Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-09 City Council Workshop Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL MANAGER WORKSHOP 6:00 P.M. Monday, September 09, 2024 City Hall, Council Chambers A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Cannabis Update #2 2. Metro Transit Purple Line Project Discussion E. NEW BUSINESS None F. ADJOURNMENT RULES OF CIVILITY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND OUR COMMUNITY Following are rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings - elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone’s opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Speak only for yourself, not for other council members or citizens - unless specifically tasked by your colleagues to speak for the group or for citizens in the form of a petition. Show respect during comments and/or discussions, listen actively and do not interrupt or talk amongst each other. Be respectful of the process, keeping order and decorum. Do not be critical of council members, staff or others in public. Be respectful of each other’s time keeping remarks brief, to the point and non-repetitive. THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK D1 CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT Meeting Date September 9, 2024 REPORT TO: Michael Sable, City Manager REPORT FROM: Andrea Sindt, City Clerk PRESENTER:Andrea Sindt AGENDA ITEM: Cannabis Update #2 Action Requested: Motion Discussion Public Hearing Form of Action: Resolution Ordinance Contract/Agreement Proclamation Policy Issue: The Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) has provided their first draft of rules, a guide for local government including a model ordinance. The workshop will provide an update on what has been learned including decision points within local control. These decisions will start the formation the ordinance which will guide how staff works with cannabis businesses and answers questions about cannabis. Recommended Action: Provide initial direction on general topics for ordinance creation. Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact? No Yes, the true or estimated cost is $0.00 Financing source(s): Adopted Budget Budget Modification New Revenue Source Use of Reserves Other: n/a Strategic Plan Relevance: Community Inclusiveness Financial & Asset Mgmt Environmental Stewardship Integrated Communication Operational Effectiveness Targeted Redevelopment Background: The initial draft of rules focused mainly on the market with only one page of the 111 pages addressing local governments. The final draft of proposed rules will be shared later in 2024 for adoption in early 2025. The model ordinance provided by OCM gives some insight to decisions the city council will need to make for the ordinance drafting to begin. The general areas requiring direction include cannabis retailers, lower-potency hemp edible retailers, cannabis events, and cannabis businesses. Workshop Packet Page Number 1 of 75 D1 Staff would like council to consider and provide direction on the following items: Cannabis Retailers: Does council wish to limit the number of cannabis retailers? Maplewood is required to allow four. Per state statute, retailers are capped at 150 statewide until July 1, 2026. Does council wish to have registration, and thus compliance checks, done by the city or county? Does council wish to further restrict the hours of operation? Statute dictates no sales from 2am to 8am Monday-Saturday and from 2am to 10am Sunday. The city may prohibit cannabis retail sales between the hours of 8am and 10am Monday-Saturday, and 9pm and 2am the following day. Does council wish to implement the maximum registration fees and fines allowed by statute? Does council wish to call out cannabis retailers separate from retailers and thus want zoning restrictions? Does council wish to maintain maximum buffer distance from schools, parks, day cares and residential treatment facilities? Statute allows a maximum of 1,000 feet from schools, 500 feet from day cares, residential treatment facilities and an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by minors. See the map depicting these maximum buffers over zoning which allows retail. Lower-potency Hemp Edible Retailers: Currently 21 Maplewood sites are registered with OCM. Does council want zoning restrictions? Does council wish to restrict sales of edible or beverage to locations open to persons 21 years of age or older? Cannabis Events: Does council have interest in restricting or prohibiting on-site consumption at the events? Does council have interest in limiting locations and hours of the events? Cannabis Businesses (non-retail): Does council want zoning restrictions i.e. should a cannabis wholesaler be zoned differently than a wholesaler? Does council wish to maintain maximum buffer distance from schools, parks, day cares and residential treatment facilities? These businesses include cultivation, manufacturer, wholesale, transportation, and delivery. Attachments: 1.Map 2.Presentation Workshop Packet Page Number 2 of 75 D1, Attachment 1 Workshop Packet Page Number 3 of 75 D1, Attachment 2 September 9, 2024 City Council Workshop /ğƓƓğĬźƭ ƦķğƷĻ ϔЋ Workshop Packet Page Number 4 of 75 D1, Attachment 2 draft of rules st January 1, 2025start2024 Legislative changes1Local Government GuideModel Ordinance Knowns Workshop Packet Page Number 5 of 75 D1, Attachment 2 Adopted December ΘhƩķźƓğƓĭĻƭ Commission October ΘtƌğƓƓźƓŭ 5ĻĭźƭźƚƓƭ council vision Today Θ.ĻŭźƓ ĭƚƌƌĻĭƷźƓŭ Initial Discussion ΘağǤ ‘ƚƩƉƭŷƚƦ Workshop Packet Page Number 6 of 75 D1, Attachment 2 Cannabis RetailersLower-Potency Hemp Edible RetailersCannabis EventsCannabis Businesses (non-retail) Local Controls Workshop Packet Page Number 7 of 75 D1, Attachment 2 Number of locationsCity or County registrationHours of operationFees and fine amountsZoning restrictionsBuffer distances ¤¤¤¤¤¤ /ğƓƓğĬźƭ wĻƷğźƌĻƩƭ Workshop Packet Page Number 8 of 75 D1, Attachment 2 Currently 21 registered with OCMRestrict sales to establishment which must be 21 + to enterZoning restrictionsBuffer distances \[ƚǞĻƩΏtƚƷĻƓĭǤ IĻƒƦ 9ķźĬƌĻ wĻƷğźƌĻƩƭ¤¤¤¤ Workshop Packet Page Number 9 of 75 D1, Attachment 2 On-site consumption Restrict locationsLimit hours /ğƓƓğĬźƭ 9ǝĻƓƷƭ¤¤¤ Workshop Packet Page Number 10 of 75 D1, Attachment 2 Cannabis ManufacturerWholesaleDelivery CultivationHempManufacturerTransportation Zoning restrictionsBuffer distances /ğƓƓğĬźƭ .ǒƭźƓĻƭƭĻƭ¤¤ Workshop Packet Page Number 11 of 75 D1, Attachment 2 Council Final Approval 5Ļĭ͵ ЋЉЋЍ bƚǝ͵ ЋЉЋЍ Planning Commission pt 2 Planning Commission hĭƷ͵ ЋЉЋЍ {ĻƦƷĻƒĬĻƩ ЋЉЋЍ Discussion Draft Rules WǒƌǤ ЋЉЋЍ źƒĻƌźƓĻ ağǤ ЋЉЋЍ Introduction Workshop Packet Page Number 12 of 75 D2 CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOPSTAFF REPORT Meeting Date September 9, 2024 REPORT TO:Michael Sable, City Manager REPORT FROM: Steven Love, Public Works Director / City Engineer PRESENTER:Michael Sable, City Manger AGENDA ITEM: Metro Transit Purple Line Project Discussion Action Requested: MotionDiscussion Public Hearing Form of Action: Resolution OrdinanceContract/Agreement Proclamation Policy Issue: The Purple Line project team is in the process of studying the White Bear Avenue Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route Alternative. At the August 12, 2024 City Council meeting, the Purple Line project team updated the City Council on the Purple Line study of the White Bear Avenue Corridor BRT Route Alternative. The City Council requested this item to be brought to the September 9, 2024 City Council Workshop to continue the discussion on the Purple Line and the White Bear Avenue Corridor BRT Route Alternative. Recommended Action: No action is required. Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact? No Yes, the true or estimated cost is $0.00 Financing source(s): Adopted Budget Budget Modification New Revenue Source Use of Reserves Other: No City funding is utilized as part of the Purple Line route alternative study. Strategic Plan Relevance: Community InclusivenessFinancial & Asset MgmtEnvironmental Stewardship Integrated CommunicationOperational EffectivenessTargeted Redevelopment The Purple Line project team is in the process of studying the White Bear Avenue Corridor BRT Route Alternative. The Purple Line BRT will provide fast and reliable transit services to the east metro area. Background: At the July 22, 2024 City Council Workshop, the Purple Line project team presented on several topics related to the Purple Line study of White Bear Avenue Corridor BRT Route Alternative. The Purple Line project team prepared a memorandum responding to questions the City Council had at Workshop Packet Page Number 13 of 75 D2 nd the July 22workshop (see attached memorandum). The Purple Line project team attendedthe nd August 12, 2024 City Council meeting to continue the July 22 workshop discussion. The City Council requested to have this item brought to the September 9, 2024 City Council Workshop so they could continue their discussion on the Purple Line project and the White Bear Avenue Corridor BRT Route Alternative. To aid in this discussion the following is a timeline with key milestones and past Maplewood City Council actions. 1990’s – Ramsey County purchased a segment of the Burlington Northern corridor for future transit use 2014 - 2017 – Pre-Project Development Study o Examined 55 route segments and 7 types of bus/rail transit vehicles June 26, 2017 – Public Hearing & Resolution of Support for the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) o LPA Bus Rapid Transit Bruce Vento Trail alignment Saint Paul to White Bear Lake o See attached resolution 17-06-1473 May 11, 2020 – Resolution of Support for the Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit Project 15 Percent Plans Within the City of Maplewood o See attached resolution 20-05-1815 October 24, 2022 – Resolution Withdrawing Support for the Purple Line Bus Rapid Transit Project as it Currently Exists Within the City of Maplewood o See attached resolution 22-10-2135 Attachments: 1.Purple Line Memorandum 2.Public Hearing & Resolution of Support for the Locally Preferred Alternative (17-06-1473) 3.Resolution of Support for the Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit Project 15 Percent Plans Within the City of Maplewood (20-05-1815) 4.Resolution Withdrawing Support for the Purple Line Bus Rapid Transit Project as it Currently Exists Within the City of Maplewood (22-10-2135) Workshop Packet Page Number 14 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 MEMO Date: 08/06/2024 To:Mike Sable City of Maplewood Administrator From:Craig Lamothe Purple Line Project Manager nd RE: Responses to July 22Maplewood City Council Workshop Questions The following information has been assembled to respond to questions posed to the Purple Line project team during the July 22, 2024,Maplewood City Council workshop. These responses strive to be brief and succinct, but do reflect extensive technical analysis, design development and modeling. Additional detailed information is available on each of these topics if desired. Why the median? Is it necessary? Medians are commonly used in roadway design to separate functions (e.g. opposing directions of traffic, bikeway from general traffic, transitway from general traffic), manage turning movements on higher speed/higher volume roadways, or to provide a protected area in the middle of the roadway for signs/signals, landscaping or pedestrian refuges (a protected area to pause while crossing multiple lanes of traffic). Atintersections where left turn lanes are provided, mediansare used to define the left turn lane and clarify vehicle paths for drivers. Today on the Maplewood segment of White Bear Avenue, there are left turn medians at the Frost Ave andBurkeAve/YMCAservice entrance intersections. A longer median starting just south of Bleechers Bar & Grill continues through the TH 36 interchange north to the Hill Drive access to the Home Depot/Cub Foods retail area. This segment has curves and a number of driveways. The median in this segmentcontrols left turn movements into businesses, guides turning movements at intersections and guides drivers through this segment to improve safety in this area. A second longer median segment exists just north of County Road C to Beam Avenue to perform similar functions. Both the Side Running Concept and Center Running Concept as shown in the current layouts would addmedian (with breaks at intersections) where continuous medians do not exist today from Larpenteur to Bleechers (approximately 1 mile) and from Hill Drive to County Road C. 1 Workshop Packet Page Number 15 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ Regardless of whether or not Purple Line is constructed on White Bear Avenue, Ramsey County would continue to address access management through exploring the option of medians on White Bear Avenue to maintain/improve traffic flow and address safety concerns with future roadway improvement projects. The MnDOT County Road Safety Plan (CRSP) for Ramsey County identified access density over fifteen access points per mile as a risk factor for crashes. Based on this risk factor, the implementation of medians is one mitigation Ramsey County would consider to manage access and manage this risk. There are many segments of roadway along White Bear Avenue with more than eight access points per mile, so medians were shown as a mitigation that could be implemented with this project. The ultimate location and configuration of these medians would be determined during the advancement and completion of preliminary design. Medians are shown in both concepts as they would improve traffic flow for both general traffic and bus operations as well as reduce risk of vehicle crashes. The addition of Purple Line BRT jl  Œl‹‘tŒl ~ljt_ ‰lŒ l. However, medians would be Œr}™ Œlh~~ljlj in the Center Running Concept to eliminate the crash risk of left turning vehicles with buses coming up behind them on the left. Medians would also be required at station areas. Purple Line concepts are currently at a very high level of concept design (about 1% as opposed to 100% plans needed for construction). Locations and types of medians needed for the project can continue to be determined in consultation with Ramsey County (the agency with roadway responsibility), the City of Maplewood and Metro Transit as the roadway design develops through 15%, 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% design plans. What happens if no median? In the Side Running Concept, with no medians at all, it is likely that efficiency of traffic flow would decrease and crashes would increase. If medians would be restricted to those areas were medians are present today, those issues would likely appear only in the areas without medians. In the Center Running Concept, the safety risk presented without medians as described above would rise to the level that professional engineers would strongly recommend against implementation of the concept, possibly to the level that they would refuse to sign the plans. Also, pedestrian refuges could not be provided at the following locations with fairly significant pedestrian crossings: White Bear/Gervais - 240 crossings daily; White Bear/Lydia - 165 crossings daily; and White Bear/County Rd B - 135 crossings daily. Ultimately the decision about where/how to provide medians in any condition would rest with Ramsey County as the owner of the road and will be reviewed as design progresses. 6~‰_h  g‘tll _j s~l—lŒ ñ h~‰_Œt tjlähllŒ All properties along White Bear Avenue are anticipated to have some impacts along the curb line of their properties during construction. 2϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 16 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Twelveproperties in the Side Running Concept are expected to have a greater than minor impact, but not significantly impacted that the business or residence would not be able to function resulting in a full property acquisition. The Center Running Concept would impact an _jjtt_}twelve businesses and of these,onecould result in full acquisition due to potential parking impacts. However, the owner has indicated there likely is a path to providing parking elsewhere on the site avoiding the need for acquisition. These property impacts result largely from additional roadway width for stations and turn lanes at intersections rather than medians. Figure 1: Property Impacts in Maplewood OŒ_qqth jt–lŒt ñslŒ Œll t ht™ ñ—slŒl —t}} jŒt–lŒ rÞ With the changes in roadway capacity on White Bear Avenue that would occur as part of the project, it is anticipated that some traffic on White Bear Avenue will divert to alternative routes. Because both the center running and side running options result in the same lane reductions, the forecasted change in traffic volumes is anticipated to be similar or the same. The graphic in Appendix Ashows the forecasted daily traffic levelsin 2045along White Bear Avenue and other roadwayswithout Purple Lineas well asthe corresponding change in traffic levels with Purple Line. It should be noted that only key roadways that are expected to change by at least 200 vehicles per day are shown on the map. The main diversion routes that will see increases in traffic volumes include I-35E, US 61, McKnight Road, Century Avenue, and Saint Paul Road. Some east-west roadways would also see an increase in traffic (e.g. BeamAvenue and Larpenteur Avenue). Impacts from traffic diversion to local streets 3 Workshop Packet Page Number 17 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ will be moderated through the use of medians along the corridor to prevent left-turns to/from these streets. Projections per stop (Northbound and Southbound) WBA vs BV The Purple Line project team uses the Federal Transit Administration's Simplified Trips On Project Software (STOPS) tool to predict ridership because it provides reliable ridership forecasts essential for planning and securing funding. STOPS calculates ridership by integrating population and employment data from the Census, local long range land use plans, existing transit ridership, and regional surveys asking residents about their travel choices. This data helps predict how many people will use the new or improved transit service. The project team used the STOPS model to provide an estimate for both the current year (2023), which is the present time, and the horizon year (2045), which aligns with local long range land use plans and reflects long term changes to ridership. The horizon year forecast includes changes in land use, such as new housing and commercial developments, and changes in the transit network, like new routes and services. The model gives an estimate of boardings, to measure how many trips are anticipated on the new service. The maps in Appendix B illustrate where the STOPS model anticipates Purple Line trips will start (producers) and where they will end (attractors). Each dot represents an approximate density of activity and may not represent actual start/end locations. Note that while many trips begin and end on the Purple Line corridor (or a walkable/bike-able distance from the corridor) others may begin or end a great distance away. These are trips that use other transit services, park and ride facilities, or slŒ Œ_‰Œ_t ~jl  glrt Œ lj sltŒ Œt‰ ñ g‘ _}} ‘l sl I‘Œ‰}l =tl qŒ ~l ‰Œt q their trip. The table below provides a breakdown of the current year and horizon year ridership estimates for the Bruce Vento Regional Trail Colocation and White Bear Avenue Reconstruction route alternatives by station. Because the model estimates boardings, these numbers for each station locations reflect only how many passengers are anticipate to board at that station location. These numbers do not reflect how many passengers are exiting buses at that location. However, if a passenger boards the bus for a return trip at that location later in the day, that is captured in the number as a separate trip. Note that at the Maplewood stations there is not a significant difference in the trips estimated for the current year versus the horizon year. That is because long range land use plans due not anticipate significant changes in land use from what is there today. Should land use plans intensify in these station areas, greater ridership could be anticipated. 4϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 18 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ Table 1: Current Year and Horizon Year Ridership Estimates Bruce Vento White Bear Avenue Corridor Regional Trail Reconstruction Route Alternative Colocation Route Alternative Center Running Side Running Current Horizon Current Horizon Current Horizon Year Year Year Year Year Year Station Community (2023) (2045) (2023) (2045) (2023) (2045) 150 325 175 400 150 325 Union Depot 5th & 6th St 325 350 400 425 300 350 10th St 300 350 400 475 375 425 14th St (Region's & Green Line) 450 475 725 500 575 450 Mt. Airy St 125 100 200 150 150 125 Olive St 50 100 100 100 75 100 Cayuga St 125 125 150 175 125 150 Payne Ave 200 225 275 325 250 275 St. Paul Arcade St 200 250 225 250 200 225 Cook Ave 50 100 100 100 75 100 Maryland Ave 400 400 Clarence St 325 275 325 275 Hazelwood St / Maryland Ave 125 150 100 125 White Bear Ave / Maryland Ave 225 225 200 200 Arlington Ave 50 50 50 50 Idaho Ave 150 175 125 150 Larpenteur Ave St. Paul / Maplewood 50 75 75 100 50 50 50 50 Frost Ave Co. Rd. B 100 150 75 125 Hwy 36 50 75 11th & Gervais Ave 175 225 150 200 Co. Rd. C 75 75 50 75 Radatz Ave 100 125 100 100 Maplewood Hazelwood / Beam (St. John's Hospital) 75 75 Maplewood Mall Transit Center 575 750 475 500 450 475 Hazelwood/ St. John's Blvd éM× ;sù 5‰t_}ê 25 50 25 50 Co. Rd. D 75 75 50 75 PROJECT TOTAL 3,200 3,875 4,700 5,025 4,025 4,475 5϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 19 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ End points ridership counts? Table 2: White Bear Ave Ridership Counts White Bear Ave Current Year Horizon Year Guideway Option Endpoint (2023) (2045) Center Running Maplewood Mall Transit Center 4,475 4,925 Side Running Maplewood Mall Transit Center 3,900 4,350 *llŒ L‘tr *‘™ Lj , ä M× ;sù 5‰t_} «Ø®§§ ¬Ø§©¬ Mtjl L‘tr *‘™ Lj , ä M× ;sù 5‰t_} «Ø§©¬ «Ø«®¬ 5— ~_™ ‰ t M I_‘} – >_‰}l—j ñ ŒtjlŒst‰ ‰Œzlht t l_hs ht™Þ See Table 1. Stop difference between BV and WB? The Bruce Vento Trail Colocation Corridor Route has 17 stations, and the White Bear Ave Corridor Reconstruction Route Alternative has 24 stations (16 in St. Paul and 8 in Maplewood). Bruce Vento Regional Trail Colocation Route Alternative stations located in Maplewood include: Larpenteur Ave Frost Ave Hwy 36 5_žl}—jä)l_~ éM× ;sù 5‰t_}ê Maplewood Mall Transit Center White Bear Avenue Corridor Reconstruction Route Alternative stations located in Maplewood include: Larpenteur Frost Ave Co. Rd. B Hwy 36 th 11 & Gervais Ave Co. Rd C Radatz Ave Maplewood Mall Transit Center 5_žl}—jäM× ;sù )}–j éM× ;sù 5‰t_}ê Co. Rd. D 6϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 20 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 What is the cost of micro service in the North End/Mall District? Metro Transit micro is a shared ride service using ADA-accessible mini-buses. Each trip may be shared with multiple customers may be picked up or dropped off anywhere within the service area. Micro service is a new service for Metro Transit who is conducting a 24-month test program in North Minneapolis. Service is provided seven days a week from early morning until late evening. Fares range from $1 to $3.25. Network Now draft concept plan identifiesservice improvements for 2025-2027 includingthe creation of additional micro zonesincluding l l–ttlj lh~‰_tr >_‰}l—jù ?Œs EndDistrict. Operating costs for each microtransit zone is anticipated to be $1.5 million annually. Figure 2:Comparisonof anticipated regional subsidy required for microtransit versus BRT service For more information aboutMetro Transit micro, go tometrotransit.org/micro. Figure 3: Metro Transit microtransit vehicle interior 7 Workshop Packet Page Number 21 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ *‘ŒŒl V) OŒ_qqth h‘ _j ‰lljÞ .t~_lj V) Œ_qqth h‘ _j ‰llj ñ —ts detail Daily traffic volumes on White Bear Avenue range from around 17,000 vehicles per day near Larpenteur Avenue up to 23,300 vehicles per day just north of TH 36. The traffic volumes during the morning and evening peak periods at intersections along the White Bear Avenue corridor can be found in the exhibit at the end of this memo. Intersection Level traffic counts collected in 2023 are shown on the maps in Appendix C. These maps show the counted for each movement of each leg of the intersection during both the morning and afternoon peak hour of traffic. Speed data was not collected along White Bear Avenue as part of the Purple Line project. However, Ramsey County completed an evaluation of all undivided four-lane roadways in the County in 2020. This evaluation included collecting speed estimates along White Bear Avenue in Maplewood. Based on this study, prevailing speeds in the corridor were determined to range between 40-42 mph south of TH 36 which has a posted speed of 35 mph. North of TH 36, which has a posted speed limit of 40 mph, prevailing speeds in the corridor were around 41 mph. As discussed previously, estimated changes in daily traffic volumes due to Purple Line along White Bear Avenue are summarized in the graphic found in Appendix A. In general, daily traffic volume are expected to decrease between 5% and 8%. Traffic speeds along the corridor are also anticipated to experience some decrease with the Purple Line project due to changes in roadway characteristics (e.g. fewer lanes for general traffic). How to remove snow in each scenario? Snow removal with a center median would not change from how it is done today. In the sections where the exclusive guideway is proposed, the medians separating the bus guideway from general traffic lanes are short segments-- half mile or less. Plowing these could be similar to plowing bridges or overpasses on highways today where the snow cannot be dumped below. The exact process will be discussed and determined by County and Metro Transit engineers during the design phase and documented in agreements. VslŒl h_ Œltjl ‘Œ }lq ñ s— ~_™ }lqïs_j ‘Œ _Œl l}t~t_ljÞ Left turns would be allowed at signalized intersections under both design concepts: Larpenteur Ave, Ripley Ave, Frost Ave, County Road B, Cope Ave, Highway 36 ramps, Hill Dr, Gervais Ave, County Road C, and Beam Ave. Left turns would be prohibited at these local roadways under both concepts: North St Paul Road, Burke Ave, Messabi Ave (east leg only; at the west leg left turns are already prohibited). Additional left turns under the Center Running Concept only would be prohibited at Van Dyke, E Kohlman Ave, Radatz Ave. 8϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 22 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ Of the 52 business driveways along White Bear Avenue in Maplewood, left turns are _}}—lj _ }™ ªª j_™. The Side Running Concept would close all 33 remaining driveways to left turns. The Center Running Concept would physically close only 30 of the 33 due to physical constraints but left turns would not be recommended at those remaining locations. Of the 38 residential driveways along White Bear Avenue in Maplewood, left turns are _}}—lj _ }™ ª¨ j_™. The Side Running Concept would close 30 of the 31 remaining driveways to left turns. The Center Running Concept would physically close only 25 of the 31 due to physical constraints but left turns would not be recommended at those remaining locations. Again, these conditions reflect only a high level of concept engineering (1%); access will be given further consideration as design progresses. 5— _Œl *>* –l Œl_lj ñ _Œl sl™ gtjtrÞ Per the committee charter, the METRO Purple Line BRT Project Corridor Management Committee (CMC) advises the Metropolitan Council, the federal grantee and eventual owner/operator, and Ramsey County, the local funding partner, on the design and construction of the project. The CMC will utilize technical and communityinput to address issues relating to project development, engineering, final design and construction.While the CMC is anticipated to make the most of its recommendations on a consensus basis, as needed the committee will cast votes on key recommendations.However, as an advisory body, the votes of the CMC do not bind the Metropolitan Council or Ramsey County to any final capital or operating budget decisions but establishes an input process for project decisions. Feedback from other project committees (TAC, CBAC) help to inform CMC actions. 9϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 23 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ How do Emergency Vehicles enter into center-running lane in an emergency response? ! ™‰th_} ~ljt_ —‘}j gl g‘jlj g™ _ ­÷ curb, but where emergency vehicles would be anticipated to cross the median a ~‘_g}l h‘Œg with lower height and more gradual slopes could be provided. Those locations would be determined in coordination with City and County emergency services at future stages of design. Operational protocols for how Metro Transit buses respond to emergency vehicles in the transitway would be determined in consultation with emergency services and included as part of bus driver training. Typically bus operators would be instructed to stop and remain in their position with their flashers on until emergency vehicles have passed. Emergency vehicles would be able to access signal preemption while in the transitway. During future stages of the project, agreements will be put in place addressing emergency vehicle use and other operating protocol and would be documented in agreements. To inform the development of procedures for Purple Line BRT Operations, Metro Transit will use existing procedures as well as look to other transit systems, such as IndyGo in Indianapolis, Indiana who has developed emergency vehicle interaction procedures for their Red Line BRT Operations. 10϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 24 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ Lane width in center-running (vehicle breakdowns and traffic stops for speeding)? What is the shoulder width? Figure 7: Purple Line Center-Running Cross Sections General vehicle lane width is anticipated to vary between 12.5 to 16 feet depending on conditions throughout the corridor. Generally, lane width at the concept level for this concept was developed to minimize property impacts. Wider lane widths may be possible and could be explored at future stages of design but would likely increase property impacts. The design concepts include curb and gutter to facilitate collection of stormwater and therefore do  th}‘jl _ ös‘}jlŒ÷× Osl }_l —tjs tjth_lj _g–l th}‘jl sl r‘lŒ ‰_ ésl _Œl_ q concrete that extends from the vertical curb into the roadway). What is the full reconstruction for Beam and what are the implications? Full reconstruction of Beam Avenue is one concept under consideration and would include: relocation of utilities as needed; replacement of the roadway base; new pavement; new curb, gutter and sidewalk; new lighting; new landscaping; replacement of signals and signal systems as needed; appropriate lane markings and signage. Full reconstruction of Beam may not be necessary for Purple Line operation and could reduce construction costs in this segment up to 50%. Beyond costs, the current reconstruction concepts largely fall within the right of way and would not result in property impacts. 11϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 25 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ What is the Ramsey County traffic engineer estimate of level of service on roadway and intersections on WB from Larpenteur to Beam? Detailed traffic study results for each study intersection along White Bear Avenue in Maplewood under Existing conditions, 2045 No-Build conditions (No Purple Line), and the 2045 Build conditions (for both center running and side running options) can be found at the back of this memo. Level of MlŒ–thl é=AMê rŒ_jlØ ‹‘_tq™ _j h_lrŒtžl _ jŒt–lŒù jth~qŒØ qŒ‘Œ_tØ q‘l} h‘~‰tØ and travel times experienced as a result of intersection control and resulting traffic queuing. The table below provides a description of each LOS rating. Table 4: Level of Service Descriptions Level of Service Description A Minimal delay B Minor delay C Moderate delay D Considerable delay E High delay F Extremely high delay LOS D/E is considered to be the threshold of acceptable operations for an intersection in an urban or suburban area during peak hours. Appendix D provides tables showing LOS analysis for the AM Peak Period under Existing Conditions, the PM Peak Period under Existing Conditions, AM Peak Period under (future 2045) No Build (no Purple Line) Conditions, the PM Peak Period under (future 2045) No Build (no Purple Line) Conditions, AM Peak Period under (future 2045) Center Running Build Conditions, the PM Peak Period under Center Running Build Conditions, AM Peak Period under (future 2045) Side Running Build Conditions, and the PM Peak Period under (future 2045) Side Running Build Conditions, The traffic study showed minimal difference between Existing conditions and 2045 No-Build conditions for overall intersection LOS, largely due to the excess capacity that exists on the roadway today. When comparing the center running and side running options in 2045, while both show reductions in LOS along the corridor, the center running option is expected to see more significant levels of congestion than the side running option. To illustrate this trend, LOS during the evening peak hour (generally the worst hour of the day) at five Maplewood intersections under all four scenarios are shown in the table below. 12϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 26 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ Table 5: Level of Service in PM Peak Hour in Maplewood 2045 Intersection Existing Center Side No-Build Running Running White Bear/Frost A A C B White Bear/TH 36 Eastbound B B D B White Bear/Gervais-11th B B C C White Bear/County Road C B B E C White Bear/Beam C C D D 13϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 27 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ Appendix A ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 28 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 29 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ Appendix B ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 30 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ .t~_lj Œt‰ jlt_t g_lj  l˜ttr Œ_t ™l~ ‰}‘ I‘Œ‰}l =tl× ϶ ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 31 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ .t~_lj Œt‰ Œtrt g_lj  l˜ttr Œ_t ™l~ ‰}‘ I‘Œ‰}l =tl× ϶϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 32 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ Appendix C ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 33 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 OPU!UP!TDBMF Ijmm!Esjwf UI!47!XC UI!47!FC Dpqf!Bwfovf Dpvouz!Spbe!C Gsptu!Bwfovf Sjqmfz!Bwfovf Mbsqfoufvs!Bwfovf BN!)QN*!Qfbl!Ipvs! Workshop Packet Page Number 34 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Cfbn!Bwfovf Sbebu{!Bwfovf Dpvouz!Spbe!D Izwff!Tipqqjoh!Dfoufs BN!)QN*!Qfbl!Ipvs! Workshop Packet Page Number 35 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 ϶ ϶ Appendix D ϶ Workshop Packet Page Number 36 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Existing AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement A (9.3) NBL NB B (12.5) NBT B (12.8) B (10.9) NBR SBL B (12.0) A (9.6) SB A (9.2) SBT SBR A (6.1) White Bear Ave & 17 C (33.3) EBL Larpenteur Ave EB C (34.0) EBTD (42.1) A (7.3) EBR WBL C (31.8) C (31.1) WB WBTD (39.1) WBR C (23.8) B (18.0) Intersection NBT C (19.8) NB C (19.6) C (18.1) NBR White Bear Ave & St 18SB A (0.5) SBT A (0.4) Paul Rd B (11.7) WB A (8.5) WBR Intersection B (11.9) A (1.8) NBT A (1.8) NB NBR A (1.1) A (5.4) SBL A (2.0) SB White Bear Ave & 19 SBT A (1.4) Ripley Ave WBLE (65.8) B (10.9) WB WBR A (7.6) A (2.5) Intersection NBL A (6.2) A (2.9) NB A (2.4) NBT NBR A (2.2) A (5.2) SBL SB A (3.1) SBT A (3.0) A (3.0) SBR White Bear Ave & Frost 20 EBLD (48.9) Ave C (25.6) EB EBTD (44.8) EBR A (7.7) WBLD (41.8) WB C (26.2) WBTD (53.6) A (9.1) WBR Intersection A (5.2) Workshop Packet Page Number 37 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Existing AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement B (10.5) NBL A (8.6) NB A (8.6) NBT NBR A (6.3) B (11.4) SBL SB A (6.6) SBT A (5.7) A (4.8) SBR White Bear Ave & 21 EBLD (45.1) County Road B EBD (35.7) EBTD (36.7) EBR B (16.4) WBLD (38.6) WB C (33.1) WBTD (40.4) C (22.4) WBR Intersection B (12.7) A (9.0) NBL NB A (6.2) NBT A (5.9) A (5.1) NBR SBL A (8.0) A (3.9) SB A (4.0) SBT SBR A (1.9) White Bear Ave & Cope 22 EBLD (46.3) Ave EB C (33.5) EBTD (48.8) EBR A (1.6) WBLD (51.0) B (13.7) WB WBTD (54.4) WBR A (1.8) A (7.3) Intersection NBT A (3.4) NB A (3.2) A (2.4) NBR SBL A (6.0) A (2.4) SB White Bear Ave & 23 A (2.0) SBT Highway 36 EB EBLD (48.2) EB C (25.1) B (12.4) EBR Intersection A (8.7) A (7.4) NBL A (4.0) NB NBT A (2.0) B (10.7) SBT A (9.5) SB White Bear Ave & 24 SBR A (6.4) Highway 36 WB WBLD (47.6) C (26.9) WB WBR A (7.7) A (9.2) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 38 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Existing AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement A (2.0) NBT NB A (2.2) A (3.0) NBR SBL A (5.9) SB A (3.0) White Bear Ave & Hill 25 A (2.8) SBT Ave WBLD (47.8) WB C (33.3) A (5.8) WBR Intersection A (5.8) A (8.9) NBL NB A (6.4) NBT A (5.9) A (6.4) NBR SBL A (7.7) A (5.6) SB A (5.3) SBT SBR A (4.0) White Bear Ave & 11th 26 EBLD (51.5) Ave EB C (29.5) EBTD (48.8) B (17.2) EBR WBLD (50.3) C (33.3) WB WBTD (49.1) WBR A (7.0) B (11.8) Intersection NBL A (3.9) A (1.1) NB A (0.9) NBT NBR A (1.2) A (6.2) SBL SB A (2.2) SBT A (2.1) A (2.3) SBR White Bear Ave & 27 Hyvee Shopping Center EBLE (58.4) EBD (36.7) EBTE (58.3) EBR B (19.7) A (0.7) WBL A (3.3) WB WBR A (7.6) A (3.3) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 39 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Existing AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement A (4.4) NBL A (3.2) NB A (3.1) NBT NBR A (3.0) A (6.2) SBL SB A (5.8) SBT A (5.8) A (5.3) SBR White Bear Ave & 28 EBL C (34.3) County Road C C (25.4) EB EBTD (48.0) EBR A (6.4) WBLD (43.3) WB C (31.4) WBTD (47.6) A (5.9) WBR Intersection A (9.1) A (3.7) NBL NB A (1.2) NBT A (1.1) A (1.6) NBR SBL A (3.6) A (0.7) SB A (0.6) SBT White Bear Ave & 29 SBR A (1.2) Radatz Ave A (7.5) EBL A (6.9) EB EBR A (6.8) A (8.9) WBL A (7.6) WB WBR A (6.5) A (1.3) Intersection NBLD (41.6) C (20.2) NB B (13.2) NBT NBR A (2.6) SBLD (42.1) SB B (19.1) SBT B (17.4) A (6.8) SBR White Bear Ave & Beam 30 EBLD (42.6) Ave C (20.2) EB C (34.5) EBT EBR A (1.2) WBLD (42.3) WB C (32.3) WBTD (37.0) A (8.3) WBR In C (21.1) tersection Workshop Packet Page Number 40 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Existing PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement B (16.5) NBL NB B (18.0) NBT B (18.2) B (17.4) NBR SBL B (15.7) B (12.9) SB B (12.5) SBT SBR B (10.4) White Bear Ave & 17 EBLD (35.8) Larpenteur Ave EBD (38.3) EBTD (45.7) B (17.7) EBR WBL C (33.6) C (34.8) WB WBTD (44.9) WBR C (27.3) C (21.4) Intersection NBTD (27.6) NBD (27.8) NBRD (29.3) White Bear Ave & St 18SB A (1.0) SBT A (0.8) Paul Rd B (14.2) WB A (8.4) WBR Intersection B (15.4) A (1.7) NBT A (1.6) NB NBR A (1.1) A (8.8) SBL A (2.5) SB White Bear Ave & 19 SBT A (1.7) Ripley Ave WBLD (53.9) B (14.8) WB WBR A (9.0) Intersection A (2.7) NBL B (10.3) A (3.7) NB A (2.9) NBT NBR A (2.6) A (6.8) SBL SB A (3.6) SBT A (3.6) A (3.9) SBR White Bear Ave & Frost 20 EBLD (52.9) Ave C (25.6) EB EBTE (57.5) EBR B (10.6) WBLD (44.4) C (27.4) WB WBTE (66.8) B (11.2) WBR Intersection A (6.1) Workshop Packet Page Number 41 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Existing PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement B (15.4) NBL B (11.3) NB B (11.2) NBT NBR A (9.6) C (21.6) SBL SB B (10.8) SBT A (9.5) B (10.1) SBR White Bear Ave & 21 EBLD (39.8) County Road B EBD (38.8) EBTD (43.7) EBR C (26.7) WBLD (39.8) WBD (35.4) WBTD (45.0) C (24.0) WBR Intersection B (15.4) B (15.4) NBL NB A (6.7) NBT A (6.1) A (5.5) NBR SBL B (11.7) A (4.5) SB A (4.4) SBT SBR A (3.4) White Bear Ave & Cope 22 EBLD (50.5) Ave EBD (38.9) EBTD (53.7) EBR A (2.6) WBLE (58.3) B (12.3) WB WBTD (52.8) WBR A (4.7) A (9.1) Intersection NBT B (12.1) NB B (11.0) A (5.4) NBR SBL C (21.8) SB A (8.3) A (6.0) SBT White Bear Ave & 23 Highway 36 EB EBLD (41.2) C (28.1) EB C (32.2) EBT EBR B (16.2) B (14.1) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 42 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Existing PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement B (13.5) NBL NB A (4.3) A (1.6) NBT SBT A (8.0) SB A (7.0) White Bear Ave & 24 A (4.1) SBR Highway 36 WB WBLD (52.4) WB C (30.8) B (12.5) WBR Intersection A (7.9) A (3.4) NBT A (3.7) NB NBR A (4.8) B (11.4) SBL A (5.0) SB White Bear Ave & Hill 25 SBT A (4.5) Ave WBLD (49.4) WBD (36.9) WBR A (9.1) A (8.4) Intersection NBL B (12.5) A (9. NB 1) A (8.8) NBT NBR A (6.6) C (21.4) SBL SB B (15.8) SBT B (14.7) B (14.3) SBR White Bear Ave & 11th 26 EBLD (52.0) Ave C (32.8) EB EBTD (50.7) EBR C (21.1) WBLE (65.7) WBD (37.9) WBTD (50.1) A (9.8) WBR Intersection B (17.4) A (10.0) NBL NB A (2.2) NBT A (1.5) A (2.0) NBR SBL A (10.0) A (4.5) SB A (4.5) SBT SBR A (4.5) White Bear Ave & 27 EBLE (62.6) Hyvee Shopping Center EBD (39.8) EBTD (50.6) C (23.0) EBR WBLD (50.4) WBD (41.3) WBTD (54.7) WBR C (21.7) A (7.5) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 43 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Existing PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement B (12.0) NBL A (6.6) NB A (6.0) NBT NBR A (6.7) B (15.3) SBL SB A (7.9) SBT A (7.1) A (8.7) SBR White Bear Ave & 28 EBLD (45.2) County Road C C (28.2) EB EBTD (47.5) EBR A (9.2) WBLD (52.1) WB C (33.0) WBTD (44.9) A (6.8) WBR Intersection B (11.5) A (8.8) NBL NB A (3.1) NBT A (3.0) A (3.2) NBR SBL A (6.9) A (1.3) SB A (1.1) SBT White Bear Ave & 29 SBR A (1.8) Radatz Ave A (7.2) EBL A (7.0) EB EBR A (6.5) C (17.2) WBL B (12.6) WB WBR A (7.9) A (2.4) Intersection NBLE (58.7) C (27.8) NB B (16.4) NBT NBR A (7.8) SBLE (57.7) SB C (22.0) SBT C (20.5) A (8.3) SBR White Bear Ave & Beam 30 EBLD (53.5) Ave C (29.1) EB EBTD (47.7) EBR A (3.0) WBLE (56.3) WBD (42.9) WBTD (49.2) B (17.4) WBR In C (27.8) tersection Workshop Packet Page Number 44 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | No-Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement B (11.7) NBL B (14.1) NB NBT B (14.4) B (12.0) NBR B (12.4) SBL SB B (10.1) SBT A (9.7) A (6.8) SBR White Bear Ave & 17 EBL C (34.5) Larpenteur Ave C (33.2) EB EBTD (39.7) EBR A (6.0) C (31.4) WBL WB C (27.3) WBTD (44.1) A (7.8) WBR Intersection B (18.3) C (17.2) NBT NB C (17.5) NBR C (19.4) White Bear Ave & St A (0.5) 18SB A (0.4) SBT Paul Rd WB B (14.4) WBR A (8.8) B (10.9) Intersection NBT A (1.3) A (1.3) NB A (0.5) NBR SBL A (6.3) A (2.2) SB White Bear Ave & 19 A (1.4) SBT Ripley Ave WBLD (50.4) B (10.4) WB A (8.6) WBR In A (2.5) tersection A (7.5) NBL NB A (3.5) NBT A (2.8) A (4.3) NBR SBL A (7.2) A (3.5) SB A (3.4) SBT SBR A (3.7) White Bear Ave & 20 EBLD (47.9) Frost Ave EB C (24.1) EBTD (50.6) A (8.3) EBR WBLD (39.4) C (24.7) WB WBTD (48.0) WBR A (9.6) A (5.9) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 45 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | No-Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement A (10.0) NBL NB A (9.9) NBT A (9.9) A (8.7) NBR SBL B (12.2) A (7.0) SB A (6.0) SBT SBR A (5.1) White Bear Ave & 21 EBLD (43.4) County Road B EBD (36.0) EBTD (38.1) B (17.2) EBR WBLD (41.2) WBD (35.6) WBTD (44.0) WBR C (24.1) B (14.1) Intersection NBL A (9.4) A (7.0) NB A (6.9) NBT NBR A (5.3) A (7.8) SBL SB A (4.1) SBT A (4.2) A (2.5) SBR White Bear Ave & 22 EBLD (43.7) Cope Ave C (33.3) EB EBTD (45.8) EBR A (1.7) WBLE (58.8) WB B (14.2) WBTD (52.7) A (2.1) WBR Intersection A (7.9) A (4.4) NBT NB A (4.2) NBR A (3.0) A (7.9) SBL SB A (3.0) SBT A (2.4) White Bear Ave & 23 Highway 36 EB EBLD (46.4) EB C (26.7) EBTE (55.1) B (15.3) EBR Intersection B (10.1) Workshop Packet Page Number 46 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | No-Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement A (9.7) NBL NB A (4.9) NBT A (2.0) B (11.1) SBT SB B (10.3) SBR A (8.2) White Bear Ave & 24 Highway 36 WB WBLD (46.9) WB C (26.5) WBTD (46.7) A (8.2) WBR Intersection A (9.7) A (2.2) NBT NB A (2.4) NBR A (3.2) A (6.1) SBL SB A (3.2) White Bear Ave & Hill 25 SBT A (3.0) Ave WBLD (48.9) WB C (34.7) WBR A (7.0) A (6.1) Intersection NBL A (8.1) A (6.5) NB A (6.4) NBT NBR A (5.4) B (10.4) SBL SB A (7.8) SBT A (7.3) A (5.6) SBR White Bear Ave & 11th 26 EBLD (49.4) Ave C (28.1) EB EBTD (48.6) EBR B (16.1) WBLD (52.5) WB C (33.8) WBTD (39.4) A (7.2) WBR Intersection B (12.5) A (4.9) NBL NB A (1.3) NBT A (1.0) A (1.5) NBR SBL A (5.1) A (2.8) SB A (2.7) SBT SBR A (2.8) White Bear Ave & 27Hyvee Shopping EBLE (59.9) Center EBD (37.6) EBTE (56.4) C (20.2) EBR WBL A (3.9) C (24.7) WB WBTE (57.4) WBR B (11.4) A (4.1) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 47 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | No-Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement A (6.0) NBL NB A (3.7) NBT A (3.5) A (3.2) NBR SBL A (8.5) A (7.3) SB A (7.3) SBT SBR A (6.7) White Bear Ave & 28 EBLD (43.8) County Road C EB C (26.4) EBTD (40.4) A (6.6) EBR WBLD (48.2) C (31.7) WB WBTD (44.9) WBR A (6.0) B (10.4) Intersection NBL A (4.1) A (1.4) NB A (1.2) NBT NBR A (2.2) A (4.0) SBL SB A (0.9) SBT A (0.8) White Bear Ave & 29 A (1.1) SBR Radatz Ave EBL A (7.6) A (7.4) EB A (7.3) EBR WBL B (10.5) A (8.3) WB A (6.7) WBR Intersection A (1.5) NBLD (43.1) NB C (21.3) NBT B (15.1) A (3.0) NBR SBLD (45.8) C (21.4) SB B (19.9) SBT SBR A (7.3) White Bear Ave & 30 EBLD (41.2) Beam Ave EB C (20.4) EBT C (34.1) A (1.6) EBR WBLD (40.0) WB C (31.2) WBTD (36.9) WBR A (7.8) C (22.2) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 48 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | No-Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBL B (19.2) NB B (19.0) B (19.3) NBT B (16.8) NBR SBL B (19.5) B (14.2) SB B (13.1) SBT SBR B (11.4) White Bear Ave & 17 EBLD (38.4) Larpenteur Ave EBD (39.1) EBTD (46.4) A (7.0) EBR WBLD (35.6) C (30.7) WB WBTD (48.1) WBR A (9.5) C (22.2) Intersection NBTD (27.7) NBD (27.8) NBRD (28.8) White Bear Ave & St 18SB A (1.1) SBT A (0.8) Paul Rd C (17.9) WB A (8.9) WBR Intersection B (15.7) A (1.7) NBT NB A (1.7) NBR A (1.4) B (10.7) SBL SB A (3.1) White Bear Ave & 19 SBT A (2.0) Ripley Ave WBLE (60.9) WB B (15.1) WBR B (10.2) A (3.2) Intersection NBL B (12.8) A (5. NB 1) A (3.9) NBT NBR A (3.6) A (6.3) SBL SB A (4.0) SBT A (4.0) A (3.9) SBR White Bear Ave & Frost 20 EBLD (52.2) Ave C (25.0) EB EBTE (56.9) EBR B (11.4) WBLD (47.5) WB C (28.0) WBTD (43.1) B (12.2) WBR Intersection A (7.1) Workshop Packet Page Number 49 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | No-Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement B (19.5) NBL B (13.2) NB B (13.1) NBT NBR B (11.6) C (23.3) SBL SB B (12.5) SBT B (11.3) A (9.8) SBR White Bear Ave & 21 EBLD (38.8) County Road B EBD (37.0) EBTD (41.2) EBR C (23.7) WBLD (38.0) WBD (35.0) WBTD (43.8) C (25.8) WBR Intersection B (17.0) B (16.9) NBL NB A (8.8) NBT A (8.3) A (7.4) NBR SBL B (15.0) A (5.5) SB A (5.2) SBT SBR A (4.7) White Bear Ave & Cope 22 EBLD (47.8) Ave EBD (38.5) EBTD (54.3) A (2.8) EBR WBLE (59.1) B (16.1) WB WBTD (53.2) WBR A (7.6) B (10.6) Intersection NBT B (13.9) B (12.7) NB A (5.7) NBR SBL C (27.9) A (9.8) SB A (6.7) SBT White Bear Ave & 23 Highway 36 EB EBLD (43.1) C (32.3) EB EBTD (44.8) EBR C (22.1) B (16.6) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 50 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | No-Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement B (17.0) NBL A (5.1) NB A (1.7) NBT SBT A (9.1) A (7.7) SB A (4.0) SBR White Bear Ave & 24 Highway 36 WB WBLD (54.2) C (33.1) WB WBTD (48.0) WBR B (15.1) A (8.7) Intersection NBT A (4.2) A (4.6) NB A (5.8) NBR SBL B (15.7) A (5.6) SB White Bear Ave & Hill 25 A (4.8) SBT Ave WBLD (51.8) WBD (38.7) A (10.0) WBR Intersection A (9.1) B (14.6) NBL NB A (9.5) NBT A (9.0) A (7.2) NBR SBL C (25.3) B (17.0) SB B (15.4) SBT SBR B (13.3) White Bear Ave & 11th 26 EBLD (50.2) Ave EB C (34.4) EBTD (51.6) C (23.8) EBR WBLF (96.2) WBD (52.2) WBTD (48.9) WBR A (10.0) B (19.7) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 51 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | No-Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement B (12.5) NBL A (2.4) NB A (1.5) NBT NBR A (2.5) B (11.7) SBL SB A (5.5) SBT A (5.4) A (5.6) SBR White Bear Ave & 27Hyvee Shopping EBLE (62.0) Center EBD (43.1) EBTD (46.6) EBR C (25.9) WBLD (45.7) WBD (40.0) WBTE (56.0) C (26.2) WBR Intersection A (8.3) B (14.4) NBL NB A (7.9) NBT A (7.2) A (8.7) NBR SBL B (19.8) A (9.6) SB A (8.7) SBT SBR A (8.7) White Bear Ave & 28 EBLD (46.8) County Road C EB C (29.1) EBTD (47.3) A (9.3) EBR WBLD (52.6) C (32.8) WB WBTD (50.4) WBR A (7.9) B (12.9) Intersection NBL B (10.6) A (4.0) NB A (3.8) NBT NBR A (4.6) B (12.5) SBL SB A (1.5) SBT A (1.2) White Bear Ave & 29 A (1.8) SBR Radatz Ave EBL A (9.5) A (9. EB 0) A (7.7) EBR WBL C (22.8) C (15.9) WB B (11.1) WBR A (3.1) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 52 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | No-Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBLE (59.7) C (27.7) NB B (16.9) NBT NBR A (8.5) SBLE (61.2) SB C (22.9) SBT C (21.0) A (8.0) SBR White Bear Ave & 30 EBLE (56.4) Beam Ave C (29.8) EB EBTD (48.3) EBR A (2.9) WBLD (51.3) WBD (41.0) WBTD (49.3) B (18.9) WBR Intersection C (27.9) Workshop Packet Page Number 53 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Center Running Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBLE (67.2) NB C (23.3) C (20.9) NBT B (17.6) NBR SBLE (70.3) C (29.3) SB B (12.8) SBT SBR A (9.8) White Bear Ave & 17 C (33.2) EBL Larpenteur Ave EB C (34.6) EBTD (41.6) A (8.4) EBR WBL C (30.1) C (28.3) WB WBTD (42.2) WBR B (12.6) C (27.9) Intersection NBT A (0.9) A (1.2) NB A (3.6) NBR White Bear Ave & St 18SB A (1.0) SBT A (1.0) Paul Rd A (8.9) WB A (8.9) WBR Intersection A (1.2) A (7.7) NBT NB A (7.7) NBR A (2.4) SBLD (40.7) SB B (12.6) White Bear Ave & 19 SBT A (5.3) Ripley Ave WBLD (51.2) WB C (22.9) WBR A (6.5) B (11.6) Intersection NBLE (61.7) B (18.6) NB B (10.7) NBT NBR B (10.7) SBLE (74.2) SB B (16.2) SBT B (14.7) B (14.3) SBR White Bear Ave & Frost 20 EBLD (41.8) Ave C (22.4) EB EBTD (35.1) EBR B (10.5) WBLD (46.4) WB C (26.5) WBTD (43.4) A (9.6) WBR Intersection B (18.1) Workshop Packet Page Number 54 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Center Running Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBLE (67.9) C (20.6) NB B (18.6) NBT NBR B (18.4) SBLE (66.4) SBD (35.3) SBT C (27.8) C (28.3) SBR White Bear Ave & 21 EBLD (37.7) County Road B EBD (37.9) EBTD (42.4) EBR C (24.1) C (34.5) WBL WBD (35.8) WBTD (45.0) C (28.1) WBR Intersection C (29.8) NBLE (55.7) NB B (10.6) NBT A (7.0) A (4.3) NBR SBLE (62.6) B (12.3) SB A (9.8) SBT SBR A (2.4) White Bear Ave & Cope 22 EBLD (46.4) Ave EBD (36.7) EBTD (37.3) A (7.0) EBR WBLD (48.8) B (13.8) WB WBTD (42.4) WBR A (7.1) B (13.5) Intersection NBT B (16.8) B (15.7) NB A (7.6) NBR SBLD (51.7) B (13.6) SB A (9.4) SBT White Bear Ave & 23 Highway 36 EB EBLD (38.3) C (23.9) EB EBTD (41.9) EBR B (15.3) B (17.3) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 55 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Center Running Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement C (29.9) NBL B (13.6) NB A (3.2) NBT SBT B (17.9) B (14.3) SB A (6.4) SBR White Bear Ave & 24 Highway 36 WB WBLD (45.8) C (27.8) WB WBTD (42.9) WBR B (11.3) B (15.8) Intersection NBT B (10.2) A (9.9) NB A (7.6) NBR SBLD (50.6) A (5.4) SB White Bear Ave & Hill 25 A (1.9) SBT Ave WBLD (48.8) WBD (36.3) B (10.8) WBR Intersection B (11.1) NBLF (86.9) NB C (20.9) NBT A (7.8) A (6.5) NBR SBLE (55.4) C (23.9) SB B (17.0) SBT SBR B (14.3) White Bear Ave & 11th 26 C (34.2) EBL Ave EB C (25.4) EBTD (41.1) B (16.6) EBR WBLD (38.9) C (30.0) WB WBTD (38.0) WBR B (14.2) C (23.4) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 56 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Center Running Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBLE (66.2) A (6.3) NB A (1.3) NBT NBR A (1.1) SBLD (38.3) SB A (8.0) SBT A (7.8) A (7.5) SBR White Bear Ave & 27Hyvee Shopping EBLD (53.3) Center C (31.7) EB EBTD (49.8) EBR B (11.4) WBLE (57.0) WBD (52.3) WBTE (62.6) B (19.9) WBR Intersection A (8.8) NBLE (69.4) NB B (11.0) NBT A (5.1) A (4.4) NBR SBLE (61.6) B (19.6) SB B (14.2) SBT SBR B (11.1) White Bear Ave & 28 EBLD (43.9) County Road C EB C (29.2) EBTD (44.9) A (8.7) EBR WBLD (44.1) C (30.1) WB WBTD (43.2) WBR A (8.8) B (18.0) Intersection NBT A (3.8) A (3.8) NB A (3.7) NBR SBT A (0.9) A (0.9) SB White Bear Ave & 29 A (1.6) SBR Radatz Ave EB A (6.0) EBR A (6.0) A (9.4) WB A (9.4) WBR Intersection A (3.0) Workshop Packet Page Number 57 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Center Running Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBLE (73.1) C (25.7) NB C (22.0) NBT NBR A (6.7) SBLE (65.2) SB C (27.5) SBT C (21.5) C (22.7) SBR White Bear Ave & 30 EBLD (47.0) Beam Ave C (25.2) EB EBTD (48.0) EBR A (1.3) WBLD (44.7) WBD (43.3) WBTE (58.4) A (5.7) WBR Intersection C (29.4) Workshop Packet Page Number 58 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Center Running Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBLF (81.8) NBT C (32.4) NBD (36.2) NBR C (30.3) NBUF (87.0) SBLE (72.0) SBT C (25.0) SBD (35.6) SBR C (23.8) White Bear Ave & 17 SBUE (70.1) Larpenteur Ave EBLD (47.5) EBD (48.2) EBTD (53.7) EBR C (20.4) WBLD (54.3) WBD (45.9) WBTE (57.0) WBR C (27.3) IntersectionD (39.7) NBT A (1.8) NB A (2.2) NBR A (4.2) White Bear Ave & St 18SB A (5.0) SBT A (5.0) Paul Rd WB C (15.1) WBR C (15.1) Intersection A (3.6) NBT B (13.7) NB B (13.5) NBR A (6.8) SBLD (53.4) SB B (17.9) White Bear Ave & 19 SBT B (10.2) Ripley Ave WBLE (55.3) WB C (24.0) WBR A (7.3) Intersection B (16.5) NBLF (82.1) NB C (27.4) NBT B (17.6) NBR C (20.9) SBLF (87.8) SB C (29.7) SBT C (29.1) SBR C (28.7) White Bear Ave & Frost 20 EBLD (45.1) Ave EB C (29.1) EBTD (41.7) EBR C (21.3) WBLD (43.5) WB C (27.3) WBTD (48.0) WBR B (16.4) Intersection C (28.4) Workshop Packet Page Number 59 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Center Running Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBLF (113.6) NBE (64.1) NBTE (63.0) NBRE (55.6) SBLF (119.0) SBD (54.9) SBTD (45.5) SBRD (44.0) White Bear Ave & 21 EBLE (60.5) County Road B EBE (64.9) EBTE (70.2) EBRE (61.6) WBLD (48.5) WBD (50.3) WBTE (59.6) WBRD (43.5) IntersectionE (58.8) NBLE (78.7) D (36.9) NB NBT C (34.6) NBR C (23.6) SBLE (59.8) SB C (22.7) SBT C (23.7) SBR B (10.7) Whit e Bear Ave & Cope 22 EBLF (318.2) Ave EBF (261.1) EBTF (183.7) EBRF (87.8) WBLE (58.0) WB C (28.2) WBTD (52.1) WBR C (23.5) IntersectionD (50.3) NBT B (19.8) NB B (18.6) NBR B (11.9) SBLE (76.8) SB C (27.6) SBT B (19.4) White Bear Ave & 23 Highway 36 EB EBLF (125.3) EBF (124.4) EBTF (105.8) EBRF (123.7) IntersectionD (46.5) NBLD (47.5) NB C (24.6) NBT B (17.6) SBT B (18.2) SB B (15.1) SBR A (7.1) White Bear Ave & 24 Highway 36 WB WBLE (64.4) WBE (71.7) WBTD (51.8) WBRE (78.7) Intersection C (25.2) Workshop Packet Page Number 60 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Center Running Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBT C (21.1) NB C (20.4) NBR B (18.2) SBLD (53.4) SB A (8.9) White Bear Ave & Hill 25 SBT A (5.4) Ave WBLE (79.3) WBE (64.1) WBR C (27.9) Intersection C (21.4) NBLE (55.9) NB C (29.4) NBT C (25.8) NBR C (24.8) SBLE (65.7) SBD (35.6) SBT C (28.5) SBR C (29.8) White Bear Ave & 11th 26 EBLD (41.5) Ave EBD (36.1) EBTD (47.0) EBR C (30.1) WBLD (43.7) WBD (35.4) WBTD (43.3) WBR C (24.0) Intersection C (33.1) NBLE (59.5) NB B (11.4) NBT A (7.6) NBR A (7.2) SBLF (81.7) SBD (39.0) SBTD (38.4) SBRD (36.4) White Bear Ave & Hyvee 27 EBLF (97.9) Shopping Center EBE (76.9) EBTE (65.3) EBRE (59.3) WBLE (68.3) WBE (60.1) WBTF (85.1) WBRD (42.3) Intersection C (31.0) Workshop Packet Page Number 61 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Center Running Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBLE (77.0) NBD (38.6) NBT C (34.6) NBR C (34.3) SBLF (142.7) SBF (95.3) SBTF (87.8) SBRF (96.7) White Bear Ave & 28 EBLE (62.2) County Road C EBD (40.6) EBTD (48.5) EBR C (25.8) WBLE (62.2) WBD (42.8) WBTD (53.4) WBR C (22.5) IntersectionE (62.2) NBTD (29.2) NBD (29.3) NBRD (29.8) SBTD (27.4) SBD (27.3) White Bear Ave & 29 SBR C (21.5) Radatz Ave EBF (98.5) EBRF (98.5) WBF (71.3) WBRF (71.3) Intersection C (28.9) NBLF (90.0) NBD (45.5) NBT C (30.8) NBR A (9.5) SBLE (65.3) SBD (40.6) SBTD (38.3) SBRD (35.8) White Bear Ave & Beam 30 EBLD (49.9) Ave EB C (26.9) EBTD (42.1) EBR A (3.0) WBL C (33.1) WB C (28.6) WBTD (41.8) WBR A (6.8) IntersectionD (38.7) Workshop Packet Page Number 62 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Side Running Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBL B (13.7) NB B (12.5) NBT B (12.9) NBR A (7.8) SBL A (4.8) SB A (8.5) SBT B (10.3) SBR A (5.5) White Bear Ave & 17 EBL C (33.9) Larpenteur Ave EBD (36.5) EBTD (44.5) EBR A (7.0) WBL C (34.1) WB C (27.6) WBTD (41.8) WBR A (8.2) Intersection B (18.7) NBT A (0.8) NB A (0.9) NBR A (1.6) White Bear Ave & St 18SB A (1.2) SBT A (1.2) Paul Rd WB B (12.6) WBR B (12.6) Intersection A (1.7) NBT A (3.2) NB A (3.2) NBR A (6.5) SBL A (8.6) SB A (5.4) White Bear Ave & 19 SBT A (4.7) Ripley Ave WBLD (54.4) WB B (12.8) WBR B (11.1) Intersection A (4.9) NBL B (11.2) NB A (7.3) NBT A (6.6) NBR A (4.4) SBL B (11.0) SB B (10.0) SBT B (10.2) SBR A (8.6) White Bear Ave & Frost 20 EBLD (41.1) Ave EB C (20.6) EBTD (50.3) EBR A (7.1) WBL C (33.2) WB C (21.8) WBT C (30.6) WBR B (13.4) Intersection A (9.9) Workshop Packet Page Number 63 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Side Running Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBL B (15.5) B (11.6) NB NBT B (11.3) NBR B (14.5) SBL A (9.4) SB B (11.6) SBT B (12.5) SBR A (8.7) White Bear Ave & 21 EBL C (30.6) County Road B EB C (32.5) EBTD (37.7) EBR C (20.8) WBL C (33.5) WB C (31.2) WBTD (37.3) WBR C (24.1) Intersection B (16.1) NBL B (13.7) B (11.9) NB NBT B (11.8) NBR B (10.2) SBL B (10.9) SB A (4.9) SBT A (5.0) SBR A (2.1) White Bear Ave & Cope 22 EBLD (46.2) Ave D (35.7) EB EBTD (40.9) EBR A (2.1) WBLE (57.3) WB B (15.3) WBTE (55.0) WBR A (6.6) Intersection B (10.5) NBT A (6.1) A (6.1) NB NBR A (5.6) SBL B (10.2) SB A (5.1) SBT A (4.5) White Bear Ave & 23 Highway 36 EB EBLD (45.9) EB C (26.2) EBTD (53.7) EBR B (14.5) Intersection B (11.4) NBL A (8.7) NB A (4.7) NBT A (2.3) SBT B (12.6) SB B (12.4) SBR B (12.1) White Bear Ave & 24 Highway 36 WB WBLD (49.5) WB C (28.2) WBTD (47.9) WBR A (8.2) Intersection B (10.6) Workshop Packet Page Number 64 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Side Running Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBT A (2.4) NB A (3.0) NBR A (5.6) SBL A (6.0) SB A (2.9) White Bear Ave & Hill 25 SBT A (2.7) Ave WBLD (52.2) WBD (37.5) WBR A (7.3) Intersection A (6.7) NBL A (9.4) NB A (8.7) NBT A (8.7) NBR A (7.9) SBL B (12.2) SB B (10.5) SBT A (10.0) SBR B (13.3) White Bear Ave & 11th 26 EBLD (47.6) Ave EB C (25.4) EBTD (36.8) EBR B (15.6) WBL C (29.8) WB C (22.8) WBTD (36.2) WBR A (6.4) Intersection B (12.9) NBL A (5.1) NB A (2.3) NBT A (2.1) NBR A (2.5) SBL A (7.3) SB A (4.7) SBT A (4.7) SBR A (5.1) White Bear Ave & 27 EBLE (66.5) Hyvee Shopping Center EBD (42.7) EBTE (56.6) EBR C (21.1) WBL A (3.1) WB C (23.6) WBTE (56.0) WBR B (10.2) Intersection A (5.7) Workshop Packet Page Number 65 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance AM Peak Period 7:30AM - 8:30AM | Side Running Build AM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBL C (28.5) C (29.6) NB NBT C (30.1) NBR C (24.1) SBL B (15.7) SB B (12.0) SBT B (11.7) SBR B (11.1) White Bear Ave & 28 EBLD (43.8) County Road C EB C (24.3) EBT C (34.7) EBR A (7.6) WBLD (37.9) WB C (26.2) WBTD (37.3) WBR A (8.2) Intersection C (21.5) NBL A (5.8) NB A (3.3) NBT A (3.2) NBR A (3.8) SBL A (3.6) SB A (1.3) SBT A (1.3) SBR A (2.2) White Bear Ave & 29 Radatz Ave EBL A (7.5) EB A (8.2) EBT A (7.4) EBR A (8.5) WBL B (14.4) WB B (11.8) WBR A (9.8) Intersection A (2.8) NBLE (61.8) NB C (24.4) NBT B (11.6) NBR A (5.8) SBLD (54.6) SB B (16.7) SBT B (12.1) SBR A (4.6) White Bear Ave & Beam 30 EBLD (43.7) Ave EB C (22.9) EBTD (44.6) EBR A (3.0) WBLD (41.5) WBD (35.4) WBTD (44.5) WBR A (6.8) Intersection C (22.4) Workshop Packet Page Number 66 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Side Running Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBL C (25.4) NB C (27.6) C (29.0) NBT B (19.7) NBR SBL C (33.4) B (18.8) SB B (14.8) SBT SBR B (10.6) White Bear Ave & 17 EBLD (44.2) Larpenteur Ave EBD (50.7) EBTE (61.4) A (10.0) EBR WBLD (47.2) WBD (38.7) WBTE (55.4) WBR B (10.2) C (30.4) Intersection NBT A (1.5) A (1.6) NB A (2.1) NBR White Bear Ave & St 18SB A (2.5) SBT A (2.5) Paul Rd WB C (20.7) C (20.7) WBR Intersection A (2.8) A (5.8) NBT NB A (5.8) NBR A (6.2) B (19.5) SBL SB A (8.8) White Bear Ave & 19 SBT A (6.9) Ripley Ave WBLD (53.2) WB C (20.4) WBR B (16.1) A (8.2) Intersection NBL C (29.5) B (10.5) NB A (7.2) NBT NBR A (7.8) C (24.1) SBL SB B (15.2) SBT B (15.2) B (13.4) SBR White Bear Ave & Frost 20 EBLD (46.9) Ave C (21.1) EB EBTD (39.4) EBR A (8.4) WBLD (37.4) WB C (25.3) WBTD (46.0) B (15.8) WBR Intersection B (13.9) Workshop Packet Page Number 67 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Side Running Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement C (31.2) NBL B (15.8) NB B (15.0) NBT NBR C (23.5) C (22.8) SBL SB C (22.2) SBT C (22.3) B (19.9) SBR White Bear Ave & 21 EBLD (45.0) County Road B EBD (43.3) EBTD (45.5) EBR C (33.5) WBLD (45.1) WBD (42.1) WBTD (49.1) C (34.4) WBR In C (23.8) tersection B (17.7) NBL NB B (13.0) NBT B (12.7) B (10.0) NBR SBL C (21.0) A (4.1) SB A (3.6) SBT SBR A (2.6) White Bear Ave & Cope 22 EBLD (54.7) Ave EBD (43.8) EBTD (38.3) A (3.3) EBR WBLD (45.0) WB C (22.6) WBTD (49.3) WBR B (18.3) B (12.5) Intersection NBT B (18.2) B (16.8) NB A (9.3) NBR SBL C (22.6) A (6.5) SB A (3.9) SBT White Bear Ave & 23 Highway 36 EB EBLE (55.0) EBD (41.3) EBTE (59.7) EBR C (28.0) B (19.7) Intersection NBL B (13.9) A (6.0) NB A (3.7) NBT SBT B (12.2) B (12.3) SB B (12.7) SBR White Bear Ave & 24 Highway 36 WB WBLD (53.8) C (32.2) WB WBTD (47.2) WBR B (13.8) B (11.1) Intersection Workshop Packet Page Number 68 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Side Running Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement A (6.0) NBT A (6.3) NB A (7.4) NBR SBL B (13.8) A (7.3) SB White Bear Ave & Hill 25 A (6.8) SBT Ave WBLD (52.0) WBD (40.0) B (11.2) WBR Intersection B (10.9) NBLD (37.1) NBD (41.6) NBTD (44.7) C (25.2) NBR SBLD (38.0) C (22.6) SB B (18.9) SBT SBR B (18.3) White Bear Ave & 11th 26 C (33.1) EBL Ave EB C (27.0) EBTD (40.5) B (19.5) EBR WBLD (36.1) C (28.7) WB WBTD (37.2) WBR B (17.7) C (31.4) Intersection NBL C (24.1) B (19.3) NB B (19.0) NBT NBR B (16.0) B (13.6) SBL SB A (8.6) SBT A (8.6) A (7.7) SBR White Bear Ave & Hyvee 27 EBLE (73.6) Shopping Center EBD (49.5) EBTE (58.0) EBR C (28.3) WBLD (41.3) WBD (54.6) WBTE (73.9) WBRD (44.0) Intersection B (18.1) Workshop Packet Page Number 69 of 75 D2, Attachment 1 Intersection Performance PM Peak Period 4:00PM - 5:00PM | Side Running Build PM +Sftvmut!tipx!uif!bwfsbhf!gspn!6!tjnvmbujpo!svot/ LOS* & Average Delay (sec/veh) IDIntersectionApproachMovement NBLD (47.2) NBD (40.0) NBTD (39.4) NBRD (36.2) C (25.2) SBL SB B (17.2) SBT B (16.4) B (16.2) SBR Whit e Bear Ave & 28 EBLE (70.5) County Road C EBD (43.0) EBTE (63.4) EBR B (17.2) WBLE (59.1) WBD (46.3) WBTD (53.8) C (31.9) WBR Intersection C (31.6) NBLF (62.8) NBF (57.5) NBTF (57.4) NBRF (57.3) SBLE (47.9) A (8.5) SB A (6.5) SBT SBR A (5.5) White Bear Ave & 29 Radatz Ave EBLF (115.9) EBF (86.9) EBT- (-) EBRD (29.1) WBLF (62.2) WBE (41.2) WBRE (34.0) Intersection C (33.6) NBLF (94.4) NBD (45.2) NBT C (27.6) C (20.1) NBR SBLE (68.8) C (27.2) SB C (25.4) SBT SBR A (8.1) White Bear Ave & Beam 30 EBLF (90.8) Ave EBD (39.4) EBTD (41.9) A (4.5) EBR WBLE (62.6) WBD (38.9) WBTD (46.3) WBR A (5.5) IntersectionD (38.0) Workshop Packet Page Number 70 of 75 D2, Attachment 2 Resolution 17-06-1473 Resolution of the City of Maplewood Ramsey County, Minnesota Resolution transmitting the City of Maplewood’s support for the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Rush Line Corridor to the Rush Line Corridor Task Force, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority and the Metropolitan Council WHEREAS, the Rush Line Corridor is an 80-mile travel corridor between St. Paul and Hinckley Minnesota, consisting of urban, suburban and rural communities; and WHEREAS, a Pre-Project Development Study has been completed to analyze bus and rail alternatives in the 30-mile study area between St. Paul and Forest Lake, which has the greatest potential for significant transit improvements in the near term; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Rush Line Corridor Project is to provide transit service that satisfies the long-term regional mobility and accessibility needs for businesses and the traveling public and catalyzes sustainable development within the 30-mile study area; and WHEREAS, the Pre-Project Development Study was a joint local and regional planning effort conducted by the Rush Line Corridor Task Force and led by the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority; and WHEREAS, after a thorough technical analysis of 55 potential route segments and 7 transit modes and extensive public engagement through the Pre-Project Development Study Alternative 1 has been identified as the locally preferred alternative; and WHEREAS, Alternative 1 best meets the project’s purpose and need and would likely qualify for Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding; and WHEREAS, the Locally Preferred Alternative includes the definition of the mode, conceptual alignment and general station locations which can be refined through further environmental and engineering efforts; and WHEREAS, Alternative 1 is defined as Bus Rapid Transit within a dedicated guideway generally along Phalen Boulevard, Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority right-of-way and Trunk Highway 61, extending approximately 14 miles, and connecting Union Depot in downtown St. Paul to the east side neighborhoods of St. Paul and the Cities of Maplewood, Vadnais Heights, Gem Lake and White Bear Lake (see attached figure); and WHEREAS, Alternative 1 would be co-located with the Bruce Vento Trail through the portion of the route that utilizes the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the next phase of the project will include environmental analysis under the Federal and State environmental review processes to avoid, minimize, and Workshop Packet Page Number 71 of 75 D2, Attachment 2 mitigate potential impacts while maximizing mobility, accessibility and surrounding economic development opportunities; and WHEREAS, the public will continue to be engaged throughout the environmental review process and subsequent design, engineering and construction phases to ensure that the project is reflective of the needs of the diverse communities within the Rush Line Corridor; and WHEREAS, a connector bus from White Bear Lake to Forest Lake and other bus service improvements will continue to be explored during the environmental analysis phase of the Project; and WHEREAS, the comments submitted by agencies, adjacent communities, the business sector and the public during the Locally Preferred Alternative comment period and throughout the duration of the Pre-Project Development Study will be addressed accordingly in the environmental analysis phase of the Project; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Maplewood supports the selection of Alternative 1 as the locally preferred alternative, and the layout and design the Bruce Vento Trail co-location within the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way shall be made in such a manner that involves local community input and collaboration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Maplewood commits to undertaking and developing station area plans for the proposed BRT station areas within its jurisdiction based on market conditions, community input and Metropolitan Council guidelines and expectation for development density, level of activity and design. This process shall also involve local community input and collaboration to ensure the station areas also reflect the needs of the local community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Maplewood supports the planned Route 54 extension and exploration of other transit improvements within the study area by others including, but not limited to, improved bus service along 35E and to the northern portion of the Rush Line Corridor, the future conversion of Route 54 to Arterial th BRT and the consideration of a potential Modern Streetcar along E. 7 St to create a more comprehensive transit system. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution adopted by the City of Maplewood be forwarded to the Rush Line Corridor Task Force, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority and the Metropolitan Council for their consideration. Workshop Packet Page Number 72 of 75 D2, Attachment 2 LPA Figure Workshop Packet Page Number 73 of 75 D2, Attachment 3 Resolution 20-05-1815 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE RUSH LINE BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT 15 PERCENT PLANS WITHIN THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD WHEREAS, Ramsey County is leading the design of the Rush Line Bus Rapid Transit Project (“Project”) through the Environmental Analysis Phase; in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the Metropolitan Council and its Metro Transit division (Metropolitan Council), Saint Paul, Maplewood, Vadnais Heights, Gem Lake, White Bear Lake and White Bear Township (“Municipalities”); and WHEREAS, the Environmental Analysis Phase includes the preparation of an Environmental Assessment in partnership with MnDOT, the Metropolitan Council and the Municipalities; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County has been working collaboratively with MnDOT, the Metropolitan Council and the Municipalities and other stakeholders over the previous two years to resolve issues and develop a scope of work of project components (known as the 15% plans) for evaluation in the Environmental Assessment; and WHEREAS, residents and businesses have participated in numerous committees, community meetings, pop-up events, and other public forums to provide feedback and assist with developing the 15 percent plans; and WHEREAS, City of Maplewood staff has reviewed the 15 percent plans and has provided comments and direction on plan refinements; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County has worked collaboratively with MnDOT, Metropolitan Council, and the Municipalities to address staff comments on the 15 percent plans: and WHEREAS, Ramsey County is requesting that the Municipalities, as the agencies with local jurisdiction, provide a Resolution of Support or Letter of Support for the 15 percent plans: and WHEREAS, the Municipalities will have additional opportunities to provide comments during the Environmental Assessment public comment period and on the subsequent 30%, 60% and 90% design plans prior to construction; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood desires that Ramsey County, MnDOT, Metropolitan Council and the other Municipalities continue to work collaboratively with the City of Maplewood to address issues and work with City of Maplewood staff to satisfactorily resolve issues that have arisen or could arise as the Project design advances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota that the City of Maplewood provides its support for the 15 percent plans for the Rush Line BRT Project. Passed by Maplewood City Council May 11, 2020. Workshop Packet Page Number 74 of 75 D2, Attachment 4 Resolution 22-10-2135 RESOLUTION WITHDRAWING SUPPORT FOR THE PURPLE LINE BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS WITHIN THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD WHEREAS, Ramsey County is leading the design of the Purple Line Bus Rapid Transit Project (“Project”); in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the Metropolitan Council and its Metro Transit division (Metropolitan Council), Saint Paul, Maplewood, Vadnais Heights, Gem Lake, and White Bear Township (“Municipalities”); and WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council supports and understands the need for mass transit in the East Metro; and WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council values an engagement process that is inclusive, sustainable and works for residents and stakeholders; and WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council wishes to work collaboratively with MnDOT, Ramsey County, Metropolitan Council, and the Municipalities to identify the best options for transit given declining ridership, necessity for route changes, cost and sustainability of such transit system; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood desires that Ramsey County, MnDOT, Metropolitan Council and the other Municipalities to work collaboratively to address these issues with the Maplewood City Council, to address issues and work with City of Maplewood staff to satisfactorily resolve issues that have arisen or could arise and to establish a working framework to develop new plans that include transparency, inclusion and communication with the residents and the business community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota that the City of Maplewood recommends that the modification study timeline be expanded to create an engagement plan to evaluate future transit options/routes that works effectively for all. Approved by Maplewood City Council on October 24, 2022. Workshop Packet Page Number 75 of 75