The URL can be used to link to this page

268832 WH17E - CITV CLERK •S��Q�� PINK - FINqNCE . IT AINT PAITL Council � �J CANARY - DEPARTMENT � BLU£ -MAVOR File NO. ` � . �dnce Ordinance N 0. �CU c�� Presented B Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 15881, approved August 29, 1975, entitled "An ordinance adopting a new zoning ordinance for the City of Saint Paul, repealing Chapters 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and the zoning map of the City of Saint Paul. " THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section l. � That the Zoning Map of the City of Saint Paul, Sheet No. 27, as incorporated by reference in Section 60.401 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, is hereby amended as follows: The property owned by Becker' s, Inc. , located on the Northwest corner of Randolph Avenue and Bay Street, more particularly described as "Lot 28, Kerst' s Subdivision of Block 33, Stinson, Brown and Ramsey' s Addition, " is rezoned from RM-1 to B-2. Section 2. This ordinance shall take force and effect in thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication. COUIVCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Bu tler Hozza In Favor Hunt �� Levine Against BY Roedler �--$3`k'e T sco APR 1 9 1977 Form Approved by City Attorney - Ado ed by Council: Date , ertified by C nc' Secretary BY ��.lt!'�- � ' y�� ` 2 19T7 Appr v y Mayor: Date APR 2 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By By �UBLlSHED APR 3 Q 1977 . ��D��`� �O�AR�D O� ZONING CITY OF SAINT PAUL � � OFFICE OF THE MAYOR � CITY PLANNING DONALD L. SPAID AIP PLANNING COORDINATOR March 16, 1977 �(p��3(� Rose Mix, City Clerk 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minn. 55102 Dear Madam: This is in response to the petition of Becker's, Inc. to rezone property on the northwest corner of Randolph and Bay Streets. This property is further described as Lot 28, Kerst's Subdivision, Block 33, of Stinsons, Brown & Ramsey's Addition. The petition was to rezone from RM-1 , a Multiple Family Residential district, to B-2, Community Business district. The purpose of this request was to permit the petitioners to expand their existing structure for additional storage purposes. This matter was heard by the Current Planning & Zoning Commi��ee on February 3, 1977 at which time the petitioner was present and there was no opposition. The staff recommended denial on the basis that this would constitute a spot rezoning. Mr. Sherwood then moved to grant the rezoning since it was an existing use, with no objections from neighbors, and that the expansion would improve the appearance. There was no second to the motion and the matter was sent to the Planning Commission without recommendation. On February 11 , 1977, the Planning Commission heard this matter. Mrs. Cochrane made the motion to recommend granting the B-2 petition. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sherwood and was passed on a 10 to 4 roll call vote. This matter is scheduled to be heard before the St. Paul City Council on March 17, 1977. Sincerely, �C.��v��l'�t Laurence J. Jung City Planner Enc. Zoning File No. 8070 421 Wabasha Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612)-298-4151 0 ,i � , � , � - . ' � � . kULI c,l1LL VuTE QN IOPJING t4ATTERS ' Planning C��iunission Meetiny Uate 2` // �L , . : � 2 3 4 , 5 6 ° Yes No ��* Yes No A* Yes' Na �,* Yes No A* Yes I�o Ax Yes No A� � BRYAN . ✓; V -- -— — ,:: COCHRANE 1/ `/ ' ' FEDER , GRA I S 1� � HANGGI �/ v HUh�tER �/ � MAYNE ✓ ,� MC DONELL MC GINLEY 1/ �/ MONTGOMERY �/ NORTON ✓ � PANGAL PICCOLO V �/ PRIFREL V SHERWOOD V SLAWIK STEGEMOELLER TOBLER ✓ }/ VAN HOEF �f WILKENING WILLITS TOTALS D � O � Mot i on 1 � .yt�/ �p SE CK,. ��u «.. E �� x.Motion 2 _ Motion 3 M�tion 4 :��a�n 5 -----�--�--�--- u..a�__ � - � '. � r ' � ' � .. ;�� ' • ` � . ' v . PLANNING COMMISSION OF ST. PAUL 421 Wabasha St. Paul , Minnesota 55i02 A meeting ,of the Planning Corranission of the City of St. Paul , Minnesota was held February 11 , 1977, at 9:00 a.m. in the City Planning Confe�ence Room a� 421 Wabasha, � St. Pau1 ,� Minnesota. Pres�nt: Mmes. Cochrane, Mayne, McGinley, P�ontgomery, Nqrton, and Piccolo; Messrs. Bryan, Grais, Hanggi , Hurm�er, Prifrel , Sherwood, 7obler�, and Van Hoef. Absent: Mrs. Slawik; Messrs. Feder, McDoneTl , Pangal , Ste�Qmpeller, Wilkenirtg9 and Willits. l�lso present: David J. Becker, 709 Winslow; David A. Becker, �87 Ma11 ; John B�c�Qr, 67 W. Isabel ; Warren E. Peterson, At�orney; Joseph Easley, CHC; Larry Mazzitello, Capital Com. Serv. ; INerrill Robinson, Dist. 11 Co�litiprt, Kar1 Neid, District 2; Janice Rettman, Housing Information Office; Marie. Baker, League of Women Voters; Yvonne Nienstadt, District 8 Planning; Wm. Patton, Comnunity Development Office; Ann �aker, Dispatch; Ted Lentz.and Cindy 5prafka, Old Town Restoration; Donna W. Allan, League of Womer� Voters; Ronald Scott, St.Paul Urban League; Frank Staffertson, St. Paul Housing; and Dan Dunford, Public Works; C. McGuire, K. Ford, D. Spaid of planning staff. The Planning Comnission at its February 11 , 1977 meeting took the following action: APPROVE4 amending the minutes of January 28, 1977 with an addition to indicate the � Land lise Committee referred Shepard Park West Redevelapment Plan without recommendation to the Corrnnission. Motion made by Mrs. Mayne, seconded by Rev. Hanggi , and carried unanimously. APPRQVED the minutes of the January 28, 1977 meeting as amended. Motion by Mrs. Piceolo, seconded by Mrs. Mayne, carried unanimously. � By RESQLUTION (77-5) expressed support of the application for the Downtown Peo�le Mover h encouraging the Metropolitan Transit Commission to expedite the comple�ion of the capi.tal grant application. APPROV�D by a rall call vote of 9 to 4 the motion by Mr. Bryan, seconded by Mr. Sherwood, to reco►r�nend the petition of Raymond P.. Haas to rezone property at the southeast corner of Clarence and E. Seventh streets be granted. j APPROVED by a roll call vote of 10 to 4 the motion of Mrs. Cochrane, seconded by Mr. � Sherwood, to recommend the petition of Beckers, Inc. , to rezone property at the northwest corner of Randolph and Bay streets be granted. r Mr. Bryan announced the petition to rezone property at the northwest corner of Grand and Syndicate was referred by the Current Planning Comnittee back to the petitioner far correction. The public hearing on the Residential Improvement Strat�gy was opened with Rev. Hanggi , Chairman of the Land Use Committee, giving a rie presen�a�ion. ,, . � , Planning Commission Meeting of February 11 , 1977 Page 2 , Those wishing to speak regarding the plan were: Larry Mazzitello of Capitol Corr�nunity Services who expressed support for the plan. Frank Staffenson, Supervisor of Housing in St. Paul, expressed support and pointed out that implemer�tation of the strategy will require additional staff for housing inspection. Ted Lentz of Old Town Restoration supported the plan and suggested that more program information be summarized on a district basis in a booklet on Improvement Strategy to be utilized by realtors and others working in neighborhoods. � Dan Dunford, Director of Pu.blic Works, complimented staff and the Commission on the Residential Im�rovement Strategy and indicated it had been used in preparing the Residential treet Improvement Strategy Plan which Council adopted. • The public hearing was clos�d there being no additional testimony. APPROVED unanimously a motion by Rev. Hanggi , seconded by Mrs. McGinley, to � adopt corrections of three minor errors in the draft. APPROVED unanimously a motion by Rev. Hanggi , seconded by Mrs. Mayne, to amend page 42 of the draft by the addition of an item 8 stating that public acqui- sition of resid;ential p�operty should not be used where enforcement of hazardous building remov�al or improvement measures is a practical alternative and where public ownership is ,not essential . � By RESOLUT��ON (77-6)' adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan the Residentia�fi ImproVement Strategy as amended. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 a,m. ,, Submitted by Dvnald L. Spaid • Planning Coordinator Approved by Planning Commission February 25, 1977 e:f � � � � - , MINUTES OF THE CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE MEETINC, " THURSD�Y, FEBRUARY 3, 1977 IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ST PAUL PRESENT: Messrs. Humner, Sherwood and Bryan of the Current Planning & Zoning Comnittee; Mr. Philip Byrne, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Richard Amey of the Division of Housin� & Building Code Enforcement; Miss Fox and Mr. Laurence Jung of the Planninq Staff. BECKERS, INC�. �80_70 An ap�lication to rezone from RM-1 to B-2 property locate�on the 1�ort�iwest corner of Randolph and Bay, 1n St. Paul . The appellant was present. There was no opposition. Mr. Jung showed slides of the subject site and read the Staff Report. Mr. Warren Peterson, an attorney, of 307 Midwest Federal Building, representing David, John and Daniel Becker, owners of the bar at 730 Randolph, came forward and related how the three brothers had purchased the bar in April of 1975, that David operates the bar on a full time basis and his two brothers help on weekends. He said that the structure has a problem with the basement, which has been carved out of stone, and therefore when it rains, there is water in the basement. He said the cooler in the basement cannot function because of the water situation. He said the structure was built in 1921 and has functioned as a bar ever since, but needs a great deal of improvement, such as replacement of electrical and ventilating. He told of complaints by the Health Department about failure to repair a wall , replacinq tile, etc. , and added that the boiler does not work correctly either. He said that the Health Department is holding off until after this February 3rd hearing. He said the Becker brothers have told him it will take $80,000 to brinq the buildinq up to the proper standards. He said the structure alonqside, 12 ft. wide and 71 ft. long, would serve as storaqe and as bathrooms. The intent was to tear down a wall which would give access to the entire bar, enablinq the owners to better control the business operation. He said neighbors have no objections to the rezoninq and have even offered to help because they want to see improvement made to the neighborhood. Ne said the Becker family intends to continue the bar and not sell , but in order to have the structure they want, it is necessary to have the building alongside which is now vacant. Mr. Hummer inquired whether the nextdoor neighbor was aware that the proposed building would come up to the lot line, and Mr. Peterson answered that the nextdoor neighbor was interested in having the property rezoned because she feels it will improve the visual aspect. Mr. Humner then inqWired about the parking situation, and Mr. Peterson told him that parking was no problem, and that by the rezoning they hope to accomplish only utflizatiorr of the space of the added building, not added capacity, and hope . also to br�ng the building up to code. Mr. Bryan wanted to know if the new buildinq would require additional parkinq, and Mr. Amey said the proposed addition is for storaqe, and that the zoning code requires additional parking only for useable floor area. He said this particular addition would not add useab�e floor space and would require no additional parking, and that the parkinq spaces they have now really constitute all you can ask for. , � : _ • ( � , BECKERS, ZNC. Page 2 Mr. Sherwood inquired whether the condition of the basement has anything to do with what they are trying to do to the building, and Mr. Peterson responded by saying that they intend to close the basement and not use it for anything. He said the addition would qive them space for the cooler, refriqerator, etc. and would improve the present bad condition. Mr. Hummer asked whether the basement could be fixed up to be useable with a sump pump, etc. , using the $80,000 they intended to spend. Mr. Sherwood said he was inclined to move that this request be qranted, because the building has been there for many years, the neighbors do not object, and when remodeled, he would think it w��a�� be an additional compliment to the neighborhood. There was no second to Mr. Sherwood's motion. Mr. Bryan said there was no motion because there was no second, and that the rezoning will be sent to the Planninq Comnission without a recomnendation from the Current Planning & Zoning Comnittee. Submitted by: Approved by: Laurence J. Jung James Bryan, Chairman ( PLA,NNING BOARD STAFF REPORT February 3. 1977 Plat Map 9 8 70 1. APPLICANT�S NAME : Beckers, Inc. 2. CLASSIFICATION . a Amendment � Appeal � Permit � Other 3. PURPOSE • Rezone from RM-1 to 6-2 4. LOCATION • NW Corner of Randolph and Bay 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION : Lot 28, Kerst's Subdivision of Block 33 of Stinson, Brown and Ram sey's Add. to St. Paul 6. PRESENT ZONING: RM-1 7. PURSUANT T0 Zoning Code Chapter: 64 Section: 210 Paragraph: 8. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: Date: January 26, 1977 By: LJJ A. SUFFICIENCY: The appellant's request for rezoning was filed on a short form rezoning petition, subscribed & sworn to before a notary public on December 6, 1976, and received by the City Planning Office on December 28, 1976. B. PROPOSED USE: The appellant is requesting to rezone from RM-1 (Multi-Family Residentia District) to B-2 (Comnunity Business Qistrict), in order to allow for a proposed storage expansion. C. FRONTAGE & AREA: The corner site has a 43 ft. frontage on Randolph and is 4 ft. deep. The area is 4,902 sq. ft. D. SITE CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by a one-story, brick structure which ouses an on-sale liquor bar. The site and surrounding properites are flat and slightly above street grade. An alley behind provides minimal separation from adjacent residential uses. It also provides access to a small parking area behind the building. A wooden privacy type fence is situated on the west property line separating the bar from the adjacent single family house. Between the fence and this building there is an ohen area of about 15 ft. which is the site indicated for the proposed expansion. E. AREA CONDITIONS: The area is fully developed with a variety of land use types predominantly residential in character. An older 6-unit apartment structure occupies the northeast corner of the intersection. Other residential units in the area are older, well-kept single and two-family dwellings on fairly small lots. A fire station occupies a mid-block location on Randolph to the southwest of the subject site. Nearest other commercial uses are situated to the east, west and south, and are all one block away from the site. F. FINDINGS: l . Former zoning along Randolph was comnercial d,uring which time the use on the site was established as a neighborhood bar. 2. This section of Randolph Avenue is fully developed as a residential area but there does exist small comnercial establishments at a number of intersections along its route. ; . . � � . BECKERS, INC. Page 2 3. Closest B-2 zone to the subject site is near6y a block away to the east and south along West 7th Street. A B-1 district is in existence one block to the west. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The petitioner has indicated he wishes to expand his structure on t e west side for storage purposes since the basement of the existing structure is limited. The B-2 designation would enable the proposed addition to be constructed. However, the rezoning would likely constitute a spot zoning because of the incompatibility of use with the surrounding resi- dential area. The limited size of the site and the fact that this is the only commercial use at the intersection also affirms that the rezoni�Q 4rould be inappropriate for the area. Therefore, Staff recommends that the W petitioner's request to rezone to 6-2 be denied. :�.� • • p 00 � ► . , C�i • 00 + • C•�t7 v !� e �� • � • • • � � � � �� `?� • • • • • � �i" � � • • • • . ' • � t�� • � � �� •� • � � � � • � �� / �� ' �� _ �� . � ,�I �� • • • • � • � � � � • � • ! •� a � � � � � v �� v � . � • �� a �-' • � • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • � • � • • � • � !�1 - - - - - -- �� .i� .: � •� ' � • • • • • • � • • • • • ,r:% � • . . • • • • � . . � � ii:i � � _ � � � .� � � a II � ' � �1�/ � � � � • • � • • • � • • • � • • • • •� •� , • � . t . . �� • � - � � � �� t7 � • �, . �... • � � . -, �. . � � � ' � ` � • �� . . . . . . q � � . � . . .�.� o � � . . . �.� t!7� ' � ��r . ' � �. �, • • • • • � • • � � • � � • ` O�� v. ,o- :� ,. t��1 � . � sJl'►. ► ♦� , � _ : � . ,. �,� �a , _ : �- ._ � � . . �• . . . � • � ♦ . . � • • • • • • • • . � � � �� r .9�..0 • _ � „ . , �� . . . . . . R . . � � � ,� . . . . . . . � � � � � ��,► � _ z . ,. � � ,.....�, � _ , � �� -�,� . � e; • • � � • �� • • �s • • • �. � V '�♦ . . � • .��, . .� t� � � Q • • • i • �� . � ' , i 4 "'s L `� , i . 1 ' I r�b�!�/� /�------- oa � �Nrn�NV�� n�d .�nlras 'GC�O�.�.��1C�6�V� � �, � Hlt�� ,OOZ =,09 :�� ltTt�M3WN60� � V• � �111Ylftf� 3�dlll(1W Q�}Y LL6L `£ �apn,�qa� 31d0 Y Jl11Wt/� OMl � OL08 'ON 3�0� ��i�v� 3rvo O . Jl1a3d0ad 1�3t`8t1S �� Z-e o� �-Wa wo,��. auozaa 3SOd�ifld ��ldONf108 l�la1S10 9NINOZ .�.. ,...,. � Q►�3��`i _, I S2l3��3 intiai��d� - - � � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL � . . t � � - C►T Y O.A . Q$ � 1S 9� .� Rose Mi: o :�:m.;�g:;;;: '' Alber� B.Olses City Clerk and �� •'�'_-��°' s Counail Racorder Council Secretary ��, ,�� .. OFPICE OF THE CITY CLERK BUREAU OF RECORDS 386 City Hall St.Pacul,Minnesota 5510� Phone�98-k�,s1 December 16, 1976 Planning Staff Grace Building St. Paul, Minnesota ATTENTION: Mr. McGuire Dear Sir: The Council referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation the attached petition to rezone property at the northwest corner of Randolph and Bay and described as Lot 28, Kerst's Subdivision of Block 33 of Stinson, Brown and Ramsey's Addition. Very truly yours, t�� !�� City Clerk � Attach. ABO:dcm cc: Mr. Glenn Erickson, City Architect �� t a;ti y.4 ''�' ,',��y �.`�� ik' `t�� Y� t�l•. ,�;�� •5 ';�7 r` � �`�� i�i ,�� k�, . . � r c:tt� �. ; .,. , �g�a��, �p rr� � � �� L O y, � p ��' , � � 9 �� 7 �a � S =: f-,:v X.2^ _" I . . . . .. ..�,�...��.....Y.�.._.�` � �O . . , � y � � � �. . . . �� } . . ,�_ � ' „� � - Short Form Rezoning Petition J �� , `"1 , TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL c/o the City Clerk, Room 386 City Hall City of Saint Paul , Minnesota Pursuant to the provisions of LAWS OF MlNNESOTA for 1975, Chapter 261 , Section. 6, t/we the undersigned, being the owner(s) of property described as _ Lo t 28 , Kerst' s Subdivision of Block 3� of Stinson, Brown and Ramsev' s Addition to St. Paul and situated (describe location with respect to streets or intersections) on the Northwest corner of Randol_ph and Bay which property was previously zoned commercial , and under Chapters 60 through 64 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is presently zoned �-1 , a more restrictive zoning classification, do hereby request that consideration be given by your honorable bodies to rezone the above described property to a zoning classification of B-2 under Chapters 60 through 64 of the Saint Paul Legislat' Code. � v'd Be k . Subscribed and sworn to before me Danie Bec r . th i s � day o£��L: /� � � o n ec er �C-C;�l�-,j�C1�NL�--��.. Address: 7 31 Randolph Notar 1 ' �tn�� Cp,., ,:Mi�ne�ota St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 y �P�Sl�,�ti�_.��. .Y� � :�`"� D�LtfA;l i;N:"";1N , �, My Co " � r�x�ai rse�ic- r.;�;��r�ES r Tel eohone: ��2 .S' y�� ! 1 DAKOTA COUNTY � \ My Comm.Expires Mar.13,1981 � �� ^��/ Z ��,y�1 x ,� � J Approved as to form �1/17/75 by the City Attorney. ZC��VII�C F� �� ,�L� � � ��Y' , - �'��8�� _ I,I� ,�T•i�� . "��. :�,.,.... . � �� '��_� � ��,:,�- �Il ii I �I, I I i �� w ` ` - CITY OF ST. PAUL � �Q ' - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES ��V�� ASSESSMENT DiVtSiON 113 C17Y HAtI ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 5510Z February 25, 1977 File g1858, Fage Dear Citizen: As a courCesq to you, and as required by law, we want to notify you about a public hearing which may affect you. The Councfl o€ the City of St. Paul will hold a public hearing in the Council Chaa�era of the Citq Hall and Caurt House (third floor) at . 1p:00 a.m. on March 17, 1977 on Che: Application of Bectcer's Inc. to REZONE the northwest corner of Ra�tdolph Avenue and Bay Street fram RM-1 to B-2. The propertq is described as follawa: Lot 28, Kerst's Subdi,vision of Blk 33 of Stinson, Brawn & Ramsey's Addition to St. Paul. If you would like further information about this hearing, contact the Current Planning Sec�ion o£ the Planniag Board, 42I Wabasha Street, or telephone 248-4Z54. While the City Charter requires that we notify you of the hearing, we want to help you to learn fully about any action that could affect you ar your commusity. Therefore, I sincerely hope you can attead this hearing, so that you can make qour viewa-about it kna�rn to the City Council, whether for or against. ROGER A. MATT3 fRi, DIRECTOR . DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERV2CES l� �� . . . ;��,a�� . 1' J . s�! CITY OF SAINT PAUL OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY HARRIET LANSING MEMORANDUM TO: Rose Mix, City Clerk FROM: Thomas M. Sipkins, Assistant City Attorne�r� DATE: March 24, 1977 RE: Rezonings Enclosed herewith are two petitions for rezoning as requested. TMS:er Encl. City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 612 298-5121 ��L��/ Y PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF WORK* FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES ' ST. PAUL DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER DEMONSTRATION METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION (TWIN CITIES AREA) CITY OF ST. PAUL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION) March 23, 1977 *Subject to UMTA's Project Implementation Guidelines FOREWORD St. Paul, Cleveland, Houston and Los Angeles were selected as demonstration cities for the federal Downtown People Mover (DPM) Pro- gram, a simple horizontal elevator type system for circulation within downtown areas. The DPM Program will provide operating data, planning tools and experience that other cities can utilize in solving the trans- portation needs of the inner city. The St. Paul system will complement a growing public skyway system (second-level walkways) and encourage an orderly revitalization of the various activity areas withi.n the downtown area. A complete description of the project can be found in the June, 1976, "Proposal for a Downtown � � People Mover System".. This phase of the program, Preliminary Engineering, will provide all ma�erials needed to initiate the design and construction of the DPM in St. Paul. This document provides the project description for Phase I and the scope of work to be accomplished during that period May, 1977 - January, 197 8. The resulting Implementation Plan (for Phase II) will contain such ma.jor products as: • Preliminary Engineering 1/ • Safety and Reliability Program • Procurement Bid Package for Vehicle System • Environmental Impact Assessment and Statement Upon satisfactory completion of the Implementation Plan, the capital grant will be amended to permit proceeding into Phase II; Design and _ Construction of the DPM Program. 1/ Preliminary Engineering: Preparation of Criteria, preli.mi.nary plans and specifications for stations and guideways. -�(,- The Implementation Plan will be accompanied by an Experimental Design Plan (Ex D) as the framework to be used by both local agencies and UMTA in evaluating the DPM deployment in St. Paul. -�c.t,- TABL� OF CONTENTS PART I PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Purpose B. Demonstratipn Program C. Program and Project Organization D. Other powntown Projects and Coordination of Work Schedules PART II SCOPE OF WORK A. Work Tasks 1.0 Management and Coordination 2.0 Coordination with UMTA Office of Technology Development and Deployment (UTD) 3.0 Com�unity Involvement and Public Information 4.0 Ridership Forecasts 5.0 Ridership Market Analysis 6.0 Preliminary Operation Plan 7.0 Bus and DPM Integration Plan 8.0 Fringe Parking, Street and Highway Improvements 9.0 Supplier Liaison; Vehicle and Sub-System Characteristics 10.0 System Safety and Performance Assurance 11.0 Guideways 12.0 Stations 13.0 Patron Security Planning 14.0 Advance Guideway and Station Engineering 15.0 Urban Development Opportunities 16.0 Socio-Economic Impact 17.0 Cost Estimates 18.0 Benefit - Cost 19.0 Value Capture 20.0 Project Schedule 21.0 Financial Plan and Cash Flow Analysis 22.0 Environmental Impact Assessment/Statement PART III IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (Task 23.0) A. Performance and Design Criteria B. Plans and Specifications C. Procurement Bid Package D. Preliminary Operations* E. Safety and Reliability Report F. Environmental Impact* Assessment/Statement G. Social Impact* H. Economic Impact* I. System Rehabilitation Program J. Financial Plan and Cash Flow . K. Demonstration Evaluation Plan* L. Future Expansion Opportunities Report M. Capital Grant Amendment * Elements to be coordinated with the Experimental Design Package for Evaluation of the DPM Program. _:::_ , TABLE OF CONTENTS (Page 2) PART IV PROJECT BUDGET PART V SCHEDULES A. Project B. DPM Demonstration Program -�,v- PART I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PURPOSE The Downtown People Mover (DPM) Demonstration Program for St. Paul is in- tended to implement those regional policies 2./ of the Metropolitan Council adopted to help revitalize the Metropolitan Center 3/ of St. Paul and at the same time demonstrate for National evaluation the technical and socio-economic feasibility of a simple horizontal elevator-type transit system operating in an urban environment. Relevant regional policies include: 1. Discouraqe the use of automobiles in those areas where air quality is unacceptable if automobile emissions are a major contribution to the degradation of the air. 2. Provide good accessibility to and within the Metro Centers for both public and private transportation vehicles. 3. Encourage living in the Metro Centers by providing a circulation system with a high level of all-day service for residential developments surrounding the central business district core. 4. Emphasize pedestrian movement in the Metro Centers by: a) concentrating parking facilities on the fringe of the core area; b) linking the parking facilities to the core area with skyways and a downtown circulation system. Objectives 4/ of the=Federa.I demonstration program are: a. To test the operating and maintenance (O&M) cost savings which automated transit systems might deliver; b. To assess the economic impact of improved downtown cir- culation systems on the central city; c. To test the feasibility of people movers both as feeder distributors and as potential substitutes for certain functions now performed by more expensive fixed guideway systems, such as subways; 2./ Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan, Metropolitan Council, July 30, 1976. 3/ The Metro Center consists of the central business district and adjacent �.� residential, commercial, and institutional areas. 4/ Program Plan - The Downtown People Mover (DPM) Project, UMTA, May 21, 1976. d. Establish that automated, relatively simple people mover systems can be made sufficiently reliable and maintain�ble while providing adequate service availability at affordable costs, to be a viable urban txansit alternative; e. Establish the social acceptability of automated unmanned transit vehicle operation and the environmental impact of modern guideways in the urban (CBD) environment; and, f. Thoroughly document the entire project, including an evalua- tion of system performance, the social, economic, and environmental iunpacts of the DPM installation, the lessons leamed from the project, and a set of guidelines and pro- cedures that cauld be emulated by other potential candidate cities. Precisely how these policies and Program objectives are to be realized are described in the document: "Proposal for a Downtown People Mover System," City of St. Paul and Metropolitan Transit Commission, June, 1976, (Exhibit A, Attachment 1) . Supplementing the proposal are the following letters (Exhibit A, Attachment 3) : l. July 29, 1976, letter to Steven A. Barsony from Doug Kelm (with attachment) . 2. August 29, 1976, letter to Steven A. Barsony from Doug Kelm (with attachment) . 3. October 1, 1976, letter to George Pastor from Doug Kelm (with attachment) . 4. November 26, 1976, letter to George Pastor from Doug Kelm and Mayor Latimer. 5. December 10, 1976, letter to Robert E. Patricelli from Robert Van Hoef (with attachment) . The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) in its selection of St. Paul as one of four sites for a demonstration of a people mover system requested the submittal of a "two-phase 5/ (controlled 6/) capital grant application for engineering and construction funding in accordance with the guideli.nes contained in our DPM Program Plan". 7/ The purpose of this capital qrant application is to secure federal funding for Phase One - Preliminary Engineering and Related Activities. 5/ Phase one: award of funds for Preliminary Engineering; Phase two: award of funds for design engineering, construction and testing. 6/ Controlled Capital Assistance Program: UMTA has determined that there are special needs in this project for technical review and monitoring, � techological qualification of the chosen system design, and support _ from UMTA funds for efforts that could not be otherwise funded under the Capital Assistance Program. �/ Program Plan - The Downtown People Mover (DPM) Project, UMTA, May 21, 1976. -2- B. DEMONSTRATION PROGRI�IM The DPM Project will be conducted in accordance with UMTA's Implementation Guidelines issued March 24 , 1977. The Demonstration will be divided into two phases: Preliminary Engineering (and related activities) and Project Implementation. The specific work tasks necessary to complete Phase I are illus�rated in Figure 1. Each task is described in the SCOPE OF WQRK (Pages 9 - 31) . The work tasks will be accomplished using the Systems Engineering Process recommended by the UMTA Office of Technology Development and Deployment (UTD) . The products anticipated from Phase I are to be contained in the Imple- mentation Plan (Task 23, pages 32 - 38� . The UMTA required products are: 1. Preliminary Engineering; including system envelope and interface definition, property acquisitian and site preparation, route layout, soil boring and analysis, traffic and roadway alterations, estimated system costs and implementation schedules. 2. Procurement Bid Package; including system requirements/ performance specifications, product acceptance criteria, and supplier qualification criteria. 3. Environmental Impact Assessr�ent and Statement (see Task 22, page 31) . 4. Pre-installation baseline survey for impact evaluation of social, environmental,, economic and transportation effects (Note: to be funded separately under an UMTA Experimental Design/Impact Study. This will include certain activities in Task 16, Socio Economic Impact; Task 22, Environmental Assessment;�and Task 6, Preliminary Operatians Plan. ) Other major products af Phase I are: 5. Preliminary Operations report including ridership and revenue forecasts, but/DPr�l integration plan, fringe parking/Transportation Systems Management (TSM) plan, and preliminary DPM performance plan. 6. Safety and_�Reli:ability Evaluation Reports by independent contractors. (See Task 10, pages 18 and 19.1 7. Community Involvement and� Public Information (see Task 3, page 11-12) . : Throughout Phase I there will be extensive involvement of business, labor, and civic groups, the residents from areas to be served, the residents of other neighborhoods in St. Paul and the metro area. Ready access to information will be provided to those interested in the project. 8. Financial plan including interagency agreement on capital and operating expenditures. -3- � � . .. _,,, , �____ , :,,:.� � ., :.;,. �,�.. :�:. � � i - -._ _ .__ , . _. _ ._. .. _ _ _- . __ .---- - I � Z r, u i, i_ i ---� ��:�hc ��.��;,»� i i... i,:�rn _.. _. � � .__.__..__.._�_�.__.-__—_�__. __._.. ."-- .-__'---'-.._...-"... . .�....'_-----__�.._..._. ._-..---'-'—..____--'-- 5CII�DULF: uP W6ilt:; 'CAtiY.: .. .' _ _ _. . ._... _�. . ._ .- . --.___.' . . _.---. _...._ _ � , ELI q � _ . _�. _.___-�.___ -' �_ f � ^f! t1ltd.41:Y ;;P�cSI>1Ll.i. I /� \ ]4Vt�t1[:- �f\, � �PUl3I�IC': ` �t—� �Cr14U�f 11 ( 1 / , tl lNU �C I't".iI.SC D INFOR:tA'CION I: f ,ll:. . ,\ r ` � ��111'1l:IN('�' ANP / / I l_..__.__.__. '- - V ---_- —`�- -- --- V '- ----'�.'_' --'---_ _ _.�__. -'-- ._ ' � � RELATI;U 9CTIVLTl!;.. Ir ----, �� a,� (�ri:�xn�rivL) � 2[CPiNP:Aa — — 1 ��•��•�i: H[UI::.:II7!` I - FIi�I:F' �1 — 6 ti.^:i-:GUF: Cc';fl;l'r.5T 1 � • I till1l' ': l'N'��ti� l 'y.� . � lla, l:a R . I 'rtAF.FE1`` � 5 AN,�I.TSIS — , � `\ � I T*vTATIVE `�� j--l�.--6'',� l!:F:L?:?L:.RY` . .� y�+. � � FRF.L::'ZtlARY I—�--=�P?F:F.�Tl<;2J5 ��i�'�'`2) � O'rE^YCit:G P'.1iJ � � � pL',^1 � ( I_' '__ i '.�—__._.__. �i•:cF'UKT � --. _ I y .`�� '. �f nnoI.IHI27N.Y —�i I � FUS 1`_� ( . I _5US PI.AN � r�:, 1 ' I I - — ----s, i I _, � , � � ��YfS:J.^,E PA�f:"�,I^ P1.F1N, STFEi:? AP!D !?P::iidAY I?fe PC�'E!"F.:::; � � I � .------ -- . '—.---4 I to llc 1 "Y I � YGTICE 9 TG FRJCESD '� SUPPLIER iIAISC:r: VE:IIrLE i�.^JD SUB-SYSTEY. C.RARAG:cdISTIG: ji'--- . —� . SYSTEM SAI•'ETY 5 PERFORt4ANCE FSSURANCE . SAFETY & ��_ . — _ :. _ RELIABILITY . .. REPORT � � ! � ADV!1GCE GUICtWAY�A::L ST�TION E?IGIt7EERI:4G 14 �� --------- 23 INITIATF. I 13 . I:iFLEFLNTA- Sb1PLEMENTA- �.�.i,PlIAS� II �a PAT.^.ON SEC.'UP.ITY PL.'�,�NZNG TION FLAN TIpN RtippRT (DkTAIL DESIG:Q) � tu 4u 1 CUIDEWAY � UFTIOl3S � ' SF.G:'.1.1T 11 I PRELZ6IINPR'i GUTDEiiAYS 11 I__NdALYSIS � STRUC'fURES, YAFJS � ZOl L n�r�re>an��rr � _ � I FAC.L:TY tiEEDS SCHEDULY. 1? I I� �� :2 ' i NA.TOR CO:LNW:TY ID6SIGN ^.RIT1=R1� i '—��,5"G1•PION SCtL;t1A1'IC GESIGVS�j--� C INVOLVEHGNT P.E:VI�W -. � 17.t1, I L � I STATiOIi �„ ' I ' OPTIOIIS � I ----'—.'--"—' � �TlSi: DCSCk.P'Pl:);i � 17 I 1 I � ___.______.'_.. __� COe>'f `.'.^:TIMATF:; I I � ' 1' ^� i —L UFBAN DEVEWPMEtfP OPi'OF.YUNITY '—'-+1T.--t ..'---"—"�-- i I / \. � I to 11.�I, 12C, iII }, � I MhTOR REPOFtT I --- _ � ! �-.1� lC � CEtIt;L'tT�fl � ! �----�'1'ASK S'PART/STOP � SGCIO ECONO:-0IC IMPACT _ WST i f � _�— 1� I , - �.' � VALUC CTPTU.'iF: ' F..Niv"iCIAL P!rdr , I � nriu cnsu ru.�r� i �__.__""'_________"______...."_"�_ ._ I �� I zzb ` 2zr..� � ?2a , DfLIF? � ' � FI"7AI. 1 � pt,HLIC �f DRF.FT If.I.A. 1?.I.3. F�- �� til.i.'�b::::i;%�� FI.I.S. ,^'� � � � � ( � I �'��,�/ \✓ ��_,.� j I � ` , , � � I I � _ L___ J _� _� '--- �-----i _. .-- - --_' .__.._l_. __i 1_______�_ _ _. ___r ,�_. .,�.�: :�, " ,..... �.�.1.�.;��.:-�. I �_..� ,Ff.:: K'.C"GG[: � JCCY:^...... .....;-i\FY, 1`: ru�Y .� Jt Y l,�.:.�. . .„ —4— Phase II, Project Implementation, is to be funded upon successful completion � of Preliminary Engineering�. � The required products and their tentative schedules are as follows: 1. System supplier selection - February, 1978; 2. Preparation of final engineering drawing for construction bid packages - March. , 1978 to December, 1979 (staged con- struction program) ; 3. Right-of-Way Acquisition, March, 1978 to February, 1980. 4. System Construction (contract award) ,July, 1978* to February, 19'80. 5. System integration and testing, March, 1979 to December, 1980; , 6. Initial system operation,December,' 1980; 7. Completion of the impact analysis,December, 1983; 8. Project documentation, February, 1984. C. PROGRAM AND PROJECT ORGANIZATION ' The Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) as the region's transit agency � and grant recipient would have responsibility for DPM program administra- tion including preliminary engineering activities. UMTA management will be conducted by the Office of Technology Development and Deployment (UTD) and responsibilities will include project monitoring, review and approval of applicable grantee activities. The City of Saint Paul has a major interest in station area development, and station location, whereas the MTC is concerned primarily with transit planning, engineering, construction, equipping and operation of the DPM system. Therefore, it is proposed this program be conti.nued as a joint venture between the City and the MTC in accordance with the attached agree- ment (Exhi.bit A, Attachment 4) . In addition, community and technical advisory units would be established. The proposed project organization is shown in Figure 2. The Steering Committee will provide overall direction of the project through the appropriate staff. The Chief Administrator of the MTC will assist the committee on major policy matters and assure administrative support for proper project management. � The MTC Transit Development staff will be responsible for overall project direction and for the technical supervision of the guideway and vehicle system elements of the project. The St. Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority (or its successor) will provide the Deputy Director for the project and will be responsible for technical supervision of all station area activities. In Phase II (design, construction, system integration and testing� , it is ` , * It is proposed a portion of the Selby Tunnel and the segment contiguous to the east portal be completed early and used for inclement weather tests. (see proposal, page X-3) . -5- l'� CITY OF ST. PAUL MTC - - - - - - - � ..� � � � �.. � - -� — DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE • PROGRESS REPORTS • FINANCIAL STATEMENTS • P�RIODIC REVIEWS • RECOMMENDATIONS ST-� EE�R.ING COMMI•�TEE Chairman, MTC Mayor, St. Paul Chairman, TDC, MTC President, Council, St. Paul' Chief Ac3�ninistrator, MTC Chairman, Metro. Council COMMUNITY ADVISORY Project Director, MTC TECHNICAL '�ASK COMMITTEE from Deputy Director, St. Paul FORCE Business, Civia, Associate Director, Mn/DOT TAB Coordinator Labor Associations Metro Council Area Residents City Planning ; St. Paul Residents Public Works � Metro Residents Project Coordinator Minneapolis (Local Consultant) -- 1�T Historical Society — — — — — — — Others System Design Coordinator (Transit Consultant) T�pe of Activity Lead: Agency or Consultant ' Parking ---------------------- Lity, Housing/Redevelopment Authority Safety and Street Improvements ---------- City, Hou�ing/Redevelopment Authority Bus Operations --------------- MTC, Transit Operating Division Reliability �nvironmental&Historic Impact-City, Ca.ty Planning Department Social Impact---------------- City, City Planning Department Assessments Urban Development------------ City, Housing/Redevelopnent Autho ' Local Planning/Engineering--- Consultant (Special Consultarrt�l Station Area Design---------- Consultant Prelim. Station Designs ------ Consultant PrelimiGuideway Designs ------ Consultant _ Equipment Supplier Liaison--- Consultant Urban Development Ridezship Forecasts ---------- Consultant Committee Transit System Design-------_ Consultant Operation '85 Socio-Economic Planning ----- Consultant Downtown Council Financial Planning ___________ MTC, Government Division Developers FIGURE TWO - LOCAL ORGANIZATION -6- anticipated the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) will provide technical supervision for all civil and structural activities. In preparation for Phase I2, Mn/DOT will provide an Associate Director for this project during Phase I. The Technical Task Force would be established by the region's Technical Advisory Committee in accordance with its By-Laws. The Community Advisory Committee members would be selected with representation as agreed upon by (1) the Mayor of St. Paul, (2) the City Council, (3) the MTC, and (4) the Metropolitan Council. The Urban Development Committee would be primarily concerned with coordination of all downtown development projects affected by the DPM, and its members would be appointed by the Mayor of Saint Paul. The above committees would be organized at the beginning of the project with meetings scheduled as the work tasks required advice or review. As a minimum, six workshops (public meetings) (S�e Task 3.2. of Part II) will be scheduled at key points in the project (See Figure One of Part I) , and the several committee activities will relate to these public meetings. After each workshop, summaries of both the meeting and the completed work tasks to date will be provided to the Metropolitan Council, the St. Paul City Council, the St. Paul Planning Commission, and the Metropolitan Transit Commission. At least four presentations by the MTC or St. Paul will be scheduled on the Physical Development Comm:i.ttee agenda, each summarizing the tasks completed and focusing on those issues of interest to the Council, including: ; City of St. Paul interim development strategy (Workshop A) . � System Design (Workshop B) - as it relates to the Council's Transporta- tion Policy Plan and St. Paul's development program. System Patronage (Workshop C) System Financing (Workshop F) The project, because of its scope and complexity will require a technical team approach; a team consisting of professionals from the agencies involved and consultants representing special skills and disciplines. Two major roles are necessary: (1) coordination of all development activities within the project and (2) coordination with those downtown development projects directly affecting the project. A local firm experienced in urban development and with some transportation planning/ engineering skill will be selected for DPM Project Coordination. This will also require the ability to secure work commitments from the appropriate public agencies. A firm skilled at fixed guideway transit system design and construction will be selected to conduct the major system design tasks and coordinate other needed special disciplines as the System Design Coordinator. Other skills required are indicated by the activities listed on Figure 2. Consultant selection will be conducted in accordance with the MTC's administrative regul.ations. D. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS A major rationale for the DPM is to serve as a stimulus and catalyst -7- for downtown development. Conversely, much of the projected ridership on the DPM depends on concurrent developments located in close proximity to the stations. To accomplish early and effective revitalization of the downtown area, close coordination of development projects is necessary. The Saint Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority will provide coordina- tion of the downtown development projects with the DPM. During Phase I of this program, design and, in some cases construction, will start on the following projects affecting the DPM: 1. Park Square Tower A (Block 36) 2. Radisson Hotel (Block A) 3. Seventh Place Retail & Office Towers (Block 27) 4. Seventh Place - 5 block Pedestrian Mall 5. Seventh Place Galleria 6. St. Paul Civic Center Additions 7. Capitol Approach Building . The DPM Project Coordinator will work closely with HRA staff to assure optimum coordination of the DPM project with other developments. -8- PART II - SCOPE OF WORK (for Phase I) A series of work tasks have been developed by type of activity rather � than type of skill or discipline. Withi.n each task a series of sub- tasks are described to indicate the nature of the activity and to suggest a sequence of events. The work program described in this Part includes suggested tasks to be accomplished by the entire team; agency staff participants and consultants. Primary and major responsibilities are identified for each task. Task 1.0 MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION Overview , From a local perspective, the DPM program is a joint venture of the • City of St. Paul and the MTC; both sharing in costs and benefits. The primary rationale for the DPM is the revitalization of the downtown area. It is also a federal demonstration of the ability of government and the transit industry to deliver a Shuttle-Loop Transit System in an urban application. Project management, task coordination and public/ private development coordination is established on these pri.nciples. Sub-Tasks , l.l Prepare and i.unplement an agreement between the City of St. Paul and the MTC for the conduct of this project. 1.2 Receive notice to proceed from UMTA. 1.3 Organize project management and the committees as described in Part I-C. Provide overall direction to the project through the joint MTC/St. Paul Steering Committee to the Project Director and Deputy Director. 1.4 Provide the required technical, financial and schedule informa- tion to existing and prospective developers. 1.5 Establish technical activity procedures, administrative proced- ures, consultant team/agency relationships and assignments; and relationship with UMTA per Task 2.0. 1.6 Establish cost control and project monitoring procedures. 1.7 Provide continuous supervision and review of work program. 1.8 Assure effective com¢nunications with Urban Design Committee, Community Advisory Committee and Technical �ask ForcE.. 1.9 Coordinate activities of Safety and Reliability contractors with other system development activities. 1.10 Coordinate plans with St. Paul River Corridor Plan. -9- Responsibility The MTC would have responsibility for federal grant administration and overall project administration. The City of St. Paul/MTC agreement places responsibility for station area development with the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (or its successor) and the system development responsibility with the MTC's Government Division. Project Coordination and System Design Consultants would assist in reporting on work progress. Task 2.0 COORDINATION WITH UMTA Overview UMTA's Office of Teciznology Development and Deployment (UTD) will pre- pare DPM Project Implementation Guidelines that sets forth detailed objectives and requirements that must be considered during project implementation. The Guidelines supplement the UMTA External Operating Manual (EOM) . The DPM Program will be managed as a Controlled Capital Assistance Pro- gram by UTD with participation from the Offices of Transit Assistance (UTA) and Transportation Planning (UTP) . UMTA management responsibilities will include project monitoring, review and approval of applicable activi- . ties. /, ._ Management of the daily DPM preliminary engineering activities will be the responsibility of the MTC. Sub-Tasks 2.1 Review DPM Program Plan (PZay 21, 1976) and Implementation Guide- lines with �teering Committee and technical team. � 2.2 Establish appropriate liaison procedu�es with UTD, UTA and UTP. 2.3 Review the systems engineering process with UTD. 2.4 Organize procedures for EIA/EIS activities with UTA. (See Task 22) . 2.5 Review outline for and draft of Procurement Bid Package with UMTA (See Tasks 9.5 and 9.8) . 2.6 Conduct jointly with UMTA a Design and Equipment Assessment Review and agree upon the technological qualification approach and areas requiring product improvement (see Task 9.6) . 2.7 Review draft of System Manufacturer Qualification Criteria with UMTA (see Task 9.7) . . � � 2.8 Receive from UMTA an Experimental Design Plan (Ex D) , focusing on before and after studies to evaluate DPM system performance and the social, economic, transportation and environmental impacts of the system as proposed in St. Paul. Develop an � Ex D fpr the St. Paul DPM. -10- 2.9 Make effective use of UMTA's Value Capture team (Rice Center for " Community Design and Research, Houston, Texas) . 2.10 Review DPM System Safety Plan with UTD. 2.11 Review DPM System Reliability Plan with UTD. 2.12 Review Draft Implementation Plan with UMTA. 2.13 Prepare Phase II Capital Grant Amendment and submit to UMTA. Responsibility The UMTA Office of Technology Development and Deployment (UTD) and the MTC will be responsible for federal/local coordination. Task 3.0 CONIl�IUNITY INV�LVEMENT AND PUBLIC INFORMATION Overview Throughout the preliminary engineering phase, periodic reports on progress of work will be prepared and distributed to the governmental agencies, advisory committees, labor organizations, civic groups, and the general public. Effective administrative procedures will be established to facilitate and expedite required reviews by other ; responsible agencies, and to provide opportunities for substantial community involvement of all interested parties including groups representing the elderly and the handicapped. Public meetings (Workshops) will be scheduled and reports made available at major milestone events. An effective public information program will be established. The program will include preparation and distribution of information materials for the several publics and the news media. A public infor- mation center will be established in a readily accessible location. Sub-Tasks 3.1 Prepare for and conduct first public hearing based on: (a) DPM proposal of June .30, 1976. � (b) Preliminary Environmental Analysis, October, 1976. (c) Scope of Work for Preliminary Engineering and Related Activities. January, 1977. 3.2 Develop a detail community involvement program focusing on a series of workshops (public meetings) during the project (See Figure 1, page 4 for tentative schedule) . Special efforts will be made to involve the elderly and the handicapped. • Workshop (A) ; Tasks lla, 12a, and 22a - • Workshop (B) ; Tasks 4a, 5, 6a, and 7a � • Workshop (C)*; Tasks llb, 12b, 13 and 22b • Workshop (D) ; Tasks 6b, 8, 15, 16, 18 and 19 • Workshop (E) ; Tasks lld, 12c and 22c • Workshop (F)*; Tasks 9, 10, 20, 21, and 23 � *May be part of public hearing as specified in Task 3.4. -11- _._ __ _ � Staff(s) and Consultant(s) responsible for tasks shall prepare materials for presentation; alert interested pu}�lics; participate in workshops, and follow-up on issues raised. 3.3 Establish public information program including an information center in the downtown area. 3.4 Prepare for and conduct two public hearings; (1) based on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.) of Task 22c and the route segments in the project, and (2) based on the financial plan of Task 21 and progress in other tasks. Responsibility The MTC would have responsibility to conduct the public hearings. The City would arrange, schedule, and conduct all workshops, with MTC having a major role in workshops B, D, and F. Ta'sk 4A REFINEMENT OF RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES Overview The proposal for the St. Paul DPM included ridership estimates for three development situations and for three levels of ridership (low, medium and high) within each development situation. The median level forecasts for the 1980 development situation were used as the basis of revenue projections and were input to the operating costs. In refining the ridership esti.mates developed in the proposal a station-to-station matrix will be developed for daily travel, peak-hour, and off-peak hour. These trip tables will be developed for three development situations: Development Situation A (1980) , Development Situation B (1985) , and Development Situation C (1990) . Maximum/minimum reasonable esti.m�tes will be developed and the assumptions identified for each. Sub-Tasks 4.1 Update certain data bases (employment, dwelling units, park-ride spaces, bus transfers, etc.) on block basis. Prepare basic assumptions. Obtain review of Technical Task Force. 4.2 Update forecasts of new development for the three development situations. 4.3 Identify the sensitivity of the critical elements that influence the expected ridership of the DPM, i.e. , fares, development sta- tistics, trip generation rates, etc. Obtain review of Technical Task Force. 4.4 Develop by trip purpose daily, peak-hour and off-peak hour estimates for the three development situations defined in Sub-Task 4.2. Obtain review of Technical Task Force. 4.5 Develop station-to-station estimates for daily, peak-hour and off-peak hour for the three development situations. Identify critical links for each situation. 4.6 Refine estimates of park-ride needs and bus loading area needs. -12- 4.7 Establish total travel to downtown area due to induced development. . 4.8 Conduct preliminary analysis of special situations, i.e. , special events, system extensions, unusual development situations, etc. Responsibility The City of St. Paul would have primary responsibility for Sub-Tasks 4.1 and 4.2 and the ridership forecast consultant would complete Sub- Tasks 4.3 - 4.8. Task 4B DETAILED RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE ESTIMATES Overview Fi.nal ridership and revenue estimates will be prepared after develop- ing and evaluating a series of operating plans, after considering the several design options, and after revising the methodology to predict ridership on the basis of the special studies. Sub-Tasks 4.9 Formalize the development projections for three development situations from Tasks 12 and 15. 4.10 Receive input on the location of stations and the access means to the station from Task lla and 12a. 4.11 Revise the patronage forecasting procedure based on- the special studies complete under Task 5. 4.12 Receive tentative operating plan (Task 6a) , Bus/DPM Integration Plan (Task 7) , and fringe parking supply (Task 8) . 4.13 Evaluate transportation impact of DPM system on downtown accessibility including effects of fringe parking, change in walk-trip patterns, vehicular congestion , etc. 4.14 Participate in Community Involvement Workshop B (See Task 3.0) . 4.15 Refine the ridership estimates developed in Task 4a based on the material developed above in sub-tasks 4.9 - 4.14. Responsibility The ridership forecast consultant will complete all sub-tasks. Task 5.0 ANALYSIS OF RIDERSHIP MARt�T Overview The usage of a new transportation mode not previously available to potential users is difficult to forecast because no data on simi.lar situations is available. A good example of this is the skyway system; many of the trips on the system are trips that are previously not made as opposed to being made on outdoor sidewalks. However, estimates of expected usage of the -13- . � ridership on the DPM, are very important in developing revenue projections and i.n sizing the vehicle system. Therefore, special studies are required to develop the best possible information on user group travel patterns on the DPM. Some of the special studies are listed below. Additional studies will be completed to further analyze the critical elements defined in Task 4a. Sub-Tasks 5.1 Assess travel patterns and market studies of (a) Washington Metro CBD stations, (b) Dearborn, Michigan Shopping/Hotel, (c) Morgantown systems; and other relevant areas; and also note the differences of these areas from downtown St. Paul. 5.2 Conduct origin - destination and trip generation study of the skyway system. 5.3 Assess the growth in travel patterns and land use associated with the St. Paul and Minneapol.is skyway systems. 5.4 Conduct a ridership sensitivity analysis of various fare levels, i.e. , 10 cents, 15 cents, and 25 cents, with and without intra-DPM transfer privileges. 5.5 Analyze specific short-trip travel needs between the vaxious activity areas within the St. Paul Metro Center. Analysis should include estimates of trip length, frequency of trips, etc. 5.6 Conduct travel survey at selected DPM station areas. Coordinate with Task 13.3. R,�sponsibility The ridership forecast consultant will complete these sub-tasks. Task 6A PRELIMINARY OPERATION PLAN Overview A preliminary plan is needed for development of guideway segments (Task llb) , station options (Task 12b) and detail ridership forecasts (Task 4b) . Sub-Tasks 6.1 Based on the refined ridership estimates of Task 4a, prepare preliminary plans including headways of vehicles, maintenance schedules, station surveillance requirements. 6.2 Coordinate with preliminary bus plan (Task 7a) and preliminary results of fringe parking plan (Task 8) . 6.3 Conduct station area and skyway simulation of pedestrian move- ments based on the ridership developed in Task 4. 6.4 Conduct preli.minary vehicle performance simulation based on the above and ridership forecasts from Task 4a. 6.5 Participate in Workshop B (see Task 3) . 6.6 Adjust preliminary Operating Plan as needed and prepare working paper. -14- Responsi.bility . . The Transit System Design Contractor would have primary responsibility for all tasks. Simulation Tasks 6.3 and 6.4 may be accomplished by a special consultant. Task 6B OPERATIONS PLAN AND REPORT Overview The operating plan, together with the bus plan (Task 7) and fringe parking, street and highway improvements plan (Task 8) will define headways of all vehicle routings for all times and days, maintenance schedules, system surveillance needs, location of bus routes and, bus access to station area. The plan will be prepared for integration into the region's Transportation Systems Management Plan (TSM) . Sub-Tasks 6.7 Using detail ridership forecasts conduct final performance simu- lations. 6.8 Based on results of simulation, prepare draft operations plan. 6.9 Detail fare (honor) syst�m operations including surveillance program. ( 6.10 Prepare fare collection option as a contingency plan. 6.11 Prepare estimate of station usage and space needs (for Tasks 12b and 12c) . 6.12 Participate in Workshop D (see Task 3) . 6.13 Prepare Operations Plan and Report. Responsibility The Transit Systems consultant would have primary responsibility. Simulation Task 6.7 may be accomplished by a special consultant. Task 7a PRELIMINARY BUS/DPM INTEGRATION PLAN Overview The October, 1976, report, "Improving Transit Operations and Facilities in Downtown St. Paul" provides a complementary bus service plan. Further coordination of the bus plans with the DPM program is desirable. Sub-Tasks 7.1 Review the recommendations of the following reports: a. Improving Transit Operations and Facilities f�r powntown St. Paul. b. Regional Express Bus Network Study. -15- c. Western St. Paul Route-Ridership Improvement Project. d. Ramsey County Route-Ridership Improvement Project. e. North East (Ramsey) Study Area. f. Northern Dakota County/Southern Washi.ngton County Route- Ridership Improvement Project. g. St. Paul East/Central Washington County Route-Ridership Improvement Project. h. Bus/Fixed Guideway integration in other cities. 7.2 Determine the desirability of neighborhood bus circulation systems that center on DPM termi.nal stations. Develop preliminary plans for such circulation systems and the resultant modifications of existing service. 7.3 Establish street improvement needs with St. Paul Public Works Department (Task 8) . 7.4 Prepare preliminary bus route and service plan based on 7.1 and 7.2 above, including: a. Station access needs b. Frequency of service c. Existing route modifications d. New routes e. Additional buses and facilities needed Responsibility MTC's Transit Operating Division would have responsibility for this task. Task 7B BUS OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES PLAN Overview Based on the preliminary bus plan of Taslt 7a, input from the Detail Ridership forecast (Task llb) (guideway options) a final plan will be proposed. Sub-Tasks 7.5 Update preliminary plan 7.6 Detail item 7.4 of Task 7a 7.7 Propos� staging of services 7.8 Propose route and service adjustments for construction period. Responsibility The MTC Transit Operating Division (TOD) would have responsibility for this task. �_ -` -16- Task 8.0 DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN, STREET AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - • Overview A major element of DPM system usage is dependent upon the establishment of an effective short and long term parking system including fringe parking facilities. The City is commi.tted to develop a fringe system as a part of downtown parking program with implementation concurrent with DPM operations. 1 Some street and highway improvements may be needed for station access and the park-ride facilities. Sub-Tasks 8.1 Review all past downtown parking plans and recommendations. 8.2 Review recommendations of the Transportation Control plans. 8.3 Review FHWA/MnDOT Fringe Parking Study for I-394 in Minneapolis. 8.4 Review Federal DOT Criteria for "fringe" parking and development criteria for St. Paul. 8.5 Develop preliminary fringe parking plans (design 4 scale) for task 6b (Operations Report) , and coordinate with subcommittee of. Operation '85, Office of City Planning, MnPCA and MnDOT. 1 8.6 Estimate costs for fringe parking plans. 8.7 Review Station Options (Task 12b) , Schematic Designs (Task 12c) and Sub-Task 8.5 and develop plans and costs of needed street and highway improvements. 8.8 Participate in Workshops A, B and D (see Task 3) . 8.9 Prepare final fringe parking plans and cost estimates for reviews and approvals. Responsibility The City of St. Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority would have primary responsibility for this task with support from the Department of Public Works and tlle Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) . Task 9.0 SUPPLIER LIAISON; VEHICLE AND SUB-SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Overview Preliminary Engineering is to be accomplished by developing performance specifications and baseline guideway designs noting the deviation from these documents by potential equipment suppliers. Competitive procure- ment of vehicles and major sub-systems is required early in Phase II. One objective of this phase is the preparation of a vehicle system pro- curement bid package that includes system requirements/performance speci- fications, product acceptance criteria, and supplier qualification criteria. -17- . Sub-Tasks 9.1 Notify all eligible equipment suppliers of project, scope of work and project schedule. 9.2 Offer eligible suppliers periodic opportunities for project briefings. 9.3 Jointly (with UMTA and APTA) develop guidelines for supplier participation in this project. 9.4 Provide working papers, meeting notices and other relevant information to all interested participants. 9.5 Review outline of Procurement Bid Package with UMTA (UTD) . 9.6 Conduct jointly with UMTA a Design and Equipment Assessment Review and agree upon the technological qualification approach and areas requiring product improvement. 9.7 Prepare draft system Manufacturer Qualification Criteria and review with UMTA (UTD & UTA) . J 9.8 Draft Procurement Bid Package and review with UMTA (UTD & UTA) . Responsibility MTC would have responsibility for this task with major support from the � transit system desiqn consultant and supplier liaison consultant. Task 10.0 SYSTEM SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE Overview Public safety and system reliability are criteria that should not be compromised. Independent evaluation programs are to be established for safety and reliability (See Figure 1, page �4 ) . Those responsible for this task are to be actively involved in all aspects of the preliminary engineerinq program, as appropriate, and will provide the project manage- ment with independent appraisals of all safety and reliability issues. Sub-Tasks 10.1 Formulate and execute a System Safety Program Plan. (See MTC Report 74-01 Performance Specifications for the Regional Fixed Guideway System, Appendix A, and APM Project Implementation Guide- lines) . 10.2 Service Dependability - The system shall be designed to provide scheduled Service that can be depended upon to get the patron from his origin to his destination in a ti.mely manner. An Interim Design Standard shall be: The system shall provide the average '� , rider (two trips per day of 0.8 miles in length) with a quality of service such that he will not experience more than one delay per year in excess of five minutes due to failure of the system. -18- The service dependability requirement may be achieved in a � variety of ways and shall be evaluated by the MTC to establish the necessary requirements for design, construction, testing and operation of the system. - The Service Dependability contractor shall prepare a compre- hensive program for all phases of the DPM demonstration and submit the program to MTC and UMTA for approval. The pre- liminary engineering phase shall include the development of preliminary safety performance specifications and equipment reliability requirements. Responsibility The Transit Systems Contractor shall design the system for safe and re- liable operation. Independent evaluations will be made by safety and reliability contractors. Task 11A ROUTE SEGMENT ANALYSIS Overview This task is to develop route segment options and analyze each with respect to its impact on the Saint Paul Metro Center and the remainder of the DPM system. CSub-Tasks 11.1 Develop a centralized data base, including plans and profiles, for all streets, utilities, buildings, and other topographical features. 11.2 Develop a centralized data base, including profiles, elevations and narrative descriptions, of all known soil, geologic and hydrologic features. 11.3 Establish a system of base maps and profiles which can be refined and the scale changed as the level of detail required increases. 11.4 Define logical segments for the system. 11.5 Develop evaluation criteria for the route segment options. �1.6 Prepare an alternate system plan without the Ramsey Hill segment (Virginia Street to the proposed I-35E freeway) . 11.7 Prepare alternative analysis fo� EIS at level of detail desired by UMTA. 11.8 Prepare system expansion plans to include segments which may be desirable tq add to the system in the future. _ 11„9 . Within each segment, develop alignment, and cross-section options __ for �he. guideway. Also, investigate soundness of-Selby tunnel. I1.10 P�'r�icipate in Coinmunitv_Znvolvement Workshop A (See. Task 3) . 11.11 Analyze each option in terms of the evaluation criteria. -19- . - Responsibility The Transit System Design Consultant would be responsible with support, particularly in Sub-Tasks 11.1 - 11.3, from the City of St. Paul and the Local Planning/Engineering Consultant. Task 11B GUIDEWAY OPTIONS AND DESIGNS Overview The guideway segments must be compatible with the urban environment. Design options must be carefully explored and, after substantial com- munity involvement, a preferred design should be identified for each segment of the route. Sub-Tasks 11.12 Receive route option analysis from task lla design criteria from task 12a, and other input from tasks 5, 6a, 7a, and 8. 11.13 Establish generai guideway design consistent with the various available (and proven) equipment from eligible suppliers. (See Task 9) . 11.14 Participate in Co�nunity Involvement Workshop C (See Task 3) . ( � 11.15 Develop a "baseline" guideway design and request system devia- " tions from each eligible system supplier. Responsibility The Transit System Design Consultant would be responsible with support from the Local Planning/Engineering Consultant. Task 11C ATTENDANT FACILITY NEEDS (Y�ds, Shops, etc.) Overview Yard and shop facilities, control center and other attendant facilities must be planned consistent with the several design options under con- sideration in Task llb. Sub-Tasks 11.16 Delineate necessary facilities 11.17 Establish design criteria. 11.1II Sketch facility needs to complement the several design options of Task llb. __ 11.19 Participate in Community Workshop C (See Task 3) . -20- 11.20 Prepare sketch plans for attendant facilities per sub-task 11.15. � � Responsibility Same as Task llb. Task 11D PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF GUIDEWAYS AND ATTENDANT FACILITIES Overview Prepare preliminary design showing detail and definition of aerial, tunnel and transition guideways, yards, shops, administrative facilities and selection and definition of all operational systems. Sub-Tasks 11.21 Receive all data and plans from Task llb and llc, and check against criteria developed in Task 12a. 11.22 Collect, review, analyze and upgrade all data on physical conditions along routes. 11.23 Review performance characteristics of eligible vehicle systems per task 9 and necessary deviation from baseline guideway design of task llb. C , 11.24 Receive sketch plans for attendant facilities from sub-task 11.20. 11.25 Assure proper relationships between guideway design and station area site plans. 11.26 Participate in Community Workshop D (See Task 3) . 11.27 Prepare preliminary designs for selected guideway, operational systems and attendant facilities. Up-date Task 11.8 11.28 Select locations for yards, shops, control centers and administra- tive facilities, and prepare preliminary designs. 11.29 Prepare right-of-way maps, plans for guideways and attendant facilities. Responsibility Same as Task llb. Task 12A PROTOTYPE DESIGN CRITERIA Overview Basic criteria for design of guideways, stations and maintenance shops and other attendant facilities are desired. -21- Sub-Tasks . 12.1 Review existing criteria from: a) APTA AGT Gene=al Specifications (1976) . b) Criteria from previous MTC studies. c) Other applicable documents. 12.2 Identify design issues 12.3 Prepare basic design criteria for a prototype station and a pro- totype guideway section. 12.4 Prepare basic design criteria for all attendant facilities. 12.5 Explore locations for attendant facilities. 12.6 Study possible multiple uses of right-of-way and affected air space. 12.7 Participate in Community Workshop A (See Task 3) . 12.8 Prepa�e working paper on design criteria. Responsibility The transit system design consultant would have primary responsibility with support from the urban design consultant and local planning/engineer consultant. Task 12B STATION OPTIONS Overview Each station must be carefully blended into its surrounding developments in a functional manner readily understood by the system's patrons. Sub-Tasks 12.9 Develop sketch plans for a prototypical (a) free-standing station and (b) multiple-use station. 12.10 Determine Candidate Stations associated with identified develop- ment projects. 12.11 For each station develop alternative urban design proposals to integrate station architecture with surrounding development. 12.12 Prepare preliminary cost estimate (unit cost basis) . 12.13 Review and adjust alternative designs through community involve- ment process including Community Workshop B (See Task 3) . -22- 12.14 Select preferred option for each station area. For each station identify complementary needs such as parking policies, community assistance programs, and aid appropriate parties in obtaining such improvements. 12.15 Prepare interim report describing design process and selection. Responsibility The Project Coordinator, working with St. Paul HRA staff and the urban design consultant, will coordinate each station development with that of the station area developments. The transit system design consultant will provide technical support. Task 12C STATION SCHEMATIC DESIGNS Overview All materials necessary to design, schedule and construct each station should be available upon completion of this task. Sub-Tasks 12.16 Receive review and comment on interi.m report per Task 12b. 12.17 Develop schematic designs for each station. 12.18 Refine preii.minary cost estimates for Task 17. 12.19 Review Draft EIA/EIS (See task 22) . 12.20 Participate in Community Workshops D and E (See Task 3) . 12.21 Prepare plans and specifications. Responsibility Same as Task 12b. Task 13.0 PATRON SECURITY PLANNING Overview One important aspect of the DPM system is the security provided the riders. The effectiveness of the DPM security will be reflected by the manner in which it is perceived by the public and the actual number of crimes committed. In this nhase of the program patron security planning will focus on patron security needs giving particular atten- tion to station design concepts and system operation plans during off- peak periods. Sub-Tasks 13.1 Review previous MTC studies and other relevant reports. -23- . • 13.2 Review and analyze Part I and Part II St. Paul Police Department's Crime Reports for areas surrounding proposed station and parking facility locations; determine crime incidence by day of week and time of day and victim-offender characteristics. 13.3 Survey potential DPM ridership regarding perceptions and attitudes regarding public safety risk and its effect on use of public transportation; survey should be both pre- and post-project implementation. (See Task 5.6) . 13.4 Draft patron security guidelines for station, and station area designs. 13.5 Review tentative system operation plan (Task 6a) and define security needs. 13.6 Review station options per Task 12b and provide commentary. 13.7 Critique Preliminary Operating Plan per Task 6b. 13.8 Input station schematic designs of Task 12c. 13.9 Participate in Workshop E (See Task 3) . Responsi.bility The patron security consultant would have primary responsibility while working closely with the transit system design consultant. Task 14.0 ADVANCE GUIDEWAY AND STATION ENGINEERING Overview Integration of DPM construction with private develogment construction requires special engineering tasks normally associated with design engineering to occur during this preliminary stage. For example, (1) location and type of footings and columns to support guideway in relation to adjacent buildings under design in 1977 or (2) locating of station equipment in a joint-use area under design in 1977. Sub-Tasks 14.1 Provide necessary design engineering services as requested and approved by the St. Pau1 Housing Authority and the project director. 14.2 Prepare report for use in DPM design engineering phase. Responsibility The transit system consultant and the local planning/engineering con- sultant would provide services on request. -24- Task 15.0 URBAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN � • Overview As the revitalization of the downtown is a basic goal of the DPM program, all development plans and opportunities should be identified, evaluated and become part of a development framework plan for the downtown. The Concept Development Plan for powntown St. Paul is the beginning of such a framework. Participants from the Metropolitan Council's Fuily Developed Area Committee and the City Planning Commission could make significant contributions to this task. Policies emanating from the Metropolitan Council's Fully Developed Area studies should be consulted for contribution to this task. Sub-Tasks 15.1 Inventory existing land use including conditions of commercial and residential facilities, economic and social conditions withi.n the DPM study corridors with specific emphasis on station impact areas, including affected neighborhoods and relevant parts of the downtown area. 15.2 Inventory details of planned development and project opportunities within the same area consistent with general land use plans, neighborhood development plans and public systems plans (i.e. , skyways, parking, streets and other infrastructure) . Particular attention will be given to identifying market rate residential and commercial development opportunities. 15.3 Evaluate market potential for development types and scale within the station impact areas, i.ncluding affected neighborhoods and relevant parts of the downtown area. 15.4 Seek input from the Urban Development Committee and from the Metropolitan Council information pertaining to studies recently culminated on the Fully Developed Area. 15.5 Establish urban development goals, objectives and specific recommendations leading toward policy decisions for development of each station impact area, i.e. • Residential area • Retail/office area • Institutional area • State Capitol area 15.6 Participat� in Workshop D (see Task 3) . 15.7 Establish and recommend a "development framework" plan inciuding public and private sector responsibilities, coordination mechanism and scheduling. Responsibilsty The City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) would be primarily responsible with support from �he local planning/engineering consultant. -25- Task 16.0 SOCIO-ECONOMSC IMPACT STUDIES Overview Changes within the social-economic framework must be described in detail and quantified to determine the benefits of the system on the local and regional areas. This task will be coordinated with several other tasks and provide the base for a detailed benefit-cost analysis and final system technical and design decisions•. Sub-Tasks 16.1 Identify all socio-economic factors which could be potentially impacted within the downtown affected neighborhoods, other parts of St. Paul and regional areas. a) Coordinate with Tasks 11 and 12 to identify impacts within the imtnediate DPM area. b) Identify impacts within the City and region with relation- ships to the DPM area. 16.2 Evaluate all transportation system cost efficiencies, user mobility gains, life style opportunity gains and environmental resource savings in each area of impact. 16.3 Prepare impact analysis basis leading toward the detailed benefit-cost study. . Responsibility The economm�..c consultant would have primary responsibility with support from the City of St. Paul, the Metropolitan Council and the MTC. Task 17.0 COST ESTIMATES Overview This task is to prepare cost estimates for the design, construction, vehicles, operation, maintenance, periodic rehabilitation and replace- ment for the guideway, stations, attendant facilities and vehicles for the system. Estimates are to be grouped by major system elements and should include design, testing, start-up right-of-way, relocation, construction and equipment costs, and contingencies. Costs are also to be escalated for inflation in accordance with the construction and procurement phasing. Maxi.mum/minimum operating costs will be developed and the assumptions identified for each. Sub-Tasks 17.1 Review data on preli.minary designs of facilities. (Tasks lld and 12c) , vehi�le systems (Task 9) and operating plan (Task 6) . 17.2 Evaluate local conditions and price indexes and establish unit costs for major construction elements, equipment, vehicles and other sub-systems. -26- 17.3 Prepare construction cost estimates for each station, guideway , segments, and attendant facilities. 17.4 Prepare cost estimates for purchase of vehicles and other equipment. 17.5 Prepare cost estimates for right-of-way, site preparation and relocation assistance. 17.6 Prepare cost estimates for operating, maintenance and periodic rehabilitation of the system. 17.7 Prepare total system implementation cost esti.mate by type of work (See Task 23) . 17.8 Prepare total system operating cost estimate. Obtain review of Technical Task Force. 17.9 Participate in community involvement workshop F (See Task 3) . Responsibility This task would be primarily the responsibility of the transit system design consultant with major input from those responsible for Task 12. Task 18.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS Overview The benefits and costs resulting from the system impacts and a net cumulation socio-economic worth of all benefit categories should be established in this study task. Urban development and infrastructure cost savings should be evaluated on a regional basis with final system costs attributed to those areas benefiting from the system. Sub-Tasks 18.1 Evaluate benefits and costs of all socio-economic i.mpacts. 18.2 Detennine the initial and future net development gains within the immediate DPM area based upon actual and anticipated market response to the system. 18.3 Determi.ne future local and regional urban structure investments, travel time and cost changes, maintenance and safety cost changes. 18.4 Evaluate: Transportation systems including auto use, transit use, transit access, parking, pedestrian-vehicle movements, public safety, fringe access; urban development includinq land intensity, multi-use development, residential development, activity linkages, image and urban design; and other pertinent benefit-cost areas. 18.5 Compile benefit-costs to determine net socio-economic worth of the system for the downtown, the city and the region. -27- Responsibility The City of St. Paul's HRA would be primarily responsible with major support from the economic consultant, as well as the Metropolitan Council and the MTC. Task 19.0 VALUE CAPTURE PROGRAM Overview To re-examine the value capture capabilities as identified in the proposal during the detailed economic impact and urban development opportunity studies and establish a "value capture" program which best defines local and regional system benefits received. Sub-Tasks 19.1 Examine in detail alternative value capture techniques practiced in other cities which are applicable to St. Paul. Determine strengths and weaknesses, implementation problems, etc. Maximum use shall be made of UMTA's Value Capture Team. - 19.2 Establish downtown value capture area within which the capa- bilities of specific techniques can be evaluated. 19.3 Combining urban land use data from Task 15 and economic benefits from Task 16, determine and evaluate short and long term value capture capabilities. 19.4 Gain opinions from legal and real estate staff of evaluation in Sub-task 19.4 and necessary legislation changes {if any) . 19.5 Review capabilities and staff opinions with advisory com�ittees for their recommendations. 19.6 Explain value capture techniques and costs to property owners and developers within the value capture area. 19.7 City/MTC to review the principles of sharing operating costs reflecting the local and regional system benefits as determined in Task 18. 19.8 Participate in Community Involvement Workshop D (see Task 3) . 19.9 Propose final value capture program to be included as part of the total financial plan tTask 21) . Secure MTC and City Council endorsement of the program. Responsibility The economic consultant would have primary responsibility with partici- pation of the St. Paul HRA. -28- Task 20.0 PROJECT SCI�DULE Overview Preparation of detailed schedule for all final design, construction, testing and start-up activities, including definition and timing for all tasks, construction packaging and identification of significant inter- facing and sequencing problems and proposed solutions. Scheduling should clearly indicate the approval process and realistic times required for appro�zals. Sub-Tasks 20.1 Review information from Tasks lld, 12c, 6b, 9 and 22c. 20.2 Prepare preliminary schedule in accordance with the format per Task 23. - 20.3 Review preliminary schedule with all affected parties. 20.4 Prepare final recommended schedule. Responsibility The project coordination consultant would be primarily responsible with major support from the transit system consultant. Task 21.0 FINANCIAL PLAN AND CASH FLOW ANALYSIS Overview A comprehensive understanding of all system costs, benefits, and sources of funding (including value capture techniques) is necessary to develop a sound financial plan. The financial plan will propose sources of funding adequate to provide for all costs of system development and the first ten years of operation, and will suggest an equitable distri- butions of the cost burden relative to benefits received. Cash flow pro- jections for the system development period and the initial three years of operation are to be prepared. Sub-Tasks 21.1 Review financial data in the DPM proposal of 6/29/76. 21.2 Receive cost estimates from Task 17. 21.3 Evaluate all potential sources of funding including federal, state, regional, city, system revenue, other direct revenue (i.e. , advertising, etc.) and the value capture technique recommended in Task 19. 21.4 Evaluate the distribution of the cost burden under the various financial alternatives, and relate them to benefits received. -29- 21.5 Prepare financial plan, i.ncluding a specific agreement on � operating costs between the City and the MTC. 21.6 Review financial plan with the Metropolitan Council, MTC and the City. 21.7 Estimate annual yield of various revenue sources and prepare cash flow projections for all subsequent stages of development and the initial three years of operation. 21.8 Determine the sensitivity of the revenue and cost projections to the following items: a) Redevelopment in the downtown area below anticipated levels. b) Failure of the honor fare system and implementation of mandatory fare collection procedures. c) Mi.nimum success of the value capture technique. d) Unexpected increase in capital or operating costs. e) Delay in completion of the project. 21.9 Determine which funding sources identified in Sub-Task 21.3 would be used to cover any unexpected funding shortages - both capital cost and operating deficits. 21.10 Review the results of the Sensitivity Analysis (21.8) and fundinq contingencies (21.9) with the DPM Project Steering Committee and Technical Task Force. Responsibility A financial consultant would have primary responsibility with two man- weeks of participation from MTC's Finance and Administration Department. -30- Task 22.0 E�VIRONMENTAL I1�ACT ASSE55MENT/STATEMENT � Overview An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared during the course of this project. This includes the historical preservation impact. A Preliminary Environmental Analysis was prepared in October, 1976, to provide an early assessment of the impact of the proposed DPM on the environment. This document, the DPM proposal of June, 1976, and the scope of work for Preliminary Engineering (January, 1977) , will serve as the basis for the first public hearing on this grant application. Sub-Tasks 22.1 Review Preliminary Environmental Analysis and Transcript of the February 24, 1977 Public Hearing. 22.2 Prepare Environmental Impact Assessment in the content of the general format provided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)� of 1969 (PL-91-190) and the Minnesota Council on Environ- mental Quality Guidelines. 22.3 For the Ramsey Hill area, prepare the necessary supplemental information in accordance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.* 22.4 Prepare jointly with UMTA a proposed draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . 22.5 Submit draft EIS to UMTA and other agencies for the necessary reviews. 22.6 Prepare for public hearing on draft EIS jointly with UMTA. 22.7 Address the questions and comments received, correct any defi- ciencies in the analysis, and assist UMTA in the preparation of the final EIS. Responsibility City of St. Pau1 Planning Department would be responsible with assistance from the urban design consultant and the transit system consultant. Other participants would include UMTA and the State Historical Society. *Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act requires that the Secretary shall review any program or project which requires the use of any publicly-owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge or historic site. -31- PART III (TASK 23) - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Overview The Implementation Plan is the compilation of all materials needed to initiate final design of the DPM. Included are the physical and performance criteria; social, economic, and environmental impact analysis and other technical work tasks necessary for the second phase of the capital grant award. The plan will include a complete set of engineering drawings showing details such as; vertical and horizontal alignment in relation to existing land uses as well as those properties under development, right-of-way requirements, preliminary station design and location, fringe parking facilities, power facilities, control facilities, main- tenance facility layout and vehicle storage axrangement. Al1 technical work and associated costs for developing the implementa- tion plan are to be assigned to preceeding Tasks 1-22. This task rep- resents only the compilation and publication of all final documents. Specifieally, work will be reported in a manner that will facilitate design engineering. This will include: �- Section A. Performance and Design Criteria in terms of: � � 1. Civil engineering, land surveying and mapping. a. Data base and plan file of all existing and proposed buildings, roadways, tunnels, utilities and other topographical features. b. Data base and file of soil, geologic and hydrologic information. c. Complete set of base maps and profiles for all segments of DPM. d. Preliminary plan and profile of the guideway including horizon- tal and vertical alignments and pier spacing. e. Preliminary guideway design including typical cross sections, da.mensions and materials. f. Preli.minary cross section showing typical guideway segments. g. Preliminary guideway design at stations, guideway intersections (connections) and maintenance facility. h. Preliminary drainage plan for the guideway including snow removal. i. Preliminary plan for relocation and continuation of utilities. j . Preliminary right-of-way requirements, including right-of-way limits, property ownership and preliminary relocation and assistance program. -32- k. Topographic and location surveys. 1. Soil, geologic and hydrologic surveys, analysis and recommenda- tions for the structural design of the system. m. Analysis of and recommendations regarding the use of and neces- sary modifications to the Summit Hill tunnel. 2. Mechanical Engineering. a. Station, shop and control center heating and air conditioning. b. Fire protection and plumbing criteria. c. Snow melting criteria. d. Mechanical equipment. e. Vehicle performance criteria. 3. Electri:cal Engineering. a. Power requirements and characteristics. b. Transmission, distribution and transformation system, substation l locations. c. Equipment quality, perf ormance and reliability. d. Traction power, air conditioning, communication (including surveillance) and illumination. e. Emergency needs, emergency power criteria. 4. Structural Engineering. a. Structural design criteria for guideway, stations, attendant facilities and tunnel(s) . b. Special design parameters such as fatigue, vibration, noise. c. Structural materials to be used for each element of the system. d. A preliminary structural design for each of the main elements of the system. e. Special design considerations such as safety walks, maintenance and fire fighting facilities (equipment) . 5. Architecture and Landscaping. _ a. Definition of architectural concepts to be followed. -33- b. Building quality for all structures. c. Space requirements. d. Architectural standards to be followed. e. Aesthetic and noise buffering materials for landscaping. 6. Fare Systems. (Note: An honor system has been proposed--with provisions to add collection when needed.) a. Identification, description and classification of various functions. b. System requirements. (1) Honor system. (2) Conventional fare collection. c. System quality and performance criteria. (1) Honor System. (2) Conventional. 7. Vehicle (or Consist) Control and Communications. a. System requirements. b. Quality and performance control. c. Description of operational duties. 8. Vehicle Requirements. a. Space envelope needed. b. Performance criteria (See APTA general specifications) . c. Floor plans and seating layouts. 9. Yards and Shops. a. Maintenance and repair function identification, description and classification. b. Routine maintenance. c. Major operations. d. Total facility requirements. -34- 10. Security and Surveillance. a. Definition of passenger security problems. b. Development of physical design features, detection, surveillance, and alarm devices to optimize passenger security. c. Development of surveillance operations plan. 11. Safety. a. Vehicle operations. b. Station movements. c. Patron movement under failed vehicle conditions. d. Fire prevention. e. Emergency parking, access and exits. f. Operating surveillance requirements (See llc) . g. System communication including emergency phones and public phones. h. Electrical circuits. i. Mechanical systems. 12. Operation Plan. a. Vehicle movements. b. Station and site criteria. c. Heading, speeds, consist size. � d. Hourly, daily and seasonal variation. � e. Daily startup and termination plan. f. Severe weather operation. 13. Fringe Parking. a. Location, function and size. b. Coordination with existing streets and highways. c. Relationship to other feeder modes; walk, bus, bicycle, kiss- ride. d. Staging and expansion opportunities. -35- e. Preliminary plans and profiles. f. Detailed cost estimates for each facility. g. Identify funding source(s) and prepare necessary funding application(s) . 14. Street Improvements. a. Access and egress needs. b. Traffic control requirements. c. Alterations to existing street and highway system. d. Preliminary plans, profiles and cross section for proposed modifications. e. Detailed cost estimate for each proposed i.mprovement. f. Identify funding source(s) and prepare funding application(s) . Section B. Plans and Specifications (Preliminary) . 1. Alignment. (\ a. Plan and profile. b. Guideway centerline. c. Station location. d. Utility location. e. Right-of-way. f. Typical details of each segment. 2. Stations. a. Location and right-of-way. b. Size, dimensions, entrances and exzts, interfaces with adjoin- inq or multiple uses. c. Utility location and connection. d. Feeder modes, i.e. skyways, parkinq, bus stops, kiss-ride. e. Typical building details--each station (schematic design) . 3. Attendant facilities a. Yards and shops. -36- (1) Location, right-of-way, general layout. (2) Utility locations, size and connections. (3) Typical building details. b. Control Center. (I) Location, right-of-way and general layout. (2) Typical building details. c. Traction power plan. (1) Location. (2) Connections to existing facilities. 4. Preparation of Architectural Models and Renderings. a. Compatible models for each segment. b. Renderings of critical station and guideway features. 5. Detailed Cost Estimates and Schedules. � a. Contract packaging. �` .. b. Construction contract and priorities. c. Construction phasing. 6. General Provisions. a. Structural. b. Architectural. c. Mechanical. d. Electrical. e. Vehicle Control and Communication. f. Surveillance. Section C. Procurement Bid Package. 1. System requirements/performance specifications. 2. Product acceptance criteria. 3. Supplier qualification criteria. -37- �-- � Section D. Preliminary Operations Report* (from Task 6) . 1. Detail Ridership and Revenue Forecasts. 2. Operations Plan. 3. Bus Operation Plan. Section E. Safety and Reliability Report (from Task 10! . Section F. Environmental Impact* Statement (from Task 22) . Section G. Social Impact Report* (from Task 16) . Section H. Economic Impact Report* (from Tasks 16 and 18) . Section I. System Rehabilitation Program (from Tasks 9, 12c, 17) . Section J. Financial Plan and Cash Flow (from Task 21) . Section K. Demonstration Evaluation Plan*. Section L. Future Expansion and Reassessment Opportunities Report CSection M. Capital Grant Amendment * May be contained in Experi.mental Design for Evaluation of DPM Program (per DPM Project Implementation Guidelines) . Responsibility The project coordination consultant would have grimary responsibility for this task with major support from the transit system design con- sultant. -38- 2/11/77 F1�RT IV - PRELIDfINARY* DPM BUDGET (PHASE I) (iii thousands of dollars) - . CONTRACT MTC CITY 141t1DOT SERVICES TOTAL MGT, ADP4 & REPORTS 47 37 16 116 216 1 Management & Coordination 2 UMTA Liaison 3 Community Involvement 23 Implementation PZan OPERATIONS 14 22 5 84 125 _ 4 Ridership Forecast 5 Market Analysis 6 DPM Operations Plar. ** 7 Bus Integration ** 8 Parking, Streets & highways ** 13 Personal Security SYSTE,'�S PERFORMANCE 18 5 0 55 78 9 Supplier Liaison � 10 Safety & Reliability PRELIMINARY DESIGN 27 41 15 629 712 11 Guideways 12 Stations i4 Advance Engineerinq 15 Urban Development SOCIAL-ECONOMIC & FZNANCE 20 34 5 101 160 16 Social-Economic** 17 Cost Estimates 18 Benefit-Cost ** �9 Value Capture ** 20 Schedule 21 Financial Plan ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 6 36 2 90 134 22 EIA/�IS** CONTINGENCY 75 TOTAL 132 175 43 1,075 1,500 * Subject to UMTA's Project Implementation Guideline. ** A supplemental budget will be necessary for the anticipated experimental design (before ` and after impact studies) for the evaluation of the demonstration. -39- PART V - PROPOSED PROJECT AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM SCHEDtJLES A. Phase One (Preliminary Engineering and Related Activities) - The Work-Task Schedule is shown on Figure 1, Part I. B. Proposed Demonstration Program schedule: 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 � 1982 1983 Prel•iminary Engineer- ing "�' � System Supplier Selection � Final Design �i �i � " ROW Acquisition C�- Construction �ii r ,rr System Testing Operation Impact Analysis � Impact Report � ��_ � U -40- 2 .�-� . . _,�� y r � r ' � \ Cj � l f:._.'1_ � �_I 1' .i J�-' >7 1�L1 rJ� s_�i l-C:i i� � � /�� r.-_ ` v_\�\1 V.C''.�T. ll..t� t: r T �-t�-^ � - � .r• � � . � . . . _� U i'i r_ CI..�i GJ::� •i - ;� �` �-� ,t , _ ; ,_' '�� i . ;� _.°�,\ �;._ :`l�`_/a ' - ��;, ��. '/ D� � � . Apri 1 19, 1977 ��->�:�.:`.�:%� �, � j�l� 1�'� � � � � � � L. � � � i+ �- . � O ; �C1li3� ��t�� 1�'� �OU� Cl � , �� G fl 7i til i��'�L O�3 CITY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATIOIV � Leonard �W. Levine ; ct�airman, makes tt�e fo11o;��ing _ repor� on C. F. - . [� Ordinance - . . � � Resoiuzion . . . � � O;h Et- - . � _ . � � � �--� � Resol uti on authori zi ng the proper Ci ty of�fi ci als . to execute the attached agreement between the . : Ci ty and the. Metropol i tan �Trans i t Corr�ni ssi on and . - - further authorizing the Mayor to concur -on beha]f - � of the City in the selection and contracting the _ ' - . � third par'ty consultants to be hired by the - � . Metropolitan Transit Commission. _ - - The Committee recommends approval of this resolution. Attachments - .-r-r.v e� • r � e�vc•_r-rcr t:� nr�e c.�t�•r r.nrrr �rr�-.-rc-�•r. �_�..-, CAN.aRY —OEPAR 7MENT v � � x tJ [' �7n 1 6e� 1 1. �w v i.. L �6LUc �—MAYOH . i'FI° IYLI. � � -� �� o��l �e��i�v� . - _ Presenteci 8y Referred To Committee- Date Out of Committee By Date ti�rn��s, the City of Saint Paui and the NIetropolitan Transit Area � have jointly prepared a proposal to the Urban r3ass Transportatia� Ac�ni.nistration to denons�rate an automated people �nover system in Sai.nt • Paul; and , V�'HEREAS, the Urban Mass Transportation Ac�ninistration has selected " Saint Paul as one of four sites, nation.wid�, for the dercionstration; and F�HEREAS, the City of Sai.nt Paul ancl the NIetropoZitan Transit Commission desire a comprehensiva prelaminasy engineer?ng stucly to deter- mine the benefits of implemen�ing a downtown people mover systera� ana `,7'sIERF,AS, the City of Saint Paul and the Metropolitan Transit Commission wish to jointly participate in the preparation of a pre- liminary engineering study; and � _ WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul has on Apri1 5, 1977 _ � approved the report titlecl "Project Descra.ption and Scope of Warlti for preliminary Engineering and Related Activities, Saint Paul Do�,mtowrn People P�Iover Demonstration" (C_F. 268848) ; ancl . �`Tf-IEREAS, the Council has reviewed the proposed Joint Powers Agree- ment between the City of Saint Paul and the r�etropolitan Transzt Area for the conduct of a preliminary engineering study of the Downtown People Mover Transit System; �?OW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Council _c7oes authorize the proper City officials to execute the agreement between the City and the I�ietropolitan Transit Area; COUi�ICIL31Et�I Requested by Departraent of: Yeas Nays Butler . Elozza � In Faror Hunt � � Levine Against By Roedler Sylvester Tedesco Forrrt Approve� by City Attorney Adopted b}• Council: Date Certified Yassed b�• Council Secretary By B� � Appcoved by 6layor for Submission to Council pppro�•ed by �lavor: Date B� By 1 � 0 . lst �� `�1�� 2nd �- , ; 3rd � � �� Adopted �� l � ! Yeas Nays , BUTLER HOZZA � HUNT c, , �(�,a�l� , � �':�� :.�� _ � . LEVINE ---� ROEDLER TEDESCO (PRESIDENT S�'�F£-�5�:�) —�+ ,—Ma.v�e r aac •.v. . . �'o��l �ps�l�� - Presented B}'- Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date FURTHER RESOLVED: The Nlayor of the City af Saint Paul is authorized, pursuant to the agreer�nt, to concur on behalf oL the City in th� selection of and contracting with thira party consultants to be hired by the Nletropolitan Transit Authority. �� COUt�C[L�IEN Requested by Department of: � Yeas Na�;s Butter � H�ua . [n Favor Hunt ' Levin� Against By Roedier . ' � Sylvester , � . _ 7edesco Form Approved by City Attomey Adopted b� Council: Date ' By ��_.... CertiEied Passc•d b�• Council Secretarp B� � App�o�•ed b�• )tacor: Date Approved hy 1�iayor for Submission to Council B� By ,, . ' . f JOINT POP7FRS AGPEr 9E�T - DOy�'�?TO�,^l�T PEOPLE-P�iOVER 1^R�NS IT 5YS^tENl PRELIMINARY EVGIiQEERING ' THIS AGRE��ENT, made and entered into this. _ da�r of , 1977, by and between the rIetropolitan Transit Area, a public corparation and political subdivi�ion of the State oz r.innesota, acting by anc7 -through its qovarning body, tfie Metropolitan Transit Commission, hereinafter referred to as "rITC", ar_d the City of_ Saint Paul, a municipal corporation in the State of rfiinnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City�� , . FiI`I�TESSET'ri: Tri�3EREAS, the City and the N1TC cooperatively prepared and sub- mitted a proposal to the Urban riass Transportation Rdministration, hereinafter referred to as "UMTA", to demonstrate the benefits of fully auto�ated people mover systems in docantown areas; and WHEREAS, the LTI�ITA has selected the City as one of four sites, r.ationwide, for the demonstration of a downtown people mover system, hereinafter referred to as "DP�;" ; and . SV�-iEREc�S, the City and the MTC have each included the sum of - � One Hundrea Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,0OO.�JO) in their 1977 bu-igets for their share of conducting thz preliminary engineering phase of the DP�s; and � � WFiERE.AS, the contributions by the 1��TC and the City will be matched by €unds administered by UMTA in the amount of One 1�Sill ior� Two Hundred Thausand Dollars ($1,200,000.00} for the conauct oi the preliminary engineering phase of the r�P�I; and WHEREAS, the City anc7 the NITC, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, have legal authority to enter i.nto this Agreenent, and to do and perform the things herein agreed: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the City and the MTC agree as follows : 1. Term - This agreement shall take effect upon execution by � both parties and remain in effect until riareh 31, 1978, or until " completion of the preliminary engineering phase as� described in Paragraph 2, whichever is earlier. " _ 2. Scope of Work. - Attached hereto, anci made a part of this ' agreement as "Exhibit A" , . is the project descri�tion and scope of wvrk for the preliminary engineering phase af the Dar�n�own Peonle rlover System. . 3. . PolicY - Establishment of policy guiaing the project shall be the joint responsibility of the MTC's Transit Development Committee and the City' s Development and Transportation Comrrtitt�e. 4. Steering Committee - A steering committee shall 'be established to direct the preliminary engineering phase, and implement � policy directed pursuant to Paragaph 3 herein. This committee � 2 . . •� shdll con�ist of the chairman of the P•iTC, the r4ayor of St. Paul, the chainnan of the Commission' s Transit Development Committee, - - the President of the City Council, the Chief_ Administrator of the MTC, and the Chairnan of the P�etropolitan Council. . r . i 5. Revisions - Any revisions to the project description and . scope of work for the preliminary engineering phase shall be by mutual agree..�r.ent of the parties. 6. Project Directors - �, project director shall be appointea by the MTC and a deputy project director shall be appointed "by the Czty. An associate director may be appointed by the Minnesota ' Department of Transportation if it so desires. 7. Project Directors' Duties - The project director and deputy project director �shall assume such duties as may be estahlished by the Steering Committee. _ - • 8. Grant Recipient - The MTC as the duly recognized �ransit authority for the Metropolitan area shall be the grant recipient : . and primary co*�tact with the UNITA. The MTC shall insure compliance with UP�ITA regulations and requests for the conduc� of the preliminary eng ineering phase. 9. Guideway Specifications - Tne rITC shall have the responsi- bility for the preparation of the specifications relating to the guideway and vehicle system. 3. . . ,� - l0. Station SDecitications - The City shall have the responsib ility for the preparation of the specifications relating _ to the statian development and construction and shall have the responsib ility for station location. � 11. Consultants - There shall be consultants selected by the parties for the conduct of the preliminary engineering phase. The staff recommenaations on consultants shall be froim the party hav- i.ng primary responsibility for that aspect of the project for which the consultants are to be hired. The chief administrator of the � MTC shall submit final staff recommenclations on consultan�s for selection by the MTC. The administrator's final report to the �ITC sbalZ not be subrnitted without the written concurrence by the Ma�ror � of the City. I2. Third Party Contracts - The Z�ITC shall be the contractar with all third party consultants selected for the project_ However, . no third party consultant contracts shall be let without the written approval of the Mayor of the City. The riayor shall have seven (7� : ciays from the receipt of such contracts to review and respond to the riTC. 13. Consultant Infozmation - Upon request, both parties shall make available any and all information and data to the selected consultants necessary for the performance o� specified tasks and as may be requested by the UMTA. 14. peporting/Review - The party having responsibility for a 4. � ca�ponent of thz system shall submit progress reports to the other party when reques�ted to do so. Officials and staff_ of the MTC ancl the City shall at all times during the conauct of the preliminary enginezring phase be.sfforded the opportunity to review any of the work being performed by consultants ar staff. - � 15. Funaing - The NITC and the City shall each provide an amount not to exceecl �ne Hundred Fifty 'Phousana Dollars ($150,000.�0) in cash or in services fvr the conduct of the preliminary engin�ering and related activities. Said contributions shall be used for the benefit of the entire project without reqard to the allocations of responsib ility for the component parts thereof. To the extent that '. either party provides services in lieu of eash, that party shall receive credit for its service5 at its s�andard rate or at a rate acceptable to the othe� party. _ - 16. Data Ownership - The ownership of the data eollectea dur- ing the preZiminary eng ineering phase, tagether v�tith the summaries, diagrams, maps, charts, reports anc3 other data, shall l�e vested wi-th the� MTC: The� City shall, at all times, have access to ancl receive copies of such data, summaries, diagrams, maps, charts, and reports as it requests. 17 . . Termination - This agreement shall remain in effect as . herein provided by Paragraph 1, unless terminatecl by mutual written agreement of the parties. If the agreement is terminated by 5. either party hereto, the part�es mutually agree to pay 10% of the proje�t costs actually incurred up to the termination aate and 10/ of any costs associated with the termination, the r��ain- ing 80% of termination costs to be paid by i1ziTA. 18. UN1TA Funding - Notwithstanding the provisions of Parag?°�ph 17, herein, if IIidTA withdraws its funding contribution for the D��f prior to the completion of the preliminary engineerinq phase, either • party, upon written notice to the other, may terminate this agree::ient. 19. Civil P.ights - The provisions of Minnesota Statutes �181.59 anc3 any and aIl local ordinances which rel ate to civil rights � and discrimination shall be considered a part of this agreement. as ' if set fully herein. 20. Reservation of Powers - It is agreed that neither party relinquishes or waives, any of the responsibilities or pozoers i.mposed upon it by law or regulation by the execution of _this agreem�nt. 21. Scope of A9reement - It is expressly agreed that� neither party intends this agreement to authorize construction for the_ � implementation phase of the DPri proposal, but is strictly lim?ted to the conduct of the preZiminary engineering phase thereof. _ 22. Execution - This agreement shall be valid and effective only when signed by the duly authorized officials of the MTC an@ the City, which officials, by their signatures, shall thereby 6 . .� - �� . ' . . . � � . certify that the financial conu-nitment provided herein has been encumbered . ID7 WI'I`NESS ��:H.EREOF, the parties have caused this agrezment to be executecl by their duly authorized representa�zves as of the first day written above. - Approved as to iorm: CITY OF SA�LVT PAUL Assistant City Attorney Mayor Director, Finance and Management 5ervices . City Clerk METROPOLITAi�T TRAVS IT CO1�v1 IS S ION . Chief Administrator . � . Chairman of the MTC Director of Finance and � Administration for the MTC � , � � . 7 . . �/� `::,, �, __ _ _' ��$'�� JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT DOWNTOWN PEOPLE-MOVER TRANSIT SYSTEM PREL IM INARY ENG INEER ING THIS AGREII�'ENT, made and entered into this. _ day of - � , 1977, by and between the Metropolitan Transit Area, a public corporation a�d �olitical subdivision of the State of Minnesota, acting by and through its governing body, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, hereinafter referred to as "MTC" � and the City of Saint Paul, a municipal cvrporation in the State of Minnesota, hereinafter ref�rred to as the "City�� , . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City and the MTC cooperatively prepared and sub- mitted a proposal to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, hereinafter referred to as "UMTA" , to demonstrate the benef_its of fully automated people mover systems in downtown areas ; and WHEREAS, the UMTA has selected the City as one of four sites, nationwide, for the demonstration of a downtvwn people mover system, hereinafter referred to as "DPM" ; and WHEREAS, the City and the MTC have each included the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) in their 1977 bu�gets for their share of conducting the preliminary engineering phase of the DPM; and ♦ � � � . . . . . � . , �� WHEREAS, the contributions by the MTC and the City wil.l be matched by funds administered by UMTA in the amount of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00) for the condu ct of the preliminary eng ineering phase of the �PM; and WHEREAS, the City and the MTC, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, have legal authority to enter into this Agreement, and to do anc3 perform the things herein agreed- NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the City and the MTC agree as follows : 1. Term - This agreement sha1T take effect upon execution by both parties and remain in effect until March 31, 1978, or until � completion of the preliminary engineering phase as described in Paragraph 2, whichever is earlier. 2. Scope of Work - Attached hereto, and made a part of this agreement as "Exhibit A" , . is the project description anr3 scope of work for the preliminary engineering phase of_ the Daantown People Mover System. 3. . Policy - Establishment of policy guiding the project shall be the joint responsibility of the MTC' s Transit Development Committee and the City' s Development and Transportation Committee. 4. Steering Committee - A steering committee shall be established to direct the preliminary engineering phase, and iunplement policy directed pursuant to Paragaph 3 herein. This cornmittee 2 . . , !*�� shall consist of the chairman of the MTC, the Mayor of St. Paul, the chairman of the Commission' s Transit Development Committee, the President of the City Council, the Chief Administrator of the MTC, and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Council or their duly appointed alternates. 5. Revisions - Any revisions to the project description and scope of work for the preliminary engineering phase shall be by mutual agreement of the parties. 6. Project Directors - A project director shall be appointed by the MTC and a deputy project director shall be appointed kay the City. An associate director may be appointed by the Minnesota " Department of Transportation if it so desires. 7. Project Directors ' Duties - The project director and deputy project director shall assume such duties as may be established by the Steering Committee. . � 8. Grant Recipient - The MTC as the duly recognized transit authority for the Metropolitan area shall be the grant recipient and primary contaet with the UMTA. The MTC shall insure compliance with UMTA regulations and requests for the conduct of the preliminary engineering phase. 9. Guideway Specifications - The MTC shall have the responsi- bility for the preparation of the specifications relating to the guideway an d vehicle system. 3. _._.. _ .... .. __. . _ _ __ _ _ __ _..__. _ .,_... . .�,�.-♦ �� 10. Station Specifications � The City shall have the responsibility for the preparation of the specifications relating to the station development and construction and shall have the responsibility for station location. 11. Consultants - There shall be consultants selected by the parties for the conduct of the preliminary engineering phase. The staff recommendations on consulta�nts shall be fram the party hav- ing primary responsil�ility for that aspect of the project for which the consultants are to be hired. The chief administrator of the MTC shall submit final staff recommendations on consultants for selection by the MTC. The administrator' s final report to the MTC t shall not be submitted without the written concurrence by the Mayor of the City. 12. Third Party Contracta - The MTC shall be the contractor with all third party consultants selected for the project, However, no third party consultant contracts shall be let without the written approval of the Mayor of the City. The Mayor shall have seven (7) days from the receipt of such contracts to review and respond to the MTC. 13. Consultant Information - Upon request, both parties shall make available any and all information and data to the selected consultants necessary for the performance of specified tasks and as may be requested by the UMTA. 14. Reporting/Review - The party having responsib ility for a 4. _._ __ _____ . ..._ . ___ _ _� � . .. . . i'�� *,.r� component of the system shall submit progress reports to the other party when requested to do so. Officials and staff_ of the MTC and the City shall at all times during the conduct of the preliminary engineering phase be.aEforded the opportunity to review any of the work being performed by consultants or staff. 15. Funding - The MTC and the City shall each provide an amount not to exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousanc3 Dollars ($150,000.00) in cash or in services for the conduct of thE preliminary engineering and related activities. Said contributions shall be used for the benefit of the entire project without regard to the alTocations of responsi.bility for the component parts thereof. To the extent that � either party provides services in lieu of cash, that party shall receive credit for its services at its standard rate or at a rate acceptable to the other party. 16. �ata Ownership - The ownership of the data collected dur- ing the preliminary engineering phase, together with the sexmmaxies, diagrams, maps, charts, reports and other data, shall be vested with the MTC. The City shall, at all times, have access to anc3 receive copies of such data, summaries, diagrams, maps, charts, and reports as it requests. 17. Termination - This agreement shall remain in effect as herein provided by Paragraph l, unless terminated by mutual wri�ten agreement of the parties. If the agreement is terminated by 5. �_.__ _ _. ._ � __ _ ..._ _._; . _�_ _ _ . _. _ _____. _ _.._ _ �_.._.. ...�._.._ ..._._.. - , _. . , . . either party hereto, the parties mutually agree to pay 10% of the project costs actually incurred up to the terminativn date and 10/ of any costs associated with the termination, the remain- ing 80/ of termination costs to be paid by UMTA. 18. UMTA Funding - Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 17, herein, if UMTA withdraws its funding contribution for the DPM prior to the completion af the �reliminary engineering phase, either � party, upon written notice to the other, may terminate this agreement. 19. Civil Rights - The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and any and all local ordinances which rel ate to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered a part of this agreement as if set fully herein. 20. Reservation of Powers - It is agreed that neither party relinquishes or waives any of the responsi.bilities or powers imposed upon it by law or regulation by the execution of this agreement. 21. Scope of Agreement - It is expressly agreed that neither party intends this agreement to authorize construction for the implementation phase of the DPM proposal, but is strictly Iimited to the conduct of the preliminary engineering phase thereof. 22. Execution - This agreement shaZl be valid and effective only when signed by the duly authorized officials of the MTC and the City, which officials, by their signatures, shall thereby 6 . . ,. :. ., , � , �'.��L�'�'�:"�+i . certify that the financial commitment provided herein has been encumbered. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement ta be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the first day written above. Approved as to form: CITY OF SAINT PAUL Assistant City Attorney Mayor Director, Finance and Management Services City Clerk METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSIQN Chief Administrator Chairman of the MTC Director of Finance and Admini,stration for the MTC 7. __.m_ _�.._..._:. _ . _. . _. _ � . __ . .._. . � .,.. .. .. ,.. __ . _. _ ._ _ . _ _...___ .�__._._ _. _._.___. ___ ,. rW._ ....._ ___ -,\ , � � ;�� i ^\ � �S , . . • �'�. . � . � . . . . . . � � .. . '� � �F °.k-�i . � . ` �.` ,�,: s i , � � . . �'r . '. � ' . k� . . . . " � � � ' . ' �`� - .w r .. : ♦� i. .. n :t ._. ' . , ' . � y: . . . . . ��' . . . . . . .. .3 �. . .`� ' . . �. � . . . . 1; . , . . . . .. : . . �'� . . .. . , .. . � - , ' � - . � _ � � ' �'x T :� � ' ..� ' .. � • � . ` � .4�jy � ', , ' � � � � .� .� � . , � F�.� .. �� { n� / . } i �'`,# , � � ' � . i . .i�': . . . . � � • . . � �{j� . ' . , �. . 'i. . ' � .i ' . . . � . � ` •�..�' p� 7 �. �... . . , . . .. '/ '.. .. . , � .. � � . , ..� ��, . .r . I�: . ,. '". I rH'� `s : - . . �� . � . � . . . . � ' � , �£ . . , �. . - . � � � �. �. � - �� . +:� , . � _ , , � . . . � �� .. � �' . _: \ � �.� . � J . � . ' � d ' J � . ' � . � _� � .. . . t :��. . �� ^k f . ��a '� � � _. . . ��4`.A . . � � � . � � _ .. . � - � . ' ' -"d � . .. A' . €�,: •;l�p�`3.�. t�i�; I$7'? ,. x$ � � � ;� . , � ,� . } _ `� ' '.� ` , `�`�"�� ; . . \ �:: , , q� , _ , ' . , • - � , � a ... � . .��.��. �.��.,lri�� . . . . � 1 � � � ` 4 � � � \ �� ,r � C3t� �rtel�C: '�fee��cn."�st�f�t �.tt� . � ' �oa�ai TiB, C3.t�: ' � . r �. � :t sc..��., t�ia�1► _ , � ', � � j _ �-'r � � � , � � �r �t3rs. �� , r:� , , . � � : ♦ - � _ ;, � ' C�is�l . �e#+��d,��o ti� �`i� 3M4s�t �d �t��e4 ' ` � �1au��;�� r �or�t4� o�E v� , . �, ` _ a�;'�a�ire�tL � � +�.�t,y, aoa� t��pn��ta�+d► �ta�i� �a �c .�r ; , : � ai�d., t�g oi° �,#.�# �a�et�r C�w,�t� '�qr:� g��.�'�"' .r • ' �� , o�' �I�s �+�-�r�1,� l�rrtr '!'tae�� S�rst�e� '' � ,t�.� , ; � • ,! ,� : �4 , ; �� . � ' ;: Y�t, ts�,Y yout's, 1� , .� y� � ..{SF . � � . . - .+ � �. � + .� . , �� . . . .. . �� . .. �. �. . - - . , . . . . .�1�i .. � . . �. �� . � � � . Vi .� ..Vi�F�. � . .- . _ 'F�.�' , � . . . . ... � , , _ ��. . , � .. � . � . - . � .. .. . . �t �� . � � � � . . �i 1�A � �+3 ; . . , ' + _ '' � + , . - . ,y ,,�° ` ' ' % �, s � , ' , . ' _ z rt� - , � ' :*� , , , ' � ' ' . � � '� i�a � . � . . . . . . . � . � T, • . +'k�; . v . . �r ., . , . . r i . . . .. . , � u: � . � � .. - � # �� . ; . .. . � 1 . . .. " , . �� . ' � . . . � . . � . ' . . .. . . l.,. . . . . . e. � � . . . �� . ' .� . . � , ' . , . . ' . _. . . / '. �f: . � . . �. . � .. � . ' .. � . . � l �� . - - �.: -' . . . � . . .. � '. . � r :tl � - � � . � _ � - . . �� . �., � - -� � . /� . � _� ' ' � ; � � =� � � � � � � �. }� , ti, � ... . � -'i . . l t i . . .� . . - .. - . ' �''¢4 . . .. � . �� , . � . � r 3 F . � . . . � .i�' . .. � . . . • \.. . � ;l + �pfi-`e ` . �� . # �fl,,. , :j� kt r , • � . , . . s:�= _