Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Lyssa Leitner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lyssa Leitner. Show all posts

Saturday, May 12, 2018

South Washington County's Red Rock Corridor "Terminated"!

Red Rock Corridor
It's official, according to the latest MN Department of Transportation report to the legislature the Red Rock Corridor planning has been terminated on their end. Stating on page 11 of the report under "Terminated and suspended" the line has "been removed from future studies and/or consideration" Going on to say on page 54 "...it was determined that while bus rapid transit was the preferred option, a dedicated right of way was not cost effective at this time."

Countless millions of local tax payer dollars have been spent studying this bus rapid transit (BRT) corridor from south washington county up to St. Paul. Yet despite this massive set back the County corridor planners are still continuing to plan this line as if they never got the news from
the State. They still hold meetings, have a contract with Kimley Horn to design it, and still talk in meetings on the next steps. Granted, the last time they met according to their webpage was four months ago in January. According to this last meeting there are only 3 meetings scheduled for all of 2018 (p.7).

Before MNDOT stuck a fork in the transit line and called it dead the corridor planners spent $550,000 dollars to rebrand it calling it the " implementation plan" ... that failed. So they spent thousands more for another rebrand and tried calling it a local bus route, that too appears to have failed. Because members of the Red Rock Corridor Commission are dropping like flies. Dakota County abandoned them, Hastings left too, and now Minneapolis is calling it quits trying to plan this terrible bus corridor or route or whatever they want to call it. 

The County must know deep down in their hearts the mass transit corridor planning here is terrible because they go through a new mass transit corridor planner every year for the Gold Line and the Red Rock Corridor. Transit planner Andy Gitzlaff's last meeting was in July of 2015.   Lyssa Leitner took over as the primary transit planner from there but was let go or quit in August of 2017 as it was the last meeting that listed her as the contact for questions on planning (ie: the assigned transit planner). Next to take over was Hally Turner but her last meeting as contact for planning was November of 2017. And now the fourth project manager in less than 3 years is  Emily Jorgensen according to the "contact us" link for the corridor.

The problem isn't lack of transit planning skill or even funding (thanks to the deep pockets of the Met Council). The problem is how bad these transit line ideas are for Washington County. For example, the bus route planning experts of Metro Transit refused to even study the idea of a bus route like the current plan is, let alone fund it. (use ctrl "f" to find route 363 in  Metro Transit's Service Improvement Plan.) The Gold Line is such a terrible idea that the Metro Transit says the best idea is to simply expanding the express bus service:  

Yet with all the facts on why this Red Rock Corridor would never work the blind supporters in elected office are still trying to keep it going.  
Representative Franke and Jurgens are looking to get $5.6 million for the line with their bill  HF2385. Even if the corridor funding request bill doesn't pass they still have the un-elected Met Council that will fund the corridor and keep it going no matter how bad it is. Last session the legislature gave the Met Council a jaw dropping $210.8 million dollars. Before the Met C took over funding transit corridors their budget was $100 million (2006). So they have over $100 million dollars to back door fund terrible corridors like the Red Rock and Gold Line. Last year Representative Runbeck led the house to pass a budget for the Met C of just $61.5 million, but the senate GOP thought otherwise and both chambers passed the $210.8 million for them. 

Until the Met Council's unheard of budget is limited or we can elect fiscally responsible County Commissioners, there is no end in sight for transit lines like the Red Rock Corridor and the Gold Line that is equally unimpressive. 



Monday, January 11, 2016

Lake Elmo Kicks Gateway Corridor out!

 Since last year when the Lake Elmo city Council unanimously voted in support of allowing the Gateway Corridor/Gold Line to come through their city we had begun warning them about the facts of the Corridor and what it would do:

Lake Elmo Will Have to Accept Major Development with the Gateway Corridor/ Gold Line


Mailed every resident of Lake Elmo who'd attended council meeting
The "slow growth" majority of the Lake Elmo city council made up of Anne Smith, Julie Fliflet, and Julie Lundgren were initially shy to believe the evidence we shared. They assured me they had the Gateway Corridor planners promised they'd not force anything on them.  Things like high density housing, low income housing, and box store shopping centers.

In a last ditch effort we turned to the Lake Elmo voters and mailed every single resident of Lake Elmo who had attended a city council meeting over the last two years a copy of my article above. It's to these voter's credit for listening and speaking up to their city Council. Thankfully they were able to change their Council's mind.


At the January 5th Lake Elmo City Council meeting they voted 3-2 to kick the corridor out (Mayor Pearson and Coulcilor Bloyer voting for the corridor). Councilor Anne Smith sent me an e-mail stating 
"Hey Matt,
You are uncharacteristically silent.  The vote is over. Gold line is out." 

 With the corridor out of Lake Elmo this likely means the Corridor will again be studied to pass on the south side of I-94 on the Woodbury side that has more congested and winding roads. The Woodbury side was initially ruled out as an option for the corridor for this very reason. Add to that the fact it cost tens of millions more to transform the roadways to accommodate dedicated shoulders for the corridor there.

Added costs for the nearly half a billion dollar corridor was not an acceptable option, nor was making the corridor stray even further from it's intended purpose. That is to be a Bus "Rapid" Transit corridor (BRT). Winding down back roads and stopping every block with a stop light in addition to stopping at all the stations adds a significant amount of commute time... Especially if the corridor is competing with the express bus routes (park and ride) that already serve the area and are promised to not be affected with the opening of this corridor. Why ride a bus that can barely get over 30mph when you can ride direct in your car or on the express bus route direct to the inner city?

The Pioneer Press is even covering the undeniable controversy with this unpopular route stating:
"At $485 million, it's a bus line that would be more expensive per passenger than any light-rail line in the state. It would be the state's second-most-expensive transportation link per passenger ever built -- exceeded only by a bus line from Apple Valley to the Mall of America."

Is the $485M St. Paul-to-Woodbury Gold Line bus worth it?

Would the Gateway Corridor even be practical on it's back road path? Grocery shop at the Sunray shopping center and by the time you get home your frozen food is melted and your produce is bruised from the shuffle (and better not buy more than a couple bags).... it makes no sense and at one of the latest Open Houses for the corridor about a hundred senior citizens and local residents spoke up as reported by AlphanewsMN:

Why this is all very important to stop:
The bill to Quadruple the metro sales tax to fund unsustainable transit projects like the Gateway/ Gold Line and Red Rock Corridor passed the Senate the 2015 session with 3 of our Washington County Legislators: Katie Sieben, Susan Kent, and Charles Wiger. Thankfully it didn't pass in the House. The bill is tabled until the 2016 session.








  

Read more on our related coverage:
Contact your State Representatives through "who represents me:" http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/districtfinder

Contact our County Commissioners and tell them we need to get out of the CTIB tax:
fran.miron@co.washington.mn.us 
gary.kriesel@co.washington.mn.us 
lisa.weik@co.washington.mn.us     
karla.bigham@co.washington.mn.us

Friday, January 1, 2016

Proof Washington County Mislead us all about the Red Rock Corridor

1-14-16: Last open house on the Red Rock Corridor was yesterday regarding the massive route change to DOUBLE the station stops  We were there, but the technical analysis data to help residents understand the detailed cost and other differences between the routes was not. Lyssa Leitner, the corridor planner said they plan to post them for the public in two days. See Part 1 to this article: Washington County Refuses to Disclose Latest Red Rock Corridor Cost Analysis

2-26-16: The Implementation data was finally posted nearly a month after the January 28th Commission vote.



Last month we wrote about how 
Washington County Refuses to Disclose Latest Red Rock Corridor Cost Analysis despite the fact they are making the final route decision later this month. The differences between the two routes are big. The original route (Alternate 1) was picked from the 2013 Alternative Analysis Update study (AAU) it has only 6 stations and takes a near direct route from Hastings to Union Depot in St. Pual; The Alternate 2 route was picked from an extra transit study called the "implementation plan," it doubles the station stops to 12 and takes over an hour to go from Hastings to Union Depot with all the stops (p.15 of 12/2 meeting). Alternate 1 had a claimed cost of $45.8 million (p. 14 of AAU pdf) and Alternate 2 somehow has a claimed cost of just $43.7 million on the vague implementation plan the County refuses to explain or release the data on publicly.

(The 2007 AA study had the Alternate 1 route estimated at $75 million [p.13]) 



Apparently to make this new Alternate 2 route appealing to the public the County corridor planners are telling the public and the media the original route only ever cost $28.6 million despite all the overwhelming evidence from their own studies proving otherwise. Come to find out they're fully aware they're misleading us all with these wildly low cost estimates; because in private they're applying for grants with the apparent real numbers at the same time they're telling us completely different low ball figures.

At the same time the County tells it's citizens the Alternate 1 cost is only $28.6 million
they're applying for CTIB funding stating the actual original route cost is $55.5 million.

From their September 2015 application to CTIB for a $150,000 grant (ironically to extend this $550,000 study) they state  the original route estimate is $40 million for construction plus another $15.5 million for the buses and other costs for a total of $55.5 million for the original 6 stop route!(on page 23 of the pdf) Not $28.6 million and perhaps higher than the 2013 AAU estimate of $45.8 million due to inflation or the fact they've changed their mind about the Cottage Grove station stops by shying away from the Langdon Village stop. (who knows because they refuse to explain).

We know this $55.5 million dollar quote is for the original Alternate 1 route by looking at page 23 of the CTIB application. They don't mention the additional station stops of Mounds Boulevard, Earl Street, Etna Street, Saint Paul Park, 2 different stops in cottage grove (no longer one at Langdon Village) and now 3 in Hastings (see their implementation plan site)... only the locations of the five needed stops are on the application (union depot not mentioned because it's already built). The only station stops listed are: "Lower Afton, Newport, Cottage Grove and Hastings Station Improvements" with 1 on Lower Afton rd, 1 in Newport, 2 in Cottage Grove, and 1 in Hastings. (St. Paul Park was never in Original plan yet it's on their implementation plan image, but not in the AAU see page 43 of pdf...so that just another flaw on their part)

The local media, through the South Washington County Bulletin, was quick to publish without questioning the bad numbers in this December article "Six more stops identified for possible Red Rock BRT route" I've explained in the past to them how ridiculous the estimates for this corridor are by simply asking them to consider the fact the Red Line BRT corridor in Apple Valley cost $112 million with six stations and less than half the distance! However, most recently we emailed the editor of the Bulletin Scott Wente asking him to have the article corrected and he responded over a week ago "Thanks for your note. I'll check on the need for a correction." There's still no correction. Even though it contradicts their own piece from 2014: "With a price tag of around $45 million in capital costs, BRT, Leitner said, is a more financially feasible option compared to the $585 million needed to get commuter rail off the ground." swcbulletin.com/content/bus-rapid-transit-chosen-red-rock-corridor

It would be great if the Bulletin fixed the article and actually began looking into why the County is getting away with all this... perhaps we just answered our own question. If the media did their job there'd be no need to write these posts.


we just want the truth out. Please share this post, email your silent County Commissioners who voted this through, local legislators, and representatives. Both the Red Rock Corridor and the Gateway Corridor are disasters with all the evidence showing they'll be massive white elephants for a transit problem existing infrastructure could be adjusted to meet the need of for literally hundreds of millions less.



Related County Corridor Articles:
At Her Own Crossroads: Will Representative Fenton Lead or Appease
Exclusive: 8 local Republican Legislators Explain their Position on Transit

​At least the Pioneer Press is waking up to how bad one of these corridors are in this piece from Bob Shaw:

Is the $485M St. Paul-to-Woodbury Gold Line bus worth it?

"At $485 million, it's a bus line that would be more expensive per passenger than any light-rail line in the state. It would be the state's second-most-expensive transportation link per passenger ever built -- exceeded only by a bus line from Apple Valley to the Mall of America."

Contact our County Commissioners:
fran.miron@co.washington.mn.us         
gary.kriesel@co.washington.mn.us    
lisa.weik@co.washington.mn.us             
karla.bigham@co.washington.mn.us

Contact your State Representatives through "who represents me:" http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/districtfinder





You know it's time to Stop expanding failed transit projects like the Gateway/ Gold Line and Red Rock Corridor when not even the 2014 Democrat controlled House, Senate, and Governor's office Would increase the tax to pay for it.








The bill to Quadruple the metro sales tax to fund unsustainable transit projects like the Gateway/ Gold Line and Red Rock Corridor passed the Senate the 2015 session with 3 of our Washington County Legislators: Katie Sieben, Susan Kent, and Charles Wiger. Thankfully it didn't pass in the House. The bill is tabled until the 2016 session.




Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Washington County Refuses to Disclose Latest Red Rock Corridor Cost Analysis


1-14-16: Last open house on the Red Rock Corridor was yesterday regarding the massive route change to DOUBLE the station stops  We were there, but the technical analysis data to help residents understand the detailed cost and other differences between the routes was not. Lyssa Leitner, the corridor planner said they plan to post them for the public in two days. See Part 2 to this article: Proof Washington County Mislead us all about the Red Rock Corridor

2-26-16: The Implementation data was finally posted nearly a month after the January 28th Commission vote.


Part 3 to this story: 

Over 40 Red Rock Corridor Decision Makers Unable to Provide Answers About New Route



The Red Rock Corridor (RRC), a planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor in South Washington County has been in the planning stages for over 8 years. We've covered how the corridor is already troubled with major problems: Red Rock Corridor Faces Delays as 7 Facts Become Undeniable. The greatest problem is proving ridership will be enough to meet even the low standards of Metro Transit. (State average for a corridor paying for just the operating costs is only 30%) In an attempt to pick up ridership they needed to adjust the route off highway 61... one big problem... that makes the corridor not so "rapid."

From:
Red Rock Corridor Faces Delays as 7 Facts Become Undeniable
.


Washington County Commissioners and Public Works Director Don Theisen added another major stumbling block for the project when they backed corridor planner Lyssa Leitner after she refused to explain inconsistencies between their own corridor studies. Leitner responded on 12-9-15 with the aid of a county attorney in this email (also below) refusing to directly answer fair questions requesting clarification regarding the cost and impact of the newest RRC route known as Alternative 2 in the "implementation plan". 

The email was also sent to the County Commissioners, Leitner's supervisors, and South Washington County legislators . None of them spoke up in defense of tax payers.

There is an open house in January before the final approval yet citizens have no hard information comparing the route options side by side. The information was planned to be released for the public months ago and is still unavailable (sourced below under number 2). Leaving tax payers blind.

We found the following massive problems on initial inspection of what little corridor planners have decided to release and we asked Leitner to explain in the letter below (also linked above):
I: Diverting Alternate 2 way off 61 totally loses it's title of being a "Bus Rapid Transit" route (by definition) into being like an express bus route... which the area already has 3 of. Taking over an hour to go from Hastings to St. Paul is not "Rapid" (64 minutes according to p. 15 of 11/2015 RRC meeting).  According to google such a trip from Hastings to Union Depot by car would be 4x faster at about 20 minutes: https://goo.gl/maps/DArYfhXaVcK2... add the time BRT riders would take driving to a BRT station and walking to their final stop from the destination and you have the nightmare ridership of 835 people a day on the Red Line Corridor in Apple Valley (MNDOT Status Guideways Report p. 26).

II: This new alternative Route 2 which diverts further off 61, doubles the amount of stations from 6 to 12, and goes further into Hastings over doubling the "acreage served" (750 to 2,100) some how costs less than the original BRT plan of $45.8 million in the Alternative Analysis Update(p.14 of AAU pdf)?
III:How can this new route possibly cost 62% less  than the $112 million dollar Red Line Corridor in Apple Valley, have the same number of stations, yet be over twice the length (13 vs 30 miles)?

Read the simple questions asked and Leitner's responses below (or on this link) to show as sourced proof the answers were not only evasive by avoiding the questions through the guidance of the assistant County attorney, but also manipulating us all by making it appear the answers were in front of us the whole time. we assure you, they are not, and prove it.






At Her Own Crossroads: Will Representative Fenton Lead or Appease


Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015
Subject: Re: Red Rock Corridor Alternative 2

To Ms. Leitner: 


we're surprised at your responses for all of us. In front of the County Commissioners and area legislators that hold the keys to the project funded by our tax dollars. The six questions were thoroughly thought out and sourced to show every effort was made to find the answers independently. The questions stem from the inconsistencies between the 2014 Alternative Analysis Update (AAU) and your most recent estimates for the same route option (alternate 1) in the 2015 implementation plan. Your responses are no different than what the senior citizens in Oakdale experienced from you on October 15th when you were brought to tears when caught smirking while they pleaded with you to listen and answer similar questions about the Gateway Corridor: http://alphanewsmn.com/2015/10/oakdale-residents-speak-out-against-the-485-million-bus-route/ and: this bulletin op-ed account

Your copy and paste response answer for every question to view past meetings on the surface appears helpful. However, you know as well as we know, the meeting minutes and agendas you reference just show the items were discussed rather than a resource for the information behind the discussion that could answer the questions. Below we source each of your references and include why each response is unacceptable even compared to the quality of information provided from the Gateway Corridor Commission (which we admit is adequate). Follow up questions are in Maroon for you to consider.

(full original questions with supporting data as well as your full responses are on the email below this one or on this link)

1.) First question
 asked you to please send out raw data to your email pool on the info used to come to the alternate route decision so they can be better prepared at the open house. Your answer is not only no, but you acknowledge that the data is not readily available (as you offer to allow an appointment with the data rather than post it online). Furthermore you do not indicate that the "technical data" will be posted. The data requested is not an outrageous expectation. It's posted for every other corridor study in the past for this corridor and the gateway. ie: the AAU study for the RRC:  2013 Technical Memorandum #4 Capital Cost Evaluation  Why not post the implementation plan data too? Especially if you are not willing to answer any questions?

At the time of sending my e-mail we weren't aware the December 2015 meeting you directed me to was posted. I appreciate the tip, it was the only piece of data in all your answers we have not poured over. However it revealed you didn't spend $400,000 on this new route study you're spending a total of $550,000! p.45 of December 2nd RRC meeting. What's the point of a contract with Kimley Horn if they can't do a job for the contracted cost?

2.) Question 2 on why there are no feeder lines so it doesn't take over an hour to take a trip that would take 20 minutes in a car... instead of writing a sentence or two kindly explaining (perhaps a logical reason) you direct me to another dead end. we reviewed the link to the July meeting agenda you reference and it includes a presentation from the special interest group East Metro Strong sharing Met Council survey data not collected from South Washington County about how great transit can be in an ideal urban setting (starting on p. 24 of pdf)... nothing on answering any of the questions. we reviewed the July meeting minutes... no data, only evidence it was discussed (hardly a recording of minutes). With the cluster that is the RRC page it's not surprising the meeting minutes for July is also the link for the September meeting agenda off the Corridor page: http://www.redrockcorridor.com/agenda-meeting-min/

Again, it does state that the alignment choice was discussed at all the outside TAC, BAC, and "map meetings"; however the Red Rock Corridor doesn't share any of those meeting minutes like the Gateway corridor does. 

Interestingly at the September meeting agenda p.15 of the pdf it states "The results of the analysis will be previewed with the TAC, B-CAC, and Commission in October. Once all committees have reviewed the technical information, it will be released for public comment" (the committees have reviewed it and that hasn't happened... I asked you to release it.. and you say no, we have to come in to see it [your answer to question 1]) 

In October Ms. Turner states the data would be released for the public on page 6 of the pdf for the October meeting minutes... why would we have to go to the County offices to review the data your commission promises to have released last month?... kind of important since you are making all these heavily impacting decisions that are worth tens of millions of dollars.

3.) Will it cost tax payers at least $400,000 every time you come up with a new route option? Followed up with providing the fact the Gateway corridor plans are more organized to group route studies together. You arrogantly respond "There is no public data responsive to this question no[r] does the inquiry seek existing data." we can't begin to explain how condescending and disrespectful that response is for tax payers to hear. 

4.) Why are the cost and ridership data of Alternate 1, aka the BRT route in the AAU, way off in your references to it in your new implementation plan? You again refuse to simply answer a legitimate question by referring to meeting minutes void of hard data or to watch an entire meeting that may or may not be available from SWCTV... Who do you think you are responding to citizens like this? Especially after your rebuke from the man in Oakdale who said: “Please don’t laugh at me. This destruction of my home is serious business to me.”

5.) How is it history is seemingly rewritten to make it look like this new alternative Route 2 which diverts further off 61, doubles the amount of stations from 6 to 12, and goes further into Hastings over doubling the "acreage served" (750 to 2,100) some how costs less than the original BRT plan of $45.8 million? You respond "Data on the capital costs for both the BRT in the AAU and the BRT alternatives for the Implementation Plan can be viewed in technical  memos available by appointment at the Washington County Government Center. " Again, from your commission it's stated at the September and October Corridor meetings that the technical data was going to be public last month (sourced above)... 
6.) Perhaps the most fair question of all: How can this new route possibly cost 62% less  than the $112 million dollar Red Line Corridor in Apple Valley, have the same number of stations, yet be over twice the length (13 vs 30 miles)? Like your answer for question three regarding cost, you come up with an arrogant and insulting response: 
Washington County does not possess data in response to this request. 
How you can feel you are doing honest and responsible work Ms. Leitner is beyond me. How can you have any pride in the Corridors you are planning in Washington County if you can't answer six fair questions that should be easy to answer? These questions could just as well come from a County Commissioner should they not have the blind faith they have in you.





On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Rick Hodsdon <Rick.Hodsdon@co.washington.mn.us> wrote:

  You email below has been forwarded to me for response as the Washington County Data Practices Officer. I reply to your inquiries in the green font directly below each inquiry. To the extent you desire to inspect any of the referenced data you may contact me to arrange for those logistics.

Richard Hodsdon
Assistant Washington County Attorney
15015 62nd Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-430-6119 direct




Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2015
To: redrockcorridor@gmail.com; info@redrockcorridor.com; Lyssa Leitner; Jan Lucke; Transportation; Don Theisen
Cc: Lisa Weik; Fran Miron; Ted Bearth; Gary Kriesel; Karla Bigham; rep.dan.schoen@house.mn; rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn
Subject: Red Rock Corridor Alternative 2 is not in AAU...starting from scratch? cost and ridership info looks way off?

To: leaders involved in the Red Rock Corridor planning... it's complicated to say the least. Please ensure Ms. Leitner can "reply all" for us as it's in your best interest to also understand her answers to these six simple questions. Failing to obtain a response for all of us is an assumption tax payers should have blind trust and that you care not to understand that tens of millions of tax dollars could be wasted on this. we ask in this manner with all you involved because the corridor planners refuse to answer funding and logistical questions and respond by stating they are only required to respond to data practice act requests. we thank you ahead of time for your support:

To: Ms. Leitner,

Thanks for the info on the Alternative Route 1 vs Route 2 in the email that was sent for the RRC below. You promise that Route 2 is the "most efficient" and that the public has the opportunity to review the option at an open house after the decision was already "unanimously approved".

1.)    Could you please send out raw data to your email pool on the info used to come to that decision so they can be better prepared at the open house?... Now that the corridor is traveling far off hwy 61, doubling the amount of stations from 6 to 12, and going further into Hastings I'm sure the costs and impact data are far different since "BRT" routes require road enhancements on non-freeways.... ie: the $35 million dollar "preferred highway 61/ CSAH 19 interchange concept" on page 11 of the May 30th, 2013 RRC Commission meeting

The data provided to the Commission is included in the December 2nd meeting packet that is posted online. Technical reports on capital cost, operating and maintenance costs, and service plan are available for viewing if you want to set up an appointment at the Washington County Government Center.  

2.) According to the November 2015 RRC commission meeting (p.3) it looks like considering this one extra route is costing $400,000. Why is such a back roads route being considered? Why no feeder lines? Diverting Alternate 2 way off 61 totally loses it's title of being a "Bus Rapid Transit" route (by definition) into being like an express bus route... which the area already has 3 of. Taking over an hour to go from Hastings to St. Paul is not "Rapid" (64 minutes according to p. 15 of 11/2015 RRC meeting).  According to google such a trip from Hastings to Union Depot by car would be 4x faster at about 20 minutes: https://goo.gl/maps/DArYfhXaVcK2... add the time BRT riders would take driving to a BRT station and walking to their final stop from the destination and you have the nightmare ridership of 835 people a day on the Red Line Corridor in Apple Valley (MNDOT Status Guideways Report p. 26).


The data  provided to the Commission and conversations that lead to the decision making are included in the July and September meeting packets and meeting minutes. Both are on the Red Rock Corridor Commission website and we trust you have the skills to avail yourself of that resource as it thereby be at no cost to you..

3.) Will it cost tax payers at least $400,000 every time you come up with a new route option? The Gateway corridor you're planning had 3 BRT routes considered in it's AA study  and many more alignments for each in the Scoping data.


There is no public data responsive to this question no does the inquiry seek existing data.

4.) Why are the cost and ridership data of Alternate 1, aka the BRT route in the AAU, way off in your references to it in your new implementation plan?
Because in the AAU it sates the BRT route, aka Alternative 1, would:
-Have a capital cost of $45.8 million (p.14 of AAU pdf) Yet has half the stations (6) compared to the new Alternate 2 route (12) p.15 of 11-2015 meeting
-Have an operating cost of $3.8 million/yr (p.14 of AAU pdf)
-Have a total combined (BRT and express) daily ridership of 2,420/day (p.13 of AAU pdf)


This subject was discussed verbally at the December 2nd Commission meeting. Data in the form of a video recording of that event  can be obtained from South Washington County Telecommunications Commission and meeting minutes will be posted  and available to you with the January Commission packet.

Yet in your new implementation plan you say the same route (alternate 1)
Only would have cost $28.6 million?
Had an operating cost of over $6 million/yr!
and combined (BRT and express) Ridership was 2,750?

5.) How is it history is seemingly rewritten to make it look like this new alternative Route 2 which diverts further off 61, doubles the amount of stations from 6 to 12, and goes further into Hastings over doubling the "acreage served" (750 to 2,100) some how costs less than the original BRT plan of $45.8 million? To make this new alternate look even better on your page it looks like you nearly doubled the operating cost of the original route from the AAU ($3.8 million/yr) to what you now quote (as $6 million/yr)... The same for ridership... in the AAU ridership never separates BRT from express (wildly assuming no riders of express will be lost to BRT) and say ridership was higher than originally calculated for a number of 2,750 instead of 2,420... (if the answer is 2030 vs 2040 data than why do you only gain 330 riders over 10 years?)

Data on the capital costs for both the BRT in the AAU and the BRT alternatives for the Implementation Plan can be viewed in technical  memos available by appointment at the Washington County Government Center. 

6.)  How can this new route possibly cost 62% less  than the $112 million dollar Red Line Corridor in Apple Valley, have the same number of stations, yet be over twice the length (13 vs 30 miles)?
Washington County does not possess data in response to this request.
Please explain as to ensure a fair understanding is had by the public on what you are doing with tens of millions of tax dollars at stake... If we pour hours over this and can't understand your math I'm sure the legislature will continue to easily be convinced to refuse to fund this corridor directly (since 2011). 

If in two weeks you can't explain I'll see if the Met Council, CTIB, or the FTA can explain. Being on phase one of CTIB next to the Robert Street and River View Corridors looks like strong competition since both serve way higher density populations (p.366 of Met Council 2040 plan).






From: Red Rock Corridor <info=redrockcorridor.com@mail213.atl171.mcdlv.net> on behalf of Red Rock Corridor <info@redrockcorridor.com>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 3:24 PM
Subject: We Want Your Feedback!

If you are having trouble viewing this email, please click here to view our online version.
To ensure you receive future e-mails from Red Rock Corridor, please add info@redrockcorridor.com to your address book.
We Want Your Feedback!
The Red Rock Corridor Commission has made a recommendation for the corridor’s bus rapid transit route and is seeking feedback on the route and station locations for the project.

Two Alternatives
Prior to the Commission’s action, two bus rapid transit route alternatives were reviewed comparing travel time data, projected ridership, capital costs, and operating considerations. Route Alternative #1 travels primarily along Highway 61 while Route Alternative #2 provides more direct access to the corridor communities by deviating from Highway 61 in appropriate locations.

On December 2nd the Commission unanimously recommended Route Alternative #2 as the most efficient manner to server the southeast metro communities.


Click on the image above to view full size PDF document. 

The recommended route will provide convenient access to the largest number of riders, offers the lowest operating cost per rider, serves the most jobs in relation to the station locations, and stays true to the overall vision for transit in the southeast metro.

Attend the Open House
The commission invites the public to attend an open house to provide their feedback:

January 13, 2016
5:00 to 7:00 pm
DeForth Community Room at St. Paul Park City Hall

A brief presentation and information boards will help participants understand the differences between the two alternatives. Staff will be available to answer questions.

Other Ways to Comment
If you are not able to attend the open house, comments will be accepted by phone, email or mail through January 20, 2016 at::

651-430-4314
redrockcorridor@gmail.com 
Project Manager – Lyssa Leitner, AICP
Washington County Public Works Department
11660 Myeron Rd North
Stillwater, MN 55082