MEETING NOTES PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) May 26, :30 10:30 a.m. Colin Powell Center th Avenue South, Minneapolis

Transcription

1 MEETING NOTES PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) May 26, :30 10:30 a.m. Colin Powell Center th Avenue South, Minneapolis Meeting Attendance: See Attachment 1 1. Introductions Lisa Vecoli, Chair, welcomed everyone. She briefly discussed her role as newlyappointed Chair, emphasizing that she is not an advocate for any specific interest or position. She stated that she will guide the PAC through a good consultative process toward the best result, one that is not pre determined but one that grows out of the deliberations of the PAC members. Upon her request, each person in the room, PAC members, agency staff and consultant team members, and visitors identified themselves and the groups they represented. 2. Approval of Agenda and Review of April 28 PAC Meeting Notes Ms. Vecoli asked if there were any additions to the Agenda. Hearing none, she confirmed the Agenda as presented. Ms. Vecoli asked if there were any comments, corrections, or additions to the April 28 PAC Meeting Notes. Hearing none, the PAC voted to approve the April 28 PAC Meeting Notes. 3. Objectives and Scope of Project Jenifer Loritz Hager Referring to the map handout (which was also projected onto the presentation screen), Jenifer Loritz Hager, Minneapolis Public Works, advised that the purpose of this project is to prepare 30% engineering design concept drawings for the five primary project components: The transit station A high quality connection to the Midtown Greenway 1

2 A southbound vehicle ramp (to Lake Street from SB I 35W) A northbound vehicle ramp (to NB I 35W from Lake Street) A northbound vehicle ramp (to 28 th Street from NB I 35W) She stated that the future replacement of two freeway bridges, by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, to the north of the project area, has a significant influence on, and offers opportunities for, this project. These two bridges are: (1) the I 94 westbound flyover from I 35W Northbound, and (2) the I 35W Southbound Braid Bridge. She noted that, because the elements of this project are very expensive, there would be a future conversation at the political/policy maker level on funding and phasing. However, the charge of this group is clear and that is to develop the 30% engineering concept including all five primary project components. For technical reasons, it is logical to conclude that the transit station is the first component that needs to be designed and constructed. Following Ms. Loritz Hager s presentation, the following points were made in the question and answer period: The bridges at 35 th Street and 36 th Street need repair/replacement as well although they are not a part of this project. I 35W is a regional transitway. The missing component is the transit station at Lake Street, which is needed to make BRT a functional reality. From a regional perspective, BRT is needed to help reduce reliance on vehicles and slow the growth in traffic on I 35W. The missing link in the Lake Street reconstruction and streetscape project (Blaisdell to 5 th Avenue) is important and should be addressed as part of this project. Streetscape improvements, not only on Lake Street but also on other streets in the neighborhood within the walking distance of the new transit station, should be considered. There should be greening, noise attenuation, and other measures to lessen the negative impacts of the freeway. It is important to address connections between Greenway, Lake Street, and I 35W. There is a great opportunity for economic revitalization in the Lake Street I 35W area as one beneficial impact of this project. We need metrics or measurements of success for this project. 2

3 All five components are important. The PAC might recommend which ones they value most, but our goal is to include all five project components in the 30% design concept. There will be some property impacts for this project, likely the same ones noted in the previous Access Project and subsequent Feasibility Study. The consultant team will make that information available. 4. I 35W Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Plan Charles Carlson Charles Carlson, Metro Transit Manager of Transit Projects, gave a presentation that briefed the PAC on the following: Why bus rapid transit is being implemented in the I 35W Corridor An overview of the existing and recommended regional transit system I 35W BRT overview Phase I implementation, timing and near term challenges Lake Street ridership survey results Mr. Carlson noted that existing ridership on I 35W buses is not the best indicator of ridership potential once a new transit station is in place. As a comparison, transit ridership at the Hiawatha/Lake station increased from less than 100 passengers per day to over 2,000 transit riders once the new LRT service was in operation. Following Mr. Carlson s presentation, the following points were made in the question and answer period: Are we spending more than $200 million for 2,000 new transit riders? Response: The new station and improved transit service will make it possible for existing and new riders to access more destinations on the whole system. This will significantly grow transit ridership. The $220 million will not only be for transit improvements, but will include the bridges and infrastructure for all five components. The local beneficial impacts in the Lake Street/I 35W area are also important (for example, new customers for existing and new businesses, improved access for employees, improved redevelopment prospects for nearby properties). We need to define soon what this will mean for the local community (jobs downtown, jobs in the Lake Street area, jobs elsewhere, the Greenway). We need to be ready with the answer when the community asks, Why are we doing this? 3

4 Response: Economic development impacts are important. Mark Garner of Minneapolis CPED has information on community economic impacts. The consultant team will endeavor to obtain this information and post it on the project website. Also, beginning in late summer, the consultant team will do a cost benefit analysis, which will include projected ridership increases, projected reduction in vehicles delays and crashes, and many other factors. 5. Transit Station Design Jonathan Cohn and Peter Cavaluzzi Jonathan Cohn, architectural consultant with EEK Perkins Eastman, gave a presentation on: Transit Station Program Precedents (platforms, waiting areas, stairs, elevators) Transit Station Program Configuration (platform, waiting area, stairs, elevator) Center Platform Split Platform Off set Split Platform Following Mr. Cohn s presentation, the following points were made in the question and answer period: The environment for transit patrons is important for both the I 35W level of the station and the Lake Street level. Couldn t we have a new custom designed BRT bus that has doors that open on the opposite side to avoid the need for the bus crossover? Response: Some other regions (for example, Cleveland) use buses with doors on both sides of the bus but this significantly reduces seating capacity on the bus. There are multiple transit operators in our region and the stations need to be able to accommodate a variety of buses. Therefore, Metro Transit does not plan to use a bus with doors on both sides. Connectivity to the Greenway is important. There was a recent Midtown Greenway Coalition design workshop for station location and design for the Midtown Greenway streetcar service. This workshop reached no conclusions, but considered four potential station options in the I 35W Lake Street area: (1) 4 th /5 th Avenue, (2) I 35W, (3) Nicollet Avenue, or (4) a location between Nicollet and I 35W. Peter Cavaluzzi, architectural consultant with EEK Perkins Eastman, gave a presentation on Transit Station Site Conditions and Environment Precedents including: Lake Street design influences 4

5 Precedents for addressing issues of safety and convenience Issues of a multi level station Promenades and connections of a multi level station Precedents local and elsewhere Mr. Cavaluzzi summarized by indicating that the: Station program should focus on passenger comfort and convenience. Station layout has a big impact on operations, cost and physical conditions. Station environment should extend beyond the platform to enhance the district. Following Mr. Cavaluzzi s presentation, the following points were made in the question and answer period: Pedestrian environment changes with the seasons. We need to think about snow and ice removal. Response: Snow removal is a big issue and we need to plan for it. We could think about a Special Service District to do snow removal as part of a larger maintenance program for the public realm around the station. Special Service Districts in the Lake Street corridor are not currently budgeting for snow removal and it is not likely that service districts in the corridor will accept snow removal as their responsibility. 6. Upcoming PAC Meetings Charleen Zimmer Ms. Zimmer explained a handout summarizing planned topics to be discussed at upcoming PAC Meetings. She stated that this handout was a draft/work in progress, and that updates will be distributed periodically. She noted that by August the PAC should reach a consensus on transit station location. By fall, she stated that the PAC could begin examining the other four project elements. Several questions arose about next steps: What about the potential for a discussion about the viability and/or desirability of this project. Response: Doing nothing is not a realistic choice. The condition of this section of I 35W needs addressing. The transit station is necessary, but the funding is not yet available. Our job is to find a way to fit all the components together and organize them into fundable pieces. Our objective is long term implementation of all the components. A future conversation for the policymakers is how to implement? and how to fund. This is when not If. We 5

6 need a thoughtful design from the PAC and consultant team. It is always good to know where you want to go when potential funding becomes available. Economic development doesn t always follow access improvements. Response: There are good examples of successful transit oriented development that include all the components, not just new or improved transit service. The consultant can provide these examples, including information on other changes needed in the transit station area to enhance the potential for positive economic impacts. Could we get a cost breakdown of the various components? Response: We can provide access to the previously completed estimates. We will arrange access to a Quick Place website, to be explained at the June PAC meeting. Jenifer Loritz Hager offered to do a verbal explanation of the previous cost estimates for those who are interested (perhaps prior to or immediately following the June PAC meeting). 7. Audience questions/comments; Adjournment Chair Vecoli asked if there were any other questions or comments. There being none, she thanked everyone for their participation. She advised them that the next meeting would be held on Thursday, June 23 at the Colin Powell Center. Dan Cornejo, consultant 6

7 Attachment 1 Project Advisory Committee SIGN-IN SHEET: May 26, 2011 Initials Name Organization Address Adam Juul Abbott Northwestern Hospital Adam.juul@allina.com Crystal Trutnau Phillips West Neighborhood Organization pwno2005@yahoo.com Dan Lawler K Mart sm3405@searshc.com David Bagley Whittier Alliance davidajbagley@gmail.com David Piehl Central Area Neighborhood Development Organization David.piehl@unilever.com Davidpiehl2002@yahoo.com Andrea Jenkins Council Member Glidden appointee Andrea.jenkins@ci.minneapolis.mn.us Eric Smith Children s Hospitals & Clinics eric.smith@childrensmn.org Faith Cable Midtown Community Works & Phillips Partnership cable@smithpartners.com Fred Retzloff Lyndale Neighborhood Association Fred.retzloff@gmail.com Janet L. Olson Wells Fargo janet.lee.olson@wellsfargo.com John DeWitt Midtown Greenway Coalition jdewitt@comcast.net Joyce Wisdom Lake Street Council jwisdom@lakestreetcouncil.org Kim Radel Allina Hospitals and Clinics kimberly.radel@allina.com Leslie Foreman City Council Member Tuthill representative Mark Hinds Commissioner Dorfman appointee mark@lyndale.org Leslie.foreman@ci.minneapolis.mn.us Paula Gilbertson Commissioner McLaughlin appointee Paula.gilbertson@ncga.coop gilbertsonp@gmail.com 7

8 Peter Wagenius Mayor Rybak appointee Rob Davis Minneapolis College of Art & Design Joel Wenzel City Council Member Lilligren appointee Sarah Linnes Robinson Kingfield Neighborhood Association Scott Belcher Bryant Neighborhood Organization Steven Gallagher Stevens Square Community Organization Tom Roberts Nicollet Lake Business Association Will Delaney Ventura Village Neighborhood community.org Lisa Vecoli Chair INTERESTED PARTIES Keith Meyer NICO Products 8

9 Project Advisory Committee Staff and TAC Members SIGN-IN SHEET: May 26, 2011 Initials Name Organization Address Bob Kost S.E.H. Brian Lokkesmoe S.E.H. Charleen Zimmer Zan Associates Dan Cornejo Cornejo Consulting Doug Abere CH2MHILL Greg Finstad S.E.H. Danyell Pierquet S.E.H. James Grube Hennepin County Jenifer Loritz Hager Minneapolis Public Works Jim Hall S.E.H. John Griffith Mn/DOT Jonathan Cohn EEK Architects Mark Dierling S.E.H. Mark Filipi Metropolitan Council Mike Kotila S.E.H. Peter Cavaluzzi EEK Architects Scott Hutchkin S.E.H. Scott Pedersen Mn/DOT Steve Hoium Minneapolis Public Works Tim Anderson FHWA 9

10 Tom Johnson Thomas L. Johnson, Consulting Tom Thorstenson Metro Transit Joe Edwards Metro Transit Pat Jones Metro Transit Kerri Pearce Ruch HC Commissioner Dorfman Jill Hentges Metro Transit Scott McBride Mn/DOT appointee Charles Carlson Metro Transit 10