commuter Rail Study)
Examine areas in which bus, LRT and commuter rail projects can share
maintenance functions and/or procure common equipment to benefit from
economies ol scale
The timetable for implementation of the routes and the quantity of locomotives, coaches
and cab cars required for those routes (if different from what was recommended in the
Twin Cities Commuter Rail Feasibility Study) may affect the decision regarding a
maintenance facility. Examples of both approaches (a facility built by the commuter rail
owning entity versus contracting with one of the area railroads/suppliers for this service)
may be found in the peer commuter rail properties.
Safety and Security
The commuter rail sponsor and its contractors must commit to providing a safe operation
as well as a safe and secure environment for the passengers. This sense of safety and
security must be provided in the park-and-ride lots, in and around the stations, as well as
on the trains.
Recommendations aimed at ensuring the provision of service in the safest manner
possible as well as providing a secure environment for passengers and employees while
on or around the commuter rail system are:
Commit to providing service in a safe and secure manner,
Participate in the APTA Rail Safety Audit Program,
Designate a state agency to implement the State Safety Oversight of Rail Fixed
Guideway Systems in Minnesota. This agency must not be the same one that
serves as the commuter rail sponsor,
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-12
10.
11.
Develop and implement a System Safety Program Plan for the commuter rail
network,
Develop and implement a Security System Plan for the commuter rail network,
Comply with FRA requirements for inspection and maintenance of rolling stock,
track, structures and signals,
Develop training requirements for all job classifications, as well administering
exams to determine a person's adequacy for the position,
Require periodic retraining and re-cedification of employees,
Establish a security liaison position to work with security forces of the host
railroads, on-line communities and counties and the state police,
Work with area transit providers and law enforcement agencies to determine where
CCTV monitoring of stations and parking lots is warranted, and
Establish a program to educate children and adults about the commuter rail
service and the hazards present around active railroad tracks.
4.3 Construction Guidelines
As the sponsoring agency, Mn/DOT will control all letting and administration activitie~
associated with commuter rail construction or implementation.
Construction or implementation of a commuter rail line would follow the Advanced
Corridor Planning Stage, at which time, a Major Investment Study (MIS), all necessary
environmental clearances (Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental
Assessments), preliminary engineering, and final design would also be accomplished.
Ali approvals and funding and financing activities associated with the Advanced Corridor
Planning are explained elsewhere in the Plan.
There are several options a commuter rail implementation process could follow, namely,
a design-build approach, a turnkey approach, or traditional design-bid-build approach.
The latter approach would necessitate the development of preliminary engineering and
final design plans. The following definitions, per state statute, apply to the design plans:
Preliminary enqineerin.q plan means a commuter rail transit plan that includes
the items in the preliminary design plan for the facilities proposed for construction, h '
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-13
with greater detail and specificity to satisfy final environmental impact statement
requirements. The Preliminary Design Plan is a plan that identifies:
Preliminary design plans for the physical design of facilities, including location,
length, and termini of routes; general dimension, elevation, alignment, and.
character of routes and crossings; approximate station locations; and related park
and ride, parking, and other transportation facilities; and a plan for handicapped
access; and
Preliminary plans for intermodal coordination with bus operations and routes;
ridership; capital costs; operating costs and revenues, and sources of funds for
operating subsidies; funding for final design, construction, and operation; and an
implementation method.
The preliminary design plan includes the preliminary or draft environmental impact
statement for the commuter rail facilities proposed.
Final desiqn plan consists of a commuter rail transit plan that includes the items in the
preliminary design plan and the preliminary engineering plan for the facilities proposed
but with greater detail and specificity needed for construction. The final design plan
must include, at a minimum:
Final plans for the physical design of facilities, including the right-of-way
definition; environmental impacts and mitigation measures; intermodal
coordination with bus operations and routes; and civil engineering plans for
vehicles, track, stations, parking, and access, including handicapped access; and
Final plans for civil engineering for communication, and other similar facilities;
operational rules, procedures, and strategies; capital costs; ridership; operating
costs and revenues, and sources of funds for operating subsidies; financing for
construction and operati(~n; an implementation method; and other similar matters.
The final design plan must be stated with sufficient particularity and detail to allow the
department to begin the acquisition and construction of operable facilities.
The commissioner of transportation may use a design-build method of project
development and construction for commuter rail facilities. Notwithstanding any law to
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-14
the contrary, the commissioner may award a design-build contract on the basis of
requests for proposals or requests for qualifications without bids. "Design-build method
of project development and construction" means a project delivery system in which a
single contractor is responsible for both the design and construction of the project and
bids the design and construction together. If a design-build implementation method is
proposed, instead of civil engineering plans the final design plan must state detailed
design criteria and pedormance standards for the facilities.
Regardless of what administrative approach is selected for construction/implementation
of a commuter rail system, agencies conducting commuter rail studies under the
direction of the Commissioner, should not loose sight of the fact that the host railroads
will play a significant role in any construction activities taking place within their right of
way. Talks with the host railroad should be conducted as early as possible and the
construction agreement may be pursued as part of the railroad negotiations.
4.4 Operating Guidelines
Performance Standards
Recommendations aimed at ensuring the provision of on-time pedormance in a safe,
reliable, cost-effective and responsive manner are:
It is a desirable goal to provide a seat for every commuter rail rider under normal
operating conditions. Special events service and other atypical circumstances
may occasionally require deviation from this policy.
Passenger loadings by train should be counted by on-board employees on each
trip. While these counts may not be 100% accurate, they are a good indicator of
the need to add cars to a train or to increase the number of trips on a corridor.
Agency administrative personnel should take the individual train counts and
assemble these on a corridor-by-corridor basis to track the ridership from month
to month.
To the extent necessary, on-train employee counts should be supplemented with
contracted personnel estimating the riders boarding each train at a station in order
to obtain reliable boarding counts by station.
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-15
"The final delermination of
appropriate commuter rail service
/evets will be subject to the Terms
and Conditions inherent in any'
related agreements for the
Drovision of such service with the
host railroad(s)."
Adopt and enforce stringent on-time pedormance criterion and en sure that these
criterion are clearly stated in subsidiary operating agreements.
in general, on-time performance should be considered to be within five (5)
minutes of scheduled arrival or departure.
If a train is thirty (30) minutes or more behind schedule,.riders should be granted
a free-ride certificate. A "guaranteed ride home" or similar policy should also be
adopted as a contingency for late arrivals.
Service Levels
Following are desirable opening-day service levels for the First Tier routes. These may
be revised at such time as capacity modeling and further demand estimation work
suggest otherwise:
I CORRIDOR:
Dan Patch
Northstar
Red Rock
SERVICE_LEVELS:,
Six (6) trains inbound AM peak; reverse PM peak. All service
provided weekdays only.
Five (5) trains inbound AM peak; reverse PM peak. All service
)rovided weekdays only.
Four (4) trains inbound AM peak; four (4) trains outbound PM
peak. All service provided weekdays only.
Adjustments to opening day service levels will be pedormed in a coordinated fashion so
as to minimize any potentially adverse impacts on freight service as well as the
development of service on other candidate lines. Mn/DOT will serve as sole approving
authority for such adjustments until such time as the Department delegates such
authority and responsibility to another party.
The final determination of appropriate commuter rail service levels will be subject to the
Terms and Conditions inherent in any related agreements for the provision of such .
service with the host railroad(s).
commuter Rail System Plan 4-16
"All engineering improvements to
railroad physical plant will be done
in conformance with Federal
regulations, AREMA standards and
~ractices and those ol the host
railroad."
Station Spacinq and Operatinq Speeds
Revision of maximum speeds, and from these the average speeds, may be made as a
result of capacity modeling, subsequent revision of the capital program and on the basis
of negotiations with the rail carriers. Station dwell times included in the average speed
calculations should not be revised until specific rolling stock selections have been made.
Recommendations related to reasonable station spacings and operating speeds for
commuter rail operations are:
o
The desirable spacing for commuter rail stations in outlying areas is 5 miles,
though station spacings within the corporate limits of Minneapolis and St. Paul
may be somewhat closer depending on need,
In outlying areas, stations need not be located every 5 miles, they can be further
apart depending on development locations, major employment centers and
significant highway intersections,
A maximum operating speed of 79 mph will be adopted and the system designed
in a manner which encourages the attainment of this speed wherever and whet,,..,r
it is reasonable and safe to do so,
Rolling stock will be specified to be capable of operating at this maximum speed.
As a means of maximizing operating efficiency, the system will be designed to
permit the following average operating speeds on the First Tier routes:
Central 26 mph
Dan Patch 39mph I 36 mph
Northstar 36mph I 33mph
Red Rock 38mph I 33mph
o
All engineering improvements to the railroad physical plant will be done in
conformance with Federal regulations, AREMA standards and practices and those of
the host railroad.
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-17
"The commuter rail sponsor will
offer multiple-ride far m_e~ia"
The Central Corridor mileage and running time is figured into the average speed
calculations for each of the other First Tier corridors when extending the service to the
"2nd CBD" in the table above. This corridor's average speed is also listed separately to
illustrate the effect of the frequent station stops on this corridor. Average station spacing
along the Central Corridor is 2 miles which, when coupled with civil and traffic
restrictions, reduces the Central Corridor's average operating speed.
Fare Structure
The commuter rail fare structure to be adopted within each corridor as part of the
advanced corridor planning process is as follows:
1 0-15 miles $2.00
15-20 miles $2.75
20-25 miles $3.50
25-30 miles $4.25
30-35 miles $5.00
35-40 miles $5.75
The use of concentric circle fare zones (measured on a straight-line basis out from the
central business district), as well as the five-mile radius between succeeding fare zones,
is common within the commuter rail industry. Note that distance is measured as a
straight-line distance, as opposed to the actual rail mileage from the CBD to that station.
Suburb-to-suburb travel would be possible by purchasing a ticket good from the
originating zone to the first CBD. If both the origin and destination were in the same fare
zone, no additional charge would be collected, if the destination were in a fare zone
further out than the origin, a zone charge would be collected on the train to the
destination. This practice is consistent with that in use at other carriers having multiple
lines radiating out of a CBD.
commuter Rail System Plan 4-18
The commuter rail sponsor will offer multiple-ride far media, including at least a
monthly commutation ticket, and will work with the other transit providers in the Metro
area to develop a single, multiple-ride fare media that would be valid on all forms of
transit to ease passage from one mode to the next. It would be good for transportation
on all modes in the Metro area (bus, commuter rail, LRT, etc.). The prototype for this
type of "one size fits all" ticket is found in the San Francisco Bay Area "TransLink" smart
card.
Commuter Rail System Plan 4-1,(