4. Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Discussion
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
[I]
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
DATE:
August 7, 2007
SUBj:
Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Discussion
As part of the overview of the open houses, there appeared to be some desire by
the Planning Commission to receive additional information regarding
transportation issues, including transit. Staff has accumulated some background
information regarding transportation for your use. We can discuss the issue
further at the meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. SW Corridor Transportation Coalition Update - July 30,2007.
2. Commuter Rail Discussion.
3. Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit.
4. Transitway Corridor Map dated July 2007 (SW Extension - Hwy 212).
5. Transitway COITidor Map dated July 2007 (TC&W Commuter Rail).
6. Transportation Goals and Policies.
7. Trunk Highway 41 River Crossing Map.
g:\plan\2008 comp plan\pc memo august 7 2007 transportation discussion.doc
The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
WCOrridOr
Transportation
Coalition
Update - July 30,2006
Highwav 212 Funding Included in Senate Transportation Appropriations Bill
A $1 million appropriation for US Highway 212 was included in the Senate version of the FY2008
Transportation and HUD Appropriations bill. An announcement from Senator Amy Klobuchar's office
alerted Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition members to the dedicated funding for expansion of US
Highway 212 from Chaska to Norwood Young America.
This additional funding is extremely important to efforts currently underway to conduct studies, complete
official mapping and conduct preliminary design work to widen US Highway 212 to a four-lane facility all
the way from Chaska to Norwood Y ou!1 America.
4
A
nlf
~..J
SWCTC members traveled to Washington D.C. to advocate for Highway 5 and US Highway 212. From left: Bob
Lindall, Chaska City Council; Darrell Sudheimer, Waconia; Mary Hershberger Thun, Mayor of Victoria; Mark Shiffman,
Mayor of Waconia; Margaret Donahoe, Transportation Alliance; Todd Vlatokovich, Vlatkovich & Assoc.
"II
SWCTC members can help with this effort by contacting
our two US Senators: Senator Nonn Coleman (202) 224-
5641 and Senator Amy Klobuchar (202) 224-3244, as well
as Congressman John Kline (202) 225-2271 and
, Congressman Collin Peterson (202) 225-2165 to urge their
support for retaining this funding in the final version of the
bill. Congress will be in recess for the month of August,
so members of Congress will be spending more time in the
state. If you have a chance to visit with any members of
Minnesota's Congressional Delegation, remind them of
the need for funding for Highway 212.
The House version of the 2008 Transportation and HUD Appropriations bill was recently passed by the
House. It does not contain specific funding for Highway 212. The bill was passed by a vote of 268-153.
After continuing warnings that the President would veto any domestic spending bills above the amounts
recommended in his FY 2008 budget proposal, the Bush Administration released a Statement of
Administration Policy July 23 that claims H.R. 3074 "includes an irresponsible and excessive level of
spending." The statement also definitively said the President would veto the bill in its current form.
Completion of New Highwav 212 Moving Ahead "Sooner Than You Think"
At a recent SWCTC membership meeting, MnDOT Project Manager Jon Chiglo provided an update on the
status of the New Highway 212 project. The opening of the new highway to Trunk Highway 41 in Chaska
has been accelerated substantially and will now be open in the fall. However, due to soil conditions west of
I
I
___I
TH41, the total project schedule will not accelerate as much. The scheduled date for opening the entire new
highway is August of2008.
Chiglo noted that paving work is currently being done. The section from Dell to Highway 101 should be
finished today and then the paving will move west. By the end of August, all of the interchanges and the
main line should be paved out to Audubon, but the road will not be open to traffic more of the detail work is
completed. He also indicated that Bavaria will be closed this fall for bridge work.
RFP Issued for Trunk Hi!?:hway 5 Study
The Cities ofYictoria, Waconia, Chanhassen and Norwood Young America, along with Carver County have
pooled some local funds to hire a consultant that will study environmental issues and look at mapping for an
expansion ofTH5. With continued growth in the area and significant safety issues, the local governments
are moving ahead to lay the groundwork and manage development in light of the need for a future expansion
of this highway.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement on TH41 River Crossin!?: Available for Comment
MnDOT has released a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the TH41 river crossing. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has prepared a Tier I Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for a new Minnesota River Crossing to connect US Highway 169 and new US 212 in the
vicinity of TH 41. MnlDOT is working with local governmental units, the Metropolitan Council, state and
federal resource agencies and other interested parties to study the need for and potential impacts of this
project. The DEIS reviews the studied alternative alignments for a new river crossing and analysis various
factors for each of the crossings. A copy of the DEIS is available online at:
http://www.proiects.dot.state.mn.us/srf/041 /report/index.html
Public comments on the document are being accepted through August 10,2007. Written comments on the
Tier I DEIS must be submitted by 4:30 p.m., August 10,2007. Comments should be submitted to Diane
Langenbach, Mn/DOT -Metro Division, 1500 West County Road B2, Roseville, MN 55113; 651-234-7721;
fax: 651-234-7786; email: diane.1angenbach(a),dot.state.mn.us
Carver County, Metropolitan Council Studyin!?: Rail Transit Options
The SWCTC heard from representatives of Carver County and the Metropolitan Council regarding potential
transitways to serve the growing number of residents. The Council is in the process of conducting a very
broad, high-level analysis of various transitways in the seven-county metropolitan area in which local
governments have expressed interest, to detennine the feasibility of moving forward with different corridors.
Carver County has expressed interest in looking at the feasibility of building a commuter rail line in a rail
corridor currently owned by Twin Cities & Western railroad or having the proposed Southwest LRT line,
which is currently planned to tenninate in Eden Prairie, extended into Carver County. These options will be
looked at as the Council conducts its analysis. Factors that will be used to evaluate the various corridors
include: population density, job density and concentration, people without access to automobiles,
redevelopment and reinvestment opportunities and adequacy of transportation corridors.
The Metropolitan Council plans to hire a consultant to analyze a number of corridors this summer and fall,
hold study results meetings in the fall and develop a draft Transit Master Plan. The Council will then seek
comments to draft plan in November and December and adopt a final Transit Master Plan in January, 2008,
just prior to the start of the 2008 Legislative Session.
COMMUTER RAIL
Commuter rail service in this region is defined as passenger rail service operating on existing
freight rail tracks. Service is typically between outer suburban, exurb an areas and the city center.
Trains typically operate every half hour in bound in the morning and outbound in the evening.
Commuter rail stations are typically spaced three to five miles apart.
Commuter rail is primarily oriented toward commuter service to outer suburban regions, and as a
result it typically serves longer trip than most light and heavy rail transit lines. Commuter rail
trains are normally made up of a locomotive and several passenger coaches. Commuter rail uses
either single or bilevel passenger cars. Commuter rail vehicles have an on-board operator, who
adjusts vehicle speed in response to traffic conditions and railway signaling requirements.
Commuter rail vehicles have the ability to share track with freight trains and other intercity
passenger services such as Amtrak.
In 1997, the Minnesota Legislature instructed the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) to conduct a feasibility study to determine if the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area could
support commuter rail service. Out of 19 rail corridors studied, six proved to be feasible of
supporting commuter rail. Those six lines were divided into two tiers. Tier one included the
Northstar Corridor between Minneapolis and St. Cloud., the Red Rock Corridor between
Minneapolis and Hastings and the Dan Patch Corridor between Minneapolis and Lakeville. Tier
two included the Bethel Corridor, the Rush Line Corridor and the Norwood- Young America
Corridor. The Southwest Corridor was not identified as a commuter rail corridor.
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, park and ride, bicycles, and pedestrians.
In developing the Commuter Rail System Plan Mn/DOT has built on the results from the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Commuter Rail Feasibility Study and in particular the implementation
strategy presented in the final report.
1
The Commuter Rail System Plan, published in February of 2000, has been developed as a prescriptive tool that ensures commuter rail will be accomplished in a
cooperative and consistent manner that provides coordination among stakeholders, to the maximum extent possible. Some of the corridor specific information in this
plan is no longer accurate: the Northstar Corridor Rail terminus will be in Big Lake, not Elk River as stated; it does not make note that legislation prohibits further work on
the Dan Patch Corridor.
Commuter Rail
System
Commuter Rail System Plan
- Northstar Corridor
c--:-'t Red Rock Corridor
'111111111 Dan Patch Corridor
_ Bethel Corridor
_ NorwoodiYoung Amorica Corridor
_ Rush line Corridor
_ High Speed Rail (up to 110 MPH)
"'O(~\'IJ\MISO~~ 10
R ~
II >-
~ '"
"'~... {l
OF rr~p.."
High Speed
Service to
Milwaukee
Chicago
Detroit
Cleveland
Cincinnati
51. Louis
and more.
Commuter rail service is dependent upon the compatibility between efficient land use 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.
Communities that demonstrate a commitment to Smart Growth principles in their land-use
planning and transportation planning will be given priority consideration for transportation
improvements. Commitment to commuter rail investments should be reflected in comprehensive
plans, transportation plans, development strategies and zoning ordinances.
Station Development and Site Planning
Station Spacing
2
4r1- - r
Transltway Corridor
- TC&W Commuter R.1It
Pefe'~"ceLo~"
"'.
.,,~... Ct'Mof' eo........,.... fl.~. Ct"lillo...
......._Ch...-L~'r'S...''''..)'~
"""'-~t....r-
..................""IOI.~-u.11
l..."u& Ri..'1
~ ---......~
~._'-~_..-.--
-.uo~_'_~~"I'W,-"'~
For commuter rail lines, typical spacing is every five miles. While this spacing is used as a
general template, variation does exist. The last stops generally have increased spacing beyond
five miles. For communities outside the seven-county region, station placement is indicated for
the community in general- not at a specific intersection or location. The City of Chanhassen has
requested that the commuter rail station in Chanhassen be shifted from the Galpin Blvd location
to the downtown area between Market Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard.
Commuter rail provides opportunities to channel growth and redevelopment around stations and
enhance communities. With respect to the planning and design, guidelines are presented below
which describe how smart growth can be implemented in a commuter rail station area.
A transit-oriented development at a commuter rail station would include a core area in the
immediate vicinity of the station and an area surrounding the core. The total area of the transit-
oriented development (TOD) can vary depending on the development potential of the site.
Successful transit-oriented developments have been in the range of 60 acres (a circle with a 900-
foot radius) to 125 acres (a circle with a radius of one-quarter mile).
The core area of the TOD is a relatively dense mixed-use development and constitutes from one-
tenth to one-half the total TOD area. The main characteristics include:
· Overall net floor area ratio of at least 0.5,
· Blocks are small, no more than about 4 acres,
· Buildings along at least 75 percent of block frontages face the street,
· Building faces are close to the street, within 10 feet of the sidewalk,
3
· Frontages in the core area are ground floor retail businesses, commercial businesses or
personal services businesses (about 40% or more),
· Building faces along the street include a large percentage of glass, and
· Residential density is 30 dwelling units per acre or more.
In the TOD area outside the core, the mix ofland uses should include:
· Residential (20 to 30 percent of the TOD area),
· Employment uses (20 to 30 percent of the TOD area), and
· Civic uses (about 10 percent of the TOD area).
Property Tax Funding
The seven metropolitan counties - through their regional railroad authorities - are authorized by
State statute to impose levies on real estate of up to a maximum of 0.04835% of market valuation
to pay for capital and/or operating costs of passenger rail service.
Bus/Rail Competition
In most markets, the proposed commuter rail service (recall that the opening day service pattern
would have all trains making all stops) could offer travel time savings, compared to existing
express bus services. Depending on freeway and arterial traffic levels, the time savings by
taking the train could be as much as 27-28 minutes (from Chaska and Chanhassen on the
NorwoodlY oung America Corridor), or as little as 6 minutes (Anoka on the BethellNorthstar
Corridors, Burnsville on the Dan Patch and Newport on the Red Rock).
4
LIGHT RAIL AND BUS RAPID TRANSIT
Eleven alternate routes were under study for the Southwest Corridor Rail Transit.
The Southwest Rail Transit Study was ajoint effort of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad
Authority (HCRRA) and the cities of Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and
Minneapolis. The purpose of the Study was to determine if rail transit is a feasible part of the
overall transportation solution for the Southwest Metro Area. In July 2003, the Study concluded
with a recommendation to continue further study of light rail transit (LRT) alignments.
The Southwest Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), consisting of elected officials or their
representatives from Hennepin County and the cities of Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, St.
Louis Park and Minneapolis, other governmental agencies and area chambers of commerce,
transit agencies, trail agencies and businesses, met six times during the course of the Study and
developed a recommendation for consideration by the HCRRA. The Southwest PAC
recommended that study continue for LRT for the following four alternatives:
lA: from TH 312 in Eden Prairie to downtown Minneapolis via the HCRRA property and the
Kenilworth Corridor. 1
2A: from the Southwest Metro Transit Station in Eden Prairie to downtown Minneapolis via 1-
494, the HCRRA property, and the Kenilworth Corridor.
3A: from the Southwest Metro Transit station in Eden Prairie to downtown Minneapolis via the
Eden Prairie Center Mall, the Golden Triangle, Opus, downtown Hopkins, the HCRRA property,
and the Kenilworth Corridor.
4A: from downtown Hopkins to downtown Minneapolis via the HCRRA property and the
Kenilworth Corridor.
In addition, the next study phase will address a rail transit connection along the Midtown
Greenway Corridor, environmental impacts and mitigation measures, public involvement, and
retention of the trails.
In December 2006, the Southwest PAC, had developed recommendations for the next project
phase. After comparing benefits, costs and impacts of several light rail transit (LRT) and bus
rapid transit (BRT) alternatives, the Southwest PAC recommended three LRT alternatives for
further study. The three LRT alternatives, LRT lA, LRT 3A, and LRT 3C were recommended
for retention because study findings showed that they were superior at addressing the Southwest
Transitway goals of improving mobility, providing a cost-effective and efficient travel option,
protecting the environment, preserving the quality of life, and supporting economic development.
Each of the three LRT alternatives would be expected to carry more riders, attract more new
riders to the transit system, be more cost-effective, more operationally efficient, provide transit
service to those most in need, provide connections to workplaces, medical facilities, shopping
centers and other activities centers in the Southwest area, and create opportunities for further
economic development in the Southwest area communities. All three alternatives incorporate
use of former rail lines now owned by the county railroad authority and would complement
existing biking/walking trails.
1
On February 13, 2007, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) accepted a
recommendation from the Southwest PAC and authorized staff to issue a request for proposals
for a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for light rail transit in the Southwest Corridor.
This action followed a formal public hearing held on January 23 at an HCRRA meeting where
several citizens testified. Comments reflected issues raised at open houses and citizen meetings
over the past several months, including concerns about environmental impacts and mitigation
strategies, statements of preferred alignments, and support for moving forward to develop a light
rail line expeditiously.
't' -~.
./ :":-~\I*=~~;)-:'". .~~~_. -.=:;7j
_ , . .:.... 4th Street
~ Won~'1o . -. r .
'- ,.-- ~.......~ .I
. ~ ~'. " -. .,.8thStreel~
(.. . . .) 1
~,;6 : .12th Street. ~
._--\..,. ......... PeM . e-: ~--..... ...~. ....
_-." '\.-.. r E:
- "2151SlnIaI' F Idi . J .
-.f' rann.
S . I
I.. . .
I' LyndaIe . I
,. . . e
. ,........-.............. ~
}. 28th Slroet
I
I,
t
ALTERNATIVES LRT lA LRT 3A LRT 3C
2030 Rlllmhlp 23.500 27,000 28,100
2030 Hew Riders 4.500 7.500 6.800
2015 Capllal ClIsl $865 nlllliun $1.2 billion $Ublllllln
2015 Operallng Cosl $12 million $16 million $17 million
ClISHrrecliveness Indel (CEI)' $30 $26 $30
.,-. -.~'r---'''''
.......
'... . ) louisiana
l t .
S CS'~'" ·
-- ~-#:-/.:.\ I W~4~;
.~~:..-. 'f
~ B Hopkins - ..J!'#" - B~~ I
~~~.~ ".... __.....J.-._..~ .--'1....
"V..~: ,; t 1
,,' \':,." j
,,' l .
. .. Sh8dy Oak
" ./: S
RCMtard Ii',,/ ...;.....
_.........,t->./ v 1"':-~
-' 8 ..
f .... ;~p---\ ...... Or;w~- Q,,:-.t
I - H'oghw.)' 62 fiJ.: ~
.? I IJ
..//,. \ ,:' -~ Triangle
\ i\ I
./ I ,8 .1:'
; \ f..... :. 1:3
[_.. l '. i ,
[;) d - ~A'-' "
'. ~ -~ - :J!~ ~~-:..-~_~,-=.
.....1cheI.-J - l::j...-...,.-.;::Q.... e ~
"I Southwest Sratlon - ~ Eden Pnlltte T CMn CenIer
'"':' .._. ~ _ ~8
~'-~
....
'--..
.-
;,....--
\,
'......
..-.
(;]
~
-,
\
1-.
I
I ..'
(;]
,
I
---
Uptown
I
Southwest Transitway
Alternatlv.. Analysis
I.
I'
, a
'" .
(
I
i 1
6' 1 ?"...
\ .E1
J
/
~
-
.............,.....,-
_r_lWoIoory~
........n. _
J
I
..-.- LRt,4 RolM
_l~r)A_
......... t..RT X Ro..!8
8 :R<>o_
s
I
I
I
~ ,,:...'
- (- .....
I
.
i
~I
o
.....
e---r..--1
--"'_ v........ _.-1 "g--~'-"~
U__c:-tr
n Aot__A~
2
~-;;.~/( /I ~l'. ~ _ ~
""'" 1. /. t.lln Street
lVliO..V)ti19.8.~!9)@~d: . .~
~ .. . ~ . ~J., ~ _ "f
i 'pQfl~ AV(lIJjJ2, ~...1,"~ aStf~.
~ - :- - ... ~\ , l.. ._....
. . In"" ,". 1lth S:.rcct "'1
. ~bt Olfe' rJ -" ,. - .. '}
.-.............. -.. -
. ~ .' '~-L...-:1
,.-'"' .."'=t. - 31.d IS., e'
_,_~'~ t,-, ...... I Woodd31e t I.! I
-' ,.\ '" ;" _.~
....... [oUIS!enIlP lY" ~8.e.'I~i
-., "./
'. ~ 1 .-.......
. ...../~.
lHork1n3j ~/. ~ '7 .
Shady Oak', \''-'1--;' -] ",.., .
- - -/~ B~!<9 ' '("1
. ~ t ' "\ .:'-...!' \' \...l. r.....,../'".. t
t I X, ", ' . \ . '"\ _1 \~ ......~ / J
I _...f '-\J
" . 8f::,g' 1" ~ . . .':',..J . I
.... ~~ ,r:..~~'--- '- ... ': I '{ ,
-:1 O~,..' j
\.::~ rILH1~~~ '::"'~~-~I~~ _ oJ!- \Z" ~ .' ..: .. ... ~~-i ,:::':. ~
om,.!:.' . T2t-~dc~~q~r) ..."!:., , ,
HH :>~ \ _ . t.., Jt }
~ ~. .r 1 "
~itcne.!!l '- _......, /. ( ) _ . .... '
....7-;y I, - _-c' / '-' . -..... ;'\ L_
I \,,,...;.,c---Yb --.J : .' \J~" r /
'toe ~"-l C!t.... .., y .......-..o:.~ ' ~"'. oF'" ,
p.%\!!..e~~qoJ.Q.!1.l iL:do'nr'rcimoTown COiiicr, ~ .,
" "...&1 - -,.. te --.. L., . ~
,
.
10
. .--
~ - I .1
\,:" ,.... I'
... ~~
.y"''''
-a.':
.~
.4
,.
. jlll
..
~"TIl"""."","
A..tU"''''IA(.'' ~
Wlfl'lllil
A
k-
" "\..
'..,.
0... nl>1i<l Tronall
M.. Wlllw..
~
Le Co!!N 0
_ to..-"._~.....Gl---.,
~.
..___ ""-..la rl'ol.l...
...___ _"..l-"'""._
. .........
o L-t.... ."....(01""-.0
.
i\ u"
,~ --
Va ,~ t
(..........',ft H
Tier One Goals
Tier 1 goals are defined as those goals that must be achieved or a project does not
exist.
GOAL 1: Improve mobility
Objectives:
· Provide a travel option competitive with other modes in terms of journey time
. Provide a reliable travel option that improves mobility throughout the day
· Provide a travel option that serves population and employment concentrations
· Provide a travel option that adds capacity and access to the regional and local transportation
system
· Provide a travel option that serves people who depend on transit
· Provide a travel option that enhances pedestrian and bicycle activity and access to
community nodes
GOAL 2: Provide a cost-effective, efficient travel option
Objectives:
· Provide a travel option with acceptable capital and operating costs
· Provide a travel option that efficiently and effectively moves people
3
· Provide a travel option that integrates efficiently with other modes and avoids substantial
negative impacts to the existing roadway system
· Provide a travel option that supports regional system efficiency
Tier Two Goals
Tier 2 goals are defined as goals to be satisfied assuming a proposed project results
from the application of the Tier 1 goals.
GOAL 3: Protect the environment
Objectives:
. Provide a travel option beneficial to the region's air quality
· Provide a travel option that avoids or minimizes alterations to environmentally sensitive
areas
. Provide a travel option that supports efficient, compact land use that facilitates accessibility
· Provide a travel option that avoids major environmental impacts on adjacent properties,
such as noise and vibration
GOAL 4: Preserve and protect the quality of life in the study area and the region
Objectives:
· Provide a travel option that contributes to the economic health of the study area and region
through improving mobility and access
· Provide a travel option that is sensitively designed with respect to existing neighborhoods
and property values
· Provide a travel option that protects and enhances access to public service and recreational
facilities
· Provide a travel option that supports sound planning and design of transit stations and park
and ride lots
· Provide a travel option that enhances the image and use of transit services in the region
GOAL 5: Support economic development
Objectives:
· Provide a travel option that supports economic development and redevelopment with
improved access to transit stations
. Provide a travel option that supports local sustainable development/redevelopment goals
· Provide a transportation system element that facilitates more efficient land development
patterns and saves infrastructure costs
· Provide a travel option that accommodates future regional growth in locations consistent
with local plans and the potential for increased transit ridership
4
BRT Alternatives
Guideway
The BRT 1 alternative consist of an exclusive bus-only roadway along the existing HCRRA
right-of-way between Eden Prairie and Minneapolis, and restricted diamond lanes in
Minneapolis along Dunwoody Boulevard and Hennepin Avenue. The exclusive guideway is
assumed to be a 28-foot wide paved roadway. The BRT 2 alternative includes a combination of
restricted diamond lanes, bus only shoulder lanes, and exclusive bus-only roadway.
LRT Alternatives
Guideway
The LRT guideway costs include elements such as grading, drainage, retaining walls, bridges,
tunnels, and trackwork. All of the LRT alternatives assume a double track alignment, with
crossover tracks at one-mile intervals.
Table 26 contains summaries of the total capital cost estimates for the Southwest
Transitway alternatives. For each alternative the summaries include the Base Year
(2006) total estimate, the unallocated contingency (20%), the Base Year (2006) project
total, and the Forecast Year (2015) project total.
Table 26 Summary of Total Capital Cost Estimates
Alternative Unallocated Year 2006 Year 2015
Year 2006 Contingency Project Total Project Total
Estimate (thousands) (thousands) (thousands)
(thousands)
Enhanced Bus $ 52,376 $ 10,475 $ 62,851 $ 79,882
BRT 1 $ 354,057 $ 70,811 $ 424,869 $ 539,994
BRT2 $ 461,580 $ 92,316 $ 553,896 $ 703,983
LRT lA $ 566,786 $ 113,357 $ 680,143 $ 864,438
LRT 3A $ 758,842 $ 151,768 $ 910,611 $1,157,355
LRT 3C $ 921,938 $ 184,388 $1,106,326 $1,406,103
Source: LTK, 2006.
Table 27 Summary of per Mile Capital Cost Estimates
Alternative Length (miles) Stations Capital Cost per Mile
Year 2006 Year 2015
(thousands) (thousands)
BRT 1 13.9 16 $ 30,657 $ 38,964
BRT2 18.3 19 $ 30,245 $ 38,441
LRT1A 13.8 14 $ 49,374 $ 62,752
LRT 3A 15.7 17 $ 57,895 $ 73,583
LRT3C 16.6 20 $ 66,686 $ 84,756
Source: LTK, 2006.
5
i
I
__~____~___________________J
LTK Engineering Services
October, 2006
Table 17 Summary Evaluation Matrix
. . -- - ..
Tter 100.115 Tier 2 Goals
Goo12: 00.314: Preserve
Alternatives Gool I: Provide a Cost 004113: Protect I;nd Protect the GooIS: Support Recommendation
Improve Effective. Results the Enviroment Qu~lity of lite in Economic
Mobil~y Efficient Travel the Study Area Development
ODtion and Reaion
Enh.anced Bus ~rry 'orw~rd as Baseline alternative (Required) C.uryforwOiIrd ,315 Baseline al1ernative (Required) Carry forwud as &"Isehne
(83seline\ A1ter~tive
BRT 1 - t::.oen 1""T31r.e to r.l:nneapo!:s. . . Dees not meet ,er Goa 15;
HCRR;" Dc not C.Jrryfornud
SRT 2'. Seen ?ra.rie D M.nne.1polis. Dces not meet Tier 1 Go.11S;
Goree" Tri.lngl.'OpustiH lel),'HCRRA . . Dc not C3rryfornnd
LRT 1 A . :een ?rairie 10 Mnn.e3PoTis. Me-e:s Tier 1 Goals: Carry Carry forward for
HeR RA XMilwer:"\l'Ro)';1ls ~n () () FOMJrd to Tier 2 () () () further amtysis
lRT 2A'. Eden Pra'ne:o I.tnnnpol.. M;@!s Tj~r t Goal5:Carry Other Jltern.Uives better meet
~~4,iiGRRA :Keni'wor1h:Ro)',] 15o:0n () () Fo("'ItJrd to Tier 2 () () () Tier 2 Goals. 00 not carryforward
lRT 3A" Eden Pra,nelo /,f,nneapol.. Miets Tier t C~aI5: Carry C~rry forw.ud for
Golden Triong-..'Opu,:HCRRA" () () For.urd to Tier 2 () () 0 further ana~i.
Kenil'ncr:,,'Ro)":J.lsDn
lRT.tA. Hopk-ns ~~ Mnne)polis. P,rtoH-JP a:tern.JoY'!. Dc
HeR: RA"Ken i1worl1.lRo~i11s'X>n . () notC,lrryforwaro
LRT te ~ Ecen Prai,.;@ ~ Mnniapo'is. Dc,n not meet Tier 1 Go.Jls;
HCRAA'Md~wnINiccltet () . Do not ~rryfornJrd
LRT 2C. EceM. Prairie ti Mnn-eapo'ls. Cc<!s notrneetTler 1 Go,)";
l-4g~I}jCR RA ;t.';d~o'lln.Ni;:c11 et () . Dc net urryforllnd
LRT 3C. eeen PrJ.ine ~ Mnneapo'ls. Me-e!s ner 1 Goals: Carry Carry forward for
Golden Triang-e.'Opusl () () Forwnd to Tier:! () () 0 further .JRltysis
HCRRA'Mctc'"fn,' Niccllet
LRT 4C' - Hop~ltls tc Mtnne;1:.olis. PJlrtoffulta-ternJltiw.Oo
H:R.R;""'.'-d~\Yn.'Nicolltt . . notCJrryfot'YI3ro
.- n . -. .
rBt.1tuatfon er,,atcpolnta
II
II
Tf
I"I)~."" loalon IUDDO"" Ilulon I.pport" loa' on
. C'O~S"')tl\.nclt')31 f~~' Uta" 4 o. e f~~'tftanTlIfl) rurtr 'I'Ian 3 O. 4
",~.s~"es ",~asu~, rolea"urell
G hO~."" lOll on lUDOOrts I'll on 7 lup.orts 1~llon
Suo.>>m;J)at 40' e "leisure' or t: ...~IS.rts ~ 0' 4 "'~I'U'CS
o !~"';)'I~r:SQC:~ I.O~'''s loaton IUDOO'" "11 on III I.D~orts loal on
III ,.,easures ",ea",rtS alllflfUlJre"
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2006.
The Metropolitan Council is undertaking a Transit Master Plan to look at LRT throughout the
metropolitan area. They have identified corridors that will be modeled in the Transit Master Plan
process. Corridor Review Assignments: The corridors were assigned for review as follows.
Anoka- Central Ave LRT, Cambridge CR
Carver/SW- TC&W Commuter Rail, SW LRT Extension
Dakota- CSAH 42 LRT, Farmington Rail Spur CR
Hennepin- 29th St LRT, Delano CR, HCRRA Victoria LRT, Hutchinson CR, 1-394, 1-494 SW,
Monticello CR
Ramsey- 35W N LRT, Ford Pkwy-Snelling, Ford Plant Spur, Riverview, "Rush Line" LRT to
Maplewood, NE Diagonal, 1-94 East LRT, Hudson-Roberts Commuter Rail
Washington- Canadian National CR, TH36 LRT Met Council- Nicollet Ave LRT (to l06th St),
Downtown Express connection, 494/694 beltway
As part of the process communities were requested to identify the locations of stations/park and
rides on corridors. The location of stations and park and rides are needed to do the ridership
6
modeling. But the exact location is not as important as the ridership forecasting model only
needs to have the location to the closest T AZ. The Metropolitan Council put together a set of
draft station/park and ride locations along the corridors that you identified for city review.
Transltway Corridors
CommutQr Rail and
Dedlc,J!Qd BuswayiLRT
GQner:J1 Station Locations
$lallon Iox~ are aPPfOulllMod
III) g.:'OtIf"fd &1"(>0.\. 110I spNrllC IocRtlons
Transltway Corridor
- SW EX1enslon- Hwy212
P.efere~L~)'ers
. C~St..tOfl)
......~ Ct"\4of"CO"I\MU1..R.JBCo'TiclO't
1.....1 C~LRTf3\l5.....yCtni~
"'""'-'~".J)'
"....... """)QItA~.~15
l.J,,~.&Ri~rs
""""'-."...
~'-~._--'"'-
~CDo.rt-.~,........awotw.'M.-,oor
JUly 2007 ~
- MIles
o 0.5 1 2
!C~
'1 bo'.-"-
''''... _2030. +
How these draft station locations were created:
Stations are located in a very general sense, for modeling purposes only. Actual locations of
transit stations will vary significantly based on specific right-of-way, land availability,
community interests, corridor engineering, and many other factors. As such, the locations should
be reviewed by general area and not their specific locations.
Four principal factors were considered when stations were selected for analysis. These include
station spacing, previous study assumptions, roadway connections, and transit supportive land
uses. Actual station location selection will require extensive analysis and thorough public
participation, but the generalized locations shown are appropriate for the scope of analysis
proposed in the Transit Master Plan update.
Station Spacing
For LRT/Dedicated Busway corridors, the general stop spacing is every mile (1 mile spacing).
Within areas of high density such as downtowns, stations are closer together. Spacing increases
to two miles outside the 494/694 beltway, and five miles or more on the outer portions of very
long lines. Local conditions, land use, previous studies, intersection with major roads, or other
factors changed the stop spacing.
7
Previous studies
For corridors previously analyzed, station locations were determined based on past study results.
Many corridors had more stops than would be practical under the spacing guidelines above, so
not all study stations were used.
Roads
Connectivity with the region's functional classification system is an important criterion in
selecting station locations. Functional class roads such as minor arterial provide important links
to potential stations, and are appropriate for feeder bus connections. Almost all station locations
are located at the intersection of the proposed transitway and a minor arterial roadway.
For transitways along freeways, interchange exit designs allow for relatively easy access to a
park-and-ride, but system interchanges between principal arterial (for example, 1-35E and 1-694)
present extreme practical and engineering challenges for stations. For this reason, system
interchanges could not be considered for station locations. When practical, locations adjacent to
system interchanges were selected for transit stations.
Transit Supportive land uses
Commercial, mixed-use, multifamily and attached housing, and some industrial land uses were
considered in station location selection. This criterion was often used to differentiate between
similar locations at appropriate stop spacing. The data used was a 2005 land use layer created by
the Metropolitan Council.
We also want to be clear that these locations were selected only for modeling purposes only.
They in no way predetermine what would actually built.
8
_J
II)
..
o
"CI VI
.- J::
.... J- ,0
Q:';::
o ....~
(,)'g~o
C\I~""
>-_ J::
~~~~
~ '-'tl.lS
.- .s III CI)
11)=--
C E ~ ~
mE:e~
.=. c3 c! ~
~
o
"0
"C
o
()
>.
'"
;:
VI
:0
III
~
-'
Q;
.<::
o
VI
>.
'"
;:
.<::
OJ
'f
VI
0;
"C
Q)
1::
<(
o
C
~
~
Q)
>
oc
oil
i;'l
""
'"
-'
....
o
c
. c
7S~
.)l,'
~~
Evl
~'O
.rite
~.~
t~
!9~ Vi
~1
~ Cl:5
8 ..ll
~ ~ ~
:a (.)~ '€
e- ~ 5
... g ~
~ '<(..
~ ~~
~ ~~
~ 8~
VI
o
"0
~
VI
C
"00
Q) .p
~ '"
~~
.~~
Cou
~:!i
Q) VI
~g
.g ~
'" '"
u_
o '"
C (i)
o C
~Wn
U5B
N
N
>-
3
I
l...
o
'0
'i:
l...
o
U
>.
1'0
3:
~
III
r:
1'0
.=
"a;
cr
Q;
:;
E
E
8
C:
o
"iij
c:
Q)
X
w
~
CI)
VI
C
o
~
1i5
Q;
.<::
o
~
*'
-J
Q)
<.>
<::
2!
~
&
Q;
.<::
o
e
.:: .:: ( (
I
.,
- ---e-- --
- _._"-.. -- --
---
--------...
@-
I'-
o
o
(\l
~
::J
-,
/
J
en ...
0 en
a.. 0
0 ~~~ ~
"CI l'! ~~ ~
III Vl 0 l'! i;'''- 0)
.- c: C -0 <... @-
-00 'C 0 EVl
t ... ,0 '" .'" ... '(ij 0 -0 ~'O
~ co 'C
Q:.o:: E~ 0 0:: () 0 Ii
o """~ "0 L.. '(ij ()
Ul~O .~~ 'i: Q) OC >-
:; co
Ill;.... o.u ... E :;; ~ ~~ I'-
c.", 0 Vl :; Ul l'! ~~ Ui 0
~_ c: co 0. E C " ro Q) ~1
;~~~ Q) Vl U 0 E al > 0
CoC 0 (? ~ E j:: 'c ~ 0 "l"
() Vl ~ 0 0'5 (\j
Vl c >. ~ ii5 8 oc >- oil Il oJ!
..., '- ~ .s ,2 g l1:l S ...J co <{ ij ~.~ ~
~ '" :;; :;; :;; ~ 0 ~ :::l
.- oS 1Il II) ~~ o/l -..J .c '3
.c .c .c Cl c ~ ~5 .....,
en ::....- () ~ <5 <5 <5 I ::< co "- N
o co I- ...J g ~~
= E ~ ~ ~ 03 rJ) <:: :1
@ . . ( (
caE~~ o C s:: I . f ...8
.~ ~ l1:l .l'2 . # # ID ~~
.:ac!~ ... Q) . . ~ :2?:
Q:: ~ . <
(/).9 l- . . 8~
?~~ ~-' - ~ ~t~'Ft--"-7f_-.-:;- ,-~-.~.:t__() (,'\ J:--~~
J...' / ,,::;; ~.~. - - \ \
v~,~_I# ,~ ....... . ~ . 'I
/ ~I ~~r1 )r I\\~ ; ~ I
- I.:: r- --1-' <II .. \.. _ 1
. .~.. "-r ',...,'lS . >=-.~. ~;~ · \. - ~
~i(~~/' ~ '-U 4' \', :'?J..
-, I,. r?' \t-~~.
~. ~)~ ~t~~ . J '
") 7 .;. ~~,{-- ""~
I / . ~ \, '. - ~~- '.L '\ ~L--1 r-f'
( II -; ~~~. r.. .~ < I"" ~/. .~:'~K~ > .
. . ., \ ~ 'X /--
.. . : ~ '.. Jt J 0" ....... _ ~/
~ / [';" I. ~ ,I. . ,~ r
~:... ~II--~ 11 ~~. \'~,,_ \ "'-/, I \~" 4 '. ~
~ ' :1 \ L p" . ~ n I' 1".. N [
l- \~ ). \ : j~' 'is r~ h. ~I~,
. ". ~ :- 'i( \ G 11 ~
~ -~"""-- ri\J l3
I[~~ \- \. J
" \j - "--. r " -. '1f.
"\:4.- - . ~
r t ~)V-
.
: -v
J, (
fJ
:1-
~
I
I
.
.
I
.
I
I
I
)-
_r
I
'-.!
/}
IF
~-
/
..",~
I
..-
'--
-
.r..
..--
~
\
~
~
.
,..
y~
~
g
..
0:
[J
8
g tin
I,~
\l~
GOAL
PO LI CIES
TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICIES
Create a multi-modal transportation system which permits the safe, efficient and
effective movement of people and goods.
Provide a local transportation system which is consistent with the plans and
programs of the Counties, Metropolitan and State systems as well as with the overall
growth policies of the City of Chanhassen.
Transportation facilities should be planned and designed to be compatible with the
surrounding environment and compliant with federal, state and local
environmental standards.
Encourage multiple uses of right-of-way areas accommodating various modes of
transportation.
Thoroughfares and major routes should be planned so as to reduce conflicts
between external traffic and local traffic while minimizing the disruption or
division of the logical pattern of development in the community.
Combine streets, highways, mass transit, terminals, and parking facilities, and
pedestrian and bicycle access into a coordinated transportation system.
Provide flexibility for additions or modifications to the transportation system by
basing right-of-way requirements on an evaluation of future transportation needs.
The city will utilize the land use plan and transportation plan maps to illustrate
planned road alignments and to facilitate their acquisition and construction as new
developments are proposed. The plan maps will illustrate all collector and arterial
street alignments. They will also be amended from time to time by the City during
the subdivision review process.
As a part of platting, each development should provide dedication and improvement
of public streets consistent with the standards found in city ordinances. The city will
promote the provision of street and pedestrian connections to maximize safety and
ease of access.
Neighborhoods should be planned and designed to limit or discourage external (cut-
through) trips traversing the neighborhood.
Sufficient setbacks and/or berming should be designed into all development projects
adjacent to major public roadways.
Coordinate existing and planned transportation facilities and their capacities with
land use types and densities with particular emphasis on land development in the
vicinity of interchanges and intersections.
~
Promote increased development of bikeways and trail facilities in order to conserve
energy resources, enhance recreational opportunities and assist in the abatement of
pollution and congestion.
Promote safe and convenient access connections between the highway system and
major commercial areas, industrial uses, and residential neighborhoods.
The City should cooperate with the Metropolitan Council and Southwest Metro
Transit Commission in order to provide future transit service to and within the
community. The City will support the development of park and ride facilities that
encourage transit use.
In major areas of employment and commercial activity and in higher density
residential and mixed use areas, sufficient parking and transfer and bus stop facilities
areas should be provided to meet the needs of mass transit.
The City will continue an ongoing maintenance program in order to maximize the
community's investment in transportation facilities. The City will utilize pavement
management software to identify appropriate strategies for street maintenance.
For proposed developments, the City will require detailed circulation and access
plans which depict the impact of the proposed development on both the existing and
future transportation systems.
Through the development review process, the City will strive to discourage
development from occurring within the designated roadway corridors as well as
limiting access to collector streets, minor arterials, intermediate arterials and
principal arterials.
The City will implement roadway design standards and inspection practices which
ensure proper construction.
Chanhassen shall require sidewalks and/or trails in commercial, industrial, medium
and high density residential areas; adjacent to schools and other public buildings;
and along at least one side of collectors and other high volume roads.
The City will support Federal, State, Metropolitan and local efforts directed toward
the timely construction of a new Minnesota River crossing connecting Trunk
Highways 169/212, upgrading of Hwy. 5 west ofT.H. 41, realignment and
construction ofHwy. 101, south of~ Lyman Boulevard, upgrading of 101
north ofT.H. 5, T.H. 41, and other facilities serving the area.
Chanhassen will coordinate efforts with Eden Prairie and other appropriate
jurisdictions to insure that Highways 5 and 101 continue to function effectively.
Chanhassen will coordinate the construotioH aHd mainteHanoe of hard sl:Irfaced local
streets, colleotors, and arterials. Within the Rural Service Area, the City will
provide and maintain a transportation system consistent '.vith the needs of
agrioulturalland uses.
The City will support Federal, State, Metropolitan and local efforts directed toward
the provision of rail transit for the community, the region, and the state.
2
.~
I
2g
ali!~
~h
~~!!
Bd Ii
i-~-I-~~~h~
~h~i:!Hii,"ll~
;;idU!:i;
DDID~D[][)DI .
'"' ~ ~~l
~~.
. I
NWr-r06';'^PJnJo~ SI~IJIMWO.JIAIJVI/rJJ.f.N)6I;WP'[f>lJV#
L
I
"'?
-
~
::,
tJ)
i:i:
CI)
llJ
Q:
::!
.....
U'i~
.....rn
>-~
~~
:r: ffi c::
I-~_ 0
~ ~ ~ ~
a.1-Q) ~
~ g cu c::
s:~~ ~
i::~~ a
~::;;E
:i!:~- :ii
Q:;:~ -2
~~:ii '"
-J:I:~~!
~C)200cu
Q :i:.~go
-.J::::r..:::w"-tn
5~'5:~
In~Ciui~
~
i
_I