pac 03 agenda - final - 20141009 - riverview...
TRANSCRIPT
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting
Thursday, 9 October 2014
9:00 – 10:30 AM
Gateway Room, Union Depot
214 E. Fourth Street, Saint Paul
Note: Information on parking at the Union Depot is also attached.
Agenda
Item Action Requested
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Today’s Agenda Approval
3. Recap of Previous Month’s Activities
a. 14 August 2014 Meeting Summary Approval
b. Update: Other Outreach Activities
4. Corridor Branding Activities Information
a. Logo
b. Website
c. Fact Sheet
5. Pre Project Development Study Information
a. Summary: Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Program
b. Schedule and Decision Points/Milestones
6. Milestone One: Corridor Vision Information
a. Stakeholder Interviews
b. Public Involvement Advisory Panel Meeting
c. Open Houses
7. Next Steps Information
8. Other Information
a. Public Comments/Questions
b. Next PAC Meeting: 11 December 2014
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Approved 9 October 2014
1
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting Notes – August 14, 2014
Participants
See attached sign‐in for attendees.
Summary
Meeting Handouts included:
Agenda
Copy of the PowerPoint Presentation
Challenges and Opportunities Corridor Map
1. Welcome and Introductions
Commissioner Rafael Ortega welcomed the PAC and other meeting attendees and stated the purpose of
the meeting, as summarized below.
2. Approval of the Agenda
The PAC approved the agenda, with Matt Kramer making the motion and seconded by Jon Commers.
3. Approval of the April 10, 2014, Meeting Summary
The PAC approved the meeting summary, with Matt Kramer making the motion and seconded by Pat
Mancini.
4. Consultant Introduction
Mike Rogers, RCRRA Project Manager, introduced April Manlapaz and Ted Davis. April is the AECOM
Team’s Project Manager and will lead the Study while Ted Davis of Davis Communications is leading the
Strategic Communications efforts.
Pre Project Development Study
Corridor Vision
Council Member Tolbert asked if the corridor had adopted an official vision. He added that the study
should consider future needs of the corridor, not just current needs. April said the corridor vision had
not been developed yet and would be developed as part of defining the project's Purpose and Need.
The Purpose and Need will be developed with PAC and stakeholder input.
Council Member Thune requested that the study also include the Ford Plant site. He stated that as the
project is discussed it seems to focus on Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and the Mall
of America (MOA). April responded that the Ford Plant and the CP rail spur to it are part of the study
area and will be studied along with other alignments connecting downtown St. Paul to MSP, MOA and
the larger corridor.
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Approved 9 October 2014
2
Study Framework
April presented the framework of the study in terms of physical, people (social), and public
support/funding considerations related to major transit projects. Additionally, she framed the study in
terms of four milestones – Problem Statement, Development and Screening of Initial Alternatives,
Technical Evaluation of Detailed Alternatives, and Selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative.
Challenges and Opportunities
April presented the Corridor’s challenges and opportunities identified to‐date and summarized on a
map. They include various significant trip generators along the Corridor and the different natures of the
trips associated with them. The purpose of the challenges and opportunities map is to help define the
purpose and need for improving transit in the Riverview Corridor. Mike Rogers of RCRRA requested that
PAC members let staff know of additional challenges and opportunities to depict on the map.
Considerations
April reviewed the considerations related to the framework of the Study as follows: Alignment; transit
vehicle technology; integration with existing and future transportation networks/services; land use and
economic development; pedestrian and bicycle needs; and historic and cultural resources.
Integration
Commissioner Ortega noted that the Zip Rail study has two termini and asked if these termini
will be taken into consideration with the Riverview Study. The Riverview Pre‐Project
Development (PPD) Study will work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
who is leading the Zip Rail Study to identify applicable information for incorporation into the
PPD Study. April noted that the PPD Study would account for the proposed Zip Rail project and
consider its potential influence on the Riverview Corridor.
Council Member Thune asked if the Ford Bridge over the Mississippi River was a possible river
crossing site for the corridor. April stated that it would be considered as a crossing for some of
the alternatives developed as part of the study.
Land Use and Economic Development
Council Member Thune mentioned that the corridor has a strong residential community in
addition to a strong business community.
Commissioner Ortega informed the PAC that the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)
had recently approved a Program of Projects (POP) that included the Riverview Corridor. He
stated that CTIB's POP included 80% CTIB funding for the corridor with the remaining 20%
provided by the State and Regional Railroad Authorities. If funded this way, it would allow the
project to bypass federal funding process and potentially move more quickly towards
implementation. However, given the uncertainty on the final alternative and cost, the federal
process is still under consideration as part of the study to allow for as much flexibility in future
implementation as possible/needed.
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Approved 9 October 2014
3
Scope and Schedule
Peter Wagenius asked whether there could be multiple Locally Preferred Alternatives. He noted that
some Minneapolis projects, like the Midtown Greenway have them. April stated that a locally preferred
alternative with multiple modes is possible if the analysis shows that there are multiple transit markets
in the corridor that require multiple transit solutions. Different markets require different transit
solutions.
Pat Mancini inquired whether the focus of the study was just on the positives and negatives of streetcar,
or would the study include other alternatives and modes. April replied that all options are on the table
and will be evaluated.
Commissioner Ortega stressed that although the study is data‐driven, the study also needs to take into
account the needs of corridor and community.
Council Member Thune the study needs to reach all age groups, but especially the post‐millennium and
older age groups.
Scott McBride suggested adding MnDOT’s jurisdictional responsibility over West 7th as a challenge and
opportunity. What happens to West 7th over time if transit is put in? Scott added that although W. 7th
Street is a state highway, it does not function as one and due to limited resources, W. 7th and state
highways with similar operating characteristics would see little investment.
Council Member Commers noted that the corridor should not solely focus on key destinations, but
instead on all destinations when evaluating transportation and land use, visioning and public outreach.
Additionally, there are multiple locations along the corridor for growth, both residential and
employment. He added, that an elevation of bikes/pedestrians and east/ west local transit service
highlighted more in slide 16 of the PowerPoint should be done along with maximizing access to station
areas, similar what was done for the Green Line.
Council Member Thune stated that as the alternatives are developed, it would also be important to
understand their associated maintenance costs.
Strategic Communications
Ted Davis presented. Commissioner Ortega stated that there was an intentional overlap with strategic
communication and the PPD study outreach.
Council Member Commers asked what was in place to address local individuals/groups that are
negative. Ted Davis replied that the goal would be to identify them and address them early in the
process. This would be done through monitoring social media as well as traditional media. Additionally,
the PAC was asked to alert staff to any issues brought to their attention.
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Approved 9 October 2014
4
5. PAC Roles and Responsibilities
Mike Rogers presented. Pat Mancini asked when the technical information will become available. Mike
Rogers replied the heavy technical work will be done in about four to six months.
Regarding the frequency of PAC meetings, Commissioner Ortega stated that meetings will be held
monthly.
Council Member Tolbert noted that the PAC should not micromanage staff or consultants. The PAC
should be brought in to make longer community decision. Mike Rogers stated that staff will elevate
issues as needed and bring them to the Chair to determine if they warranted PAC discussion.
6. Corridor Logo and Branding Options
Commissioner Ortega introduced the topic by asking the PAC how much input they wanted in the
development of the logo/corridor branding. He stated that other projects he has be involved with, the
PAC has taken an active role in designing the logo.
Ted Davis provided three options for how the PAC could make a decision regarding the logo.
The entire PAC can serve as the logo selection committee
The PAC can delegate logo selection to a subcommittee
The PAC can delegate logo selection to RCRRA staff with approval by the Chair.
The PAC discussed the level of involvement they would be interested in and decided on delegating logo
selection to RCRRA staff. The motion to approve option 3 (PAC delegation of the logo selection to
RCRRA staff with approval by the Chair, was made by Council Member Thune, seconded by Matt
Kramer. The motion passed. Following the vote, PAC members asked the logo be shared with them via
email prior to it being released.
7. Future meetings
April noted future meetings of the Riverview PAC and TAC, and described the major tasks to be
undertaken in the coming two to three months.
8. Other
April noted two stakeholder outreach events in August.
Meeting adjourned at 10:36 a.m.
2
Riverview Corridor
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Approval Point
2 years
P R E - P R O J E C T
D E V E L O P M E N TE N G I N E E R I N G
3 – 4 years2 years2-3years
Open For
Service
PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT
FULL FUNDING
G R A N T
A G R E E M E N T
We are here
O N G O I N G P U B L I C E N G A G E M E N T
Today’s Agenda
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Recap of Previous Month’s Activities
4. Corridor Branding Activities
5. Pre‐Project Development Study
6. Milestone One: Corridor Vision
7. Next Steps
8. Other
Riverview Corridor
3
3. Recap of Previous Month
• Approve 14 August 2014 PAC meeting summary
• Outreach
o 9 September 2014: Highland Park
o 12 September 2014: Project Management Team
o 18 September 2014: TAC meeting
o 7 October 2014: ARISE
Riverview Corridor
4
New Starts Primer
• Discretionary, competitive federal grant program• Legislature directs multi‐year, multi‐step process• Emphases are creating economic opportunities and improving quality of life
• New “fixed guideway” projects or extensions thereof• Project seeking over $75MM / Project cost ≥ $250MM
Riverview Corridor
7
Small Starts
• Same funding source as New Starts• Project cost <$250MM and Small Starts share <$75MM• New fixed guideway systems or extensions or “corridor‐based” BRT
Riverview Corridor
8
Project Development
9
Riverview Corridor
• Complete environmental review process
• Select locally preferred alternative
• Adopt into 20‐year plan• Local funds used and
count towards local match• Must complete in two
years
• Commit all non‐New Starts monies
• Complete engineering/design
• Construction
NEW STARTSRiverview“Pre‐Project
Development” Study
• Local funds used
EngineeringFull Funding Grant
Agreement
SMALL STARTS
Project Development
Expedited Grant Agreement
10
Riverview Corridor
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Approval Point
2 years
P R E - P R O J E C T
D E V E L O P M E N TE N G I N E E R I N G
3 – 4 years2 years2-3years
Open For
Service
PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT
FULL FUNDING
G R A N T
A G R E E M E N T
We are here
O N G O I N G P U B L I C E N G A G E M E N T
11
Riverview Corridor
Evaluation Criteria
• Project Justification – 50%o Six criteria with equal weighto Benefits to land use, economic development, congestion relief, mobility and environment; cost effectiveness
• Local Financial Commitment – 50%o Commitment of funds – 25%o Reasonable cost estimates and financial plan – 50%o Current financial health – 25%
• Project Readiness (Technical Capability/Capacity)
Must rate “medium” or better in Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment
Corridor VisionStakeholder Interviews• Ongoing via email, phone and in‐person
• Elected officials, community and business leaders, community organizations
• Provide an understanding of corridor and transit needs; suggest engagement methods
Public Involvement Advisory Panel• Representatives from agencies, stakeholders, community and business organizations
• Provide guidance to outreach and engagement strategies
• Meet quarterly; first meeting Oct. 15
Riverview Corridor
16
Open Houses
Riverview Corridor
17
Wednesday, Oct. 294 p.m. ‐ 6 p.m.
Union Depot, Room 120214 E. 4th St.
St. Paul
Thursday, Nov. 65:30 p.m. ‐ 7:30 p.m.
Nova Classical Academy1455 Victoria Way
St. Paul
Open Houses• Format
o Boards, map, interactive activitieso No formal presentation
• Contento Project information and scheduleo What are transit needs of the community?o Listening to community feedback
• Promotion
Riverview Corridor
18
30‐Day Look Ahead
• Finalize Project logo• Corridor Vision Outreach Activities• Draft Communications Plan• Corridor Vision Technical Work
o Review and document relevant/ongoing worko Begin travel market analysis
Riverview Corridor
20
When Commenting, Please…
• Be respectful• Be brief – Speak for 3 or fewer minutes to give others an opportunity to speak
The Chair reserves the right to limit an individual’s presentation if it becomes redundant, disrespectful, or is not relevant to the
Riverview Corridor.
Riverview Corridor
22