hennepin county transportation … hc-tsp hennepin county transportation systems plan june 2011...

$: HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION … HC-TSP HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN June 2011 Marked set by pw3605 October 2011\rAdopted by Hennepin County - June 2011\rApproved$
2030HC-TSP

HENNEPIN COUNTYTRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN

June 2011

pw3605

Sticky Note

Marked set by pw3605

pw3605

Typewritten Text

pw3605

Text Box

October 2011 Adopted by Hennepin County - June 2011 Approved by the Metropolitan Council - September 2011 Final Adoption by Hennepin County - November 2011

HC – TSP i Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Transportation Vision for Hennepin County ...................1-1

1.1 The Case for Change.....................................................................................1-1

1.2 Transportation Vision and Goals ..................................................................1-7

Chapter 2 Background .........................................................................2-1

2.1 What Is the 2030 TSP? .................................................................................2-1

2.2 Update of Previous Planning Work ..............................................................2-2

2.3 Plan Development Process............................................................................2-6

2.4 Public Involvement and Review Process ......................................................2-6

Chapter 3 Future Trends / Development Pattern ...............................3-1

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Future Trends Affecting Trip Making ..........................................................3-1

3.3 Elements Having Impacts Difficult to Quantify Today ................................3-8

3.4 Land Use Development Patterns.................................................................3-11

Chapter 4 Multimodal Planning ...........................................................4-1

4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Transit .......................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Pedestrians ..................................................................................................4-27

4.4 Bicycles .....................................................................................................4-33

4.5 Freight .....................................................................................................4-38

4.6 Airports .....................................................................................................4-41

Chapter 5 Traffic Forecast Methodology............................................5-1

5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Need for County-Level Traffic Forecasting .................................................5-1

5.3 2030 HC-TSP Model Methodology..............................................................5-3

5.4 Model Calibration .........................................................................................5-6

5.5 Future Traffic Forecasts................................................................................5-7

Chapter 6 Functional Classification....................................................6-1

6.1 Importance of Functional Classification.......................................................6-1

6.2 What is Functional Classification? ...............................................................6-1

6.3 Concept of Functional Classification............................................................6-3

6.4 Uses of Functional Classification .................................................................6-7

HC – TSP ii Table of Contents

6.5 The A-Minor Arterial System ....................................................................... 6-8

6.6 Future Functional Classification System Considerations ........................... 6-12

Chapter 7 Access Management ......................................................... 7-1

7.1 Background ................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Principles of Access Management ................................................................ 7-2

Chapter 8 Road Jurisdiction .............................................................. 8-1

8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 What Does Roadway Jurisdiction Signify? .................................................. 8-1

8.3 County Roadway System Criteria ................................................................. 8-2

8.4 Types of County Funding Designations ....................................................... 8-3

8.5 Why Are Jurisdictional Changes Necessary? ............................................... 8-4

8.6 Candidates for Roadway Jurisdictional Transfers ........................................ 8-7

Chapter 9 Plan Implementation ......................................................... 9-1

9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 9-1

9.2 Goals, Strategies, and Performance Measures .............................................. 9-4

Chapter 10 Implementation Policies ............................................... 10-1

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 10-1

Policy 1. Cool County Initiative ....................................................................... 10-3

Policy 2. Active Living ..................................................................................... 10-4

Policy 3. Environmental Protection .................................................................. 10-5

Policy 4. Agency Collaboration ........................................................................ 10-5

Policy 5. Roadway System Administration ...................................................... 10-6

Policy 6. Long-Range Transportation Planning ................................................ 10-7

Policy 7. Funding Sources ................................................................................ 10-7

Policy 8. Multimodal Improvements ................................................................ 10-8

Policy 9. Capital Improvement Program ........................................................ 10-10

Policy 10. Preservation of Roadway System .................................................. 10-11

Policy 11. Complete Streets ............................................................................ 10-11

Policy 12. Spot Safety Improvements ............................................................. 10-14

Policy 13. Bridge Maintenance and Replacement .......................................... 10-14

Policy 14. Traffic Control Installations .......................................................... 10-14

Glossary of Terms .............................................................................. G-1 Support Documents Report Map Pocket

HC – TSP iii Table of Contents

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1 Transportation Vision ....................................................................1-8

Exhibit 1-2 Transit Influence Area .................................................................1-17

Exhibit 3-1 Hennepin County Projected Population Growth Patterns ............3-2

Exhibit 3-2 Statewide Annual VMT Growth Trends........................................3-4

Exhibit 3-3 Trends in Daily Person Trips and Vehicle Trips ...........................3-5

Exhibit 3-4 Example of Parcel Map Land Use Classifications.......................3-14

Exhibit 4-1 CTIB Transitway Vision for the Metro Area ................................4-3

Exhibit 4-2 Metropolitan Council 2030 Transitway System ............................4-4

Exhibit 4-3 Hiawatha LRT ...............................................................................4-6

Exhibit 4-4 Northstar Commuter Rail ..............................................................4-7

Exhibit 4-5 Existing Transit Advantages........................................................4-12

Exhibit 4-6 2030 Park and Rides ....................................................................4-13

Exhibit 4-7 Central Corridor LRT ..................................................................4-17

Exhibit 4-8 Southwest LRT............................................................................4-19

Exhibit 4-9 Bottineau Transitway...................................................................4-20

Exhibit 4-10 Red Rock Commuter Rail............................................................4-22

Exhibit 4-11 Northern Lights Express ..............................................................4-24

Exhibit 4-12 Annual Hennepin County Regional Trail Usage .........................4-28

Exhibit 4-13 County Bicycle Facilities - Miles Constructed ............................4-35

Exhibit 4-14 Hennepin County Bicycle System Plan.......................................4-36

Exhibit 4-15 Trail Cross Section ......................................................................4-37

Exhibit 4-16 10-Ton Truck Routes...................................................................4-39

Exhibit 5-1 TAZ Comparisons of Trip Generation Change 1995-2005 ...........5-5

Exhibit 5-2 Status of the HC-TSP Model Calibration ......................................5-7

Exhibit 6-1 Idealized Classification Schemes ..................................................6-6

Exhibit 6-2 Relationship of Functional Classification to Jurisdiction, Design Type and Funding .........................................6-8

Exhibit 7-1 Hennepin County Crash Rates as Function of Access Spacing...........................................................7-4

Exhibit 7-2 Types of Vehicle Conflicts ............................................................7-5

Exhibit 7-3 Access Management Needs to be Considered as Part of Land Subdivision...........................................................7-7

HC – TSP iv Table of Contents

Exhibit 9-2 Present Serviceability Rating Percent of Lane Miles Rated “Good” or better (PSR>3.0) ............................. 9-6

Exhibit 9-3 Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings Less Than 50 ............................ 9-7 Exhibit 9-4 Hennepin County Crashes and Crash Rate .................................. 9-10 Exhibit 9-5 Comparison Crash Rates ............................................................. 9-10 Exhibit 9-6 Bicycle Crash History 1970-2008 ............................................... 9-11 Exhibit 9-7 Pedestrian/Vehicle Crashes ......................................................... 9-12 Exhibit 9-8 Annual Ridership Goal: 2003 through 2010 ................................ 9-16 Exhibit 9-9 County Bicycle Facilities Miles Constructed .............................. 9-17 Exhibit 9-10 Examples of TDM Measure Effectiveness .................................. 9-24 Exhibit 9-11 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for Hennepin County ................ 9-25

HC – TSP v Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Hennepin County Transportation Goals and Metrics ....................1-9

Table 3-1 Metropolitan Council System Statement Forecasts .......................3-3

Table 3-2 Hennepin County Parcel Database ..............................................3-13

Table 4-1 Comparison of Mississippi River Ports Shipping Tonnage.........4-41

Table 5-1 Hennepin County Forecasted Growth in Vehicle Trips.................5-8

Table 5-2 2008 Roadway Network (Itemized Improvements).....................5-10

Table 5-3 Base 2030 Roadway Network (Itemized Improvements)............5-11

Table 5-4 Optional 2030 Roadway Network ...............................................5-12

Table 6-1 Levels of Functional Classification ...............................................6-3

Table 7-1 Relationship between Functional Classification, Mobility and Land Access .............................................................7-5

Table 7-2 Access Types .................................................................................7-9

Table 8-1 History of Trunk Highway Turnbacks in Hennepin County .........8-6

Table 9-1 Hennepin County Transportation Goals and Metrics ....................9-3

Table 10-1 Relationship Between Hennepin County Transportation Goals and Implementation Policies .............................................10-2

CHAPTER 1 TRANSPORTATION VISION FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY

Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan (HC-TSP)

The Case for Change

Transportation Vision and Goals

HC – TSP 1-1 Chapter 1 – Transportation Vision

Chapter 1 Transportation Vision for Hennepin County

Hennepin County’s vision is for a future where residents are healthy and successful, living in communities that are safe and vibrant. Maintaining strong economic competitiveness and sustaining a high quality of life are critical to achieving this broad vision. A strong multimodal transportation system supported by complementary land development is central to achieving this vision and is pivotal to promoting economic strength, quality of life, and community vitality.1

1.1 The Case for Change

In addition, this vision requires strong partnerships and cooperation between agencies as well as the private sector with a continued focus on mobility and access to housing and jobs.

Hennepin County, the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the State of Minnesota, and the nation are experiencing enormous changes that will have a significant impact on the direction of transportation and related investments in the future. The Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan (HC-TSP) is being updated to address these emerging trends and to meet the reporting requirements of the Metropolitan Council as part of the county’s comprehensive planning process.

1 MSP Regional Business Plan (April 2011) supports transportation investments that increase

spatial efficiencies; support focus on multimodal systems that connect housing and employment centers and reduces risks associated with auto-centric system.


1.1.1 Demographic Changes In 2010, Hennepin County had a population of more than one million people, which is an increase of more than eight percent since 20002. Approximately 40 percent of the region’s existing population lives in Hennepin County.3

• The baby boomer generation (about a quarter of the national population) is aging. These individuals are either aging in place or moving to areas that are walkable with more compact development and amenities. They are staying near families rather than moving to the Sun Belt as has happened with previous generations.

Hennepin County is expected to continue to grow although at a slower rate than in the past. There are several important demographic changes occurring that will impact the face of transportation in the county and the region, which include:

4

• Generation Y (about a quarter of the national population) is more often choosing to live in urban areas and is looking for locations that are walkable, economically use space, and have a high level of amenities.

5

• Immigrant populations are increasing. While historically immigrant populations have been concentrated in urban areas near robust transit service, many have moved into the first and second ring suburbs as housing prices have declined.

2 Minnesota Department of Administration, Minnesota Population Change by County 1990-2010. 3 Metropolitan Council 4 Nelson, Arthur, “Catching the Next Wave: Older Adults and the ‘New Urbanism,” The Journal of

American Society on Aging, 2010. 5 Tomasulo, Kathy, “Boomers, Gen Y, Immigrants to Shape Housing Demographics, EcoHome,

2009.


1.1.2 Economic Changes In 2009, there were approximately 1.8 million employees in the seven-county Twin Cities region with approximately half of these located in Hennepin County.6

Minnesota is home to 21 Fortune 500 companies, with the majority of these in Hennepin County. To sustain and build on past success, the county and the region will need to retain and attract new talent and capital to grow these and other businesses that compete nationally and internationally. Providing the infrastructure and environment that can support this growth and attract a highly skilled, knowledge-based work force is essential to sustaining the economic strength of the county and the region.

The recent recession has significantly impacted the local economy. Job growth has slowed considerably as has construction of new housing and commercial development. These economic conditions along with higher fuel prices and the peaking of women’s participation in the work force7 have resulted in a slight decline in the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the county and an increase in transit ridership. In addition, increases in fuel prices, transportation costs, and housing costs have resulted in most Americans spending more than 50 percent of their household expenses on housing and transportation costs8

6 Metropolitan Council

. This is a significant economic burden on many families.

7 Female participation in the work force increased dramatically in 70s, 80s and 90s, putting more drivers on the road, thus increasing VMT. The percentage of women participating in the work force has peaked.

8 Lipton, Barbara, “A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens of Working Families”, Center for Housing Policy, 2006.


Implicit in these challenges is the need to marshal multiagency resources along with private sector funds to shape development and transportation improvements (place-making) with a focus on attracting the future workers and leaders of tomorrow. The recently completed Minneapolis — St. Paul Regional Business Plan states that one of the vulnerabilities of the region is its lower density and dispersed development pattern. In a high energy cost environment, this development pattern could leave the region less economically competitive as compared to other regions offering more multimodal transportation choices. These factors, along with the above described desires of the future work force, need to be reflected in future transportation policies, infrastructure investments, and land development priorities.

1.1.3 Land Development Patterns Hennepin County is an attractive place to live and work with diverse land use patterns and close proximity to jobs in the region; however, the metropolitan area, including Hennepin County, is frequently observed as having a dispersed land use pattern with limited mode choice. The resulting challenge is to provide residents with more choices as to where to live and work, to provide incentives for increasing land density and land use mix near transportation investments, and to provide multiple transportation choices. In this higher energy cost environment, dispersed land use patterns are less attractive to users and are less sustainable due to the high costs of expanding and maintaining infrastructure.

Responses, such as the Sustainable Communities Initiative and the Corridors of Opportunity/Southwest Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Community Works Project, point to the collaboration of transportation and land use initiatives that can help realize change. Strengthening transportation initiatives to connect the clusters of employment centers would further temper the challenges of mobility related to economic development, accessible jobs. and convenient housing.

1.1.4 Technology Changes Information and communication technology continues to change how business is conducted and how people shop and interact with others. While research is still limited on how these changes will affect travel behavior over the long run, some trends appear to be slowly emerging9

• Telecommuting and work at home continues to grow and gain acceptance.

:

• Businesses with telework programs have reported increased worker productivity and employee retention.

9 Banister, David and Stead, Dominic, “Impact of Information and Communications Technology on

Transport,” University College London, UK, 2004; Mn/DOT and Humphrey Institute, “Interim Report – eWorkPlace,” January 2011.


• Companies have gained efficiencies and reduced overhead costs by reducing physical space needs and travel costs (video-conferencing).

• Social networking has in many cases reduced face-to-face meetings.

Research suggests that the increased use of information and communication technology has a correlation to decreased travel during peak periods and increased non-peak period and leisure travel.

1.1.5 Transportation Changes Some key trends and transportation changes are listed below:

• Aging infrastructure particularly in developed areas of the county

• Increasing construction and maintenance costs

• Uncertain revenue sources to maintain and improve transportation infrastructure

• Increased policy emphasis on health and active living

• Reduction in vehicle miles traveled per household

• Significant increases in walking, biking. and transit in recent years

• Increasing transportation costs for users, particularly related to increased gasoline costs


• Increased public interest and investment in transit facilities and associated transit-oriented development (TOD)

• Changes in federal policy as demonstrated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Partnership for Sustainable Communities

When combined, these changes suggest that different transportation policies and priorities will be needed to address future transportation demands and travel patterns. The purpose of the HC-TSP is to set the stage for future transportation investments that will respond to these changes, keep the county competitive in attracting businesses and future work force, and sustain a high quality of life for county residents into the future.

1.1.6 Importance of Partnerships The transportation system is a complex and interwoven system that gets people to and from work and other activities as well as transports raw materials and goods to markets. To be effective, transportation facilities/services are needed to efficiently connect origins and destinations for many different users and purposes. Many agencies are involved in the planning, design, funding, implementation, and regulation of transportation facilities. This complexity of jurisdictional authorities requires good coordination and strong partnerships amongst governmental agencies and the private sector to achieve the county’s transportation goals.


1.2 Transportation Vision and Goals The county’s transportation vision is to sustain and enhance the economic competitiveness of Hennepin County and the quality of life of its residents by enhancing transportation mobility, improving transportation safety, and increasing transportation choice (Exhibit 1-1). These efforts will focus on marshalling multiagency resources along with private sector funds to shape development and transportation improvements (place-making) to enhance competitiveness and sustainability within the county. These factors will be important to attracting both major corporations and future work force to Hennepin County and the Twin Cities metropolitan area.

The county’s transportation goals and associated metrics are shown in Table 1-1. These metrics are intended to guide investment and policy decisions, as well as to inform stakeholders of the county’s progress toward accomplishing the goals within a reasonable dedication of available resources. In addition, many of the metrics are relatively new with limited baseline data; these metrics will likely need to be refined over time to ensure that they are reflective of system performance, user expectations, and available resources. Finally, the county is one of a number of agencies in the larger transportation system; it has some but not total control over a number of outcomes. The goals, strategies, and metrics are outlined in the remaining portion of this chapter.

The Hennepin County transportation vision focuses on providing a more

diverse and integrated multimodal transportation system. At its founda-

tion is a strong transitway, bike/pedestrian, and roadway network that

serves the diverse needs throughout the county. These elements are

highlighted with specifi c examples.

CSAH 19, LorettoPreserve and modernize roadways by rehabilitating/replacing pavements and bridges as well as integrating other modes.

CSAH 30 Maple GroveProvide mobility, safety and choice for growing areas of the county.

Northstar Commuter RailPromote planning and implementation of connected and integrated transitway system

5th Street LRTPromote planning and implementation of connected and integrated transitway system

Airport SouthWork with stakeholders to increase density of development in transitway corridors

Midtown GreenwayDevelop key multimodal corridors and close system gaps to provide a more connected multimodal system.

Mound Park n’ RideEncourage higher density development in and around free-standing transit nodes.

Exhibit 1-1 Transportation Vision


Table 1-1 Hennepin County Transportation Goals and Metrics*

Goal Evaluation Item Measure Target by 2030

1. Preserve and modernize the existing transportation system

Pavement Pavement Serviceability (PSR) Two-thirds of pavements with serviceability rating (PSR) > 3.0 ; No more than 5 percent of pavements with (PSR) <2.5

Signals % within Life Cycle All signalized intersections within 25 year life cycle

Bridges Bridges Programmed All structurally deficient bridges programmed for replacement or rehabilitation; no more than 8 % structurally deficient at any one time

2. Improve safety for all transportation users

Vehicles County Average Crash Rate 50 % reduction in year 2000 rate (0.5 X 4.82) = (2.41 crashes per million vehicle miles [mvm]) by 2030

Vehicles Segment Crash Rate 50 % reduction in year 2000 rate (0.5 X 2.01) = (1.01 crashes per mvm) by 2030

Vehicles Intersection Crash Rate 50 % reduction in year 2000 rate (0.5 X 0.81) = (0.41 crashes per million vehicles [mv] entering) by 2030

Bicycles Bicycle Crash History** 50 % reduction in year 2000 crashes (0.5 X 191) = 81 crashes by 2030; consider conversion to crash rate by 2013

Pedestrians Pedestrian Crash History 50 % reduction in year 2000 crashes (0.5 X 184) = 92 crashes by 2030

3. Provide mobility and choice to meet the diversity of transportation needs as well as to support health objectives throughout the county

Transit Regional Transit Ridership Double 2003 regional transit ridership by 2020 (2 x 73.3) = 146.6 million riders

Bicycles Bicycle usage** Double bicycle usage by 2030: TBD

Bicycles Miles Bikeways Facilities Built Completion of bicycle system by 2030

Bicycles Barriers and Gaps Removed Average of five gaps closed per year with all gaps closed by 2030

Pedestrians % of urban roadways with walks % of urban roadways with walks; provide sidewalks on all urban roadways by 2030

Roadways Volume to capacity ratio All county roadway segments have V/C ratios <1.0 unless adverse societal impacts will result

Roadways Intersection Level of Service (LOS) All intersections on county projects designed to provide LOS "D" or better unless adverse societal impacts will result

System Accessibility** X % of residential units within 25 minutes of major employment center by roadway; X % of residential units within 25 minutes of major employment center by transit

4. Increase spatial efficiency of system

Land Use Proximity of growth near major transit facilities**

60 percent of new residents and new jobs (growth) within ½ mile of a major transit corridor and/or free standing transit hubs

Land Use Housing and Transportation Affordability Index** To be determined

5. Reduce the county’s environmental footprint

Vehicles Vehicle miles traveled per capita Reduce VMT per capita to year 2000 levels

Air Quality** Hennepin County to maintain its attainment status. Specific elements for tracking air quality are to be determined.

*These metrics will help guide investment and policy decision and inform stakeholders within a reasonable dedication of available resources.

**Additional effort is needed to specifically define the evaluation measures and identified targets.


Goal 1. Preserve and modernize the existing transportation system While a certain share of the county’s transportation budget is set aside each year for maintenance, much of the county’s infrastructure is aging. This is particularly challenging in the older, more developed parts of the county. Many county roadways, particularly in the urban core and first ring suburbs, are in need of rehabilitation or reconstruction. Many of these roads are old, were not initially designed to support the land use forms desired today, are not pedestrian or bicycle friendly, and are in need of both infrastructure and land use revitalization. Deferred maintenance has undesirable consequences from a financial as well as a user perspective, and effective planning is needed to ensure that quality infrastructure is sustained over time.

Strategies that will be pursued to preserve and modernize the existing system include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Increase preservation/modernization activities to raise quality of pavements with special emphasis inside the I-494/I-694 ring where a higher percentage of poor pavements exist.

• Integrate where feasible and practical, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations as part of rehabilitation/modernization improvement projects. 10

• As part of reconstruction efforts, identify and implement areas where bicycle and pedestrian accommodations can be effectively integrated into the design.

10 These projects are typically quick hitting projects with short planning and design timeframes; as

such, limited staff time is available to study and analyze complex issues involving striping, signing, parking, maintenance, intersection operations issues. These projects also have limited to no public involvement. The county will make its best efforts to coordinate and implement these elements where they are feasible with existing resources.


• Identify traffic signal needs that are beyond life-cycle and develop a program for replacement/upgrades.

• Based on annual bridge inspection programs, identify structurally deficient bridges and timing for rehabilitation/replacement.

• Consider implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to efficiently manage the system and improve safety as well as communicate traveler information to users.11

Goal 2. Improve safety for all transportation users

Providing a safe transportation system for all users is always a high priority for the county. This needs to be accomplished through a combination of engineering, education and enforcement and needs to be targeted towards all users including drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Strategies that will be pursued to achieve this goal include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Annually review crash rate information for roadway segments and intersections to determine spot locations and/or segments that are problematic. Identify lower cost/high benefit solutions that could be pursued to address issues and/or incorporate potential solutions into ongoing program and/or maintenance activities.

• Annually review pedestrian and bicycle crash information to determine conditions that are problematic. Work with local agencies, bicycle community, and private partners to implement solutions.

11 Hennepin County completed an ITS Strategic Plan in June 2007. This plan laid out strategies and

priorities for their implementation. As recommended in the report, some pilot deployments of warning signage, and purchase of improved automated traffic counting technologies have already been put into action.


• Proactively work with local and regional partners as well as the private sector to incorporate safety into all transportation designs that impact county facilities.

• Work with other partner agencies to establish a community education program that better educates pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists on how to share the road safely.

• Continue Spot Safety Evaluation in coordination with operations and maintenance actions.

Goal 3. Provide mobility and choice to meet the diversity of transportation needs as well as to support health objectives throughout the county Hennepin County is a very large and diverse county that encompasses the high density downtown core of Minneapolis, the older first ring suburbs, the lower density but developed second ring suburbs, newly developing third ring suburbs and rural areas. Transportation needs in the county are common — people need transportation to access jobs, schools, shopping, and recreation. However, transportation choices vary dramatically throughout the county due to this diversity of development and land form. Hennepin County recognizes that this diversity of development provides a variety of choices for residents and businesses, and this requires a diversity of transportation strategies and investments.

While the county’s transportation vision includes a more diverse multimodal transportation system, it recognizes that it is not feasible or responsible to provide for the same level of mobility and choice throughout the county. The county will develop and provide transportation systems including roadways, transit, and multi-use bikeways and walkways that link metropolitan systems and local systems. These transportation systems will be provided and maintained to enhance resident mobility, to support economic vitality, and to allow for flexibility in individual travel mode choices.


The county’s highway and bicycle trail network will be developed to provide mobility and opportunities for Active Living with reasonable coverage over the entire county as well as providing pedestrian accommodations on all urban12

Hennepin County and the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) will continue to play a leadership role in the planning and implementation of transit facilities in the county and, through the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB), in the region. Major transit investments will be focused on key transit corridors (consistent with the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan). In addition, the county may facilitate and help plan other related transit facilities that extend transit connections to freestanding growth centers that help feed major transit corridors. However, the construction and operation of transit facilities and transit services is primarily the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit. Many of the regional transitway corridors are located in Hennepin County, including the existing Hiawatha LRT and the Central Corridor LRT currently under construction. Hennepin County is committed to ensuring that these transitways are successful, and this requires the close coordination of roadway investments, land use investments, transit investments, and investments in bicycle and pedestrian facilities. A coordinated approach to optimizing these investments will be necessary to achieve the increased ridership needed for success.

roadways as stated in the Complete Streets policy. Hennepin County has adopted both Active Living and Complete Streets policies intended to encourage residents to become healthier through a more active lifestyle that encompasses greater walking and biking. There has been a significant increase in both walking and biking in recent years, and this trend is expected to continue, particularly with the support of public policy and public infrastructure investment. The provision of sidewalks, bikeways, and trails is critical to the successful realization of these policies.

12 An urban roadway is one with raised curbs, closed drainage system, sidewalks or the ability to

incorporate sidewalks, and is in an area with higher land densities and pedestrian activities.


Strategies that will be pursued to achieve this goal include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Transit strategies

Move environmental processes forward on major transit corridors, including Southwest LRT, Bottineau Transitway, and Downtown Minneapolis Transportation Interchange.

Develop long-term funding strategy for major transit corridors.

Work with local communities on station planning, park and rides and land use.

Work with Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and other partners to coordinate improvements on connecting facilities.

Consider development of a Hennepin County Transit Strategy document.

• Bicycle strategies

Review and revise the bicycle system plan including a complete walkway system map.

Integrate bicycle facilities into roadway projects in accordance with the county bikeway plan and Complete Streets policies.

Incrementally address bikeway gaps.

Integrate bicycle parking and other amenities into transit stations.

Ensure that bicycle connections are made along other key routes to feed transit stations.

Develop a comprehensive, county-wide strategy for improving bicycle access to schools.

Partner with cities and agencies to make off-road trails available to bicyclists 365 days a year.

• Pedestrian strategies

Develop a pedestrian system plan that integrates city plans and a complete walkway system map.

Ensure that pedestrian accommodations are integrated into urban roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation projects.

Ensure that pedestrian connections are integrated into transit stations and bus stops and along key routes that feed transit stations.

Incorporate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan strategies in roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation projects.


Develop a comprehensive, county-wide strategy for improving pedestrian access to schools.

• Roadway mobility strategies

Integrate transit advantages and transit priority into traffic operations where appropriate.

Work with local agencies and private sector to identify roadway and bridge improvements needed to accommodate growth/development.

Work with local agencies and Mn/DOT to coordinate improvements on connecting facilities.

Identify chronic congestion and safety problems and identify, develop, and implement mitigation strategies to address these issues. Work with local partners and other stakeholders to obtain right of way to accommodate future transportation improvements13

.

Goal 4. Increase spatial efficiency of system While the county does not have land use authority, it is committed to working with its local partners and the private sector to leverage transportation investments to enhance livability, economic vitality, and the success of transit investments. Previous projects, such as the Hiawatha LRT, the Lowry Avenue project, the Silver Lake Road project and others, have demonstrated that the strategic use of transportation investments (whether roadway, transit, bicycle/pedestrian, and/or streetscaping improvements) can be effectively used to influence local land use development patterns and development densities, and these strategic investments can support and encourage urban revitalization where

13 Right-of-way and easements are being acquired as development and redevelopment occurs. When a

preliminary plat or site plan is received for review, recommendations are made to the individual cities to reserve space if the development is adjacent to a county roadway identified on the Bicycle System Plan map. The amount of right-of-way and/or easement is determined in consultation with city staff using the typical roadway sections.


it is needed. An example of the geographic area where land use and density can be most easily influenced near transitway corridors is shown in Exhibit 1-2.

Spatial efficiency is the organization of buildings, infrastructure, and green space in a transportation corridor. Strategies that will be pursued to increase the spatial efficiency of the system include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Identify opportunities such as the Corridors of Opportunity program that is collaboratively sponsored by Living Cities and HUD’s Sustainable Communities Program. The work includes planning and engaging citizens to create distinctive places; strengthen local assets; increase transit ridership; and expand access to jobs, affordable housing, and essential services for residents of all incomes and backgrounds.

• Fully employ and maximize the results of TOD, affordable housing, and brownfield redevelopment through incentive-based funding programs, TOD, Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF), and the Environmental Response Fund (ERF), respectively.

• Collaborate with partners to leverage public and private investments to achieve housing, transportation, economic development, and environmental goals.

Exhibit 1-2 Transit Infl uence Area

(283,042)

(129,994)

(224,199)

The data used to develop this fi gure is based on population and household data from the 2010 U.S. Census and Metropolitan Council employment estimates. The 2030 land use forecasts are from the Metropolitan Coun-cil Travel Demand Model as of October 2010.


Goal 5. Reduce the county’s environmental footprint This goal is consistent with the county’s Cool County initiative and reflects the objectives of reducing energy consumption, protecting the environment, and supporting a sustainable lifestyle. It is also important for the county to support regional initiatives to ensure that the region remains in compliance with air quality standards.

eWorkPlace is a program that promotes increased telework.

Strategies that will be pursued to reduce the county’s environmental footprint include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Encourage Travel Demand Management (TDM) for employees including support for telework, biking, walking, and transit (subsidies for transit passes), and linking employees with carpooling and vanpooling14

• Encourage TOD, support for expansion of transit services that feed major transit corridors, and/or where it can be demonstrated that investments will provide significant transit benefits.

.

• Work with local partners and other stakeholders to encourage land use patterns that promote alternative modes of travel (reduce reliance on vehicles).

• Incorporate within highway and bridge designs an overall footprint that minimizes hard surfaces while meeting necessary safety and mobility requirements.

14 TDM measures are the most effective means of achieving reductions in commuter trips because

the strategies accommodate a greater diversity in the factors that influence a commuter’s choice of travel mode. Hennepin County participates in TDM efforts as a regional transportation partner, and also as a major employer. The county is a member of the Minneapolis Travel Management Organization (TMO) which developed a TDM program in 1996 as part of an effort to reduce peak hour travel in the Minneapolis downtown. As an employer, Hennepin County has implemented TDM measures such as flexible work hours, telecommuting, a subsidized transit pass program, an internal employee carpool matching service, and support for annual programs promoting bicycling and transit use.

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND


What Is the 2030 TSP?

Update of Previous Planning Work

Plan Development Process

Public Involvement and Review Process

HC – TSP 2-1 Chapter 2 – Background

Chapter 2 Background

2.1 What Is the 2030 TSP? The Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan (HC-TSP) represents an on-going planning effort that:

• Articulates a transportation vision.

• Updates previous planning work.

• Provides guidance for future transportation decisions.

The use of the word "systems" is plural as there are many transportation systems that involve Hennepin County, including roadways, light rail transit (LRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), fixed route bus service, commuter rail lines, park-and-ride stations, bicycle facilities, and sidewalks. In addition, there are other transportation systems that are not directly under county responsibility, but are part of the transportation network, including rail freight, river barge traffic, and aviation services. To work at their best, these systems must interact and interconnect well with each other.

Because of the county’s expanding role in all modes of travel, this plan expands previous efforts, particularly in helping to develop pedestrian, bicycle, and transit planning.

Hennepin County of the 21st century will need a multimodal approach to transportation planning to provide residents, workers, and visitors with the ability to travel in a reliable and affordable manner and to efficiently reach desired destinations.


2.2. Update of Previous Planning Work This version of the plan is an update of the HC-TSP last prepared in 2000. This planning effort is descended from a long line of transportation planning efforts that extend back to the original 1959 Highway Plan, which served the county during the early 1960s, and later updates in 1964, 1966, 1976, and 2000.

2.2.1 Why Update the Plan? In 1967, the Minnesota Legislature established the Metropolitan Council to coordinate planning and development within the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Minnesota State law requires every municipality and county within the seven-county metropolitan area to prepare and submit a comprehensive plan at least once every 10 years to the Metropolitan Council.

Along with fulfilling the Metropolitan Council requirement, there are other reasons to update the HC-TSP. These include the need to:

• Update traffic forecasts.

• Integrate other county plans.

• Incorporate the plans of other agencies.

• Periodically review of policies and practices.


• Plan effectively for use of scarce resources.

• Integrate the approach between land use and transportation.

These reasons are described in more detail in the following sections.

Update Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts are important for roadway project design, spot safety improvements, system planning, environmental analysis, and jurisdictional administration. The forecasts span about 20 years as that is the typical design life of a roadway. The previous forecasts were prepared more than 10 years ago and their relevance has decreased over time.

Forecasts need to incorporate historical trend analysis and small area/project area analysis, such as the Special Project Analysis Reports (SPARs) prepared by Hennepin County. New Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based tools are available today allowing increased flexibility, integration of data, and more dynamic forecasts. There is a need to reassess the assumptions for future transit ridership and probable trends in fuel costs.

Integrate Other County Plans, Guidelines, and Initiatives The county has participated in recent studies and transportation plans in specific areas that need to be incorporated within the overall 2030 HC-TSP, including:

• 1997 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan

• 2002 Bicycle System GAP Study

• 2007 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Strategic Plan

• 2008 Northwest Hennepin County I-94 Subarea Transportation Study (Dayton / Rogers / Hassan Township)


• Active Living Policy and Program

• Complete Streets Policy

• Streetscape Guidelines

• Cost Participation Guidelines

• Access Management Guidelines

• Roadway Typical Sections (planning and plat reviews)

• Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) Restated Transit Investment Framework

Each of these plans addresses a portion of the transportation spectrum and includes issues, policies and design guidelines that need to be considered within the 2030 HC-TSP. These documents can be found in the Support Documents CD included in the map pocket of this report.

Incorporate Plans of Other Agencies Another need to update the HC-TSP relates to recognizing and incorporating recent transportation initiatives from other agencies such as the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), including:

• Regional Development Framework and Regional Growth Strategy, Metropolitan Council, 2006

• Transportation Policy Plan (TPP), Metropolitan Council, 2010

• 2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Plan, Metropolitan Council and Transportation Advisory Board

• Metro District Plan: 2011-2030, Mn/DOT


• Statewide 20-Year Highway Investment Plan: 2009-2028, Mn/DOT

• Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, Mn/DOT, 2010

• Bicycle Modal Plan, Mn/DOT

Periodic Review of Policies and Practices A periodic review of transportation policies and practices has been made whenever a new transportation plan is prepared. Current issues, new emphasis areas, and consistency with regional goals often require modifications and refinements to county policies. Most of the policies have been continued throughout the years and, with some modification, are still being applied in some form today.

Plan Effectively for Use of Scarce Resources Another compelling need for an update to the HC-TSP relates to being able to respond to the pressures of providing more timely answers to construction project staging and phasing. As staffing and capital improvement fund constraints increase, there is a greater need to be able to compare the benefits of short-term improvements against long-term major reconstruction projects.

More Integrated Approach between Land Use and Transportation Hennepin County has worked with the 46 local communities by integrating their comprehensive plans into county transportation planning efforts. Recently, an increased emphasis at the federal, state, and local levels has been placed on even greater integration between land use and transportation.

Certain transportation planning decisions tend to increase sprawl (dispersed, urban-fringe, automobile dependent development), while others support smart growth (more compact, infill, multi-modal development). These development patterns have various economic, social, and environmental impacts.1

Recent federal programs, such as the Partnership for Sustainable Communities through Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are providing grants to help stimulate a new generation of sustainable and livable communities that connect housing, employment, and economic development with transportation and other infrastructure improvements. The Twin Cities region was a recipient of this grant. This grant and other opportunities to more fully integrate land use and transportation need to be reflected in the HC-TSP.

1 Victoria Transport Policy Institute , “Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts” May 9, 2011


2.3 Plan Development Process A study design was prepared in 2005 prior to commencing work on the update of the 2000 HC-TSP. The study design identified the key uses, benefits, significant components, and products of the transportation plan. The study design examined some of the issues that would need to be addressed by the 2030 HC-TSP and what work tasks were necessary to complete the plan.

A byproduct of the study design was recognition that any planning effort needed to incorporate the viewpoints of the Metropolitan Council, Mn/DOT, and the cities within Hennepin County. Special meetings were held early with representatives of these agencies to obtain their input regarding the approaches to assembling elements of the plan.

2.4 Public Involvement and Review Process As part of the metropolitan comprehensive planning process, Minnesota State Statutes require local governmental units to provide municipalities and other related agencies with the opportunity to review the draft plan. Throughout the development of the plan, as in 2000, Hennepin County employed many of the techniques of the Systematic Development of Informed Consent (SDIC). SDIC is a methodology based on a set of citizen participation principles that is used to identify interested groups and keep them informed of a project or planning effort.

To obtain early comments on some of the basic chapters in the plan, a predraft version of the 2030 HC-TSP was distributed in May 2008. The predraft included seven of the 10 chapters. Recipients included 46 cities within Hennepin County, state agencies, Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, Three Rivers Park District, University of Minnesota, City of Saint Paul, and the seven counties in the Twin Cities metropolitan area.

In December 2008 a complete draft version of the plan was distributed to the agencies noted above plus approximately 25 consultants that typically work in the transportation planning field. In early to mid-2009, comments were received regarding the draft 2030 HC-TSP. Slightly more than a dozen cities responded as well as Anoka County, Metropolitan Council, Mn/DOT, Three Rivers Park District, and three consulting firms.

A series of four open house informational meetings was held in September and October 2009 throughout Hennepin County to present the plan. Notification of the information meetings was handled through press releases to various media outlets and notices to the recipients of the draft report. Several cities inserted notices within their city newsletters, and a notice was also posted in the monthly newsletter (NCITE Inciter)of the NorthCentral Chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).


Informational meetings were held in the following locations:

• Medina Public Works Facility Offices – Medina

• Hennepin County Government Center – Minneapolis

• Champlin City Hall

• Minnetonka City Hall

Approximately 80 people attended the informational meetings. Most attendees were city and agency staff members, with some elected officials and a handful of interested residents.

The press releases generated an invitation to be featured in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and an article was published on September 16, 2009.


In keeping with SDIC principles, county staff also directly approached groups interested in transportation planning and made presentations on the 2030 HC-TSP. Presentations were made to the following groups:

• ITE District 4 Annual Conference in Wisconsin Dells, June 17-20, 2009

• Hennepin County Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), September 21, 2009

• I-494 Corridor Commission, October 14, 2009

Some final adjustments were made to the plan in early 2011 to reflect updated regional plans and current county policies.

Since the date of publication of this plan, the county has continued to field comments and questions. Similar to the 2000 HC-TSP, it is the intent to keep this plan a “living document” and to continue to incorporate minor revisions and updates throughout the next few years. Major changes to the plan will be processed through the Board of Commissioners and submitted to the Metropolitan Council as per the requirements for comprehensive plan amendments.

CHAPTER 3

FUTURE TRENDS / DEVELOPMENT PATTERN


Introduction

Future Trends Affecting Trip Making

Elements Having Impacts Difficult to Quantify Today

Land Use Development Patterns

HC – TSP 3-1 Chapter 3 – Future Trends/Development Patterns

Chapter 3 Future Trends / Development Pattern

3.1 Introduction Anticipating how the future will unfold and how travel characteristics will be affected is a challenge. Forecasters and planners tend to extrapolate existing travel and development patterns because significant change is difficult to anticipate. Generally, the short-term five-to-10 year period can be predicted with relative accuracy since change is often smaller and the lead time of most large scale projects require that planning preparations be underway today. Longer-term projections are much more difficult since lifestyle shifts / attitudes, economic patterns, and other actions affecting society are hard to foresee.

This chapter identifies some of the future trends that have been considered, and it describes the underlying assumptions behind the 2030 HC-TSP. One important element of anticipating transportation change is having a strong link to individual city comprehensive plans. This chapter discusses why land use is an important basis for transportation planning and it documents the process of how future land development trends have been incorporated into the 2030 HC-TSP. Similarly, this chapter discusses how the impact of transportation infrastructure investments on land use and development patterns will be considered.

3.2 Future Trends Affecting Trip Making Generally, the ability to anticipate or project future trends is limited by our tendency to view the future in the context of the present. For this reason, many transportation plans expect the future to function and look similar to the present. The challenge is to recognize the seeds of change that will affect future trip making patterns.

The 2030 HC-TSP incorporates much of the regional thinking of Mn/DOT, the Metropolitan Council and the State Planning Agency. The future assumptions of these agencies are built into the county’s forecasting process as well. The document also reflects the expanded emphasis on all modes of travel and county policies stressing the emphasis for Active Living – integrating physical activity into daily routines through biking, walking and taking transit – as well as Complete Streets – roads designed and operated to assure safety and accessibility for all users of our roadways, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and more.


3.2.1 Socio-Economic Trends The State Planning Agency (Demographer’s Office) expects:

• Hennepin County will continue to grow in suburban areas. This trend is supported by projections by the Metropolitan Council in the mid-1990s (see Exhibit 3-1).

Exhibit 3-1 Hennepin County Projected Population Growth Patterns 1990 to 2030

Source: 1999 – 2000 U.S. Census and 2010-2030 Metropolitan Council

• The county will continue to grow more racially diverse.

• Employment will continue to disperse throughout the suburbs and beyond the edge of the metropolitan area.


The Metropolitan Council 2030 Development Framework assumptions include:

In the next 20 years, no significant changes are expected in the fertility or death rates (consistent with U.S. Census Bureau).

Continued strong in-migration is expected that will account for approximately one-third of all regional growth – this assumption has the greatest potential to significantly alter future forecasts.

The Twin Cities share of national growth will reflect the average past historical trends since 1950.

Continued aging of the baby-boom population will lead to a drop in demand for single-family housing and an increase in demand for townhouses, apartments/condominiums, Accessory Dwelling Units1 and other non-traditional housing types in neighborhoods that are more walkable with more compact development and amenities.

Shifts in demographics and housing types will create challenges in providing for the transportation needs of residents of all ages who are living and working in the county.

Regional labor force participation rates will continue to be higher than national averages.

Based on these trends and assumptions, the Metropolitan Council prepared System Statements in 2005 of population, household and employment forecasts for all cities and counties in the region. These forecasts suggest Hennepin County will continue to grow for all of these indicators (Table 3-1 below). The densities of population and economic activity are also projected to increase.

Table 3-1 Metropolitan Council System Statement Forecasts For Hennepin County

Revised Development Framework

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Population 1,032,431 1,116,206 1,213,600 1,309,630 1,384,800 Households 419,060 456,131 504,920 550,610 585,680 Employment 723,105 856,838 969,890 1,045,610 1,105,230

Source: Metropolitan Council 2005 System Statements for Hennepin County September 12, 2005 Additional information regarding the Metropolitan Council 2005 System Statements is included in the Support Documents section for Chapter 3.

1 ADUs are most commonly understood to be a separate additional living unit, including separate kitchen, sleeping, and bathroom facilities, attached or detached from the primary residential unit, on a single-family lot. ADUs are usually subordinate in size, location, and appearance to the primary unit.


In addition, the 2030 HC-TSP assumes:

Job growth by 2030 will be fairly robust as assumed by the Metropolitan Council (560,000 new jobs), however no major influx of new workers will occur at a magnitude similar to the rising participation of women in the workforce over the last 20 years. 90 percent of women in the 25-40 age bracket now work, making the Twin Cities the highest metropolitan area for employment participation in the U.S.

The automobile will continue to be the predominant mode for transportation in Hennepin County although significant increases in mode share will be seen in transit and bicycle / walk modes.

3.2.2 Travel Characteristics

The following list describes general travel characteristics.

Increased trip making linkages will occur between Hennepin County and the adjacent counties of Carver, Sherburne and Wright.

Average trip lengths will likely continue to increase for most travel modes – National trends show Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) may increase for these modes as a result; statewide trends show VMT growth leveling. Exhibit 3-2 illustrates the anticipated trend of VMT from 1992 to 2010 for Minnesota.

Exhibit 3-2 Statewide Annual VMT Growth Trends


The VMT has posted recent declines due to the economic conditions and spiked fuel costs; however, it is expected to resume increasing, possibly at a slower rate. The short-term conditions may have some effect on travel patterns, and could produce longer term changes in people’s trip making behaviors. Further discussion of long-term fuel availability and pricing is included later in this chapter.

The recent major economic recession in 2008-09 has had a temporary short-term impact on traffic volumes in Hennepin County resulting in a reduction of VMT of about two percent from the previous 2007 to 2008 levels. Travel is anticipated to grow as the economy recovers from the 2008 to 2009 recession.

The predominant mode of travel used today is the automobile. According to the 2000 Metropolitan Council Travel Behavior Inventory (TBI), vehicle trips on the metropolitan roadway system have increased 22 percent since the last TBI in 1990 (Exhibit 3-3). This growth equates to a rate of about two percent per year, similar to that observed for Hennepin County. Metropolitan roads now carry 7.7 million vehicle trips per day (more than 70 percent of all trips in the state of Minnesota).

Exhibit 3-3 Trends in Daily Person Trips and Vehicle Trips

Source: Metropolitan Council 2000 Travel Behavior Inventory (TBI)

Non-home based travel will continue to increase. This is somewhat a function of increased intermediate trips between home and work (such as to daycare, convenience stores, etc.).

Suburb to suburb travel will continue to grow, increasing work commuting distances and dispersing trips throughout the region.


Urban downtowns and activity centers will continue to grow. Development along transit corridors which link urban activity centers will provide an opportunity to accommodate growth at higher densities.

Auto predominance may lessen somewhat over the next 20 to 25 years, however it is expected that the automobile will continue to be the primary means of travel during this planning period.

Hennepin County has a strong role in supporting all modes of travel by its involvement in road planning, design, construction, and operations activities.

Hennepin County has as an active role in the planning and implementation of transitway projects in the region through HCRRA and CTIB. Investments in transit infrastructure will provide people expanded transportation opportunities helping limit VMT growth.

The county’s newly adopted Complete Streets and Active Living policies have given Hennepin County a much stronger role in supporting the development of a balanced, multimodal transportation system that provides choice in automobile, transit, bicycle or pedestrian travel.

3.2.3 Transit Trends

The 2030 HC-TSP2 relies exclusively on regional transit assumptions from the Metropolitan Council. These assumptions include:

Total transit ridership is anticipated to double from the base year of 2003 to 2030. This was a goal established in 2004 and was recently reaffirmed in the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) adopted in January 2009. In 2030, the ridership goal is to reach 145 to 150 million rides per year, compared with 73 million existing rides in 20033. Bus rides are projected to be 100 million, 69 percent of the total, and rail rides projected to 45 million, 31 percent of the total.

In 2010, regional transit ridership was 90.9 million, an approximate 24 percent increase over 2003. In 2020, regional transit ridership is projected to reach 118 to 120 million, approximately 61 percent greater than the base year 2003, and approximately 33 percent greater than 2007. Bus rides are projected to be 87 million, 74 percent of the total, and rail rides projected to be 31 million, 26 percent of the total.

Overall, the mode split of transit trips will experience a modest growth from three to five percent of all trips today to five to seven percent in 2030.

2 Hennepin County and CTIB desire doubling ridership in the region sooner than 2030; however, this has not been analyzed. This would depend on a number of factors, including, assumptions for build-out of major transitways, density of land uses adjacent to transitways, and level of bus service operations. These scenarios could be analyzed in the future.

3 The Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) believes that transit ridership can double sooner than the Metropolitan Council’s stated goal of doubling by 2030.


In order to reach the goal of doubling transit ridership by 2030, the Metropolitan Council is planning for a 50 percent increase in transit usage by 2020, which is anticipated to come from:

1. Normal growth (20 percent)

2. Fare pricing and incentives (11 percent)

3. Arterial corridor enhancements (three percent)

4. Express corridor network enhancements (five percent)

5. Dedicated transitways (11 percent)4

LRT has recently enjoyed a resurgence of interest and support.

The Hiawatha LRT line was opened in 2004 in the Twin Cities linking downtown Minneapolis to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and Mall of America.

The Central Corridor LRT, which will connect downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis, is currently under construction and will be in operation in 2014.

The Southwest LRT Project is nearing completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). An application to enter Preliminary Engineering has been submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). It is anticipated that the Southwest LRT would be in operation in 2017 to 2018.

The Bottineau Transitway Project has started the DEIS process. The DEIS will evaluate four alternatives: three LRT and one BRT. The DEIS will be completed by the end of 2012.

3.2.4 Pedestrians and Bicycles

Pedestrian/bicycle trips are anticipated to continue with significant growth. Investments in completing gaps in the bicycle system and corridors such as the Midtown Greenway have shown significant increases in usage beyond original expectations. The county policy is to continue to integrate pedestrian and bicycle facilities into infrastructure projects as well as to close existing gaps to complete the bicycle system. Additional detail on bikeways is available in the 1997 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan.

3.2.5 Financial / Economic Trends

No catastrophic economic events are expected that would significantly change the nature of trip making in the long term. No significant shift to major Toll roadway facilities are anticipated, however additional High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes may be added such as those recently implemented on I-35W.

4 Metropolitan Council 2005 Transportation Policy Plan


3.3 Elements Having Impacts Difficult to Quantify Today There are a number of current trends that may affect future trip making; however, the potential impact of these items is difficult to quantify. These trends include energy availability and fuel/energy costs, new transportation modes, communication technology, societal attitudes/lifestyle choices, and improved transportation technology. These trends are described in more detail in the following sections.

3.3.1 Energy Availability and Fuel/Energy Costs

The spike in gasoline prices in 2008 had an effect on overall travel VMT and consumer choices as to what type of vehicles they are purchasing and how much consumers choose to drive. Traffic counts appear to be leveling off, the segment of large pickup trucks and SUVs appear to be experiencing decreased demands.

Although the price of gasoline later moderated, further gasoline price increases are expected which may reduce vehicular travel, at least initially. Over the 20-year long term, consumers are likely to compensate by shifting to more fuel efficient vehicles and increasing the usage of other modes of transportation.

The likelihood or timing of future energy shortages is difficult to anticipate. While some short interruptions may occur, the 2030 HC-TSP assumes that gasoline and diesel fuel will continue to be available in sufficient quantities and at reasonable prices.

Research into alternate energy sources was spawned by the energy shortages of the 1970’s. Recent strides have been made in battery design, hybrid systems, and fuel cell technology. Although vehicles using alternate energy sources may become more popular in the next 20 years, the 2030 HC-TSP assumes that gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will continue to dominate the fleet mix. Alternate fuel vehicles are expected to be used similarly to current vehicles in their trip making characteristics.

It should also be noted that any significant shifts in energy sources or major changes in the average fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet could impact the generation of revenue from traditional funding sources such as the gas tax.

3.3.2 New Transportation Modes

BRT is being implemented on several routes in the Twin Cities (Cedar Avenue and I-35W), and is being considered in a number of additional corridors. It has been used in a variety of U.S. and international urban settings. BRT examples with amenities and superior service characteristics have been found to attract patronage similar to typical LRT systems at lower costs.


Commuter Rail is another mode recently implemented in the region. Commuter Rail is characterized as rail transit that runs on conventional railroad track and is designed to meet the rail transit needs of commuters who live outside the immediate core cities. The Northstar Commuter Rail was completed in 2009. The corridor connects Big Lake to downtown Minneapolis.

In 2010, Mn/DOT completed the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan which establishes a vision for additional passenger rail in Minnesota. In recent years, new federal funding has been allocated for Inter-city Passenger Rail and High Speed (110 miles per hour or greater) rail planning and implementation. Hennepin County, along with an alliance of other regional railroad authorities, cities, and Mn/DOT, is involved with efforts for establishing inter-city passenger rail between Minneapolis and Duluth. Hennepin County is also coordinating with Mn/DOT and others regarding efforts to introduce high-speed rail service between the Twin Cities and Chicago. The implementation of these options could occur within the 20-year timeframe of the 2030 HC-TSP; however, its affect on trip making is difficult to estimate today.

3.3.3 Communication Technology

Telecommuting (where the employee can work from the home for all or a portion of the week) is being tried by a number of industries and some governmental agencies including Hennepin County. The county has implemented programs involving hundreds of employees. Telecommuting rates are growing and some researchers believe that telecommuting could grow considerably in the next 20 years. Whether this will become widespread, and how it affects trip making patterns is difficult to quantify today.

Results Only Work Environment (ROWE5) is being implemented in large organizations, such as Best Buy (the program’s founder) and Hennepin County6. ROWE may impact commuting in the metro area as it is implemented by more organizations.

The use of the Internet is another technology that is difficult to gauge in terms of affecting transportation. The phenomenal growth it has already undergone has not appeared to affect trip making to date. However, the seeds of changing the way we do business and how we shop and a number of other activities could be modified by this technology.

Technological improvements in communication (cellular & personal digital assistants (PDAs), microcomputers, and global positioning systems (GPS) have experienced explosive growth over the past 5-10 years. How these elements will ultimately affect travel has yet to be determined.

5 ROWE is a management strategy where employees are evaluated on performance, not presence. 6 Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department participates in ROWE.


3.3.4 Societal Attitudes / Lifestyle Choices

The predominant attitudes and desires of society can greatly affect how future transportation issues are viewed and what solutions are perceived as being good for society as a whole.

A large segment of society in the United States continues to view suburban living as a desired setting. Other groups view lower density rural or high density urban settings as desirable. Currently, Hennepin County provides for all these desired lifestyles, however as the county matures, the mix of lower density suburban and rural housing alternatives may change.

Future housing choices will also be affected by anticipated increases in the population of senior residents. This group will likely prefer housing and transportation choices that favor denser, mixed-use and TOD types.

There is a heightened awareness of how roadway designs impact travel choices. Many residents desire roadways to provide safe and attractive routes for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles and safe connections to transit. The county’s adopted Complete Streets policy takes into account all users of roads – those using cars, transit, walking or bicycling – and of all ages and abilities, from the earliest stage of planning.

There is also heightened sensitivity to how corridor design affects neighborhoods and communities, and an increased desire to include streetscaping amenities in road projects. Addressing these desires may require tradeoffs with other desires when dealing with the existing right of way of county roads.

There is growing understanding of the reciprocal relationship between transportation and land use. Roadway design and form also have an impact on the future land uses and development opportunities along corridors. Details of roadway design can impact the viability of different types of land uses, and influence land use decisions such as desirable setbacks, building orientation, and building scale. Subsequent land uses, in turn, influence the function of the roadway. Understanding this interrelationship requires collaborative analysis and planning.

It is expected that taxpayers will continue to demand more efficiency and effectiveness from transportation agencies. Programs, which provide significant improvements using low-cost techniques will be necessary. An important element of the county’s Complete Streets policy is to maximize every infrastructure improvement as an opportunity to provide for safer and more attractive options for all modes of transportation, thereby more efficiently developing a multi-modal transportation network.

To preserve the transportation system, there will be a need to reduce travel demands in the future. It is expected that TDM policies and strategies such as staggered work hours, carpooling and encouragement to bike, walk and take transit will continue to be important.


Maturely developed cities will continue to express a strong interest in redevelopment. The county will need to closely monitor future development proposals to ensure that the in-place roadway and transit systems adequately support the redevelopment.

TOD along major transitways is an opportunity to accommodate growth at higher densities, and is an opportunity to encourage a multi-modal transportation network which can reduce the reliance on motor vehicles.

It is expected that society will continue to adopt and incorporate new technological improvements quickly. While the effect of these future technologies on transportation is debatable, the lead-time before their integration is anticipated to continue to shorten.

3.3.5 Improved Transportation Technology

A number of new technologies are on the horizon that may greatly impact how we travel, what information is available to us, or could even include vehicle guidance systems that control our automobiles on the urban highway system. For example, integrating pedestrian countdown timers and bicycle traffic control devices also are technologies being considered or implemented here and around the country.

Other software technologies such as GIS and GPS will likely be used to support the above ITS implementations and they may play an integral role in transportation operations.

A resurgence of interest in roadway designs using roundabouts, 3-lane roadways (using a continuous left turn lane), and extensive access management techniques may help to improve the traffic operations and reduce delays when used under the proper circumstances.

3.4 Land Use Development Patterns The future forecasts of the 2030 HC-TSP are based on expected land use development patterns. Land uses are classified by type – such as residential, commercial, office and industrial type uses. These uses are generally quantified in terms of the number of dwelling units, building square footages or acres of development.

Land use as an indicator of future development potential contrasts with the regional forecasting process that relies on socio-economic data such as population, households and employment. Although the 2030 HC-TSP builds on the regional process, this is one area where an alternate approach is used.

Population, household, and employment forecasts have been developed by the Metropolitan Council as part of the “System Statements.” The Support Documents (under separate cover) contain a copy of the 2005 System Statements for Hennepin County.


3.4.1 Why Land Uses Are Important to the 2030 HC-TSP

The reasons for basing the 2030 HC-TSP forecasts on land uses rather than the more traditional socio-economic variables stems from Hennepin County’s need to focus on the evaluation of the minor arterial roadway system. The precision of analysis necessary for the minor arterial system requires the ability to accurately estimate vehicle trips. A land use based forecast is better able to provide the level of detail needed for minor arterials.

The regional planning process administered by the Metropolitan Council is a “Top Down” allocation process that is based on market shares of growth for the United States split to individual states and then divided up to the metropolitan areas of the states. This process is important to ensure that the total estimated growth remains within expected limits.

Some of the characteristics of this regional top down process are:

The process estimates future growth in socio-economic units of population, households, retail and non-retail employment.

It allocates socio-economic data to portions of the metropolitan area and ultimately to individual cities.

It defines or brackets the total amount of growth that the Twin Cities metropolitan area can support

The process includes recognition that differing growth potential exists between various cities.

Data is verifiable through the U.S. Census and the State Department of Economic Security.

Difficulties exist for adjusting or reallocating when cities land uses develop at different intensities and in different time periods than originally assumed.

The 2030 HC-TSP uses a “Bottom Up” process where the land uses are accrued from the comprehensive plans of the 45 cities and the Township of Hassan. Hennepin County does not have land use classification or zoning powers. These powers reside in the individual cities. However, the county is involved in plat reviews of developments adjacent to its roadway system and it is part of the comprehensive planning process that involves all metropolitan counties and cities. Some of the characteristics of this process are:

The process estimates land use intensity in units of dwellings, gross building square-footages and acres.

The information is linked to actual or proposed development intensities from plats. Land use designations are tied to the individual city comprehensive planning process giving the county a relatively detailed view of future expectations.


The data includes “blue sky” type future developments which may or may not actually develop. Development totals often exceed the amount of the metropolitan area totals as determined from the “Top Down” process.

Trip making is closely correlated to land use types and intensities. These items are readily verifiable by plat and survey information, or they can be verified in the field.

Both the “Top Down” and “Bottom Up” processes have important outlooks that need to be incorporated into any future forecast. Ultimately, good long range planning will depend on obtaining realistic land use projections that fit within the overall growth potential of the metropolitan area.

3.4.2 Existing (2005) Land Use Database

Today, Hennepin County has over 350,000 individual parcels of land. Over 85 percent of these parcels are classified as a type of existing or future residential use. Table 3- shows a breakdown of the major land use types in the county database.

The best source of existing land uses was found to reside in the county’s tax assessor’s office records. This inventory was supplemented with detailed commercial development data from county field verifications. This database of uses was compared to other data sources to verify and supplement the information. Exhibit 3-4 shows an example of the parcel map land use classifications.

Table 3-2 Hennepin County Parcel Database

Suburban Minneapolis Total

Residential 219,786 92,518 312,304 88.1%

Industrial 2,578 1,344 3,922 1.1%

Commercial 3,786 2,594 6,380 1.8%

Other Misc. Uses 2,729 1,109 3,838 1.1%

Vacant 22,645 5,356 28,001 7.9%

Total 251,524 102,921 354,445 —


Exhibit 3-4 Example of Parcel Map Land Use Classifications

To be useful for trip estimation, the existing land uses were classified according to the conventions used by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Non-residential uses were individually classified to a detailed use code. For example, under the general industrial use classification, specific uses could include manufacturing, general light industrial, and office / warehousing.

It should be noted that the ITE methodology is designed to analyze the trips produced by a development based on historical studies which cordoned off similar land uses for the purposes of counting peak hour and average daily vehicle trips. While some limited information exists regarding transit use for the developments, generally the data does not include other modes especially walking and bicycling.

Mixed-use developments and TOD can be problematic in the ITE methodology due to the interaction of the various land use components within them. The 2030 HC-TSP modeling attempts to account for these shortcomings, but trips can be overestimated in certain cases. Historically, previous county and metropolitan traffic forecasts have tended to be lower than the actual counts.


An initial time period of spring 2005 was used to represent the existing land use required to calibrate the transportation forecasting model. This period was chosen to coincide with available traffic count data and to delineate a period just prior to the 2005 construction season. Development that has occurred since spring 2005 was added to the future forecast for 2030.

3.4.3 Future Land Uses The principal guide in the forecasting of future land use development was the comprehensive plans of the individual cities. All 45 cities and the Township of Hassan were asked to provide future land development information on what types of land uses and the intensities of development they would expect over the next twenty years.

Parcel land use maps were provided to each city identifying vacant parcels as defined by the tax assessor’s records. In return, the cities reviewed the maps identifying buildable parcels by subtracting those areas designated as park land, having steep unbuildable slopes or areas designated as wetlands. The cities were asked to estimate the expected phasing of development between now and 2030. The cities provided the marked-up parcel maps with their comments. The comments and expected developments were then quantified and summarized.

Land use planning, designations, and zoning are vested in the authority of individual cities. Hennepin County will continue to collaborate with these agencies during activities such as development reviews, corridor studies, and project improvements to encourage increased development densities, expanded access to transit, transit corridor and station area planning. Hennepin County actively promotes specific types of land use and development, including TOD, affordable housing, and brownfield redevelopment through the incentive-based funding programs, Transit-Oriented Development, Affordable Housing Incentive Fund, and the Environmental Response Fund, respectively.

CHAPTER 4

MULTIMODAL PLANNING


Introduction

Transit

Pedestrians

Bicycles

Freight

Airports

HC – TSP 4-1 Chapter 4 – Multimodal Planning

Chapter 4 Multimodal Planning

4.1 Introduction Hennepin County’s vision is of a future where residents are healthy and successful, living in communities that are safe and vibrant. Maintaining strong economic competitiveness and sustaining a high quality of life are critical to achieving this broad vision. A strong multimodal transportation system supported by complementary land development is central to achieving this vision and is pivotal to promoting economic strength, quality of life, and community vitality.1

Demographic and economic trends (aging population, rising fuel prices, increasing health and environmental concerns, changing consumer location preferences, etc.) tend to increase demand for more accessible, multimodal locations

2

One of the stated goals to support the county’s vision is to “provide mobility and choice to meet the diversity of transportation needs as well as to support health objectives throughout the county.” While the county’s transportation vision includes a more diverse multimodal transportation system, it recognizes that it is not feasible or responsible to provide for the same level of mobility and choice throughout the county. The county will develop and provide transportation systems including roadways, rail transit, and multiuse bikeways and walkways that link metropolitan systems and local systems. These transportation systems will be provided and maintained to enhance resident mobility, support economic vitality, and allow for flexibility in individual travel mode choices.

.

This chapter describes the roles and responsibilities of Hennepin County in providing and supporting a multimodal transportation system.

4.2 Transit

4.2.1 Roles and Responsibilities

Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) was established in 1980 as a political subdivision and local governmental unit of Minnesota. It was created as a separate political entity — with taxing authority — to preserve rail lines for planning, design, and implementation of rail transit in Hennepin County.

1 MSP Regional Business Plan (April 2011) supports transportation investments that increase

spatial efficiencies; support focus on multimodal systems that connect housing and employment centers and reduces risks associated with auto-centric system.

2 Land Use Impacts on Transportation, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, May 2011


As part of its mission, HCRRA acquires abandoned freight rail corridors to preserve them for future transportation uses. HCRRA currently owns 55 miles of rail corridor encompassing approximately 650 acres, 11 sites suitable for future park-and-ride lots or stations encompassing approximately 94 acres, and two railroad depot buildings. County transit policies are included in Chapter 10.

County Departments Several county departments are involved with transit:

• The Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works, and Transit is responsible for transit and corridor planning, engineering, design, and land purchasing for transit projects serving Hennepin County.

• The Hennepin County Transportation Department includes provisions for transit (bus pullouts, park/ride lots, etc.) where feasible and appropriate when designing and constructing county roads.

• The county’s Environmental Services Department supports transit activities through the Cool Counties Initiative.

• The Human Services and Public Health Department uses fixed route, dial-a-ride, and other transportation providers to take social service clients to medical and other appointments.

Counties Transit Improvement Board In 2008, the State Legislature gave the seven metropolitan area counties the authority to impose a one-quarter cent sales tax and a $20 fee per vehicle sale to fund construction and operation of transitways. In 2008, Hennepin, Anoka, Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington Counties opted to impose the taxes and form the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB), a joint powers board comprised of the five participating counties and the Metropolitan Council. CTIB pools the sales tax generated in the five counties and annually allocates the funds to transitway projects in the region. To date, CTIB has provided grants totaling $317 million. In 2008, the state prohibited county regional railroad authorities, which are part of CTIB, from contributing to the operating costs of LRT and commuter rail lines and capped their financial contribution towards capital costs to 10 percent. To date, the five-county sales tax is generating between $87 million and $91 million per year.

CTIB’s vision is a network of interconnected transitways that allows users to move efficiently and safely, while mitigating congestion, enhancing economic development, and improving environmental stability for the region.

Transitways are defined by CTIB as transit operating in a dedicated right-of-way with on-line stations to assure fast, reliable, attractive, and efficient service to residents and businesses within the metropolitan transportation area. This includes light rail transit (LRT), commuter rail, and limited bus rapid transit (BRT). Exhibit 4-1 is a map of CTIB’s transitway vision for the metropolitan area.


Exhibit 4-1 CTIB Transitway Vision for the Metro Area

The Metropolitan Council Acting as the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Metropolitan Council prepares a long-range transportation plan, the Transportation Policy Plan (TPP). A component of the current TPP is the Transit 2030 Plan, which includes a goal of doubling transit ridership through expanding the bus system and implementing a system of transitways (see Exhibit 4-2).


Exhibit 4-2 Metropolitan Council 2030 Transitway System

Areas of Hennepin County are within Market Areas I, II, III, and IV as defined by the Metropolitan Council. Additional information and a map of these market areas is provided in the 2030 HC-TSP Support Documents for this chapter. Service options for the market areas are as follows:

• Market Area I includes regular-route locals, all-day express service, special needs paratransit (such as ADA and seniors), and ridesharing.

• Market Area II includes similar services as Market Area I with the addition of small vehicle circulators.

• Market Area III includes peak-only express service, small vehicle circulators, midday circulators, special needs paratransit (such as ADA and seniors), and ridesharing.

• Market Area IV includes dial-a-ride service, volunteer driver programs, and ridesharing.

Most of the cities within Hennepin County are within the Metropolitan Council’s transit taxing district. The cities that are not in the transit taxing district include:

• Dayton

• Rogers

• Hassan

• Hanover

• Rockford

• Corcoran

• Greenfield

• Loretto

• Independence

• Medina

• Minnetrista

• St. Bonifacius


4.2.2 Existing Transit Systems

Hiawatha LRT The Hiawatha LRT opened in 2004 providing a 12-mile connection between downtown Minneapolis, the Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport, and the Mall of America (see Exhibit 4-3). The line has 19 stations; park-and-ride facilities are located at 28th Avenue, Bloomington, Fort Snelling, and Lake Street. The line also connects to a 975 space park-and-ride lot located near Fort Snelling, just north of the airport. Recently completed enhancements to the line include:

• A new five-story 1,450 space park-and-ride facility was completed at the 28th Avenue Station.

• A new Target Field station opened for revenue service on November 14, 2009, in conjunction with the opening of service on the Northstar Commuter Rail Line. The station also provides direct access to Target Field, the new 40,000-seat home of the Minnesota Twins baseball team. More than 20 percent of ballgame attendees used transit to get to games in the inaugural season.

• Opening ceremonies for the new American Boulevard Station in Bloomington were held on December 9, 2009.

• Platform extensions at 10 existing stations were completed in early spring 2010. All 19 Hiawatha stations are now capable of accommodating three-car trains, which are currently being used for high-volume events and some rush hour trains.

Ridership on the Hiawatha LRT has exceeded forecasts. Metro Transit had projected weekday ridership to reach 24,900 by the year 2020. In 2010, the line carried an average of 31,300 per weekday, with total annual ridership reaching 10.4 million. Metro Transit surveys conducted after start of service indicated that 50 percent of LRT passengers were new users of transit. The Hiawatha LRT is now carrying over 12 percent of all riders on the Metro Transit system.

HCRRA was a capital investment partner in Hiawatha LRT. HCRRA contributed $84.2 million toward the design and construction of the line, which is 11.8 percent of the $715.3 million total. HCRRA’s funding was part of the local match from state and local sources, which helped enable the project to receive a $334.3 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts Program. From 2004 through 2008, HCRRA contributed half of the operating subsidy for the Hiawatha LRT. Due to changes in state law, operating grants starting in 2009 are from CTIB.

Housing development near Hiawatha LRT stations has been stronger than forecasts made prior to the opening of the line. A TOD Market Study prepared in 1999 estimated 7,120 new housing units in this corridor by 2020.


Current data shows the following progress:

• Between 2000 and 2010, 7,535 housing units have opened near Hiawatha LRT stations with 5,825 in downtown Minneapolis; 1,450 in Minneapolis neighborhoods; and 260 in Bloomington. Another 250 units are under construction of which 175 are in downtown Minneapolis and 75 are in Minneapolis neighborhoods.

• Proposed housing units (although not all proposals will be built) call for 4,500 units in downtown Minneapolis; 2,175 in Minneapolis neighborhoods; and 840 in Bloomington. As part of the 46th Street Pilot Lighting Project, Hennepin County collaborated with the City of Minneapolis to install energy efficient street lights along 46th Street between 34th and 46th avenues. The project enhances, pedestrian, bike, and transit access to the 46th Street LRT station from nearby neighborhoods and Saint Paul while potentially saving operating and maintenance costs over conventional street lights.

Exhibit 4-3 Hiawatha LRT


Northstar Commuter Rail Northstar Commuter Rail is an 82-mile transportation corridor that runs along Highway 10 from the St. Cloud area to downtown Minneapolis. In January 2008, the Northstar Commuter Rail project received a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) from the FTA for Phase I. Phase I provides an initial 40-mile long transportation corridor that parallels Trunk Highway 10 from the future Multimodal terminal in downtown Minneapolis to Big Lake (see Exhibit 4-4). The first phase of the Northstar Commuter Rail Line was completed in 2009.

Northstar Commuter Rail held its opening day ceremonies on Saturday, November 14, 2009, with revenue service commencing Monday, November 16, 2009. Current schedules provide six round-trips on weekdays and three round-trips each day of the weekend. Special trains are added on certain days with Twin games at Target Field. Between regularly scheduled and special event trains, Northstar will provide conveniently timed service to 53 of the 81 regular season home games. The line was estimated to carry 3,400 passengers per weekday in its first year of operation, with a projection of 5,900 passengers by 2030. During 2010, the average weekday ridership was 2,215. The 2011 average weekday ridership is 13 percent higher than the 2010 thru April 2011.

Exhibit 4-4 Northstar Commuter Rail


Bus Service The bus is the primary transit mode used today. Bus trips account for approximately 2.5 percent of all daily trips in the region. A recent study by the Minneapolis Travel Management Organization (TMO) concluded that bus trips accounted for 37 percent of all trips entering the downtown area during the peak period.

Metro Transit

Metro Transit is the largest transit provider in the state. Bus service is provided using daily schedules on fixed routes that follow established street patterns. On an average day, Metro Transit provides service for approximately 90 percent of the region’s fixed-route transit users. Metro Transit’s service area primarily covers the core cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul as well as the first ring suburbs. The Metropolitan Council provided more than 77.3 million bus and rail rides in 2010, which is the highest annual ridership since 1981.

Suburban Transit Providers

In addition to Metro Transit, a number of suburban transit (opt-out) transit systems provide express transit service to downtown Minneapolis, reverse commute service from downtown Minneapolis, and circulator service within various communities. Opt-out refers to the process whereby suburban communities were given an option to withdraw from the Metro Transit service area and replace the former fixed-route services with optional transit services.

Suburban transit provider systems operating in Hennepin County include:

• Maple Grove Transit

• Plymouth Metro-Link

• Southwest Transit

• Minnesota Valley Transit (Dakota County to Downtown Minneapolis)

The Suburban Transit Association, which includes these suburban transit providers in Hennepin County plus Shakopee Transit, recorded 4.8 million rides in 2010.

Fixed-route transit service is also provided between the University of Minnesota’s Minneapolis and Saint Paul Campuses via an exclusive transitway. There are also circulator routes over the Washington Avenue Bridge and in the East Bank and Saint Paul campuses. These services make connections to the Metro Transit system and provided more than 4 million rides in 2010. First Transit provides this service on a contract basis for the University.

When ridership numbers from Metropolitan Council contracted fixed-route services, Suburban Transit providers’ fixed-route and dial-a-ride services, University of Minnesota transit system, Northstar and Ramsey Star Express motor-coach services, dial-a-ride services, and Metro Mobility are combined, there were 90.9 million transit trips in the region in 2010.


Paratransit

In areas where fixed-route transit is not available, the Metropolitan Council funds a paratransit/dial-a-ride service called Transit Link. Transit Link is a flexible transit service that does not follow fixed routes or timetables. The service uses shared-ride buses and serves the general public in the seven-county metropolitan area. Rides must be made in advance and can be booked to any destination within that service area if a vehicle is available.

The Metropolitan Council contracts with one provider to deliver Transit Link service throughout Hennepin County. This service is designed to complement fixed-route service by providing rides to or from areas of the county where fixed-route rides are unavailable. This paratransit service is also linked into the fixed-route system at major transit hubs, allowing people to make connecting trips from rural parts of the county into the urban areas. In addition, rides can be coordinated with Transit Link services in the other six metropolitan counties, providing access to all destinations within the seven-county metropolitan area.

As required by the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Metro Mobility provides door-to-door transit service for people with disabilities who cannot use the fixed-route transit system. Metro Mobility’s service area coincides with the fixed-route public transit service area. In 2008, nearly 1.2 million rides were made using Metro Mobility. To use the Metro Mobility service, certified riders call in advance to schedule their trips.

In addition to the public transit systems, a number of private and non-profit transit providers operate shuttle buses which serve elderly housing and nursing homes. Paratransit /shuttle-type services are also provided by many local hotels and motels. These demand responsive systems provide direct service to major destinations such as the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the Mall of America.

Intercity Bus Service

Intercity bus service is available from private operators, such as Greyhound, Jefferson Lines and Megabus. The Greyhound and Jefferson Lines share a transit bus depot located in Downtown Minneapolis at Hawthorne Avenue and 9th Street South. Megabus provides non-stop service to Madison and Milwaukee, with continuing service to Chicago and uses stops in downtown Minneapolis at South 3rd Street and Chicago Avenue near the Metrodome and at the University of Minnesota near Williams Arena. Four roundtrips a day are scheduled to Chicago with two trips stopping in Madison and two stopping in Milwaukee. The Mn/DOT 2010-2030 Greater Minnesota Transit Plan reported that 85 percent of Minnesotans in rural areas live within 25 miles of an intercity bus stop.

Other Transit Infrastructure Hennepin County roadways are an essential part of the overall transit system. County roads serve high volumes of buses, particularly in the City of Minneapolis. These bus corridors support a significant share of the bus transit ridership in the region and will continue to do so in the future. The county road


system also serves an important role in providing access to regional transitways. The county coordinates with transit providers and includes elements specifically for transit when roadways are upgraded or as the need arises. Other general improvements to county roadways for safety, ride, and reduced delay directly benefit transit users.

Some examples of transit elements that are integrated with county roadway designs include:

• Bus stop pull-outs

• Shelter locating in roadway right-of-ways

• Bus-only shoulder areas

• Signal adjustments to facilitate bus movements

• Crosswalk designs to access bus stops

• Urban bus stop pattern adjustments for opportunities to use turn lanes and no parking areas for stops

• ADA designs for bus stops, shelter pads, and connecting ramps for disabled transit passengers

Transit operations benefit from transit advantages provided on the region’s roadways. During the 1990s, Metro Transit, the Metropolitan Council, Mn/DOT, and several counties and cities worked together to develop transit advantages on the roadway system, such as high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV), ramp meter bypasses for HOV vehicles, and bus-only shoulder use areas. This infrastructure is described in the following sections.

HOV Lanes

Carpooling and vanpooling are used considerably in the metropolitan area. According to the Metropolitan Council Travel Behavior Inventory (TBI), approximately 20 percent of all vehicle trips include more than one passenger on an average day. Vehicles with more than one passenger are referred to as high occupancy vehicles (HOV). In 1998, there were more than 5,500 registered carpools and vanpools in the region. The level of usage is expected to remain fairly stable over the next 20 to 25 years.

Hennepin County provides ride-matching services that are accessible to its employees through the county intranet. Regionally, the Metropolitan Council – Metro Commuter Services division provides ride-matching services for carpools or vanpools.

Interstate 394 (Wayzata to downtown Minneapolis) and Interstate 35W (Dakota County to 76th Street in Bloomington) corridors have designated HOV lanes that allow buses and carpoolers (two or more persons) to travel in an exclusive lane during the peak periods. The timesaving is a significant incentive to encourage increased carpooling.


Additional corridors such as Interstate 94 in Maple Grove and Interstate 494 in Bloomington are being considered for future HOV facilities. These types of improvements are for Interstate highways and they are generally not appropriate for the county minor arterial roadway system.

HOT Lanes

High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes are similar to HOV lanes, where single-occupant vehicles are allowed access to the HOV lanes via a road pricing scheme. The tolls are adjusted based on the existing levels of congestion on the mainline highway.

MnPASS is the dynamic tolling system Mn/DOT is using, which was introduced in the Interstate 394 corridor in May 2005. As part of the Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) federal grant, MnPASS Express Lanes were opened in the Interstate 35W corridor in September 2009 between downtown Minneapolis and 42nd Street and between Highway 62 and Highway 13.

Ramp Meter Bypass Lanes and Shoulders

More than 70 HOV ramp meter bypasses are currently in operation in the metropolitan area. These facilities allow HOVs to bypass the metered entrance ramps to the regional highway system, thus providing an average five to 10 minute travel time savings during the peak period. Not all metered ramps are designed with HOV bypasses due to existing design and right-of-way limitations.

More than 100 miles of highway shoulders have been designated as bus-only shoulder lanes that operate similar to the ramp meter bypasses. Special designated shoulders provide an inexpensive way to speed buses through areas of heavy traffic, specifically on major highways where traffic tends to regularly back up during peak periods.

Exhibit 4-5on the following page illustrates the locations of HOV ramp meter bypasses and bus-only shoulder lanes in the Twin Cities.


Exhibit 4-5 Existing Transit Advantages

Park-and-Ride Lots

Park-and-ride lots have been constructed throughout Hennepin County. These locations are used to access transit as bus transfer hubs and as a hub between the regional transit system and the suburban-based circulator bus systems. Exhibit 4-6 on the following page shows the locations of park and ride lots in Hennepin County.


Exhibit 4-6 2030 Park and Rides

The use of park-and-ride lots has climbed steadily since 2002. The challenge for the Metropolitan Council and other regional transit providers is to create new spaces fast enough to meet the need. The total capacity of the system is now at 28, 860 spaces, which is the highest ever in the region3

Often park-and-ride lots provide bicycle parking, and they are sometimes jointly used as trailhead facilities. Some park-and-ride locations are being considered for future bicycle locker or bike corral sites and for increased pedestrian access as well.

.

A goal of the County’s Transportation Department is to coordinate the land acquisition for roadways with the siting of park-and-ride lots. Where opportunities occur, the department will integrate park-and-ride lots with the roadway improvements as well as pedestrian and bicycle system plans. A broader vision is now being examined, particularly along LRT corridors. This vision is the incorporation of shared parking facilities for commuters and users of new developments.

3 Metropolitan Council, http://www.metrocouncil.org/newsletter/transit2011/ParknRideApr.htm


Transit Hubs

Transit hubs are locations were a number of fixed-route buses meet often on a timed coordinated schedule. Transit hubs are usually integrated with park-and-ride lots (like the Southwest Transit Terminal in Eden Prairie) or with a parking ramp (like the Haff Ramp in downtown Minneapolis). Similar to park-and-ride lots, transit hubs frequently offer amenities for bicycles such as parking racks and bicycle storage lockers.

4.2.3 Proposed Transit System As mentioned previously, the Metropolitan Council, as the region’s MPO, develops a long-range plan for transit: the Transit 2030 Plan. The overall goal of the current Transit 2030 Plan is to double transit ridership by the year 2030 through expanded bus service and implementation of a system of transitways. Much of the expanded bus service and a number of the transitways will be implemented in Hennepin County to serve residents and businesses.

The HCRRA through Hennepin County Housing, Community Works and Transit, works with the Metropolitan Council to implement their shared vision of improving transit service in Hennepin County.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) BRT is a premium transit service with substantially improved speed, reliability, and convenience in high-demand corridors. BRT operates on dedicated transitways, highways or arterial streets and features high-frequency service on high-capacity, low-floor vehicles with limited-stop or non-stop service, pre-paid boarding stations, and other improvements for a faster, more consistent trip than a regular bus route. In most cases, BRT links with local transit service in a corridor and provides the option of a faster, more reliable trip than local transit service.

The federal government identifies seven characteristics that together define BRT: running way, stations, vehicles, fare collection, use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), technology, service/operations, and identity/branding.


BRT is being implemented or considered for four corridors in Hennepin County:

• Cedar Avenue BRT (implementation)

• Interstate 35W Corridor BRT (implementation)

• Interstate 394 Corridor BRT (implemented)

• Bottineau Transitway (under consideration)

Metro Transit is conducting a feasibility study that is evaluating the potential for Arterial BRT along 11 corridors in the region (nine of the 11 are in Hennepin County). Because some of the corridors being considered in this study are potential streetcar routes, Metro Transit will coordinate with the various agencies throughout the project.

Cedar Avenue

The 16-mile Cedar Avenue BRT Corridor connects Bloomington and Lakeville. Major population growth is anticipated along this corridor. The first phase of the project includes BRT operations on the highway shoulders between 138th Street in Apple Valley and County Road 70 in Lakeville. Related improvements being implemented under the Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) include: BRT stations, park-and-rides along Cedar Avenue, and an HOV bypass ramp at the congested Cedar Avenue and Highway 62 (Crosstown) interchange. This project will provide a major transit advantage in this corridor.

Interstate 35W

A range of congestion reduction improvements are being constructed along the Interstate 35W corridor between Downtown Minneapolis and Lakeville. While BRT service will not be operational until 2012, some of the improvements being made in the corridor for Phase I of the project include:

• Priced dynamic shoulder lanes (similar to the Interstate 394 MnPASS) on Interstate 35W from 46th Street to downtown Minneapolis

• Addition of a HOT lane in the Crosstown from 66th Street to 46th Street

• Conversion of the HOV lane to HOT lane on Interstate 35W from 66th Street to Burnsville Parkway

• Construction of a two-level transit station at 46th Street and Interstate 35W

• Construction of new stations at 82nd and 98th Streets

• Construction of additional park-and-ride lots along the Interstate 35W corridor north and south of Minneapolis

• Construction of additional dedicated bus lanes in downtown Minneapolis on Marquette and Second avenues

• Use of added ITS technology


Phase II improvements will include improved service frequency, additional park-and-rides, and additional stations at Lake Street and American Boulevard.

CTIB has committed to funding 50 percent of the operating subsidy for both the Cedar Avenue BRT and Interstate 35W BRT projects.

Interstate 394

Although no additional improvements are planned for the Interstate 394 Corridor, the MnPASS lanes and corridor park-and-ride facilities currently provide BRT attributes that could be used with existing transit service. Transit buses provide a high level service between corridor park-and-ride lots and the Downtown Third Avenue Distributer Transit Hub via the Interstate 394 HOT lanes.

Bottineau Transitway

Years ago, the Bottineau Corridor was identified as a corridor desirable for BRT implementation. Park-and-ride improvements were made in preparation for BRT service, and the County Road 81 roadway reconstruction plans included BRT elements in the design development process.

More recently, there has been interest in an assessment of the corridor for potential LRT implementation. In March 2008, HCRRA initiated an Alternatives Analysis (AA) for the Bottineau Corridor. This study assessed a range of transit modes and alignments for the corridor, including both BRT and LRT. The Bottineau Transitway AA recommended further evaluation of the most promising LRT alternatives and an optimized BRT alternative through a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). It is intended that the DEIS process will use the results of the Bottineau Transitway AA in combination with additional analysis conducted as part of the initial DEIS phase to inform a recommendation for a locally preferred alternative (LPA) for consideration by Metropolitan Council. In April 2011, HCRRA began the DEIS process.

Light Rail Transit Three future LRT corridors are currently under consideration/construction in Hennepin County for the next phases of system expansion:

• Central Corridor

• Southwest Corridor

• Bottineau Transitway

Central Corridor

The Central Corridor, the next expansion of the LRT system, is currently under construction and will be operational in 2014. It will connect the downtown Minneapolis Transportation Interchange at Target Field Station to Union Depot Station in Saint Paul (see Exhibit 4-7). The line also connects to the University of Minnesota, the Midway Commercial Area, and the State Capitol.


Nearly 120,000 persons live in the vicinity of the Central Corridor, many of whom are transit-dependent. The corridor also serves almost 280,000 employees today, a number which is expected to grow to 345,000 employees by the year 2030. The Central Corridor is projected to carry 41,600 passengers per weekday by the year 2030.

An LPA was selected, which includes a transit mall along Washington Avenue at the University of Minnesota. The project received the federal Record of Decision (ROD) for the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on August 18, 2009. An important change to the FTA New Starts rating system, announced in January 2010, had a positive benefit for the Central Corridor Project. With the de-emphasis of the Cost Effectiveness Index Rating (CEI), the project received approval from FTA to add three additional stations in Saint Paul to the project’s scope. Additional funding for the three stations was provided through grants from FTA, City of Saint Paul, Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority, and Central Corridor Funders Collaborative – a group of foundations making grants to guide economic development along the Central Corridor.

On April 26, 2011, the Metropolitan Council and FTA signed a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). The FFGA contractually commits the federal government to paying $478 million (half the project cost) of the $957 million line.

Exhibit 4-7 Central Corridor LRT


Southwest LRT

The Southwest LRT Corridor is a proposed 14-mile LRT line connecting downtown Minneapolis to St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie (see Exhibit 4-8). The proposed Southwest LRT line will connect two of the region’s largest job centers: downtown Minneapolis with more than 140,000 employees and the Opus / Golden Triangle area with more than 50,000 employees today.

In 2007, HCRRA completed an AA. During the AA process, a Transportation System Management (TSM) or Enhanced Bus Alternative along with 10 build alternatives were evaluated. The 10 build alternatives included two BRT and eight LRT alternatives. After a thorough review process and extensive public involvement, the ten build alternatives were narrowed to three LRT alternatives (LRT 1A, LRT 3A, and LRT 3C) for further evaluation during the DEIS process through which the LPA would be selected.

In 2008, the HCRRA initiated the DEIS. Four alternatives were evaluated in the DEIS: 1A, 3A, 3C-1, 3C-2.4

After selection of the LPA, the Metropolitan Council submitted a New Starts application to the FTA to enter Preliminary Engineering. The Metropolitan Council anticipates starting Preliminary Engineering in 2011.

Based on initial evaluation results, LRT 3A was selected as the LPA. HCRRA submitted the DEIS to the FTA in June 2010. The document is currently under review by the FTA. A 45-day public comment period will occur once the DEIS is finalized and approved by the FTA.

4 During the Scoping phase of the DEIS, an additional alternative was proposed. This proposed

alternative, LRT 3C-2, was analyzed in the DEIS.


Exhibit 4-8 Southwest LRT

Bottineau Transitway

The Bottineau Transitway is an approximately 13-mile dedicated guideway that would connect downtown Minneapolis through North Minneapolis and the communities of Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, New Hope, Osseo, Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove (see Exhibit 4-9).

As stated previously, HCRRA initiated an AA study in March 2008. The study evaluated a no-build alterative; an enhanced bus/transportation system manage-ment alternative; and a range of commuter rail, BRT, and LRT alternatives. The study process progressively narrowed the build alternatives from a range of alignments for each mode (“universe of alternatives”) to a preferred set of 21 alternatives (nine LRT and 12 BRT alignments) that underwent detailed evaluation. The evaluation process identified three LRT alignment alternatives as the most promising for implementation: A-D1, A-D2 and B-D1.

The Bottineau Transitway AA recommended further evaluation of the most promising LRT alternatives and an optimized BRT alternative into the DEIS. It is intended that the DEIS process will use the results of the Bottineau Transitway AA in combination with additional analysis conducted as part of the initial DEIS phase to inform a LPA recommendation for consideration by Metropolitan Council. In April 2011, the HCRRA began the DEIS process. It is anticipated that the DEIS will be completed in early 2013.


Exhibit 4-9 Bottineau Transitway

Commuter Rail Commuter Rail is characterized as rail transit that runs on conventional railroad track and is designed to meet the rail transit needs of commuters who live outside the immediate core cities. Commuter rail is generally limited to morning and evening rush-hour service, operates with diesel locomotives and passenger cars, and stations are spaced further apart (usually three to five miles apart) than for LRT service.

Commuter rail service is currently provided in 19 urban areas in North America currently provide and is under consideration in another 20 urban areas. Surveys of commuter rail riders found that automobile access to the stations is important, as most users own two or more cars.


In cooperation with the metropolitan area regional railroad authorities, Mn/DOT developed a Commuter Rail System plan for the region in 2000. Additional commuter rail studies have since been performed as part of the planning effort. Two corridors that are being examined today include:

• Northstar Corridor (St. Cloud to Minneapolis)

• Red Rock Corridor (Hastings to Minneapolis via St. Paul)

Northstar

The Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA), a partnership of the regional railroad authorities from Hennepin, Anoka, Sherburne, and Stearns counties, commissioned a study to examine extension of the Northstar Commuter Rail line to St. Cloud. This second phase of the Northstar Line would create a 65-mile line serving a population base expected to reach 850,000 by 2025. Based on the results of the study, additional efforts on the second phase were put on hold until Phase 1 ridership numbers are at a higher level. Currently, express bus service, the Northstar Link, provides St. Cloud area residents with a connection to Northstar Commuter Rail at Big Lake.

Red Rock

Red Rock Commuter Rail is a 30-mile corridor originating in the City of Hastings traveling through downtown St. Paul to downtown Minneapolis. The corridor roughly parallels Trunk Highway 61 and Interstate 94 (see Exhibit 4-10).

An AA was recently completed for the Red Rock Corridor. The results indicate that expanding bus service, increasing bus frequency, and providing additional park-and-ride facilities are the first steps toward building a stronger transit base in the corridor. This stronger base is a key component in the phasing of corridor improvements prior to the construction of commuter rail. A phased approach has been identified and approved by the Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC) in November 2007 to lay the groundwork for eventual commuter and high speed rail in the Red Rock Corridor. This approach has been split into immediate (zero to five year), near-term (six to 10 year), and long-term (10 to 20 year) strategies.


Exhibit 4-10 Red Rock Commuter Rail

High Speed Rail/ Intercity Passenger Rail High speed rail has been considered as a future option for linking long distance trips between cities that are approximately 100 to 500 miles apart. Technologies range from using upgraded existing railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles. Generally, the service uses modern, high-speed trains operating at speeds up to 110 miles per hour.

The vision for passenger rail, as identified by the 2010 Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan, is that Minnesota should develop a robust intrastate and interstate intercity passenger rail system which results in improved travel options, costs and speeds for Minnesota and interstate travelers.

Two potential high-speed rail services are currently being studied:

• Minneapolis to Chicago

• Northern Lights Express (Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Passenger Rail)


Minneapolis to Chicago High Speed Rail

As part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI), Minnesota, eight other states, and Amtrak officials developed a blueprint for preserving, improving and expanding Chicago-hubbed rail passenger services. The group is following a dual-track approach of identifying short-range service improvement opportunities and long-range regional network development strategies with a focus on business travel and an eventual high speed component. The regional passenger rail system envisioned by the MWRRI Plan (2004) would encompass approximately 3,000 route miles.

In 1991, the Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota Departments of Transportation completed a study to determine whether the Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor could support a high speed rail system. The study concluded that high speed rail may be economically and financially viable, and the agencies agreed to conduct further investigations. In the mid to late 1990s, further efforts were made to investigate the feasibility of high speed rail. There have been recent efforts to initiate a study to investigate available technologies to provide high speed rail service at 125, 150, and 185 miles per hour.

Recently, Minnesota received $600,000 in federal funds to study the potential for high-speed rail service between the Twin Cities and Madison, Wisconsin, which is one leg of the line being proposed to connect Minneapolis/Saint Paul with Chicago. The funds are part of $8 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars dedicated to high-speed rail projects nationwide. Midwestern states as a whole are expected to receive $2.6 billion. In addition to the federal funds, Minnesota and Wisconsin will each contribute $300,000 to the $1.2 million study, which Mn/DOT hopes to complete in 2012.

Hennepin County supports a dual hub configuration (The Interchange in Minneapolis and Union Depot in Saint Paul) of high-speed rail to Milwaukee and then ultimately Chicago.

Northern Lights Express Intercity Passenger Rail

Northern Lights Express (NLX) is a proposed passenger rail project between the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange and the City of Duluth, along Highway 65 and Interstate 35 (see Exhibit 4-11). The Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Passenger Rail Alliance is a joint powers board formed to explore options for renewing passenger rail service on existing tracks in the 155-mile corridor. Members of this joint powers board include the regional rail authorities of Hennepin, Anoka, Isanti, Pine, St. Louis, and Lake counties; the cities of Duluth and Minneapolis, and Douglas County, Wisconsin.

In December 2007, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission established by Congress released a study recommending the Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior project as one of eight projects for new service. A feasibility study was also conducted in 2007 to assess restoring rail service between Minneapolis and the Twin Ports of Duluth and Superior.


In 2009, concept-level engineering plans and environmental review of NLX was initiated. It is anticipated that this analysis will be submitted to the FRA in late 2011. Upon FRA approval, NLX will be eligible for up to 80 percent federal funding.

Exhibit 4-11 Northern Lights Express

Downtown Minneapolis Interchange A comprehensive public transportation system for the region will include and require a centrally located hub for all modes to converge and provide maximum connectivity between modes and routes. This transit infrastructure is considered as being vital to the future transportation system — it will increase travel mobility, support a vibrant regional economy, and help to reduce green house gas emissions.

HCRRA has been actively engaged in studies for a multimodal public transportation facility in downtown Minneapolis. A study was conducted in 2006 to examine expansion of the site where the Northstar Commuter Rail and Hiawatha LRT would eventually connect. The outcome of this study also addressed the uncertainty of the development of the new Twins ballpark.


In 2008, HCRRA retained consulting services to conduct a week-long workshop with all interested parties as part of a visioning process for a multimodal public transportation facility at the Hiawatha LRT/Northstar station/Twins ballpark site. The final product of the workshop was a presentation which included concepts for a number of modes and transportation lines; space requirements for passenger needs and rail operations; possible development of adjoining properties; connections to existing bus transit facilities in the area; and artistic concepts of the passenger facility and neighboring properties.

The creation of a transportation interchange will involve strategic elements that need to be built and other local amenities that need to be connected. The interchange is envisioned as a regional urban center spawned by transit investment that will:

• Serve as a gateway to the City of Minneapolis.

• Orient commuters and visitors.

• Support the vital links between modes of transportation on multiple levels.

• Connect to destinations adjacent to the interchange and surrounding neighborhoods.

• Stimulate economic development around the center, into adjacent neighborhoods and beyond.

Through creative planning, engineering, architecture, and urban design, Hennepin County believes that a unique place can be created that attracts a diversity of people and activities 365 days a year. The Interchange can serve as a model of environmentally responsible development, incorporating established best practices and innovative strategies for energy efficiency. The Interchange is anticipated to have a significant impact across a multitude of travel modes.


In 2009, a study was initiated to determine a practical and financially feasible approach for developing a site to accommodate LRT, Commuter rail, intercity rail, high speed rail, and bus operations. The study also identifies suitable space for train layover and maintenance needs.

HCRRA is currently completing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed LRT enhancements. The EA defines the project’s purpose, needs, and goals and leads to the recommendation of a preferred design, identifies potential impacts, and proposes mitigation strategies.

The Interchange is identified as one of two regional multimodal hubs in Mn/DOT’s State Rail Plan and the Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan. The Interchange project will initially focus on LRT enhancements, then expansion of commuter and passenger rail service. HCRRA’s goal is to complete LRT enhancements prior to the opening of Central Corridor LRT in 2014.

Streetcars A streetcar is an electrically powered rail transit vehicle designed for local transportation/ circulation. The design of streetcar systems vary; however, streetcar vehicles are typically lighter than an LRT vehicle, have more stations, and have shorter segments then a typical LRT system.

The City of Minneapolis completed a Streetcar Feasibility Study in December 2007 as a component of the city’s Access Minneapolis Ten Year Transportation Plan. Several corridors were evaluated as potential streetcar routes. Seven corridors were recommended for the creation of a long-term streetcar network. These include:

• West Broadway Avenue (Robbinsdale Transit Center to downtown)

• Hennepin Avenue South (downtown to Lake Street)

• Midtown Corridor (SW LRT to Hiawatha LRT)

http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2010/index.htm�

http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2010/index.htm�

http://www.metrocouncil.org/transportation/ccorridor/centralcorridor.asp�


• Nicollet Avenue South (downtown to 46th Street)

• University Avenue Southeast (downtown to Stadium Village)

• Chicago Avenue South (downtown to 38th Street)

• Central Avenue Northeast (downtown to 49th Avenue Northeast)

In December 2010, the City of Minneapolis was awarded a grant from the FTA to evaluate alternative transit improvements (either streetcar or enhanced bus) on Nicollet and Central Avenues. The City of Minneapolis plans to begin the AA in 2011.

The Lake Street/ Midtown Corridor is one of the seven corridors selected for future implementation. The Midtown Corridor, previously known as the 29th Street Corridor, is a component of the 55-mile network of corridors currently owned by HCRRA and held for future transit development. This east-west corridor is approximately 5.5 miles long, extending from the Mississippi River to a point near the junction with the Kenilworth/Cedar Lake Corridor at Lake of the Isles. Most of the corridor is separated from north-south roads by virtue of being below grade. This occurred in the decade 1910-1920 when the city of Minneapolis mandated the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad (commonly known as the Milwaukee Road) to eliminate grade crossings along their 29th Street South right of way.

After the railroad abandoned the Lake Street/Midtown corridor, HCRRA purchased it and helped develop the biking and hiking trail that is currently in use and operated by the city of Minneapolis. Development of the corridor as a transitway has been studied since the 1980s.

An important challenge for any transitway development in the Lake Street/Midtown corridor is sufficient width between the columns supporting the north-south streets on the bridges over the corridor. Many bridges over the corridor were constructed between 1913 and 1916 and will need to be replaced within a decade. Wider spans could be created with new bridges, but must be compliant within historic design constraints. An inventory of these bridges was conducted as part of the Midtown Corridor Historic Bridge Study Final Report of 2007.

4.3 Pedestrians Pedestrian travel accounts for approximately four percent of all trips in the county. In recent years, there has been an explosion in the growth of walking and bicycling in Hennepin County for both recreational and utilitarian trips. Based on the American Community Survey, the City of Minneapolis has the second highest mode share of commuters biking to work in the country. Three Rivers Regional Park District, which monitors usage of many of the regional trails in the county, has counted the total pedestrian and bicycle usage of its system – the trend over the last 15 years is particularly striking as shown in Exhibit 4-10 below.


Exhibit 4-12 Annual Hennepin County Regional Trail Usage

Source: Three Rivers Park District

The reasons for this marked increase are varied. Increased fuel costs, increased health consciousness, and a desire for reduced environmental impacts certainly have played a role in increased usage. The most important factor may be the significant mileage of new trails that have been added to the system since 1995. This unprecedented level of infrastructure investment has begun to provide a connected system that includes linkages between Minneapolis and other parts of Hennepin County.

Increased levels of walking and bicycling have resulted in heightened awareness of potential modal conflicts related to roadway design including crossings, spanning barriers, and simply accessing the sidewalk and trail systems. As usage of walkways and trails has increased, so have complaints related to the problems of crossing busy streets. In a few cases, such as in St. Louis Park, these conflicts have led to serious crashes.

Safety is a major concern for pedestrians walking along or crossing county roadways. For the last three years that data is available (2006 to 2008), a total of 432 pedestrian crashes occurred on the county roadway system. Four persons died as a result of these crashes between 2006 to 2008. County roadways in Minneapolis experience a much higher level of pedestrian crashes than county roadways in the suburban system. Pedestrian volumes are higher in Minneapolis, and some county roadways are in need of pedestrian improvements to increase pedestrian safety, comfort, and accessibility. The City of Minneapolis has recently completed a pedestrian plan that addresses safety issues specific to urban areas.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Pede

stria

ns &

Bic

ycle

Trip

s Th

ousa

nds

(000

)

Annual Regional Trail Usage


4.3.1 Roles and Responsibilities Historically, cities have been primarily responsible for providing pedestrian accommodations within their jurisdictions. Hennepin County has supported these pedestrian provisions when appropriate by incorporating provisions into the design of roadway facilities. Generally, individual cities within the county have been responsible for participating in the costs of new sidewalk and trail construction, and they are responsible for the on-going maintenance of these facilities.

In conjunction with the increased support of trail development, the county has become more aware of the needs of pedestrians. In keeping with the county’s overall transportation philosophy, there is a desire to provide options for residents to travel, especially to closer destinations. Advocacy groups such as Transit for Livable Communities (TLC), health organizations such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Travel Management Organizations such as the Interstate 494 Corridor Commission have also identified a demand for improved pedestrian accommodations.

County Guidelines and Policies Current county guidelines and policies that affect pedestrian accommodations are included in the following documents:

• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan (2011)

• Complete Streets Policy (2009)

• Active Living Policy (2009)

• Policies for Cost Participation (2009)5

• Bicycle Transportation Plan (1997)

• Streetscape Guidelines (1995)

4.3.2 Existing Pedestrian System A network of walkways and multiuse trails exists throughout Hennepin County. The level of integration and completeness of these facilities varies widely. Since many of the longer regional facilities use old rail corridors, they tend to radiate outward from Minneapolis. Hennepin County trail facilities tend to follow the grid of county roadway corridors, while individual cities have sidewalk and trail systems that tend to orient to local activity centers.

Due to its very nature, walking is generally a localized activity. Most destination-type walking trips are ¼ to ½ mile in length and include libraries, clinics, recreational areas, and retail nodes. Bus stops and LRT stations also are key destinations. Walking is an important access mode to transit, which enables this mode to be a part of longer distance trips throughout the metro. Walking also has 5 Includes Roadside Enhancement Program


a significant recreational element. Pedestrians walking for health and enjoyment often use various walkway facilities to “loop” back to their original trip origin, such as a residence.

Hennepin County has been very involved with providing pedestrian accommodations through roadway construction projects, coordination with other agencies to assist in spanning major barriers to pedestrian and bicycle travel, safety improvements for crosswalks and trail crossings, and most recently pedestrian planning efforts aimed at increasing overall pedestrian safety and promotion of walking as a transportation option.

The recently constructed Lake Street (CSAH 3) projects highlight the coordinated efforts of Hennepin County and Minneapolis to provide a streetscaped area that includes sidewalks along a busy urban arterial. These projects were a particular challenge due to the many design elements competing for space within a limited right-of-way.

Another example of a coordinated improvement with other agencies is the SW LRT Tunnel under CSAH 101 in Minnetonka. This project replaced a difficult at-grade trail crossing with a grade separated culvert/tunnel, which allowed unimpeded pedestrian and bicycle movements for a major regional trail. Hennepin County’s project partners with included Three Rivers Park District and the City of Minnetonka.


Grade-separated structures typically involve large construction projects. These projects can be a financial strain for an individual city, and often are not used by the pedestrians and bicyclists they are meant to serve – grade separation generally means a much less direct and therefore longer route across a barrier. A Hennepin County success story is the recently completed pedestrian/multiuse trail bridge over Hiawatha Avenue (Trunk Highway 55) as part of the extension to the Midtown Greenway Corridor.

In the downtown urban setting, the county has also successfully acquired federal funding to extend the Minneapolis downtown skyway system to serve both the users of its facilities and those passing through its facilities to other destinations. The skyway system provides for safe, weather-protected movement of pedestrians in the downtown area.

Various “spot safety improvements” are being made where pedestrians experience difficulty crossing busy roadways. One such example is the construction of a refuge island on CSAH 19 in the cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay. This improvement enables pedestrians to cross half of the roadway at a time when sufficient gaps in the traffic are available. Hennepin County is


examining the challenge of providing safe crosswalks in response to the emerging problems noted in the introduction.

The county has also recently initiated a number of pedestrian planning efforts aimed at increasing awareness and studying how improvements should be made to better accommodate walking. Through a recent grant from Blue Cross Blue Shield, Hennepin County has hosted workshops encouraging communities to incorporate pedestrian planning and design into their Comprehensive Plans and to add active living elements and TOD principles into development design.

Hennepin County has supported the Safe Routes to School program that is focuses on encouraging and enabling children to safely walk and bike to school. This support has been in the form of endorsements for funding applications from cities for improvements along the county roadway system.

4.3.3 Future Pedestrian System To develop a cohesive walkway system, it is recommended that an approach be followed similar to that used for the Bicycle Transportation Plan. Individual city walkway and trail systems would be reviewed and a composite system developed that highlights the improvements needed in county roadway corridors to close any existing gaps to major activity centers.

Individual city walkway systems should be mapped to examine how these systems coordinate with the county system. Recommended county improvements will result by locating major pedestrian trip generators and studying the gaps in the walkway system serving these generators and major activity centers. The


guidelines noted earlier in this section should be reviewed to determine if changes or refinements are needed to better support pedestrian accommodations.

There are significant challenges to accommodating the competing uses within the limited Hennepin County roadway right-of-ways. Design issues and individual elements within the roadway typical section need to be evaluated as a whole to provide the best balance between the competing uses of roadway traffic, utilities, streetscaping, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, ADA requirements, and impacts to adjacent properties.

As noted previously, Hennepin County recently completed an inventory and assessment of existing corridors and is developing Complete Streets implementation and evaluation procedures. The Complete Streets policy and implementation procedures is referenced in the HC-TSP.

4.4 Bicycles Bicycle transportation is used increasingly for utilitarian transportation and recreational trips. Bicycle use is increasing for a variety of reasons, including health, exercise, financial, and environmental factors. These values support the development of an interconnected bikeway system that supports recreational trips and utilitarian trips that connect to job centers, commercial centers, schools, transit, and other important destinations.

4.4.1 Roles and Responsibilities Hennepin County has been an active participant in planning, designing, and constructing bicycle facilities. The county has continued a collaborative effort with communities and other agencies to develop an interconnected system of bikeways. To support these efforts, the county has established a variety of funding assistance programs to implement bicycle projects. In recent years, added emphasis has been placed on closing “gaps” in the bikeway system especially where natural or man-made barriers might exist.

Three Rivers Park District manages 27,000 acres of park reserves, regional parks, regional trails, and special-use facilities in the west suburban Twin Cities metropolitan area. It is responsible for the acquisition, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of regional parks and trails in suburban Hennepin County. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is the counterpart of Three Rivers Park District in the City of Minneapolis.

Metro Transit has outfitted the complete fixed route bus system with on-board bicycle racks and maintains information and instructions on how to use the bus bike racks on their website. Similar to the bus system, Metro Transit also provides in-vehicle bike racks for bicyclists using the Hiawatha LRT Line. Bicycle accommodations will continue to be integrated into future transit vehicles.


Rail Corridor Preservation Since the early 1980s, HCRRA has purchased and preserved a number of abandoned rail corridors. Although purchased for future LRT service, HCRRA allowed the development of trails as an interim use. Since this time, there has been a commitment to maintain pedestrian and bicycle facilities even with the eventual addition of LRT. To allow for the addition of LRT, the planning, design, and construction of major trail facilities, such as bridges and tunnels, within the LRT corridors have been completed to preserve these structures and allow bicycle facilities to continue after LRT begins service. This strategy has proven invaluable in the development of rail projects, such as the Hiawatha and Southwest LRT lines and the Midtown Greenway.

The LRT North / South trails were constructed by Three Rivers Parks in 1994. Three Rivers Park District completed the construction of the Dakota Rail Trail in 2009. The Hutchinson Spur rail corridor through St. Louis Park was preserved in 1997 through the assistance of a federal grant and is not part of the future LRT system.

Bicycle Project Funding Two special funds have been established as part of the five-year Capital Improvements Program especially for bicycle projects:

• Bicycle CIP Funds

• Bicycle GAP Program

To date, these programs have assisted in funding 35 projects with 17 communities and agencies. A total of about $2.7 million has been invested using a typical 50/50 cost sharing arrangement. Hennepin County has committed an additional $1.4 million in local funds over the next five years in the current CIP (2011 to 2015).

The county has been very successful in obtaining additional federal funding through the metropolitan solicitation process. Assistance for the CSAH 19 trail through Medina and Loretto was obtained in the 2005 solicitation. In 2009, funding was obtained for the Intercity Trail connecting Lake Nokomis in Minneapolis through Richfield to the Mall of America in Bloomington.

In combination with other state and federal funds, Hennepin County has helped to provide $30 million for right-of-way acquisition, design, and trail construction for the Midtown Greenway and, as noted previously, an additional $4 million for the construction of the pedestrian / bicycle bridge over Hiawatha Avenue (Trunk Highway 55).

Bike Walk Twin Cities (BWTC) is an effort to increase biking and walking and decrease driving. It is a part of a federal initiative, the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program, which gave each of the pilot cities $22 million to invest in planning, infrastructure, and public education. The communities also studied the impact of these investments on traffic congestion, energy use, health, and the environment. TLC was designated to administer the BWTC for


Minneapolis and its neighboring communities, most of which are in Hennepin County. Fifty projects have been funded through BWTC.

The Roadside Enhancements Partnership Program (REPP) began in 1999 under a policy adopted by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. It provides funding for infrastructure and facilities, including pedestrian level lighting, sidewalks, and other enhancements that improve the pedestrian and bicyclist experience along and across Hennepin County roadways. Its use is complementary to Active Living, Complete Streets, and to current and future pedestrian and bicycle programs throughout the county

4.4.2 Existing Bicycle System Nearly 125 miles of bicycle facilities have been constructed within Hennepin County since the late 1990s (see Exhibit 4-13).

Exhibit 4-13 County Bicycle Facilities - Miles Constructed

Hennepin County produces a roadway system map every two years. A separate bikeway map was developed in 2000, and the roadway and bikeway maps were combined for the first time in 2002. Each year approximately 35,000 maps are distributed to county service centers, libraries, and individuals. The maps are also available on the county website or via an on-line ordering form.

Bicycle Transportation Systems Plan The county adopted the Bicycle Transportation Systems Plan in 1996, which established the bold goal of providing “full accommodations” to all types of bicycle riders. Full accommodation means providing for all types of bicyclists having differing levels of riding experience. The implementation of this goal leads to providing corridors that have both on- and off-road bicycle facilities.

The Bike Plan provides a future system linking regional and local bicycle facilities throughout the county. The system map designates about 910 miles of


bikeways throughout Hennepin County. Over half of these segments (533 miles) have been built today. Each year an average of four to five miles are added to the system. Exhibit 4-14 illustrates the Bicycle System Map (a large-scale version is included as Map A in the report map pocket).

The plan also adopted 12 policies covering the areas of commitment, design guidelines, signing, right-of-way acquisition, funding participation, maintenance, capital improvements, information, and bicycle parking. These have been incorporated into the 2030 HC-TSP. The Executive Summary of the Bicycle Transportation Plan is included in the Support Documents provided on the accompanying CD in the map pocket.

Exhibit 4-14 Hennepin County Bicycle System Plan


Bicycle System Gap Study In 2002, the Hennepin County Bicycle Gap Study examined gaps in the bikeway system. As many miles of county, regional park district, and city bikeway facilities had been built, additional focus was needed to ensure that these facilities interconnected. Greater interconnection would add to the utility of existing investments by multiplying potential routes for bicyclists. In addition, it was felt that attention was needed regarding closing gaps that existed due to barriers, such as highway interchanges, major river crossings, and other natural and man-made barriers.

The study identified 110 gaps in 2002, and a total of 48 gaps have been closed since then. Similar to the bicycle system, new gaps have been identified as the system expands and new bikeways are built. Since 2002, an additional 30 gaps have been identified as other facilities were constructed. Map B in the report map pocket illustrates the locations of the bikeway system gaps.

As stated previously, the county Bicycle Plan should be reviewed and revised to incorporate the many developments in policies and programs since the development of the county Bicycle Plan. The county will go beyond the stated goal of providing “full accommodations” to providing “full integration” to all types of bicycle riders. On some county roads, “full integration” may be difficult to implement because of the high traffic volumes present; however, the county will strive to achieve this goal when practical. The Bicycle System Gap Study is included in the Support Documents provided on the accompanying CD in the map pocket.

Exhibit 4-15 Trail Cross Section

Trailheads Trailheads often radiate from facilities, such as park-and-ride lots. Besides the typical bicycle amenities of racks and storage lockers, trailheads offer kiosk information on the bike route system and nearby points of interest.

One new type of trailhead that is being investigated in an urban setting is the “bike station.” The bike station concept has recently become popular in California, where bicycle repair, information, and supervised parking are


provided. These types of facilities are often integrated within or near transit hubs and park-and-ride lots. The Department of Housing, Transit and Community Works is completing construction of the first bike station in Minnesota, which is located along the Midtown Greenway at Elliot Avenue South.

4.4.3 Future Bicycle System Where possible, the county Transportation Department incorporates bicycle facilities within its capital improvement and maintenance projects. Right-of-way and easement dedication for future bikeways is also routinely requested for city action as part of the county preliminary plat and site plan reviews. The Bicycle Transportation Plan originally developed typical roadway sections that are used as the basis for planning and right-of-way dedication requests.

Recognizing the increasing demand for bicycle travel facilities and that the City of Minneapolis has the second highest mode share by bicycle in the nation, Hennepin County should integrate planning and design for bicycle infrastructure into all phases of its project planning for roadway and building facilities. Similar to other travel modes, bicycling should be viewed as a transportation option with care given to bicycle facility safety, continuity, and connections.

4.5 Freight Trucks, railroads, barges, and airplanes handle freight movement in Hennepin County. Generally, the responsibilities for planning and implementation of rail and barge facilities fall to agencies outside of Hennepin County. The Hennepin County Transportation Department incorporates truck freight movement on county roads as part of the planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance of the system. The following sections describe the various modes of freight in the county.

4.5.1 Trucks Within the region, freight moves primarily by trucks using the regional highway system, although many destinations require trucks to use county facilities. Hennepin County supports freight movement through the county roadway connections to these terminals. The county has placed emphasis on roads serving these terminals by developing a system of 10-ton routes shown in Exhibit 4-16. The county now routinely designs new or reconstructed county roadways to a 10-ton pavement design which will continue to improve truck access to the major freight terminals.


Exhibit 4-16 10-Ton Truck Routes

4.5.2 Railroads A number of freight rail systems continue to operate in Hennepin County and throughout Minnesota. The use of existing freight rail tracks is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. As discussed previously in the commuter rail section, Hennepin County is working with Mn/DOT, the Metropolitan Council, and affected counties and cities to study the possibility of shared use of the existing freight rail track for commuter passenger service.

In 2010, Mn/DOT completed the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan. The plan provides guidance for rail initiatives and


investments in the state and is included in the State Transportation Plan. The plan addresses the following areas:

• An overall vision for effective use of the state’s rail network and its future development.

• More clearly defined private and public sector roles, including the role of the State, and the integration of those roles into planning, coordinating, and use of tail in the state’s transportation system.

• Identification of priority rail corridors, programs and projects.

• Freight access enhancements as well as improvements to overall freight flows and logistics.

• Development of practical and usable performance measures and investment guidelines for public development of fail assets and services.

• Compliance with federal planning and funding requirements to expedite the participation of Minnesota initiatives in national programs and resources.

Intermodal freight transport involves the transportation of freight in a container using multiple modes (rail, ship, and truck). Hennepin County has one major intermodal freight terminal at the Canadian Pacific Rail (CPR) / Shoreham Yards in northeast Minneapolis.

The CPR / Shoreham Intermodal Yard processes about 30 percent of the state’s intermodal freight in bulk distribution containers. The only other Intermodal Freight Facilities in Minnesota are the BNSF Yard located in St. Paul, which handles about 70 percent of the intermodal freight, and a small rail transfer yard located in Dilworth that processes less than 1 percent of the state’s intermodal freight.

4.5.3 Water Ports Waterway transportation is a low cost means of shipping bulk commodities over long distances whose delivery is not particularly time sensitive. Commodities shipped from Minnesota via the Mississippi River tend to be agricultural products (corn, soybeans and wheat).

The Mississippi River supports five ports in Minnesota with the Minneapolis port being the sole port in Hennepin County. Table 4-1 provides a comparison of the history of the annual tonnages shipped from the major Mississippi water ports in Minnesota. From a tonnage and percentage standpoint, the contribution of shipping from the Minneapolis ports has decreased over the last five years.


Table 4-1 Comparison of Mississippi River Ports Shipping Tonnage

Port 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003

Minneapolis 795,372 1,069,238 1,024,877 1,282,993 1,683,650

St. Paul 5,126,732 5,511,445 5,462,801 5,660,509 5,479,857

Savage 3,201,406 3,214,351 3,018,613 3,427,182 4,204,697

Red Wing 851,692 920,610 787,883 830,446 1,026,891

Winona 2,099,746 2,204,375 2,008,029 1,781,079 2,263,660

Total 12,074,948 12,920,019 12,302,203 12,982,209 14,658,755

Source: Mn/DOT Ports and Waterways website

4.6 Airports Three airport facilities exist within Hennepin County. The primary facility is the Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) Airport. In 2008, MSP was ranked by the Federal Aviation Administration as the 13th busiest airport in the United States. MSP has two terminals: the main Lindbergh Terminal at 2.8 million square feet with 117 gates and the Humphrey Terminal at 400,000 square feet and 10 gates. MSP provides parking for nearly 20,000 vehicles.

As a hub for a major airline, the Twin Cities benefit from non-stop and direct service to 116 domestic destinations and 14 international markets. In 2007, approximately 35.2 million passengers used MSP; half of these passengers were using MSP for connecting flights. About half a million landings and takeoffs occurred in 2007, with Northwest Airlines (now part of Delta) accounting for about 77 percent of these operations. MSP is very important to the local economy as it employs 25,000 people and generates more than $100 million in annual operating revenue.

Two municipal airports are located in Hennepin County at Eden Prairie (Flying Cloud Airport) and in Crystal (Crystal Airport). County roadways serve as the primary access to these municipal airports. Flying Cloud Airport has three runways, an instrument landing system and an air traffic control tower. Flying Cloud Airport has 463 aircraft based at the airport, and in 2006 it recorded 144,000 takeoffs and landings. Crystal Airport has four runways and has an air traffic control tower. In 2006 Crystal Airport recorded 65,500 takeoffs and landings.

Additional information on aviation planning and facilities is provided in the 2005 System Statement developed by the Metropolitan Council (included with the 2030 HC-TSP Support Documents CD).

CHAPTER 5

TRAFFIC FORECAST METHODOLOGY


Introduction

Need for County-Level Traffic Forecasting

2030 HC-TSP Model Methodology

Model Calibration

Future Traffic Forecasts

HC – TSP 5-1 Chapter 5 – Traffic Forecast Methodology

Chapter 5 Traffic Forecast Methodology

5.1 Introduction Literally millions of travel decisions are made on a daily basis in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The travel demands that result from these decisions ebb and flow in a generally regular pattern that can be approximated by a computer model for analysis and evaluation.

Computer models have very limited abilities to predict travel behavior. The flow of water in pipes or load carry capacity of beams in a structure follow known equations and these phenomena can be calculated with accuracy. In contrast, human drivers are sensitive to bottlenecks and congestion and their response is difficult to predict. Individuals often compensate in different ways by changing their travel route, combining trips, or adjusting the time of day when they travel.

Historically, due to the sheer magnitude of the data and the required processing power, computer analysis was performed by the regional agencies of the Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT. Advances in micro-computer technology since the early 1990’s have allowed these analysis to be performed by other agencies such as Hennepin County.

This chapter documents the reasons behind why the computer analysis was brought in-house into the county in 1998, the methodology used to develop the traffic forecasting model for the 2030 HC-TSP, and the processes of calibrating the model to existing (2005) traffic counts and its use to forecast future traffic patterns to the year 2030.

5.2 Need for County-Level Traffic Forecasting County-level in-house traffic forecasting was initiated by Hennepin County in 1998 because:

• There was a planning and design need for improved accuracy of traffic forecasts for the county’s minor arterial roadways.

• Mn/DOT notified Hennepin County that they would no longer be providing detailed project forecasts.

• In-house modeling capabilities were available to develop and maintain a forecasting model.


5.2.1 Need for Improved Accuracy The regional transportation forecasting model has been used and maintained by the Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT over the last 40 years. Due to its regional perspective, the regional model utilizes socio-economic data (population, employment) for trip estimation and the roadway network is limited to the metropolitan highway system which includes principal arterials (interstate and state trunk highways) plus most minor arterial roadways.

Due to this regional perspective, the Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT have generally focused on the analysis of the principal arterials, with a lesser priority on the minor arterial system. A critical part of transportation modeling is the calibration of the model to existing traffic volumes and travel patterns. As the 2000 HC-TSP noted, the regional model has a high calibration accuracy for principal arterials and a lower accuracy for minor arterials consistent with the regional perspective.

To obtain a high level of accuracy at the minor arterial level, Hennepin County needed to base trip estimation on land uses (use type and gross square footage) and expand the forecasting model to include most major and minor collector streets and to introduce detailed information from individual land use parcels.

5.2.2 Project Analysis Reports In 1998, Mn/DOT notified Hennepin County that they would no longer be able to provide project analysis reports to the county due to staffing limitations. These studies refined the regional traffic forecasts to provide peak hour turning movements necessary for project designs.

An improved forecasting model was needed to provide the initial data for these analysis reports. There was also a similar need for information to evaluate large proposed developments and site plans that could potentially impact the county roadway system.

The 2000 HC-TSP recommended implementing a project level analysis process in-house to replace the Mn/DOT reports. These reports were called SPARs – for Special Project Analysis Reports, a nomenclature used by Mn/DOT. Since 2000, Hennepin County has produced dozens of these SPARs providing project level traffic forecasts.


5.2.3 In-House Modeling Capabilities Staff expertise in the modeling area was expanded in the mid-1990’s. Staff enhanced their knowledge and understanding of micro-computer modeling by examining the modeling efforts of other agencies and studying the capabilities of new software packages that were being developed.

In the late 1990’s, GIS was also being brought into the micro-computer environment, and these tools were used by county staff to complement the forecasting models.

5.3 2030 HC-TSP Model Methodology To maintain consistency with the regional planning process, the 2030 HC-TSP forecasting model was developed within the original framework of the regional model. The existing regional model outside of Hennepin County was preserved as originally established by the Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT. In this way the metropolitan model continues to be an integrated part of the 2030 HC-TSP refined forecasting model.

Four-Step Modeling Process The 2030 HC-TSP continues the use of the 4-Step process similar to that used by the regional model. This process has been in use over the last 50 years for most of the large metropolitan areas in the United States.

The 4-Step modeling process is deterministic, that is, it is assumed that the data inputs and model parameters are accurately known so that the result can be determined in a step-wise fashion. One of the challenges in this process is that the necessary data can be incomplete, and efforts must be made to estimate or collect additional data.


The four steps of the process include:

• Trip Generation

• Travel Distribution

• Modal Split

• Network Assignment

Trip Generation Trip generation is the estimation of how many trips are created and attracted within the county. To facilitate computer modeling, the trips are estimated for sub-areas call Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ). The 2030 HC-TSP model currently has 1,474 TAZs.

The original regional trip tables that quantify the trips between all TAZs were preserved for TAZs outside of Hennepin County. Trips that were originally estimated to travel from the county to elsewhere in the region or from the region to the county were extracted from the Metropolitan Council regional model for combining as part of the refinement process.

The land use database mentioned in Chapter 3 was used for specific parcel development. The trip generation for each individual land use was estimated in the TransCAD software package using trip rates derived by information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Specifics regarding this process are contained in the support documents. Exhibit 5-1 shows TAZs that were found to generate a significant difference in vehicle trips from 1995.

Travel Distribution Travel distribution is the process by which the computer links the trips from the trip generation process and creates a TAZ trip table showing the trip interchanges between every pair of TAZ. The TransCAD model was used to take the trip generation estimates and develop the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) trip tables.

Model parameters and assumptions used by the regional model were maintained for the travel distribution process of the 2030 HC-TSP.


Exhibit 5-1 TAZ Comparisons of Trip Generation Change 1995-2005

Modal Split The modal split process estimates the number of trips occurring on transit and assigns these trips using a transit modeling system. The remaining vehicle trips are assigned to a roadway network for traffic volume tabulation.

Estimates from the Met Council regional model were used for the 2005 trip generation. The future Met Council transit estimates were also incorporated by employing a factoring methodology for the vehicle trip tables.

Inclusion of the regional future transit assumptions means that the modeling incorporates the projection that transit trips will double from today to the year 2030. This anticipated increase in transit patronage is reflected in higher zonal interchange factors along future transit corridors for LRT and BRT. These factors result in a reduction of future vehicle trips.

As with the regional model, the modeling does not include pedestrian and bicycle trips. These types of trips are generally made for short distances, tend to occur within the same model TAZ, and their volumes are difficult to forecast with any


level of accuracy. The planning for facilities for these types of trips is covered in the Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan.

Network Assignment The last step in the modeling process is the assignment of trips from the trip tables to the computerized roadway system. Basically this process is one of tabulating trips from the various zones as they are assigned to particular travel paths through the network.

The computerized roadway system includes all Hennepin County roadways and all local Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets. In addition to all principal and minor arterial roadways, the system includes most major collector type streets and many minor collectors.

5.4 Model Calibration Model calibration is the process of refining and adjusting the model so that the initial base traffic assignment best reflects the observed traffic counts and travel patterns. Comparisons were made at almost 6,600 different Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, and MSA count locations. The outputs of the 2005 assignment from the 2030 HC-TSP model were compared to these actual 2005 counts.

A total of 52 trial assignments or iterations were made to calibrate the model. Numerous corrections and refinements were needed during the calibration phase. These refinements included modifying items such as the roadway network configuration and the TAZ trip generations for particular zones. By iteration 40, all refinements were finalized, and the remaining corrections were made by systematically modifying the speeds of the network links.

Exhibit 5-2 shows the distribution of deviation of the assignment to the actual counts for the observed network links. A discernable pattern can be seen from iteration 40 to iteration 52 where the initial “goal posts” of a high number of links that were significantly different to the counts, is slowly molded into a bell-shaped curve at the final iteration 52.

An empirical formula has been developed to measure a model’s estimation performance to determine how many roadway lanes are required. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) developed this function. A lower accuracy percentage is required at low actual volumes since a high percentage deviation does not affect the number of lanes needed.


Exhibit 5-2 Status of the HC-TSP Model Calibration

For example, the forecast for a roadway that actually carries 1,000 ADT could be off 70 to 80 percent (range of 200-1,800 ADT), and yet the lane needs would still be a 2-lane roadway. Conversely, a forecast for a high-volume highway carrying 100,000 ADT would need to be within approximately plus or minus 15 percent (range of 85,000-115,000) since a greater variation would change the lane needs significantly from a 6-lane highway to a 4-lane or an 8-lane highway.

The NCHRP calibration criteria were applied to the 2030 HC-TSP model to evaluate the status of the calibration to 2005 counts. Over 93percent of the network links on the Mn/DOT and county roadway systems were found to be within the NCHRP bounds. This level of accuracy means that the 2030 HC-TSP model for 2005 is adequate to be used for the evaluation of county roadway lane needs.

5.5 Future Traffic Forecasts Estimations of future trips were made based on the future land use information from the cities described in Chapter 3. The total forecasted growth in trips resulting from the future land uses is shown in Table 5-1. The annual growth in trips is expected to decrease significantly based on the characteristics of the land use growth and increased transit and non-motorized usage.


Table 5-1 Hennepin County Forecasted Growth in Vehicle Trips

Year Vehicle Trips Annual Growth Rate

1995 5,220,000 —

2000 8,740,000 10.9 percent/year (1995 to 2000)

2005 11,675,000 6.0 percent/year (2000 to 2005)

2030 14,140,000 1.0 percent/year (2005 to 2030)

The future trips were assigned to a future roadway system that was comprised of improvements from the following elements:

• Hennepin County 2009-2013 CIP – Funded Projects

• Hennepin County 2009-2013 CIP – Provisional Projects

• Metropolitan Council Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

• Mn/DOT Transportation Systems Plan (TSP)

• Mn/DOT Inter-regional Corridor Studies

• Selected improvements recommended by recent Transportation Studies (NW Hennepin Study, TH 610 Study, selected City traffic studies, etc.)

Table 5-2, Table 5-3, and Table 5-4 itemize the specific roadway improvements that were included in three roadway networks that were studied; 2008 Network, Base 2030 Network, and the Optional 2030 Network. These improvements were included for modeling purposes, and not as a comprehensive listing of all future roadway projects.

The three study networks are:

2008 Network This roadway network included all projects constructed since the base study year of 2005, plus those projects currently under construction.


Base 2030 Network This network includes roadway elements that are anticipated to be implemented by 2030 due to their inclusion in CIP’s, the TIP, or some action that makes the improvement likely.

Optional 2030 Network This roadway network incorporates some roadway elements that have been proposed by this and other studies and are still under evaluation.

Map C in the rear pocket of this report shows the Forecasted 2030 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). This information is used later for roadway system evaluation in Chapter 9.

As was noted in the discussion of the model calibration above, the accuracy of the 2030 ADT forecasts are adequate for the basic determination of future lane needs. More detailed evaluations for details such as intersection geometrics and level of service are accomplished in the project level SPAR reports which concentrate on peak hour traffic characteristics.


Table 5-2 2008 Roadway Network (Itemized Improvements)

Roadway Termini City

Mn/DOT

I-35W UPA Project Lane Additions Minneapolis

I-494 I-394 to TH 100 Mntka / EP / Blmgtn

Trunk Highway 12 Highway 12 Bypass project Long Lake / Orono

Trunk Highway 62 Crosstown Commons I-35W construction Mpls / Richfield

Trunk Highway 100 Interchange revisions at Trunk Highway 7 St. Louis Park

Trunk Highway 100 Lane additions: 36th St. to Cedar Lake Rd. St. Louis Park

Trunk Highway 212/312 Completion of TH 212 and TH 5 revisions Eden Prairie

Hennepin County

CSAH 10 (Bass Lake Road) Reconstruct Wedgewood Ln. to Vicksburg Ln. Maple Grove

CSAH 30 Reconstruct Dunkirk Lane to CSAH 101 Maple Grove

CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Rd.) Reconstruct Bren Road to CSAH 3 (Excelsior) Minnetonka

CSAH 81 (Bottineau Blvd.) Reconstruct part of TH 610 construction Maple Grove

CSAH 101 Reconstruct TH 7 to CSAH 5 (Mntka Blvd.) Minnetonka

CSAH 121 (Tilden Connection) New roadway – French Lake Rd to TH 169 Champlin

CSAH 121 Realignment & vacation – Elm Creek / Hayden Champlin

Local Projects

99th Avenue New Street - Maple Grove Pkwy to CSAH 121 Maple Grove

Maple Grove Pkwy / Upland Ln New Street plus interchange with I-94 Maple Grove


Table 5-3 Base 2030 Roadway Network (Itemized Improvements)


Mn/DOT

I-94 Lane Additions:- TH 610 to TH 101 Maple Grove

Trunk Highway 101 Conversion to limited access – north segment Rogers / Hassan Twp

Trunk Highway 169 CSAH 30 / TH 610 / 101st interchanges Brooklyn Park

Trunk Highway 169 CSAH 81/CSAH 109 (85th Ave) – Devil’s Triangle Brooklyn Park

Trunk Highway 252 Roadway upgrade to limited access Brooklyn Center / BP

I-494 Lane Additions: E. Bush Lake to 34th Ave. Bloomington

I-494 Lane Additions: I-94 to TH 55 Maple Grove / Plymouth

I-494 / TH 169 Reconstruct interchange Bloomington

Trunk Highway 610 Completion of highway from TH 169 to I-94 Maple Grove / BP

Hennepin County

CSAH 1 (Pioneer Trail) Reconstruct road from CSAH 4 to old TH 212 Eden Prairie

CSAH 1 (Pioneer Trail) Reconstruct & add lanes: Co. limits to CSAH 4 Eden Prairie

CSAH 10 (Bass Lake Road) Realign & add lanes: Vicksburg to Peony Maple Grove

CSAH 10 / CSAH 101 Realign & add lanes: new intersection Maple Grove

CSAH 14 (Douglas Drive) Reconstruct & add lanes: 109th Ave. to CSAH 12 Champlin

CSAH 24 Reconstruct & add lanes: east of CSAH 101 Plymouth

CSAH 101 Reconstruct & add lanes with Stone’s Throw Hassan Township

CSAH 101 Reconstruct & add lanes: CSAH 6 to CSAH 24 Plymouth

CSAH 101 Reconstruct & add lanes: TH 7 to CSAH 62 Minnetonka

CSAH 101 Extension of Peony Lane to Lawndale / CR 47 Plymouth

CSAH 103 (West Broadway) Reconstruct from CSAH 30 to CSAH 109 Brooklyn Park

CSAH 109 (85th Avenue) Add lanes Main Street to Jefferson Hwy Maple Grove

County Road 116 Fletcher Bypass – extension to CSAH 81 Rogers / Hassan Twp

County Road 117 Road extension from CR 116 to CSAH 101 Hassan / Corcoran

CSAH 122 (Washington Ave.) Reconfigure for LRT at U of M Minneapolis

County Road 159 Realignment east of CR 116 for Stone’s Throw Hassan Township


Table 5-4 Optional 2030 Roadway Network


Mn/DOT

Rogers I-94 / TH 101 New directional interchange

Hennepin County

Greenfield CSAH 30 New Crow River Bridge to Wright Co CR 144

Maple Grove TH 610 Extension Connection from I-94 to CSAH 30

CHAPTER 6

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION


Importance of Functional Classification

What is Functional Classification?

Concept of Functional Classification

Uses of Functional Classification

The A-Minor Arterial System

Future Functional Classification System Considerations

HC – TSP 6-1 Chapter 6 – Functional Classification

Chapter 6 Functional Classification

6.1 Importance of Functional Classification The classification of roadways by their function is an important component of the 2030 HC-TSP. The classification imparts the relative importance of the road, and it defines how the road is envisioned to function within the overall system of metropolitan roads and local streets.

Functional classification reflects an emphasis of how a roadway will be treated now and in the future. The roadway of interest may not possess all the attributes nor meet the entire criterion for its classification type today - however, current improvement decisions should anticipate that the road will meet most of these criteria to the greatest extent possible in the future after considering the location context of the road.

6.2 What is Functional Classification? Roadway functional classification is the process by which roadways and streets are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of the service they are intended to provide. Basic to this process is the recognition that roads and streets are interdependent in how they serve transportation needs, as well as the communities and neighborhoods they serve.

Functional Classification is a means of ensuring the proper balance between mobility and land access.

The purpose of this categorization is to ensure that a system of roadways and streets provides a balanced relationship between mobility and land access. Mobility is the ability to efficiently travel along the roadway system, while land access is the ease of being able to connect to a particular development or parcel of land.


The functional classification categories are:

• Principal Arterials

• Minor Arterials

• Collectors

• Locals

These classifications signify differing levels of accommodation for mobility and land access. The classification is hierarchical by the amount of travel mobility provided. Principal arterials primarily provide mobility, while local streets focus on providing land access.

6.2.1 Background Functional classification affects a number of other decisions which are made concerning the road, including:

• The proper assignment of jurisdiction responsibility of the roadway

• The nature and spacing of access connections allowed to the roadway

• The amount of right-of-way needed for the road and related elements

• What types of uses are allowed in the right-of-way

• The types of traffic controls used at intersections

• Whether or not on-street parking is allowed

• The distance for building set-backs required when developing near the roadway right-of-way

• Design guidelines and standards which apply to any improvements on the roadway

• The accrual of needs for state aid funding

• The eligibility of the road to use other available funding sources (such as state or federal monies)

These elements need to be looked at in the context of the location, physical setting, and condition of the corridor (urban, suburban, ex-urban).

This chapter documents the process of classifying roadways, shows the criteria by road type, and illustrates how the county road system is classified today. A mapped functional classification system is also presented that will be used to guide planning, design and operations decisions.

Hennepin County’s functional classification system is consistent with the classification as approved by the Metropolitan Council. The system reflects recent revisions proposed by the county and adopted by the Metropolitan


Council as part of an update effort for the complete metropolitan area (May 2011). The functional class map (Map D) is included in the report map pocket located at the end of the document.

6.3 Concept of Functional Classification Functional Classification defines roadways according to the type of service they provide. Roads can function in two ways: they may provide access to properties and they provide mobility, the ability to get from one place to another. Access to properties is needed at both ends of a trip. Mobility involves the travel time and freedom of movement along the path of each trip. The degree to which a roadway provides land access and mobility determines its functional class.

Table 6-1shows the four levels of functional classification and some of their attributes:

Table 6-1 Levels of Functional Classification

Level of Classification

Access Mobility Percent of Mileage

Percent of All Traffic

Principal Arterials

No direct access to property

Highest 5 to 10% 40 to 65%

Minor Arterials Limited access to property

High 15 to 25% 15 to 40%

Collectors Access to properties is common

Moderate 5 to 10% 5 to 10%

Local Streets High level of access to property

Low 65 to 80% 10 to 30%

Principal arterials include interstate highways and certain major state trunk highways. Principal arterials serve major centers of activity, the corridors having the highest traffic volumes, and the longest trip lengths. They have little or no direct land access and access to these roads is strictly controlled – often by purchased access control. Principal arterials are spaced approximately every two to three miles in fully developed areas and every six to 12 miles in rural areas.


For a typical metropolitan roadway system, principal arterials comprise only 5 to 10 percent of the total roadway system mileage, however they carry from 40 to 65 percent of all traffic. Principal arterials span all natural and man-made barriers, typically they provide grade separated interchanges with other roads, and they have strict controls of access. In most cases, Mn/DOT has jurisdiction of these types of highways.

Minor arterials make up the class of roadways including a few minor state highways, most county roads, and some major city streets. These roads primarily provide mobility, carrying short to medium length trips (two to six miles), and have controlled land access that is usually regulated through a permitting process.

Minor arterials as a group account for about 15 to 25 percent of the total mileage and carry roughly one-fourth of all traffic for the metropolitan roadway system. Minor arterials generally are given the traffic right-of-way over local streets and they usually have traffic signals at intersections with other minor arterials and some collector streets.

Collector streets provide a balance between land access and mobility. Their primary function is to move traffic from the local street system to the arterial system. When collectors intersect with arterials, traffic signals generally control traffic. Intersections with local streets are usually under stop sign control with collector streets having the right-of-way.


Local streets provide local land access with limited emphasis on mobility. Local streets account for 65 to 80 percent of the total road system mileage but carry only 10 to 30 percent of the total traffic. In a residential setting, a high level of access is allowed to private properties.

Individual driveways are permitted and intersections of local streets are often uncontrolled. Stop signs are usually installed where traffic control is required such as at intersections with collector streets.

In an efficient roadway network, these four types of roadways function together to serve the needs of the traveling public. Exhibit 6-1 on the following page shows examples of an idealized street network in urban, suburban, and rural settings. The proportion of arterials, collectors and local streets must be of a proper balance to achieve a roadway system that operates effectively. A system comprised of all local streets, for example, would not move traffic very well. Conversely, a system of too many arterials would not provide adequate land access.

Transportation planners have recognized specific characteristics for the four functional classes, based on the observation and analysis of actual roadway systems. Norms have been established for each functional class with regard to spacing, average trip length, system connections, type of intersection controls, daily traffic volumes, speed limits and several other criteria. Separate criteria are used for urban systems and rural systems because of the inherent differences attributable to land use and population density. 1

1 Metropolitan Council will be undertaking a functional classification study for the region.

Changes /revisions to the classification system as well as funding eligibility will be looked at through this study.


Exhibit 6-1 Idealized Classification Schemes

Typical Rural Classification

Suburban Classification

Urban Classification


6.4 Uses of Functional Classification Functional classification can be applied in planning roadway system development or to determine the appropriate jurisdictional responsibility for roadways. It is also used as a guide for developing design standards for various types of roadways. Functional classification is frequently used in transportation fiscal planning.

Transportation planners use functional classification to guide them in planning the development of roadway systems. The functional class map shows the desired system and represents a plan of how certain streets and roads will be emphasized.

Functional classification also helps to determine the proper jurisdictional responsibility for roads. Jurisdiction of roadways is logically linked to the geographic area the roadway serves and to the level of government capable of administering and operating the road. There is a natural correlation between governmental jurisdiction of roads and the functional class since it directly relates to the geographic limits of the agencies themselves.

The primary responsibility of each governmental level is:

Principal Arterials State of Minnesota

Minor Arterials County, Some City, Some State

Collectors City or Township, Some County

Local Street City or Township


Exhibit 6-2 illustrates the relationships between the jurisdictional classification, design type, and possible construction / maintenance funding sources that differ by functional classification.

Exhibit 6-2 Relationship of Functional Classification to Jurisdiction, Design Type and Funding

FUNCTIONAL PRINCIPAL MINOR

CLASSIFICATION ARTERIALS ARTERIALS COLLECTORS LOCALS

STATE

JURISDICTIONAL COUNTYCLASSIFICATION

MUNICIPALTY

FREEWAYDESIGN

TYPE EXPRESSWAY

MULTI-LANE ROADS

MAJOR TWO-LANE ROADS

2-LANE STREETS

F.A. INTERSTATE

STATE HIGHWAY USER FUNDSPOSSIBLEFUNDING FEDERAL S.T.P. FUNDSSOURCE

COUNTY STATE-AID HIGHWAY

MUNICIPAL STATE-AID

LOCAL BONDS AND PROPERTY TAXES

6.5 The A-Minor Arterial System The 1960s and 1970s were watershed years for highway travel. The federal government made a massive investment in construction of the Interstate Highway System, which provided a new framework of high-speed routes throughout the nation. Hennepin County also was building the Crosstown Highway (CSAH-62) and CSAH-18 freeways during this period. These routes became part of the backbone of the principal arterial system in the Twin Cities region.

This era also experienced several dramatic changes in demographics, work patterns and auto ownership that greatly increased highway travel. Traffic volumes grew rapidly and much of this traffic used the new freeway systems.


As the regional highway system has matured, Twin Cities area freeways have experienced increasing levels of congestion. Recent funding limitations as well as the limited ability to expand existing roadway facilities due to right-of-way constraints caused by fully developed communities, have made it necessary to place priority on the preservation and maintenance of existing highway facilities with lower priorities being placed on new expanded highway construction. Efforts to increase traffic system capacity has shifted from adding lanes to that of implementing traffic management methods, such as ramp metering, HOV carpool lanes, and HOT lanes. A greater focus on improving overall mobility is influencing infrastructure investments. Transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is a vital element in improving the mobility of the transportation system.

As the principal arterial system has become congested, efforts have been made to encourage drivers to use minor arterials for short to medium-length trips (2 to 6 miles). In theory this strategy could result in principal arterials with more capacity to carry the longer, regional type trips. For this strategy to succeed, the county and cities need to provide a good system of minor arterials that are a reliable alternative to using the principal arterial system. The need is increasing for an adequate system of minor arterials to support the principal arterial system.

Because minor arterials support the function of the principal arterials, there is a need to both prioritize and fund their development. Nearly all principal arterials are under the jurisdiction of Mn/DOT. In contrast, minor arterials are under the jurisdiction of counties, cities, and Mn/DOT, making coordination more difficult.

In 1989, the Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT along with representatives of city and county governments reexamined the role of the minor arterial system in the region and developed federal funding policies. Although all minor arterials are needed to support the metropolitan highway system, it was recognized that some minor arterials are regionally significant. Minor arterials were sub-classified based on their regional importance and their relationship to principal arterials. Minor arterials were divided into A and B classes, with A-Minor Arterials being those that have highest importance to regional travel (and hence worthy of federal funding eligibility).

A-Minor Arterials were further divided into four groups:

• Relievers

• Expanders

• Augmenters

• Connectors


Relievers: Minor arterials that provide direct relief for principal arterials. This class includes the closest routes parallel to the principal arterials with the urban areas.

A minor Reliever routes

Expanders: Those routes needed to provide a connection between developing areas outside the interstate ring. They serve areas that are not reasonably served by the principal arterial system.

A minor Expander routes

Augmenters: Are located in areas within the interstate ring, where the network of principal arterials is fully developed but inadequate relative to the density of development it serves. These minor arterials serve many long trips.

A minor Augmenter routes


Connectors: Roads that provide good, safe connections among town centers in the developing and rural areas within and near the seven county metropolitan area. Connectors also link rural areas to principal arterials and other minor arterials. Due to their location in predominantly rural areas that are not intended for future urbanization, A-Minor Connector improvements typically focus on safety and access management instead of capacity enhancements.

A minor Connector routes

The Metropolitan Council has developed functional classification criteria specifically for the Twin Cities region as part of its Regional Development Framework / Transportation Policy Plan (TPP). Hennepin County supports and utilizes these criteria in determining the proper functional classification of a roadway. Appendix D from the latest TPP is included in the Support Documents CD included in the map pocket of this report.

As the Minor Arterial Study in 1989 was being concluded, Congress was drafting a new federal highway act. The new act, signed into law in 1991 and called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA, pronounced ice-tea), radically altered the federal highway funding programs.

One new program under ISTEA was the Surface Transportation Program (STP). ISTEA required that 50 percent of the funds allocated under the STP be distributed to areas within the state based on the relative share of urban versus rural population. In the Twin City metropolitan area, participants agreed that this funding would be limited for expenditure on A-minor arterials and some principal arterials only. This provided a significant new source of revenues to carry out the A-minor arterial program. In addition, ISTEA provided the Enhancement and Congestion Mitigation for Air Quality (CMAQ) categories that allowed funds to be specifically earmarked toward pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

Since 1991, ISTEA has evolved into the 1998 TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century), and most recently in 2005 as SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users). Many of the original initiatives and programs were retained under these subsequent transportation acts.


6.6 Future Functional Classification System Considerations In response to FHWA data collection needs, in 2009 the Metropolitan Council decided maintain two types of functional classification systems – one map reflecting current conditions, and another map showing future roadway functions and non-existent segments proposed for future construction.

Currently, the Hennepin County functional classification system still is consistent with the original definition and is represented on one map, with dashed segments representing non-existent segments. In the future this map may be split into the existing / future maps to maintain consistency with the Metropolitan Council.

6.6.1 City Comprehensive Plans All city and county comprehensive plans were due for submittal to the Metropolitan Council by the end of 2008. The various functional classification systems of the cities were reviewed for consistency with the approved system.

In addition, Hennepin County reviewed its city plans and the adjacent county plans to ensure the functional classification systems are consistent.

6.6.2 Functional Classification Impact on Roadway Design Recently, some advocacy groups have come to view functional classification as a roadblock to design flexibility that could allow for increased pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and streetscaping elements. It is true that functional classification does highlight the priorities for a roadway’s function affecting the balance of how various design elements are integrated. However, considerable flexibility exists, as is apparent by how recent county road projects have responded to the diverse transportation needs.

CHAPTER 7

ACCESS MANAGEMENT


Background

Principles of Access Management

HC – TSP 7-1 Chapter 7 – Access Management

Chapter 7 Access Management

7.1 Background Access management has become an important subject as transportation professionals grapple with the challenges of increasing congestion and deteriorating roadway operations. The goal of managing access is to achieve an optimal balance between what is needed for safe and efficient roadway operations versus the need to provide access to adjacent properties and businesses.

The term access management is applied to a number of measures that can be used to enhance a roadway's safety and its ability to move vehicular traffic through management and control of access points to the roadway. These measures include:

• Limiting the number of driveway access points to decrease turning conflicts

• Location of entrance or access points further from adjacent intersections

• Providing sufficient spacing between intersecting streets

• Spacing traffic signals to optimize traffic flow

• Implementing sight distance guidelines to improve safety

• Use of channelization to preclude selected turning conflicts


The purpose of a county access management program is to;

1. Enhance the county's ability to provide a safe roadway system

2. Assist in efficiently moving traffic

3. Support on-site circulation patterns that minimize impacts to the county roadway system

4. Provide safe and reasonable access to adjacent properties

This chapter discusses the basis behind the evaluation and regulation of access to county roadways. Access Management Guidelines are included in the Support Documents that explain the entrance / driveway permitting process and the design guidelines used for access construction.

7.2 Principles of Access Management Through State Statute (160.18, Subd. 3), the State of Minnesota has granted regulatory authority to agencies that have roadway and highway responsibilities. The statute says:

“The owner or occupant of property abutting upon a public highway, having a right of direct private access thereto, may provide such other or additional means of ingress from and egress to the highway as will facilitate the efficient use of the property for a particular lawful purpose, subject to reasonable regulation by and permit from the road authority as is necessary to prevent interference with the construction, maintenance and safe use of the highway and its appurtenances and the public use thereof.”

These agencies include Mn/DOT, counties and cities. The regulatory authority includes the issuance of entrance / driveway permits for properties located immediately adjacent to the roadway. Minnesota Rules (Chapter 8810.4100 to 8810.5600) have been established to implement the statute for trunk highways to “establish certain optimum design specifications for driveways providing a means of ingress and egress from private property located along and adjacent to the right-of-way of the trunk highway system of the State of Minnesota”. Historically, these operating rules for Mn/DOT have also been used as a basis of the access permitting process for Hennepin County.

In 2002, Mn/DOT released Technical Memorandum No. 02-10-IM-01 that describes the agency’s Access Management Policies and Spacing Guidelines. Hennepin County’s Access Management Guidelines are consistent with Mn/DOT’s Technical Memorandum and the county’s guidelines also address the access management issues described in that memorandum. The HC-TSP includes modified access spacing guidelines from those developed in 2000 to account for the more urban context. In practice, it is recognized that spacing guidelines need a more flexible application in urban areas. The Minnesota Rules noted above and


the Mn/DOT Access Management Technical Memorandum are included within the county access management guidelines in the Support Documents (enclosed CD).

Access management has been practiced by roadway agencies for many years, usually with regard to protecting principal arterials such as interstate highways, expressways and other state highways. For important highway corridors, Mn/DOT has purchased access control rights along highway right-of-ways. This tool is being used less frequently today due to the associated high costs.

Hennepin County has also exercised access management techniques on its roadway system through a variety of practices. The entrance permitting process and preliminary review of developments / plats have been significant tools for access management. Most driveways and street entrances constructed on the county system since the 1960's required permits governing their location and configuration or they have been built in conjunction with a construction plan for upgrading a roadway. The county has processed approximately 4,000 entrance permits on its roadway system to date.

7.2.1 Enhance County’s Ability to Provide a Safe Roadway System One of the primary motivating factors to implementing access management techniques is to improve the safety of the roadway. In recent years, the states of Colorado and Florida have been leaders in examining the safety benefits of reduced access points to a roadway. Studies have consistently found that access management techniques reduce crashes. In fact, studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers have found that 10 to 15 percent of arterial roadway crashes can be attributed to driveway conflicting movements.

Mn/DOT has also been examining the statistical relationship between vehicular crashes and highway access. Based on a statistical analysis of state roadways, Mn/DOT has found that:

• There is a significant correlation between crash rates and access density for all state highway categories.

• Roadway segments with the lowest access density have below average crash rates.

• The correlation between crash rates and access density does not appear to be significantly affected by other characteristics such as traffic volume, speed limit, or type of access.

Crash data within Hennepin County was examined and found to mirror other states’ and Mn/DOT’s findings. The segment data of Hennepin County was plotted to examine the relationship between the crash rates and the access spacing density. Exhibit 7-1shows the plot of the data. It appears that crash rates increase rapidly as the density of access increases (or the average spacing decreases). Based on the limited observations, the number of crashes appears to increase rapidly as the average spacing drops below 500 feet.


Exhibit 7-1 Hennepin County Crash Rates as Function of Access Spacing

Driveway spacing is critical since it is suspected that driveway related crashes are under-reported. Crash reports may fail to link the crash to certain extenuating circumstances such as:

• Rear-end crashes upstream from a driveway related to slowing vehicles trying to make a right turn into a driveway.

• Rear-end crashes downstream from a driveway due to entering vehicles which have not yet accelerated to roadway speed.

• Sideswipe crashes in which a vehicle changes lanes behind another vehicle that is preparing to enter a driveway.

Collisions involving two vehicles using closely spaced adjacent driveways or when the driveway is close to an intersection.

7.2.2Assist in Efficiently Moving Traffic Good access management can positively affect the roadway mobility function while decreasing the number of vehicle conflicts. A vehicle conflict is defined as a point where two moving vehicle paths cross (see Exhibit 7-2). The studies mentioned above have found that the traffic capacity of a road decreases markedly as turning traffic is added from driveways.


Exhibit 7-2 Types of Vehicle Conflicts

The roadway capacity can be profoundly affected by reducing the turning vehicle conflicts. Estimates based on empirical studies performed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the 1970s of four-lane undivided arterials found that the capacity decreases approximately 1 percent for every 2 percent of added turning traffic into the connecting driveways.

The terms access and mobility are frequently used interchangeably, but they represent two distinct concepts. Roads can function in two ways; they may provide access to properties and they provide mobility, the ability to get from one place to another. Access to properties is needed at both ends of a trip. Mobility involves the speed and freedom of movement along the path of each trip. Most roadways serve both functions to some degree, and this planned degree of access and mobility determines the road's functional classification. The four levels of functional classification are:

Table 7-1 Relationship between Functional Classification, Mobility and Land Access

Roadway Functional Class Level of Mobility Level of Land Access

Principal Arterials Highest None

Minor Arterials High Limited

Collector Streets Moderate Moderate

Local Streets Low Highest


In an efficient roadway network, these four types of roadways function together in a complementary fashion to serve the needs of the traveling public. The proportion of arterials, collectors and local streets must be of a proper balance to achieve a roadway system that operates effectively. Modifications made to a roadway's function without consideration of the complete roadway system will tend to undermine the operations of the system. For example, a system comprised of all local streets would not move traffic very well. Conversely, a system of too many arterials would not provide adequate land access.

The county roadway system is primarily made up of minor arterial type roadways that should primarily provide a mobility function with minimal direct land access. In the urban area, this function often comes into conflict with the perceived function that some county roads are neighborhood streets. In some cases, local residents may favor lowering speed limits and other "traffic calming" techniques to limit the facility's mobility function. These traffic calming techniques are in direct conflict with the objective of increasing the road mobility aspect, and providing for efficient movement of goods and services along key high volume routes within a community.

7.2.3 Support On-Site Circulation Patterns that Minimize Impacts to County Roadway System The pattern of land development can have a significant impact on a roadway’s operations. If adjacent properties develop piecemeal with no underlying plan, numerous individual driveways will result – thus degrading the roadway operations.

Access management should begin early, before an area develops or when redevelopment alternatives are being investigated. Long range corridor plans can result in a reduction of access points needed, and also provide for more efficient land subdivision. Exhibit 7-3 illustrates an example of how land development patterns can affect the access spacing.


Exhibit 7-3 Access Management Needs to be Considered as Part of Land Subdivision

7.2.4 Provide Safe and Reasonable Access to Adjacent Properties Individual property owner’s desires for convenient roadway access needs to be balanced with the public need to provide as safe a roadway as possible. The proper balance between these competing objectives can be obtained through long range planning that includes the designation of land uses and the establishment of future roadway concepts.

The county is obligated to provide access to a parcel of land if the parcel would otherwise be landlocked and there is no other alternative available. This problem can be avoided by thoughtful design at the time of site planning. Generally, local street systems need to be configured so that properties have their access oriented to the local streets which then provide connections to the collector street system and ultimately the minor arterial roadway system.

7.2.5 Access Management Experience Experience with the implementation of the access management techniques and guidelines from the 2000 HC-TSP has found that for large developments, this area is a high-profile and highly charged area.

Generally, most residents, developers and city staff accept the principles behind access management – the challenges appear when these principles are applied to specific cases. Issues of property rights, business livelihood, and neighborhood livability all surface during development reviews of medium to large-sized developments or redevelopments.


Observations of the process to date have found that the challenges occur in two main areas: process and communication.

Process challenges include:

• Results of “piece-mealed development”

• Difficulty of monitoring the status of recommendations

Communication challenges include:

• Lack of resident awareness of previous decisions

• Coordination issues between agencies and departments

By far, the most difficult challenge has been dealing with the “piece-mealed” development process whereby some land is developed, but critical exception parcels are left behind or the phasing is such that first-in residents become a constituency that forms against allowing the other future planned phases of the development, thereby focusing development access to the county roadway system instead of the local street system.

One planning tool that could be used more to assist with these types of issues is the “ghost plat” – a shadow layout of how the whole area is anticipated to develop including land use types and future street system alignments. Although adjustments would likely be needed over time as conditions change, these ghost plats can help identify the shape and orientation of the development and help to determine where major intersections should be placed. This type of coordination has occurred with a number of cities within Hennepin County.

7.2.6 Access Spacing Guidelines In the 2000 HC-TSP Hennepin County adopted access spacing guidelines that were based on national and local research and were consistent with those used by Mn/DOT. For this 2030 HC-TSP, the guidelines have been refined and the charts have been reformatted to classify the access based on the type of land use being served as shown in Table 7-2. Further information on the guidelines and the entrance/driveway permitting process is contained in the Access Management Guidelines document included in the Support Documents CD in the map pocket of this report.


Table 7-2 Access Types

Access Type Description

Single Family Residential &

Agricultural Field Entrance

Access to single family residential dwellings and unimproved field entrances for agricultural land.

Low Volume Driveway

(< or = 500 vehicles per day)

Small commercial, industrial and institutional developments and small residential complexes having trip generation less than 1,000 trips per day.

High Volume Driveway

(> 500 vehicles per day)

Large commercial, industrial and institutional developments, shopping centers, office parks, colleges, and large residential subdivisions having trip generation greater than 1,000 trips per day.

Low Volume Public Street

(< or = 2,500 ADT)

Streets and roadways with a projected 20-year ADT less than 2,500 vehicles per day.

High Volume Public Street

(> 2,500 ADT)

Streets / roadways with a projected 20-year ADT greater than (or equal to) 2,500 vehicles per day.

For each access type, the guidelines provide recommended spacing of access points for rural and urban settings. Urban is defined as being location within the 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary as defined by the Metropolitan Council.

An Urban Core category was added to the 2000 HC-TSP guidelines in response to comments on the plan and experience administering the guidelines over the last few years. The Urban Core recognizes the constraints of fully developed areas that have a tightly woven network of public streets with relatively short block lengths of 300-660 feet. This category is similar to that used by Mn/DOT in its guidelines, and is meant for cities such as Minneapolis and the first ring suburbs.

In addition the spacing is categorized by the functional classification of minor arterial and collector street. The functional classification is defined in the Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan (2030 HC-TSP) and in individual city Comprehensive Plans.

For proposed private entrances, the trip generation characteristics of a development can generally be estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual. Developments which are not categorized by the ITE Trip Generation Manual can often be estimated based on similar type developments or using specific data from other sources.

During the review process for development site plans or access permits, consideration will be given to existing limitations for retrofitting projects and for the differences in flexibility of development in a suburban or rural environment versus redevelopment projects in the denser urban environment. All driveway and street access must be set back a minimum of 300 feet from busy


intersections in order to maintain unhindered operations for the intersection turn lanes.

Accesses should conform to the recommended spacing under the appropriate category. Access requests that do not meet the recommended spacing may be required to provide additional justification, evaluation, and analysis. The guidelines allow for a closer spacing on divided roadways if the access is a partial movement access – meaning that only a few movements are allowed (example: right-in / right-out, or right-in only). In most cases, partial accesses are not applicable to undivided roadways without medians since channelizing islands have not been found to be an effective method of precluding wrong-way vehicle movements.

Further information on the guidelines and the entrance / driveway permitting process is contained in the Access Management Guidelines on the 2030 HC-TSP Support Documents CD.

7.2.7 Implementation Actions A Plat Review Committee was established in January 1999 as part of the early implementation of the 2000 HC-TSP recommendations. Since this time, the committee has reviewed hundreds of preliminary plats, site / concept plans, and access requests.

As part of the platting process, the committee has recommended to the cities and obtained the dedication of over 40 acres of right-of-way along county roadways. This land has a value of almost $11 million in today’s dollars. Other recommendations from the 2000 HC-TSP that have been implemented include the development of a Plat Review brochure outlining the process and information needs, and the update of the county’s 1967 driveway specifications.

CHAPTER 8

ROAD JURISDICTION


Introduction

What Does Roadway Jurisdiction Signify?

County Roadway System Criteria

Types of County Funding Designations

Why Are Jurisdictional Changes Necessary?

Candidates for Roadway Jurisdictional Transfers

HC – TSP 8-1 Chapter 8 – Roadway Jurisdiction

Chapter 8 Road Jurisdiction

8.1 Introduction Roadway jurisdiction determines whether a road falls under the state, county or city level of responsibility. This chapter examines why jurisdictional road assignments are needed, how system continuity is achieved for the county roadway system, and what the ramifications are for funding designations. The chapter also describes the criteria for county roadway system designation. The need for changes in jurisdictional designations is discussed and potential candidates for exchange are identified.

8.2 What Does Roadway Jurisdiction Signify? The jurisdiction of a roadway is important as it signifies how a road is handled for the following items.

Administration The jurisdiction identifies the agency having system responsibilities for planning, design, construction, and maintenance. Each agency’s staff has special expertise and a distinct philosophy which appropriately matches to the level of roadways they are responsible for.

Funding Certain funding sources are made available based on a roadway’s jurisdictional classification. For example, by policy established by the Metropolitan Council, certain minor arterial roadways are eligible for federal funding participation.

Functional Classification The hierarchy of roadway functional classification is supported by having the proper agencies assigned to monitor a road’s mobility and access priorities.

System Continuity Appropriate jurisdictional classification is necessary to provide system connectivity and consistency.

Administrative levels generally refer to the state, county and city (or township). At the state level, Mn/DOT oversees the interstate freeways, U.S. trunk highways, and state trunk highways. Hennepin County oversees county roadways and the individual cities are responsible for local streets.

The eligibility to use certain funding sources or portions of the funding sources is tied to the jurisdictional designation. For instance, County State Aid funding can


only be used on CSAH routes. Similar links to specific funding categories also exist for state highways and municipal streets.

Functional classification responsibilities also tend to be tied to jurisdiction. As was discussed previously in Chapter 6 on Functional Classification (Exhibit 6-3), Mn/DOT ideally has jurisdiction over principal arterials and some minor arterials, Hennepin County has jurisdiction over most minor arterials and some collector streets and local cities have jurisdiction over most collector streets and all local streets.

System continuity is important since each agency is responsible to provide for certain types of trip making within their jurisdictional regions. For instance, Mn/DOT is interested in maintaining a system of highways which serves the state, Hennepin County’s roadway system needs to serve regional and subregional travel needs, and individual cities are concerned about street systems which connect local neighborhoods.

For Hennepin County, connectivity is achieved through developing:

• System connections

• Linkages to major activity centers

• Spanning significant natural and man-made barriers

• Inter-county connections between urban and rural areas

• An interconnected network within a county-wide system

• Integration between the regional metropolitan highway system and the local street systems

Consistency is achieved through adherence to:

• Design guidelines and standards

• Design operating speeds

• Access spacing guidelines

• Maintaining the role of county roadways within the overall hierarchy of the regional transportation system

• Application of safety elements

8.3 County Roadway System Criteria To be included in the county roadway system, a facility should satisfy a number of basic criteria. To serve county-wide motorized and non-motorized transportation modes, the roadway corridor should:

• . . . be projected to carry a relatively heavy volume of daily and peak hour trips.


• . . . satisfy the regional functional classification guidelines for minor arterial roads.

• . . . enhance system connectivity by linking to major activity centers, spanning major natural or man-made barriers, or interconnecting urban and rural environments.

• . . . maintain system continuity (design, speeds, access spacing, county role, safety elements).

• . . . be integrated with the state trunk highway system and the local street system.

• . . . serve medium length trips that travel within a community or across city boundaries within the county.

• . . . provide a moderate level of mobility with a relatively lower level of direct land access. Depending on the context of the location, the balance between providing mobility and land access will vary between urban and rural areas.

• . . . be compatible with the desirable network spacing and it should provide county-wide coverage.

The selection criteria needs to allow for special circumstances where it would be in the county’s interest to designate a roadway even if some of the above criteria were not met, for example - providing a county regional park access route.

These criteria are for guidance in the selection process. Many competing and overlapping elements are involved and a considerable amount of professional judgment must be included in the final evaluation.

8.4 Types of County Funding Designations County roadways have two primary funding related designations: 1) County State Aid Highway (CSAH) and 2) County Road.

8.4.1 County State Aid Highway County State Aid Highways are routes that are eligible for state aid funding assistance. Currently, Hennepin County has approximately 520 centerline miles designated as CSAH routes. Besides state aid monies, other funding sources available to CSAH routes include:

Federal Aid Most CSAH routes are functionally classified as “A” type minor arterials by the Metropolitan Council, and as such, they are eligible for federal assistance made available by the Metropolitan Council.


Property Tax Monies levied directly from property taxes are available for county roadways. Another mechanism is for the county to issue county road bonds which are repaid via property tax revenues.

Local Matching Funds Many construction elements require a local matching contribution. For instance, the construction of sidewalks or multi-use trails within county roadway rights-of-way requires a local contribution.

Trunk Highway Turnback Roads, which were formally designated by Mn/DOT as trunk highways, become CSAH roadways when they are conveyed to the county. A turnback funding account is normally available to the county for improvements after the road is transferred.

State Bonding Funds County road bridge construction projects are eligible to use state bonding monies.

8.4.2 County Roads Roadways that are not designated as CSAH (county roads) generally serve cities under 5,000 population and carry low levels of traffic volumes. This class of roads is functionally classified as “B” type minor arterials or collector streets. Approximately 40 centerline miles of the county roadway system are designated as county road. The funding source for maintenance and construction is primarily county property tax.

8.5 Why Are Jurisdictional Changes Necessary? The function of some roadways change or transition over time due to factors such as increased urbanization or other significant changes in the roadway system. System realignments and adjustments are often made to facilitate functional changes prompted by new land development and redevelopment.

Jurisdictional transfers are generally infrequent. Hennepin County typically processes 2-3 transfers in an average year. The four types of jurisdictional transfers that occur are:


8.5.1 Trunk Highways Turned Back to Hennepin County Under this type of exchange, the roadways formerly under state jurisdiction are no longer functioning as a principal arterial, but are functioning as a minor arterial.

One example of a recent jurisdictional change would be the transfer of old Trunk Highway 212 from Mn/DOT to Hennepin County as part of the construction of the new TH-212 through Eden Prairie into Carver County.

Improvements of a roadway can change the type and directional nature of trips using another parallel roadway thus supporting a jurisdictional change. For example, the construction of the new TH-12 Bypass in Long Lake and Orono significantly reduced the through trips on the old highway changing its principal arterial function to more of a minor arterial function similar to other county roadways.

In some cases, Mn/DOT may have originally designated trunk highway routes through the urban core area in an effort to maintain continuity with the statewide system. Recent examples of this type of a transfer include CSAH-101 (formerly TH-101) in Corcoran and Plymouth, University Avenue / CSAH-36 (formerly US-52) and Washington Avenue / CSAH-122 (formerly TH-122) at the University of Minnesota.

Table 8-1 lists the trunk highway turnbacks that have occurred in Hennepin County to date.


Table 8-1 History of Trunk Highway Turnbacks in Hennepin County

Former Trunk Highway

Present County State Aid Highway

Location Turnback Mileage

Date of Transfer Release

TH-190 CSAH-46

(East 46th Street)

Minneapolis 1.35 July 1966

US-169 CSAH-158

(Vernon Avenue)

Edina 2.23 November 1967

TH-101 CSAH-12 & CSAH-13

Dayton & Hassan

Township

5.68 October 1968

TH-190 CSAH-5

(Franklin Avenue)

Minneapolis 0.25 April 1977

US-212 CSAH-3 (Excelsior Blvd.)

Hopkins 1.99 July 1980

TH-152 CSAH-152 (Brooklyn Blvd.)

Brooklyn Center

0.47 July 1980

TH-47 CSAH-52 Minneapolis 0.08 July 1981

TH-152 CSAH-152 Minneapolis 4.04 November 1984

TH-36 CSAH-3 (Lake Street)

Minneapolis 0.46 February 1987

15 Segments of Trunk Highways

Mn/DOT Agreement No. 64760 *

---- ---- April 1988

US-52 CSAH-152 (Washington Ave.)

Minneapolis 1.71 May 1996

TH-122 CSAH-122 (Washington Ave.)

Minneapolis 1.44 November 1996

TH-101 CSAH-101 Minnetonka & Wayzata

6.19 October 1997

TH-65 CSAH-152 Minneapolis 0.15 April 2005

US-212 CSAH-61 Eden Prairie 7.12 November 2009

US-12 CSAH-112 Long Lake & Orono

4.14 January 2011

* This 1988 agreement between Mn/DOT and Hennepin County exchanged 15 segments of trunk highway and legislative routes for the existing county roadways of CSAH-62 and CSAH-18 (now TH-62 and TH-169).


8.5.2 County Roads Turned Back to Cities County roads that are primarily serving a collector type local street function are occasionally turned back to cities when the transfer serves both agency’s purposes. Recent transfers of this type include Rogers Drive (formerly CSAH-49) in Rogers and West River Road (formerly CSAH-12) in Brooklyn Park.

The turnback of a county roadway to a city is accomplished through a dialog intended to lessen the maintenance burden to the accepting city. The county’s policy is to ensure the road has been upgraded to provide a long service life prior to the turnback. Hennepin County will not proceed with a turnback action to a city unless the city is comfortable with the terms of the turnback.

8.5.3 County Roads Transferred to Mn/DOT These types of transfers are relatively infrequent. They are initiated when a county road has transitioned from a minor arterial function to a principal arterial function. The road is carrying significant volumes of traffic, and is serving regional travel movements beyond Hennepin County.

Two examples of this type of jurisdictional change are the transfer of CSAH-62 (Crosstown Highway – now TH-62) and CSAH-18 (now TH-169). Both roadways are limited access freeways that serve the region, connect to major Mississippi River crossings and carry tens of thousands of trips every day. The transfer of these two roadways was included in the 1988 Mn/DOT Transfer Agreement that exchanged CSAH-62 and CSAH-18 for 15 segments of trunk highway and legislative routes.

8.5.4 Local Streets Added to County Roadway System Higher volume local streets that are transitioning to serving longer trips are often added to the county roadway system by agreement with the affected city. A recent example of this type of transfer was the designation of Noble Parkway as new CSAH-12 in the City of Brooklyn Park. This transfer was done as an exchange for the county transferring old CSAH-12 (West River Road) to the city.

8.6 Candidates for Roadway Jurisdictional Transfers

Map E, entitled “Jurisdiction and Long-range Transportation Issue Areas.” is included in the report map pocket and it displays potential candidates for jurisdictional transfers based on an evaluation of the county roadway system and based on discussions with Mn/DOT and a number of cities. The items identified on the map are provided for discussion purposes only. The identified roadway segments do not constitute implicit support by the affected agencies for any of the potential revisions.


Jurisdictional transfers or exchanges are generally a result of a mutually agreed transaction between both affected agencies. As part of the transfer of a county roadway to another agency, Hennepin County will try to ensure that the roadway has an adequate design life so as not to burden the accepting agency with undue maintenance needs. To do this, the county will often provide improvements such as a pavement overlay and other miscellaneous upgrades for a roadway before it is transferred to a city.

It is anticipated that considerable on-going discussion will occur regarding these candidates as part of the comprehensive planning process since these transfers involve a number of issues including funding, functional class, and system continuity. Additional evaluation will be required to resolve which candidates will ultimately be put forth as recommendations during the implementation of the 2030 HC-TSP.

CHAPTER 9

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION


Introduction

Goals, Strategies, and Performance Measures

HC – TSP 9-1 Chapter 9 – Plan Implementation

Chapter 9 Plan Implementation

9.1 Introduction This chapter of the plan focuses on plan implementation. It is structured by listing the transportation goals followed by a number of implementation strategies and the respective performance metrics that will be used to evaluate the county’s progress toward accomplishing the goals. The system performance measures will be used for long range investment planning purposes as well as a component in determining projects for the 5-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The five goals and the various metrics are listed in Table 9-1.

System evaluation is the process of periodically examining the performance of the various modal systems and key system elements to determine how they are performing relative to identified targets or performance metrics. There are a number of new performance metrics that are being introduced as part of this plan, therefore, some qualifications need to be made to better interpret them and how they relate to achieving the goals. The qualifications include:

• Because many of the performance measures are using new baseline data and/or new baseline data will need to be developed, this information is untested. This will likely require refinement as more experience is gained. Leaders and stakeholders should look at these metrics as the first step in this process and acknowledge that these measures will likely need to be refined over time to get to metrics and targets that are reflective of system performance as well as user expectations.

• Hennepin County is one of a number of transportation agencies in a larger system; it has some but not total control over a number of the outcomes. For example, VMT on the county system depends on many factors including but not limited to local land use decisions, improvements or lack of improvements on state trunk highways, availability of convenient transportation alternatives and cost of driving (fuel and vehicle costs). These types of measures and resulting outcomes while important must be put in the context of these and other influencing factors.


In addition, fiscal constraints will likely result in trade-offs and/or limited investments in various areas. The performance metrics are intended to show the results and/or impacts of these policy choices.

The HC - TSP establishes the framework for sustaining the economic competitiveness of Hennepin County and the quality of life of its residents by enhancing transportation mobility, improving transportation safety, increasing transportation choices, and influencing land use and development density to increase system efficiency.1

The county’s transportation goals and associated metrics are shown in

These factors will be important to attracting both major corporations and future work force to Hennepin County and the Twin Cities metropolitan area.

Table 9-1. These metrics are intended to guide investment and policy decisions, as well as to inform stakeholders of the county’s progress toward accomplishing the goals within a reasonable dedication of available resources. In addition, many of the metrics are relatively new with limited baseline data; these metrics will likely need to be refined over time to ensure that they are reflective of system performance, user expectations, and available resources. Finally, the county is one of a number of agencies in the larger transportation system; it has some but not total control over a number of outcomes. The goals, strategies, and metrics are outlined in the remaining portion of this chapter.

1 Brookings Institution, MSP Business Plan Executive Summary, April 2011


Table 9-1 Hennepin County Transportation Goals and Metrics

Goal Evaluation Item Measure Target by 2030

1. Preserve and modernize the existing transportation system

Pavement Pavement Serviceability (PSR) Two-thirds of pavements with serviceability rating (PSR) > 3.0 ; No more than 5 percent of pavements with (PSR) <2.5

Signals % within Life Cycle All signalized intersections within 25 year life cycle

Bridges Bridges Programmed All structurally deficient bridges programmed for replacement or rehabilitation; no more than 8 % structurally deficient at any one time

2. Improve safety for all transportation users

Vehicles County Average Crash Rate 50 % reduction in year 2000 rate (0.5 X 4.82) = (2.41 crashes per million vehicle miles [mvm]) by 2030

Vehicles Segment Crash Rate 50 % reduction in year 2000 rate (0.5 X 2.01) = (1.01 crashes per mvm) by 2030

Vehicles Intersection Crash Rate 50 % reduction in year 2000 rate (0.5 X 0.81) = (0.41 crashes per million vehicles [mv] entering) by 2030

Bicycles Bicycle Crash History** 50 % reduction in year 2000 crashes (0.5 X 191) = 81 crashes by 2030; prepare to convert to crash rate by 2013

Pedestrians Pedestrian Crash History 50 % reduction in year 2000 crashes (0.5 X 184) = 92 crashes by 2030

3. Provide mobility and choice to meet the diversity of transportation needs as well as to support health objectives throughout the county

Transit Regional Transit Ridership Double 2003 regional transit ridership by 2020 (2 x 73.3) = 146.6 million riders

Bicycles Bicycle usage** Double bicycle usage by 2030: TBD

Bicycles Miles Bikeways Facilities Built Completion of bicycle system by 2030

Bicycles Barriers and Gaps Removed Average of five gaps closed per year with all gaps closed by 2030

Pedestrians % of urban roadways with walks % of urban roadways with walks; provide sidewalks on all urban roadways by 2030

Roadways Volume to capacity ratio All county roadway segments have V/C ratios <1.0 unless adverse societal impacts will result

Roadways Intersection Level of Service (LOS) All intersections on county projects designed to provide LOS "D" or better unless adverse societal impacts will result

System Accessibility** X % of residential units within 25 minutes of major employment center by roadway; X % of residential units within 25 minutes of major employment center by transit

4. Increase spatial efficiency of system

Land Use Proximity of growth near major transit facilities**

60 percent of new residents and new jobs (growth) within ½ mile of a major transit corridor and/or free standing transit hubs

Land Use Housing and Transportation Affordability Index** To be determined

5. Reduce the county’s environmental footprint

Vehicles Vehicle miles traveled per capita Reduce VMT per capita to year 2000 levels

Air Quality** Hennepin County to maintain its attainment status. Specific elements for tracking air quality are to be determined.

* These metrics will help guide investment and policy decision and inform stakeholders within a reasonable dedication of available resources.

**Additional effort is needed to specifically define the evaluation measures and identified targets.


9.2 Goals, Strategies, and Performance Measures This section lists the five transportation goals introduced in Chapter 1. In addition to the goals, strategies and performance measures to implement and monitor progress are described. Currently, the Hennepin County Public Works Business Line is in the process of updating its Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan also includes performance measures to monitor specific goals. Upon completion of the Strategic Plan, a review of the performance measures in that document and the HC-TSP is needed to insure that the measures are consistent. This will be done at a future time.

Goal 1. Preserve and modernize the existing transportation system While a certain share of the county’s transportation budget is set aside each year for maintenance, much of the county’s infrastructure is aging. This is particularly challenging in the older, more developed parts of the county. Many county roadways, particularly in the urban core and first ring suburbs, are in need of rehabilitation or reconstruction. Many of these roads are old, were not initially designed to support the land use forms desired today, are not pedestrian or bicycle friendly, and are in need of both infrastructure and land use revitalization. Deferred maintenance has undesirable consequences from a financial as well as a user perspective, and effective planning is needed to ensure that quality infrastructure is sustained over time.

Strategies

• Increase preservation/modernization activities to raise quality of pavements with special emphasis inside the I-494/I-694 ring where a higher percentage of poor pavements exist.

• Integrate where feasible and practical, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations as part of rehabilitation/modernization2 improvement projects.3

• As part of reconstruction efforts, identify and implement areas where bicycle and pedestrian accommodations can be effectively integrated into the design.

• Identify traffic signal needs that are beyond life-cycle and develop a program for replacement/upgrades.

2 Modernize means to update/improve existing roadway infrastructure without capacity expansions

(e.g., refurbish pavement and sidewalks, update signal and drainage systems without adding lanes) 3 These projects are typically quick hitting projects with short planning and design timeframes; as

such, limited staff time is available to study and analyze complex issues involving striping, signing, parking, maintenance, intersection operations issues. These projects also have limited to no public involvement. The county will make its best efforts to coordinate and implement these elements where they are feasible with existing resources.


• Based on annual bridge inspection programs, identify structurally deficient bridges and timing for rehabilitation/replacement.

• Consider implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to efficiently manage the system and improve safety as well as communicate traveler information to users.4

Performance Measures

Pavement Serviceability

Hennepin County implemented a pavement management system in 1996 to identify roadway maintenance priorities. The initial study examined the overall condition of the county pavement network and highlighted options that Hennepin County could pursue to improve and maintain the pavement conditions.

The pavement management system tracks pavement condition to help decision-making regarding the cost / benefit trade-offs of road reconstruction versus lower level maintenance strategies. As Exhibit 9-1 illustrates, as the pavement condition decreases, the cost for the appropriate method of repair can increase significantly.

Exhibit 9-1 Relationship of Road Improvement Costs as the Quality (condition) of a Road Deteriorates

Source: “The Hole Story,” American Public Works Association

4 Hennepin County completed an ITS Strategic Plan in June 2007 that included implementation

strategies and priorities. As recommended in the report, some pilot deployments of warning signage and purchase of improved automated traffic counting technologies have been completed.


Maintenance activities applied to surfaces in better condition, such as sealcoats, thin or structural overlays may prove to be more cost effective than waiting until the pavement is in poor condition when it is necessary to perform more costly maintenance or reconstruction.

The Hennepin County roadway system is monitored via an annual inspections program which rates pavements for their ride quality. This data is used by the pavement management system to produce the Present Serviceability Rating (PSR). The rating varies from 0.0 (Very Poor) to 5.0 (Very Good). Exhibit 9-2 illustrates the percent of lane miles rated as “Good” or better (PSR>3.0) since the monitoring program began in 1997.

Exhibit 9-2 Present Serviceability Rating Percent of Lane Miles Rated “Good” or better (PSR>3.0)

Signals within Life Cycle

Signal systems provide important traffic controls for roadways throughout the county. They control various movements to maintain safety and traffic flows as well as provide for pedestrian crossings. Signals are becoming increasingly sophisticated with options for transit priority, emergency interrupt as well as remote management. Hennepin County maintains 780 traffic signals across the county. With an average life cycle of 25 years5

5 Standard of practice in the industry is 20 to 30 years.

it should be replacing/updating approximately 30 signals per year to fully maintain their condition.


Structurally Deficient Bridges Programmed

The bridge condition measure is based on the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) sufficiency rating. This rating measures the structures ability to remain in service. The rating ranges from zero to 100 with zero being an entirely insufficient or deficient bridge and 100 being an entirely sufficient bridge. There are many factors that go into this rating. Structures with a rating of 50 or less qualify for federal replacement funds and structures less than 80 can qualify for federal rehabilitation funds. The county’s performance measure is the percentage of county structures that have a sufficiency rating of less than 50. The performance target is to have no more than 10 percent of its structures less than 50. Exhibit 9-3 illustrates the percent of Hennepin County bridges with sufficiency ratings less than 50.

Exhibit 9-3 Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings Less Than 50


Goal 2. Improve safety for all transportation users Providing a safe transportation system for all users is always a high priority for the county. This needs to be accomplished through a combination of engineering, education and enforcement, and needs to be targeted towards all users including drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians. Strategies that will be pursued to achieve this goal include but are not limited to the following:

Strategies

• Annually review crash rate information for roadway segments and intersections to determine spot locations and/or segments that have potential safety issues. Identify lower cost/high benefit solutions that could be pursued to address issues and/or incorporate potential solutions into ongoing program and/or maintenance activities.

• Annually review pedestrian and bicycle crash information to determine conditions that are potential safety issues. Work with local agencies, bicycle community and private partners to implement solutions.6

• Proactively work with local and regional partners as well as the private sector to incorporate safety into all transportation designs that impact county facilities.

• Work with other partner agencies to establish a community education program that better educates pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists on how to share the road safely.

• Continue Spot Safety Evaluation in coordination with operations/maintenance actions

6 Map G in the report pocket entitled “Spot Safety and Corridor Issue Areas” shows locations that

exceed critical crash rate and have total crash severity that exceed $200,000 per year. A total of 71 intersections were identified – 12 of which fall within the limits of a currently funded project in the county capital improvements program or within some other funded project (a county maintenance project or city project



Crash Rate Analysis

Hennepin County crash information is obtained annually from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. This information undergoes an audit process within the county whereby the accuracy of the data is verified, clarifications are added, and crash locations are checked to enhance the usability and accuracy of the computerized information.

From this data, basic statistical analysis is completed including a review of countywide crash rates and comparisons to other crash rate trends. Exhibit 9-4 shows the historical crashes and crash rates for Hennepin County. The crash rate in 2006 is at the lowest level since statistics were first calculated in 1972. Beginning in 1998, crashes within the City of Minneapolis were added to the county totals (about 45percent of all county crashes occur in Minneapolis).

Exhibit 9-5compares Hennepin County crash rates with those observed for Minnesota and the nation. While county crash rates compare favorably with the averages for the United States (slightly lower), the rates are higher than the averages for Minnesota.

The final step in the crash rate analysis process includes the evaluation of roadway segments and intersections with respect to the “critical rate.” The critical rate is the statistical upper control based on the average rates for all similar type locations. If the observed crash rate is greater than the critical rate, the deviation is probably not due strictly to chance, but to an unfavorable characteristic of the location that warrants further study.

Crash rates are used as part of the signal / roundabout needs evaluation for current non-signalized intersections. Crash rates are also used in an annual ranking of all Hennepin County major intersections. Similar to the critical rate comparisons, these rankings help to identify locations that may need to be looked at for specific improvements and/or crash mitigation measures.


Exhibit 9-4 Hennepin County Crashes and Crash Rate

Source: 2006 Motor Vehicle Crash Facts - Hennepin County Transportation Department

Exhibit 9-5 Comparison Crash Rates

Source: 2006 Motor Vehicle Crash Facts - Hennepin County Transportation Department

Once improvements are made, before/after studies are annually performed to determine whether a reduction in the crash rate was achieved.


Bicycle Crashes

Exhibit 9-6 illustrates the number of bicycle crashes that occurred on the county roadway system in suburban Hennepin County since 1970. The county has recently begun tracking statistics that include the City of Minneapolis. Overall, the crash trend decreased in the late 1990s even as more people were bicycling and traffic volumes were increasing. However, data from the last couple of years indicates a change in this trend and a possible increase in bicycle crashes.

Exhibit 9-6 Bicycle Crash History 1970-2008

Source: Minnesota Department of Public Safety


Pedestrian Crashes

Exhibit 9-7 illustrates the number of pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes that occurred in Hennepin County since 1976. The county has recently begun tracking statistics that include the City of Minneapolis. Additional detailed crash analysis should be pursued to understand the reasons and trends behind pedestrian crashes. Characteristics should be categorized by the locations, weather, intersection geometrics, etc. of the crashes. Clusters of crashes should be examined to determine what courses of action can be taken to increase pedestrian safety and reduce crashes.

Exhibit 9-7 Pedestrian/Vehicle Crashes


Goal 3. Provide mobility and choice to meet the diversity of transportation needs as well as to support health objectives throughout the county Hennepin County is a very large and diverse county that encompasses the high density downtown core of Minneapolis, the older first ring suburbs, the lower density but developed second ring suburbs, newly developing third ring suburbs and rural areas. Transportation needs in the county are common — people need transportation to access jobs, schools, shopping, and recreation; however transportation choices vary dramatically throughout the county due to this diversity of development and land form. Hennepin County recognizes that this diversity of development provides a variety of choices for residents and businesses and this requires a diversity of transportation strategies and investments.

While the county’s transportation vision includes a more diverse multimodal transportation system, it recognizes that it is not feasible or responsible to provide for the same level of mobility and choice throughout the county. The county will develop and provide transportation systems including roadways, rail transit, multi-use bikeways and walkways which link metropolitan systems and local systems. These transportation systems will be provided and maintained to enhance residents’ mobility, to support economic vitality, and to allow for flexibility in individual travel mode choices.

The county’s highway network and bicycle trail network will be developed to provide mobility and opportunities for “active living” with reasonable coverage over the entire county and pedestrian accommodations will be provided on all urban7

Hennepin County and the HCRRA will continue to play a leadership role in the planning and implementation of transit facilities in the county and, through CTIB, in the region. Major transit investments will be focused key transit corridors (consistent with the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan). In addition, the county may facilitate and help plan other related transit facilities that extend transit connections to a free standing growth centers that help feed major transit corridors. However, the construction and operation of transit facilities and transit

roadways as stated in the Complete Streets policy. Hennepin County has adopted both “Active Living” and “Complete Streets” policies intended to encourage residents to become healthier through a more active lifestyle that encompasses greater walking and biking. There has been a significant increase in both walking and biking in recent years and this trend is expected to continue, particularly with the support of public policy and public infrastructure investment. The provision of sidewalks, bikeways and trails is critical to the successful realization of these policies.

7 An urban roadway is one with raised curbs, closed drainage, sidewalks or the ability to incorporate

sidewalks, and is in an area with higher land densities.


services is primarily the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit. Many of the regional transitway corridors are located in Hennepin County including the existing Hiawatha LRT and the proposed Central Corridor LRT currently under construction. Hennepin County is committed to insuring that these transitways are successful, and this requires the close coordination of roadway investments, land use investments, transit investments, and investments in bicycle and pedestrian facilities. A coordinated approach to optimizing these investments will be necessary to achieve the increased ridership needed for success.

Strategies

• Transit Strategies

Move environmental processes forward on major transit corridors including Southwest LRT, Bottineau Transitway, and Downtown Minneapolis Transportation Interchange.

Develop long-term funding strategy for major transit corridors.

Work with local communities and other stakeholders on station planning, park and rides, and land use.

Work with Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and other partners to coordinate improvements on connecting facilities.

Consider development of a Hennepin County Transit Strategy document.

• Bicycle Strategies

Review and revise the bicycle system plan including a complete walkway system map.

Integrate bicycle facilities into roadway projects in accordance with the county bikeway plan and Complete Streets policies.

Incrementally address bikeway gaps.

Integrate bicycle parking and other amenities into transit stations.

Ensure that bicycle connections are made along other key routes to feed transit stations.

Develop a comprehensive, county-wide strategy for improving bicycle access to schools.

Partner with cities and agencies to make off-road trails available to bicyclists 365 days a year.


• Pedestrian Strategies

Develop a pedestrian system plan that integrates city plans and a complete walkway system map.

Ensure that pedestrian accommodations are integrated into urban roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation projects.

Ensure that pedestrian connections are integrated into transit stations and bus stops and along key routes that feed transit stations.

Incorporate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan strategies in roadway reconstruction/rehabilitation projects.

Develop a comprehensive, county-wide strategy for improving pedestrian access to schools.

• Roadway Mobility Strategies

Integrate transit advantages and transit priority into traffic operations where appropriate.

Work with local agencies and private sector to identify roadway and bridge improvements needed to accommodate growth/development.

Work with local agencies and Mn/DOT to coordinate improvements on connecting facilities.

Identify chronic congestion and safety problems and identify, develop, and implement mitigation strategies to address these issues. Work with local partners and other stakeholders to obtain right of way to accommodate future transportation improvements8


.

Regional Transit Ridership

The responsibility for data collection and the evaluation of bus transit service rests with the agencies of the Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, and other local providers such as the Plymouth MetroLink, Maple Grove Transit and SouthWest Transit. Hennepin County does not measure transit system statistics directly, but it monitors the data provided by the regional transit providers.

8 Right-of-way and easements are being acquired as development and redevelopment occurs. When a

preliminary plat or site plan is received for review, recommendations are made to the individual cities to reserve space if the development is adjacent to a county roadway identified on the Bicycle System Plan map. The amount of right-of-way and/or easement is determined in consultation with city staff using the typical roadway sections.


Historical transit ridership statistics are reported by the Metropolitan Council. Most recent data for has shown transit ridership experiencing significant increases, especially in light of the recent increases in gasoline prices. The following exhibit provided by the Metropolitan Council shows the annual ridership goal versus actual ridership between 2003 and 2010.

Exhibit 9-8 Annual Ridership Goal: 2003 through 2010

The Metropolitan Council has monitored transit travel patterns through its four Travel Behavior Inventories taken every ten years since 1970. The Metropolitan Council has also forecasted transit ridership levels in their modeling process. Of particular importance is the regional goal that has been adopted to achieve a doubling of transit ridership by 2030. The patronage for Year 2003 is used as the base for the future doubling goal to 2030. Exhibit 9-8 shows the progress toward meeting this goal. Metro Transit has prepared long-range transit improvement plans aimed at providing service improvements to meet this goal. Growth in regional transit ridership over the past eight years was 2.7 percent per year.

The county prefers to take a more aggressive approach and double regional transit ridership (147,000,000) before 2030. This depends on a number of factors including but not limited to successful development of the Central Corridor LRT, Southwest LRT, Bottineau Transitway, I-35W BRT, and Cedar Avenue BRT, as well as continued operation of current bus services by Metro Transit and other local providers. In addition, it depends heavily on future land use and its proximity to major transit corridors as well as accessibility to major activity centers. The county is committed to encouraging its partners to pursue an earlier achievement of the goal (i.e. double transit ridership by 2025).


Bicycle Usage

There are a number of agencies that have collected bicycle system usage information. A consistent methodology and process is needed for collecting and reporting bicycle usage over time to track trends. It is recommended that agencies develop a consistent method for data collection. This method should have the ability to capture the additional usage of the bicycle system due to the addition of new trails and the closing of bicycle system gaps.

Miles of Bikeway Facilities Built

The Bicycle System Plan map includes a total of 805 miles of potential bikeways within Hennepin County. Of the total miles, 515 miles (57percent) have been built to date by the various agencies within the county. Since the Bicycle Transportation Plan was developed in 1995-96, 68.4 miles of new bikeways have been constructed in partnership with cities and other agencies such as Mn/DOT and Three Rivers Parks. Exhibit 9-9shows the historical trend in bikeway construction. Currently, 16 bikeway projects are tentatively programmed over the next 5 years. Hennepin County is anticipating contributing approximately $2.1 million toward these projects.

Exhibit 9-9 County Bicycle Facilities Miles Constructed

Source: Hennepin County Bikeway Projects Spreadsheet


Barriers and Gaps Removed

The Bicycle System GAP Study prepared in 2002 identified about 90 separate missing segments between existing bikeway facilities. Almost one-third (29) of these original gaps have now been closed, however as new facilities are built more gaps are identified. Since the Bike GAP program was begun, Hennepin County has contributed about $600,000 toward these projects

Percentage of Urban Roadways9

Pedestrians utilize both walkways and multi-use trails within the county roadway right-of-ways. Consistent with the emergence of the Complete Streets and Active Living initiatives, pedestrian facilities are a component of the county’s multi-modal planning efforts. As part of the Complete Streets inventory, the county will be monitoring the percentage of county roadway miles that have pedestrian facilities provided where pedestrian occur and/or are expected to occur.

with Pedestrian Accommodations

Volume to Capacity Ratio

Another category of system effectiveness relates to roadway congestion and operating levels of service. The quality of roadway operations are measured using indicators such as the volume to capacity ratio (V/C), Level of Service (LOS), and vehicle delay (minutes). For system-wide evaluations, the V/C ratio is an appropriate means of analyzing roadway performance since it highlights segments that have roadway volumes that exceed the capacity of the roadway lanes.10

Typically, roadway facilities are designed to provide adequate service over a 20-year design life. The V/C ratio and additional considerations such as the roadway geometrics (today and future) were used to evaluate roadway operations for the forecast Year 2030. Map F in the report pocket entitled “Roadway System Adequacy - 2030 Operations” highlights roadway segments based on the level of anticipated future congestion.

Significant congestion is anticipated for many of the state trunk highways and interstate highways in the metropolitan area. This congestion for many principal arterials is a concern since this trend is an indicator of potential diversion to the minor arterial system.

As in the 2000 HC-TSP, the future traffic forecasts also found heavy travel demands across the northwestern portion of the county. Anticipated future residential development growth just outside Hennepin County in the St. Michael / Albertville

9 An urban roadway is one with raised curbs, closed drainage system, sidewalks or the ability to

incorporate sidewalks, and is in an area with higher land densities and pedestrian activities. 10 Roadway capacities were estimated for Year 2030 based on values originally developed by the

Metropolitan Council for the regional forecasting model as documented in Model Calibration Technical Memo #5 - 1990 Highway Network and TAZ Documentation. The Metropolitan Council capacities were hourly lane volumes categorized by area type and facility type. For average daily analysis, these values were converted to daily capacities and categorized by Functional Classification and Facility Type.


areas and the Otsego / Elk River areas appear to generate trips which are attracted to activity nodes in the metropolitan area such as the future commercial / office areas in the Rogers and Maple Grove areas. These travel patterns tend to put stress on existing 2-lane rural county roadways in Corcoran, Dayton, and Hassan Township.

County roadways in the northwest area of the county that are expected to experience significant congestion over the next 20 years include:

• CSAH-13 (Dayton / Rogers)

• CSAH-30 (Corcoran / Hassan Township)

• CSAH-81 (Maple Grove, Rogers)

• CSAH-101 (Corcoran / Dayton / Hassan Township)

• CSAH-116 (Rogers)

• County Road 116 (Corcoran)

Western portions of the county roadway system also have segments that are anticipated to experience congestion. Growth in the Rockford / Delano areas and Orono / Long Lake areas are forecasted to contribute new vehicle trips. The lack of principal arterials between Trunk Highway 55 / Interstate 94 corridors and the constraints of Lake Minnetonka channel traffic to just a few roadways in these areas. County roadways with potential congestion that appear in this western area include:

• CSAH-6 (Orono)

• CSAH-15 (Minnetonka Beach / Orono)

• CSAH-19 (Tonka Bay)

• CSAH-92 (Minnetrista / St. Bonifacius)

• County Road 139 (Delano / Independence)

Potential future congested county roadways also are sprinkled within Minneapolis and the first / second tier suburbs. Some key roads are:

• CSAH-30 / 93rd Avenue (Brooklyn Park)

• CSAH-81 / Bottineau Blvd. (Brooklyn Park / Brooklyn Center)

• CSAH-121 / Fernbrook Lane (Dayton / Maple Grove)

• CSAH-152 / Cedar Avenue (Minneapolis)

• CSAH-21 / 50th Street (Minneapolis)


Intersection Level of Service (LOS)

As mentioned previously, the V/C Ratio only describes part of the roadway operations picture. Congestion in urban areas is often more a function of the peak hour characteristics and related to the operations of the major signalized intersections. As noted above, the peak hour intersection operations are examined in more detail at the project level by the SPAR report analysis. Based on the current regional policy Hennepin County designs its intersections to LOS “D” or better unless adverse societal impacts will result.

Accessibility of Transit and Roadway Systems

Accessibility is a new concept that has received significant study by the University of Minnesota. More work is needed in this area to define an appropriate measure and related targets. It is unclear at this time how this measure will reflect back to project-level investments and/or whether this measure will be used as more of an indicator of how the transportation system is responding to user demands and economic forces over time.

Emerging Issues

The multi-modal transportation systems will need to address competing needs on regional, corridor, and local levels. Map E in the report pocket entitled “Jurisdiction and Long Range Transportation Issue Areas” illustrates some of the locations in Hennepin County where future transportation issues will need to be evaluated. In many cases, consensus has not been reached, nor have final official actions been taken. Hennepin County will not pursue any implementation with regard to these items until the affected agencies agree on the course of action and adequate public input has been considered.


Goal 4. Increase spatial efficiency of system11

While the County does not have land use authority, it is committed to working with its local partners and the private sector to leverage transportation investments to enhance livability, economic vitality and the success of transit investments. Previous projects such as the Hiawatha light rail project, the Lowry Avenue project, the Silver Lake Road project and others have demonstrated that the strategic use of transportation investments (whether roadway, transit, bicycle/pedestrian, and/or streetscaping improvements) can be effectively used to influence local land use development patterns and development densities, and these strategic investments can support and encourage urban revitalization where it is needed. Strategies that will be pursued include but are not limited to the following:

Strategies

• Identify opportunities such as the Corridors of Opportunity program, collaboratively sponsored by Living Cities and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Sustainable Communities Program. The work includes planning and engaging citizens to create distinctive places, strengthen local assets, increase transit ridership, and expand access to jobs, affordable housing, and essential services for residents of all incomes and backgrounds.

• Fully employ and maximize the results of TOD, affordable housing, and brownfield redevelopment through the incentive-based funding programs, TOD, AHIF, and the ERF, respectively.

• Collaborate with partners to leverage public and private investments to achieve housing, transportation, economic development, and environmental goals.

11 Spatial efficiency is a term used to characterize the ease with which economic activities are

geographically organized and transacted within a region (Hennepin County) -- the organization of physical assets, such as buildings, infrastructure, and green space and how efficiently these assets are connected through transportation systems to minimize time, effort, or cost required to conduct economic activities.



Proximity of Growth Near Major Transitways

This measure focuses on expanding growth in and along major transit corridors and/or freestanding centers with transit hubs. The objective is to partner with local and private stakeholders to promote growth in these corridors to help increase spatial efficiencies of the system and provide real transportation options. The success of this will be to measure the new residential and employment growth within one-half mile of the major transit corridors and free-standing growth centers that have a major transit hub as compared to growth that occurs elsewhere in the county. How this will be measured will be determined at a later date.

Housing and Transportation Affordability Index

Americans traditionally consider housing affordable if it costs 30 percent or less of their income. The Housing + Transportation (H+T) Affordability Index, in contrast, offers the true cost of housing based on its location by measuring the transportation costs associated with place.

H+T has been developed as a more complete measure of affordability beyond the standard method of assessing only housing costs. By taking into account both the cost of housing as well as the cost of transportation associated with the location of the home, H+T provides a more complete understanding of affordability. The Center for Neighborhood Technology has defined an affordable range for H+T as the combined costs consuming no more than 45 percent of income. More work is needed with respect to identifying how this measure could be applied in Hennepin county and how it would affect transportation strategies and investments.


Goal 5. Reduce the county’s environmental footprint This goal is consistent with the county’s “cool county” initiative12

Strategies

and reflects the objectives of reducing energy consumption, protecting the environment, and supporting a sustainable lifestyle. Given the potential for changes to the air quality standards, it is also important for the county to support initiatives that will insure continued growth while maintaining compliance with air quality standards. The strategies that will be pursued to accomplish this focus on travel demand strategies including reducing the need for trips (i.e., telework) as well as providing travel options (i.e., bicycle, pedestrian and transit). include but are not limited to the following:

• Encourage Travel Demand Management (TDM) for its employees including support for telework, biking, walking, transit (subsidies for transit passes), and linking employees with carpooling and vanpooling13 Exhibit 9-10 (See ).

• Encourage Transit Oriented Development (TOD), support for expansion of transit services that feed major transit corridors and/or where it can be demonstrated that investments will provide significant transit benefits.

• Work with local partners and other stakeholder to encourage land use patterns that promote alternative modes of travel (reduce reliance on. vehicles)

• Incorporate within highway and bridge designs an overall footprint that minimizes hard surfaces while meeting necessary safety and mobility requirements.

12 See Policy 1 in Chapter 10 13 TDM measures are the most effective means of reducing commuter trips as the strategies

accommodate a greater diversity in the factors that influence a commuter’s choice of travel mode. Hennepin County participates in TDM efforts as a regional transportation partner and also as a major employer. The county is a member of the Minneapolis Travel Management Organization, which developed a TDM program in 1996 in an effort to reduce peak hour travel in downtown Minneapolis. As an employer, Hennepin County has implemented TDM measures such as flexible work hours, telecommuting, a subsidized transit pass program, an internal employee carpool matching service, and support for annual programs promoting bicycling and transit use.


Exhibit 9-10 Examples of TDM Measure Effectiveness

Source: Orange County California, Air Quality Assistance Program


Vehicle Miles Traveled

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) is another performance measure used to gauge the usage of the roadway system. Nationally, highway VMT over the next 20 years is anticipated to continue growing at approximately 2 percent per year. For Hennepin County, VMT grew at an annual rate of about 3 percent per year from the early 1970s to the late 1990s. Since 1998, when statistics were modified to include the City of Minneapolis, the VMT has grown at an annual rate of less than 1 percent per year. A graph of the historical data is shown in Exhibit 9-11.

Exhibit 9-11also includes a projection of VMT to the Year 2030 based on the traffic forecasting model. As mentioned previously, the model incorporates the anticipated land use growth from cities’ comprehensive plans and the Metropolitan Council goal of doubling transit ridership over the next 20 years.


Exhibit 9-11 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for Hennepin County

CHAPTER 10

IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES


Introduction

Policy 1. Cool County Initiative

Policy 2. Active Living

Policy 3. Environmental Protection

Policy 4. Agency Collaboration

Policy 5. Roadway System Administration

Policy 6. Long-Range Transportation Planning

Policy 7. Funding Sources

Policy 8. Multimodal Improvements

Policy 9. Capital Improvement Program

Policy 10. Preservation of Roadway System

Policy 11. Complete Streets

Policy 12. Spot Safety Improvements

Policy 13. Bridge Maintenance and Replacement

Policy 14. Traffic Control Installations

HC – TSP 10-1 Chapter 10 – Implementation Policies

Chapter 10 Implementation Policies

Introduction The County Board of Commissioners has adopted policies that support the goals and strategies outlined in the 2030 HC-TSP. These policies were originally presented in the Hennepin County 1981 Comprehensive Plan. With each plan revision, the policies have been revised as new initiatives are undertaken by Hennepin County. The relationships between the policies and the five main transportation goals are listed in Table 10-1.


Table 10-1 Relationship Between Hennepin County Transportation Goals and Implementation Policies The following table summarizes Hennepin County’s Transportation Systems Plan Policies.

Hennepin County Transportation Goals

Polic

y 1.

C

ool C

ount

y In

itiat

ive

Polic

y 2.

A

ctiv

e Li

ving

Polic

y 3.

En

viro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n

Polic

y 4.

A

genc

y C

olla

bora

tion

Polic

y 5.

R

oadw

ay S

yste

m A

dmin

istr

atio

n

Polic

y 6.

Lo

ng-R

ange

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Plan

ning

Polic

y 7.

Fu

ndin

g S

ourc

es

Polic

y 8.

M

ultiM

odal

Impr

ovem

ents

Polic

y 9.

C

apita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

Polic

y 10

. Pr

eser

ve R

oadw

ay S

yste

m F

unct

ion

Polic

y 11

. C

ompl

ete

Stre

ets

Polic

y 12

. Sp

ot S

afet

y Im

prov

emen

ts

Polic

y 13

. B

ridge

Mai

nten

ance

and

Rep

lace

men

t

Polic

y 14

. Tr

affic

Con

trol

Inst

alla

tions

1. Preserve and modernize existing infrastructure.

2. Improve safety for all transportation users.

3. Provide for mobility and choice to meet the diversity of needs and as well as to support health objectives throughout the county.

4. Increase spatial efficiency of transportation systems.

5. Reduce the county’s environmental footprint.

Complement Influence Control


Policy 1. Cool County Initiative To take immediate steps to help the federal, state, and other governmental units to achieve the 2050 climate stabilization goal.

In 2007, the County Board of Commissioners passed resolution number 07-8-334R2 which established the Cool County Initiative. In the initiative, Hennepin County pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by assessing current greenhouse gas output, implementing mitigation programs and policies, coordinating energy efficiency efforts with Minnesota state departments and supporting federal emission reduction legislation.

In the 2007 resolution, the County Board resolved to:

• Create an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from county operations.

• Implement policies and procedures to achieve significant and measurable emissions reductions of at least:

o 15 percent reduction by 2015



• Coordinate with state and other government agencies to achieve the goals.

• Establish a telecommuting goal for Hennepin County employees.

Transportation related strategies to help achieve the goals include:

Improving Transit

• Accelerate lagging transit projects to meet commuter demand.

• Reduce local financial risks by leveraging a broader, regional source of funding.

• Provide local input and accountability to regional transit planning and funding.

Rethinking the Commute to Work

• Encouraging the use of telecommuting.

• Providing resources to allow for easier use of bicycles.

• Subsidies for Metro Transit passes.

• Assisting linking employees for carpooling / vanpooling.

• Reducing the use of the automobile by utilizing multiple modes of travel.

In order to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, manage traffic congestion, and encourage the use of multiple transportation modes, it is recommended that the county adopt a goal of maintaining the VMT at the level


measured in 2000. This action would result in a decrease of VMT of 3percent from that measured in 2007, and a reduction of about 25 percent from 2007 to the level of VMT forecasted for 2030.

Additional information on the Cool County initiative is included in the Support Document CD located in the report map pocket.

Policy 2. Active Living To plan, provide and promote active living environments and opportunities for everyone to achieve health outcomes identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Active Living is a way of life that integrates physical activity into daily routines, through activities such as biking, walking, and / or taking transit. Since 2006, Hennepin County has had an Active Living partnership with cities, businesses, Three Rivers Park District and others to engage elected officials and adopt transportation and land use policy that is conducive to Active Living.

Active Living is important because it:

• Improves physical and mental health

• Decreases risk on chronic disease

• Reduces medical costs associated with chronic disease

• Reduces transportation costs

• Reduces pollution and improves air quality

• Builds safer, stronger communities

• Increases quality of life

Active Living guiding principles are:

• Physical activity improves health and quality of life in our communities.

• Places should be designed to provide everyone – regardless of age, gender, language, ethnicity, economic status or ability – with the variety of opportunities for safe, convenient, and affordable physical activity.

• Development patterns should encourage mixed uses, compact designs, and a variety of transportation choices that link roads, transit, bicycling and walking.

• Buildings and their landscapes should be designed with features that promote opportunities for active living and active transportation, including highly visible stairs, orientation to streets and sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and transit stops at main building entries.


• Transportation systems, including transit and trails, should provide safe, convenient, and affordable access to destinations such as housing, employment, schools, and community services.

Additional information on Active Living is included in the Support Document CD located in the report map pocket.

Policy 3. Environmental Protection To support state and federal programs for environmental protection of natural resources such as air, water, and ambient sound.

Hennepin County endorses the state and federal environmental review processes for Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAW), Environmental Assessments (EA) Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and Alternative Urban Areawide Reviews (AUAR).

The county requires compliance with state and federal noise, air quality, and water pollution standards in planning, designing, constructing, and operating of its transportation facilities.

Hennepin County is very active in protecting wetlands and mitigating impacts from transportation facilities such as runoff from roadways and trails. The county has also been in the forefront of the Cool Counties Initiative aimed at improving air quality by achieving a measurable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Any roadway projects should minimize the potential impacts to property, natural resources, and recreational amenities of park land and facilities managed by cities, Three Rivers Park District, and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.

Policy 4. Agency Collaboration To encourage the programming of transportation improvements compatible with the policies and plans of other communities and transportation agencies in the metropolitan area.

The county’s capital improvements programs and the resultant scheduling of projects will be in accord with the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Development Framework and local Comprehensive Plans. This policy assists in assuring the orderly and planned development of the seven county metropolitan area by providing an efficient and balanced transportation system. In addition, local development initiatives are incorporated through the support of local planning efforts.

The county further supports regional planning initiatives through the provision of a system of minor arterial roadways that provide a linkage between the local street system and the metropolitan highway system. Regional development policies are supported by coordinating county, municipal, and Mn/DOT comprehensive planning efforts, plat reviews and permitting processes.


The Hennepin County Department of Transportation will continue to work with individual cities in a cooperative and collaborative way to achieve mutually beneficial transportation objectives. Special emphasis will be placed on coordination to identify future right-of-way needs to provide for dedication and acquisition during development / redevelopment or other opportunities.

The efforts of other agencies such as Mn/DOT, Metro Transit, Three Rivers Regional Park District and CTIB will be supported, and their needs will be identified and incorporated within Hennepin County improvements.

Policy 5. Roadway System Administration To provide processes to effectively manage the Hennepin County roadway system.

In order to effectively manage the extensive county roadway system, the following processes and guidelines are supported:

• Agreements with affected agencies to properly align the jurisdiction of roadways (as shown in Exhibit 6-1).

• Cooperative agreements with cities as needed to maximize the efficiencies of agency maintenance forces.

• Coordinated site plan and plat reviews for developments that impact the county roadway system (as provided for under state statutes).

• Minimize the number of driveway and street entrances to increase safety consistent with the Access Spacing Guidelines, and regulation of their locations via the Entrance Permitting process.

• Regulation of work within county right-of-ways and city / company utility placements via the Utility Permitting process.

• Regulation of oversized and overweight loads on the county roadway system via special permitting.

• Management of the traffic signal system and coordination with other signal systems (Mn/DOT, cities) and modal elements to improve safety provide for effective movements.


Policy 6. Long-Range Transportation Planning To encourage on-going comprehensive transportation planning efforts as a guide for developing the county transportation systems, jurisdiction of facilities, and improvement programs.

This HC-TSP was developed to cover the planning horizon up to the year 2030. Individual long-range planning efforts of the Metropolitan Council (2030 Development Framework), Mn/DOT (TSP), and individual cities (Comprehensive Plans) are supported. The county interest in Transportation Planning includes a variety of modes including pedestrian, bicycle, rail, and highway. The integration of planning efforts between all modes is critical; these efforts are encouraged and summarized in the 2030 HC-TSP.

From a roadway perspective, it provides a guide for jurisdictional additions or deletions, provides a basis for the evaluation of proposed programs and projects, along with documenting a county roadway policy plan for use by all interested agencies. The 2030 HC-TSP incorporates the guidelines and practices that are used on a daily basis for plat and development reviews, and driveway / access requests as noted in Policy 11.

Policy 7. Funding Sources To reduce the reliance on property taxes by maximizing the use of all available state and federal funds, while ensuring the proper participation of local cities and development-driven private contributions.

The Transportation Department continues to maximize the use of non-property tax revenue as well as searching out new funding sources. As transportation systems have evolved and become more multimodal, the funding sources have also become more diverse. Hennepin County will work with its partners and other stakeholder to pursue federal and other non-county funding sources to enhance and develop its roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems.

Cost participation policies for cities and other agencies were previously adopted by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners in the “Policies for Cost Participation between Hennepin County and other Agencies for Cooperative Highway Projects” - November 9, 1999, and the funding participation guidelines for bicycle facilities with the Bicycle Transportation Plan - adopted December 10, 1996.

Multiagency funding partnerships should be investigated wherever possible. All Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts should be configured to include the costs of related county infrastructure improvements when these TIF developments significantly impact the county transportation systems.

Contributions from private developers and property owners should also be sought for roadway right-of-way dedications, trail and sidewalk easements, and funding assistance for accommodating transportation needs resulting from the development.


Policy 8. Multimodal Improvements To continue and expand cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Metro Transit, other transit providers, the Minneapolis Travel Management Organization (TMO), and cities in the planning and development of rail transit facilities, park and ride facilities, bicycle / pedestrian accommodations, and roadway related transit facilities. Continue to provide a leadership role in CTIB as well as in other various transit corridor planning groups.

As stated earlier in the report, Hennepin County and its departments in Public Works are committed to supporting a multitude of travel modes.

As an integral part of its roadway responsibilities, the Transportation Department will continue to provide planning and design support for buses, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and park and ride lots along its right-of-ways. The department will continue to deploy Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies as described in the ITS Strategic Plan.

The Housing, Transit and Community Works Department will continue to provide transit planning support, pedestrian and bicycle planning as part of their greenway corridor planning. Through the department, the county will work to implement high priority transitway corridors including, but not limited to, the Central Corridor LRT, Southwest LRT and Bottineau Transitway. The county will work with its partners to implement transitways that are a catalyst for transit oriented development.

The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority will continue to lend strong support for the development and implementation of LRT, commuter rail services, and provide for interim bus, pedestrian and bicycle uses along their future LRT corridors. The HCRRA will continue to acquire abandoned freight rail corridors to preserve them for a future transportation use.

In order to accomplish these endeavors, the county will:

• Maintain a Leadership Role in Rail Transit

The county should continue the initiative of leading the planning of location studies and preliminary planning of Light Rail Transit (LRT) and commuter rail facilities including the development of a downtown Minneapolis Transportation Interchange.

• Contribute to the Establishment of High-Speed Passenger Rail

Work with Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and other stakeholders in development of High-Speed Rail and Intercity Passenger Rail , for the region and for all the state.

• Exert Influence in Support of Multiple Travel Modes

The county can have significant influence through its participation in regional studies, as a member of the Metropolitan Council, as a founding member of the County Transit Improvement Board and through coordination with individual


cities. The county will work with its partners to implement transportation investments and land development patterns to create an environment that supports all modes.

• Continue the Cooperation with Metro Transit and other transit providers for Inclusion of Transit Related Roadway Enhancements

The county should continue to add roadway related transit facilities where appropriate such as bus pull-out bays and park and ride facilities.

• Support Multiple Uses of County Right-of-Ways

The county should continue to provide opportunities for transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes within its extensive roadway and rail corridor right-of-ways.

• Support and Implement Policies to Establish Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

The Hennepin County Transit-Oriented Development program supports projects and developments that reinforce both the community and transit system; exhibit compact and efficient use of space in response to sprawl; contains diversity and mix of uses with daily conveniences; and has transit at the center.

Projects must exhibit pedestrian-friendly design that encourages walking, biking, and access by the disability community.

Projects must serve a public purpose and address one or more of the following:

• Community corridor connections

• Infrastructure development

• Blight remediation

• Property acquisition

• Development and redevelopment of housing and commercial property

• Rehabilitation of existing housing and commercial buildings

• Job creation in transit corridors

• Implement the Policies of the Bicycle Transportation Plan

The support for bicycle facilities should be reaffirmed by incorporating the bicycle plan into the 2030 HC-TSP. Recognizing the increasing demand for bicycle travel facilities, and the fact that the City of Minneapolis now has the second highest mode share by bicycle in the nation, Hennepin County should integrate planning and design for bicycle infrastructure into all phases of its project planning for roadway and building facilities. Similar to other travel modes, bicycling should be viewed as a transportation option with care given to bicycle facility safety, continuity, and connections.


• Emphasize Pedestrian Accommodations

Hennepin County will integrate planning and design for pedestrian infrastructure into all phases of its project planning for buildings and roadway facilities. Similar to other travel modes, walking should be viewed as a transportation option with care given to walkway facility safety, continuity, and connections. to destinations including job centers, commercial centers, schools and recreational facilities. In addition, the county will be vigilant to develop designs that are ADA compliant such as bus stop and shelter pad design elements, sidewalk ramps, and audible / tactile traffic signals.

• Deploy Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Technology

The county will continue to implement technologies such as Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP), Fixed Anti-icing Spray Technology (FAST), portable Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) and study the feasibility of deploying other ITS technologies as described in the ITS Strategic Plan.

Policy 9. Capital Improvement Program To annually develop and update a five-year transportation capital improvement program which is responsive and acceptable to the citizens of Hennepin County.

• Identify bicycle and pedestrian projects that fill gaps in the overall system and work toward active living and complete street policy objectives.

• Identify investments that help integrate transit and roadway policy objectives.

• The capacity of the facility. The existing and forecasted future traffic volumes are studied to identify potentially deficient corridors.

• The community goals and coordination with other city actions. Community support and involvement are very important to the success of any county project.

• Consideration of a roadway’s turnback potential. A road may be considered for turnback or exchange to better place it under the proper jurisdiction.

As part of the annual budget process, the Transportation Department submits a five-year CIP budget to the Hennepin County Capital Budgeting Task Force (CBTF) for consideration and recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners. The CBTF is an 11-member citizen review committee appointed by the commissioners.


Policy 10. Preservation of Roadway System To maintain a high level of safety and mobility for the Hennepin County Roadway System.

Maintaining high levels of safety and mobility are critical elements of the county roadway system. A majority of county roads are minor arterials that provide continuity and mobility spanning across many cities and they also supplement the state trunk highway system managed by Mn/DOT. To accomplish this, the following design guidelines will apply:

• Provide a minimum Level of Service (LOS) D for the 20-year design life of the roadway facilities unless adverse societal impacts will result.

• Adhere to State Aid Standards for design of all county-related roadway (including non-State Aid roads) and trail facilities.

• Transportation needs resulting from development / redevelopment activities shall be mitigated consistent with county guidelines and practices for roadway typical sections, access spacing, intersection geometrics, entering sight distances, and streetscape elements.

• Roadway signal progression on the county system shall be maintained and have a higher priority than streets of lower functional classification (collector and local streets).

The county does not support the installation of elements that are typically classified as “traffic calming” measures even though the advocacy of such items is becoming more prevalent. Items such as, narrowed driving lanes less than 11-feet wide, speed bumps, and other impediments are not compatible with the function of minor arterial roadways meant to serve regional transportation needs

Policy 11. Complete Streets Hennepin County will enhance safety, mobility, accessibility and convenience for all corridor users including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, commercial and emergency vehicles, and for people of all ages and abilities by planning, designing, operating, and maintaining a network of Complete Streets.

The Complete Streets policy was created under Hennepin County Board Resolution 09-0058R1. The resolution demonstrates the county’s commitment to develop and maintain a safe, efficient, balanced and environmentally sound county transportation system and to support Active Living – integrating physical activity into daily routines through activities such as biking, walking or taking transit. The county strives to be a leader in providing opportunities and choices for its residents, and believes that a well-planned transportation system that includes Complete Streets demonstrates this leadership.

This policy applies to all corridors under Hennepin County jurisdiction. The county will work with other transportation agencies to incorporate a Complete


Streets philosophy and encourages the State of Minnesota, municipalities, other counties and regional organizations to adopt similar policies.

Given the diversity of the natural and built environment in Hennepin County, flexibility in accommodating different modes of travel is essential to balancing the needs of all corridor users. The county will implement Complete Streets in such a way that the character of the project area, the values of the community, and the needs of all users are fully considered. Therefore, Complete Streets will not look the same in all environments, communities, or development contexts, and will not necessarily include exclusive elements for all modes.

Developing Complete Streets will be a priority on all corridors, and every transportation and development project will be treated as an opportunity to make improvements. This will include corridors that provide connections or critical linkages between activity centers and major transit connections, and in areas used frequently by pedestrians and bicyclists today or with the potential for frequent use in the future.

Hennepin County will conduct an inventory and assessment of existing corridors, and develop Complete Streets implementation and evaluation procedures. The Complete Streets policy and implementation procedures will be referenced in the Transportation Systems Plan and other appropriate plans or documents.

Applicable design standards and best practices will be followed in conjunction with construction, reconstruction, changes in allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway, or other changes in a county corridor. The planning, design, and implementation processes for all transitway and roadway corridors will:

• Involve the local community and stakeholders,

• Consider the transportation function of the road,

• Integrate innovative and non-traditional design options,

• Consider transitway corridor alignment and station areas,

• Assess the current and future needs of corridor users,

• Include documentation of efforts to accommodate all modes and all users,

• Incorporate a review of existing system plans to identify Complete Streets opportunities.

Hennepin County will implement Complete Streets unless one or more of the following conditions are documented:

• The cost of establishing Complete Street elements is excessive in relation to total project cost.

• The city council refuses municipal consent or there is a lack of community support.


• There are safety risks that cannot be overcome.

• The corridor has severe topographic, environmental, historic, or natural resource constraints.

In order to ensure accountability and consistent implementation, Hennepin County recently completed an inventory and assessment of existing corridors, and is developing Complete Streets implementation and evaluation procedures. In addition, the County Engineer must document all conditions that require an exception, and the Assistant County Administrator for Public Works provides the Hennepin County Board with annual reports detailing how this policy is being implemented into all types and phases of Hennepin County’s Public Works projects.

Most recently, a Complete Streets Task Force

1) Recommendations of the most effective use of funding streams available for Complete Streets.

was established in 2011 to review and recommend the most effective use of funding streams available for complete streets, develop consistent implementation principles, practices and guidelines, and identify demonstration projects for Hennepin County’s Complete Streets policy. Anticipated outcomes are:

2) Development of consistent implementation principles, practices and guidelines for consideration on every county transportation and development project, including corridors that provide connections to county libraries and other facilities, between activity centers and major transit connections, and in areas used frequently by pedestrians and bicyclists today or with the potential for frequent use in the future.

3) Recommendations on the most effective connections between Complete Streets and related county programs including Active Living, Transit Oriented Development, Transit Planning, Community Works and economic development.

4) Identification of potential Complete Streets demonstration projects from the county’s current inventory and assessment of complete streets, its Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and long-range planning, that demonstrate different elements of complete streets.

5) Common understanding of the relationship between the State Aid Standards process, the planning and design of local roadways, and opportunities for Complete Streets implementation.

6) Development of consistent strategies for working with other transportation agencies, whose corridors are located within the county to incorporate Complete Streets on future projects

The group’s first meeting was in March of 2011, and its work is anticipated to be complete within one year of that date.


Policy 12. Spot Safety Improvements To correct system deficiencies at spot locations through the use of traffic engineering measures to improve traffic flow, increase safety, and provide safer accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians

This policy encourages the use of lower cost / high benefit improvements that the county can implement using their own forces. Spot safety improvements can also be a means for providing timely improvements that help to protect public infrastructure investments. These actions can be deployed on an interim basis allowing improvements which do not necessarily have to provide the typical 20-year design life.

Continued support is provided to maintain a high quality safety information system providing statistics that measure the performance of intersections and roadway segments. The Department of Transportation will continue to monitor and evaluate the county roadway system to identify improvement opportunities.

Policy 13. Bridge Maintenance and Replacement To maintain and improve the safety, load capacity, and traffic capacity of bridges under county jurisdiction.

This policy supports the regular inspections of county bridges in conformance with state and federal requirements to assure structural safety. The policy also supports pursuing federal funds for bridge upgrading and replacements that include the design elements of Complete Streets.

For communities under 5,000 population, priorities are placed for bridge maintenance and replacement through the County Aid to Municipalities (CAM) program.

Policy 14. Traffic Control Installations To install traffic control devices at locations where the traffic characteristics satisfy the prescribed engineering warrants as set forth in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD).

This policy supports properly installed traffic controls such as signals and stop signs. The county supports a measured evaluation process for new traffic controls to insure that they are safe, meet applicable requirements as well as fit with the local and regional corridor context.

The “Policies for Cost Participation between Hennepin County and other Agencies for Cooperative Highway Projects” adopted by the County Board of Commissioners in November 1999 contains further criteria regarding the installation of traffic signal systems including a Priority Factor and signal ranking system.


The county is thoughtful in its support of the installation of non-standard signage, flashing beacons, or specialized mid-block crosswalk / trail signals since these items tend to provide a “false sense of security” to users. These types of traffic control items may distract drivers and studies have found no significant improvement for the safety of roadway, walkway, or trail users.

The county supports technology improvements to existing signals including function, multisignal coordination, energy usage, pedestrian indications, and data gathering. The county also encourages the implementation of advanced technologies such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) techniques to provide services such as driver information, vehicle detection / guidance, adaptive signal capabilities, and proximity warning systems.

Roundabouts are an emerging traffic control device that is receiving popular support since they have been found to significantly improve safety and minimize overall delays. These types of intersections should be continued to be studied and explored with regard to their possible use on county roadways. As mentioned elsewhere in this report, roundabouts may have some shortcomings with regard to pedestrian movements and the hierarchy of access management along county roadways. Since roundabouts are a traffic control device, the basic traffic warrants of an all-way stop or signal should be met before a roundabout is considered as an option.

As with all traffic control devices, each installation needs to be evaluated within the context of the unique characteristics of the location where the device is being considered.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS


HC – TSP G-1 Glossary

Glossary of Terms

2000 HC-TSP The 20-Year (2000-2020) Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan completed in 2000.

2030 HC-TSP The current 20-Year (2010-2030) Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan and a predecessor to the 2000 HC-TSP.

AA Alternatives Analysis

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act – This acronym is generally used to refer to the accessibility requirements including the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehab Act and other pertinent regulations.

ADT Average Daily Traffic – The average number of vehicles two-way passing a specific point in a 24-hour period. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), is the total volume of vehicle traffic on a roadway divided by 365 days per year. The AADT is often derived from ADT counts through applying a monthly seasonal adjustment factor.

AHIF Affordable Housing Incentive Fund

BRT Bus Rapid Transit – A premium transit service that operates with substantially improved speed reliability, and convenience in high-demand corridors.

CIP Capital Improvement Program – A 5-Year improvement program for county projects updated on an annual basis.


CMAQ Congestion Mitigation for Air Quality – A program category similar to STP under the federal funding appropriations (ISTEA, TEA-21, SAFETEA-LU) aimed at project which improve air quality.

CSAH County State Aid Highway – Similar to MSA for cities, county roads designated as CSAH are eligible for state aid funding. These roadways are also subject to following State Aid Standards governing various design elements.

CTIB Counties Transit Improvement Board

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EAW / AUAR Environmental Assessment Worksheet – An evaluation of environmental impacts required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for major transportation projects and developments. A companion document called an Environmental Assessment (EA) is required by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Finally, an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is a state requirement that allows environmental impacts to be studied for a large area in lieu of multiple EAWs.

ERF Environmental Response Fund

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FFGA Full Funding Grant Application

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration


FRA Federal Railroad Administration

GIS Geographic Information Systems - A computerized means of linking mapping graphics to a database of information.

GPS Global Positioning Systems – Satellite communication receivers that can locate a vehicle or other device’s position.

HCRRA Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority

HOT Lanes High Occupancy Toll lanes – Lanes where variable tolls are charged based on congestion. The I-394 “Sane Lanes” are such an example.

HOV Lanes High Occupancy Vehicle lanes – Lanes restricted to vehicles with more than one occupant. The I-394 “Sane Lanes” operate as HOV throughout their length in the peak direction during peak traffic hours.

HSPHD Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems – Technologically advanced measures such as Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP), pedestrian countdown timers, and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). See the ITS Strategic Plan in the Support Documents Appendices.

LPA Locally Preferred Alternative


LRT Light Rail Transit

Mn/DOT Minnesota State Department of Transportation

Mn/DOT TSP Transportation Systems Plan – A plan developed by Mn/DOT similar to the 2030 HC-TSP, but applying to the whole seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area.

MSA Municipal State Aid – The system of local streets eligible for state aid.

MUSA Metropolitan Urban Service Area – A boundary defining the limits of the extension of urban services (such as sanitary sewer). This boundary for the Twin Cities metropolitan area is defined by the Metropolitan Council. It is used to define Urban and Rural areas used as part of the criteria for other items such as functional classification and access spacing.

MWRRI Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

PDA Personal Digital Assistant – A handheld computer (or palm computer) that have view screens and audio capabilities enabling them to be used as mobile phones, web browsers, or portable media players. The Blackberry and Apple iPhone are examples of these devices.

PSR Present Serviceability Rating – An evaluation measure of the ride quality of a roadway pavement.

ROWE Results Only Work Environment – A flexible work process originally implemented by Best Buy Corporation, now being implemented by a number of larger employers around the United States.


SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users.

SDIC Systematic Development of Informed Consent – A strategic methodology based on a set of citizen participation principals to identify interest groups and keep them informed of a project or planning effort.

SPAR Special Project Analysis Report – A detailed examination of project-level crash data, traffic volumes, and pavement condition summaries used during the design phase of a roadway project.

STP Surface Transportation Program – A program under the federal funding appropriations (ISTEA, TEA-21, SAFETEA-LU) that focuses on A-minor arterial roads in the Twin Cities metropolitan area.

TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone – Small defined geographic areas used for transportation analysis and modeling. These areas typically encompass areas of uniform land use.

TBI Travel Behavior Inventory – A survey of travel characteristics made by the Metropolitan Council every 10 years.

TDM Travel Demand Management – Techniques used to reduce single-occupant automobile travel such as carpooling and telecommuting. See Chapter 9.

TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century

TMO Travel Management Organization – An agency specifically established to assist major employers in implementing TDM measures. The downtown Minneapolis TMO and I-494 Commission are local TMO’s.


TOD Transit Oriented Development – Developments and redevelopments configured to incorporate transit and non-motorized travel modes. Often TOD type development will occur adjacent to a major transit station or park-and-ride site and include residential and commercial uses.

TPP An acronym for the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan.

Transit Advantages Techniques allowing special provisions to move transit vehicles on the highway such as signal priority timing and use of shoulders as transit lanes.

TSM Transportation Systems Management – Low cost improvements implemented to increase safety and operational efficiency. Part of a program initiated by the FHWA in the mid-1970s.

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

V/C Ratio Volume to Capacity Ratio – A measure of the congestion level for a roadway based on the traffic carried and the theoretical capacity.

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled – An indicator of roadway usage derived by summing the product of the length of the road system times the volumes using it.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTS


Chapter 2 Background 1997 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan 2002 Bicycle System GAP Study ITS Strategic Plan 2008 Northwest Hennepin County I-94 Subarea Transportation Study Active Living Policy Complete Streets Policy Streetscape Guidelines Cost Participation Guidelines Access Management Guidelines / Entrance and Driveway Permits Roadway Typical Sections CTIB Restated Transit Investment Framework

Chapter 3 Future Trends/Development Patterns Metropolitan Council 2005 System Statements Metropolitan Council Regional Development Framework – Planning Areas

Chapter 4 Multimodal Planning Metropolitan Council Regional Transit Standards and Market Areas

Chapter 6 Functional Classification Metropolitan Council Functional Classification Criteria

Chapter 9 Plan Implementation 2011-2015 Hennepin County Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

Chapter 10 Implementation Policies Cool Counties Information and Board Resolution

REPORT MAP POCKET


Chapter 4 Multimodal Planning

Map A. Bicycle Transportation System

Map B. Bicycle System Gaps

Chapter 5 Traffic Forecast Methodology

Map C. Forecasted Year 2030 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

Chapter 6 Functional Classification

Map D. Functional Classification

Chapter 9 System Evaluation and Plan Implementation

Map E. Jurisdiction and Long-Range Transportation Issue Areas

Map F. Roadway System Adequacy

Map G. Spot Safety and Corridor Issue Areas

CD

2030 Comprehensive Plan

2030 HC-TSP

Report support documents