Loading...
12-051 - 06-19 - support for bottineau transitway locally preferred alternative LPA Resolution 12-51 June 19, 2012 Member Freiberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OF THE BOTTINEAU TRANSITWAY LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) WHEREAS, the Bottineau Transitway is a proposed project to provide transit service which will satisfy long-term regional mobility and accessibility needs for businesses and the traveling public in the heavily traveled northwest area of the Twin Cities, and; WHEREAS, the Bottineau Transitway is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, extending approximately 13 miles from downtown Minneapolis to the narthwest serving north Minneapolis and the suburbs of Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Grystal, New Hope, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, and Qsseo, and; WHEREAS, while the Bottineau Transitway would provide transit service for residents and businesses in the cities of New Hope, Osseo, and Maple Grove; the preferred alignment identified by the PAC does not run direetly through these three cities, and; WHEREAS, the HCRRA in partnership with the Metropolitan Council and ather project stakeholders recently completed the Bottineau Transitway Alternatives Analysis Study that in addition to the No Build and Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives; recommended four Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternatives and one Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alfiernative be advanced for further study in the federal and state environmental review processes, and; WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) and the Metropolitan Cauncil have initiated both federal and state environmental review for the Bottineau Transitway project, and; WHEREAS, federal funding will be pursued for this project from the FTA, which has consequently been designated as the lead federal agency for this project, and; WHEREAS, the Bottineau Transitway recently completed the Scoping Phase of environmental process, and; WHEREAS, through the Scoping process, the PAC recommended further study of the No Build and TSM alternatives along with further study of four LRT alternatives (A-C- D1, A-C-D2, B-C-D1, B-C-D2) in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), and; WHEREAS, through the Scoping process, the PAC recommended no further study of the BRT alternative, and; WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012 the HCRRA adopted (Resolution No. 12-HCRRA-0028) the recommendations of the PAC regarding the alternatives to be further evaluated in the Bottineau Transitway Draft EIS, and; Resolution 12-51 - Continued June 19, 2012 WHEREAS, the identification of an LPA is a critical step in pursuing federal funding for the Bottineau Transitway, and; WHEREAS, the LPA includes the definition of the Bottineau Transitway mode and alignment, and; WHEREAS, the adoption of the LPA and amendment of it into the region's long- range transportation plan, the Transportation Policy Plan, concludes the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Alternatives Analysis (AA) process, and; WHEREAS, the LPA wilt be one of the build alternatives identified and studied in the Draft EIS, and; WHEREAS, the LPA selection process does not replace or override the requirement to fully examine alternatives and determine the adverse impacts that must be avoided or mitigated under the federal and state environmental review process, and; WHEREAS, the four LRT alternatives to be studied in the Draft EIS were further considered with respect to defined project goals, objectives and evaluating criteria set forth in the AA study and further refined during the Scoping Phase of the federal and state environmental analyses, and; WHEREAS, the ARCC and the CAC have provided input into the selection of an LPA, and; WHEREAS, the ARCC, in a technical advisory role to the PAC, provided the following input: • Affirm the ARCC's April 2012 input to the PAC during the scoping decision process advising that study of the BRT alternative should stop, BRT should not be considered for the LPA, and advising the PAC to select LRT as the locally preferred mode for the Bottineau Transitway. • Select Alignment D1 (BNSF near Theodore Wirth Park) as the preferred route for the southern end of the Bottineau Transitway, and that Hennepin Caunty, Metropolitan Council, and the City of Minneapolis should work together to develop and deliver separate transit, livability and economic development investments to north Minneapolis neighborhoods as soon as possible. • The ARCC concluded that the technical justification for the A and B alignment is different, but balanced. The ARCC advises the PAC to consider the five project needs in their policy decision on the preferred alignment. The ARCC also recommends Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, Maple Grove and/or Brooklyn Park work together in the future to consider separate/additional transit (bus) service and/or related capital investments to the "non-LRT" branch that integrate with the regional transit system (separate from the Bottineau project). Resolution 12-51 - Continued June 19, 2012 WHEREAS, the Bottineau Transitway PAC took into cansideration the technical information on each of the alternatives developed to date, along with the ARCC, Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and public input provided as part of the LPA public hearing and comment process and passed a resolution on the recommended LPA an May 30,2012; defined as LRT Alternative B-C-D1, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Golden Valley supports the LPA recommendatian of the PAC, and identifies LRT Alternative B-C-D1 as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Bottineau Transitway project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Golden Valley commits to working with the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority and the Metropolitan Council to address the following for the Bottineau Transitway: 1. Address long-term maintenance, safety and capacity issues, including accommodations for multi-modal transportation opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians on Golden Valley Road (CSAH 66) between Trunk Highway 100 and the east City limits of Golden Valley. Additionally, the capacity and safety of the intersections of Golden Valley Road, Glenwood Parkway and Wirth Parkway must be carefully considered. 2. Further assess more detailed data related to noise, vibration and light pollution along the corridor. 3. Further assess the need for and location of possible noise and retaining walls that will not negatively impact the environment within the eorridor. 4. Pursue opportunities for a Hennepin County Community Works project within or around the D-1 alignment. 5. Further assess the negative impacts to properties along the corridor and look for ways for the County and the Metropolitan Council to address those impacts. 6. Pursue funding opportunities for improvements to homes adjacent to the corridor for the purpose of mitigating negative impacts. 7. Evaluate the possibility of lowering property taxes on negatively impacted properties. 8. Further evaluate parking options and passenger drop-off access at the proposed Golden Valley Road station location. 9. Work eollaboratively with the Minneapolis Park Board to ensure that the negative impacts to Theodore Wirth Regional Park, and surrounding parklands, are minimal and that natural areas are maintained in their current condition to the largest extent possible. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution adopted by the City of Golden Valley be forwarded to HCRRA and the Metropolitan Council for their consideration. � .. ' Shepa M. Harris, ayor Resolution 12-51 - Continued June 19, 2012 ATTEST: �� � Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Harris and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Harris and Freiberg, and the following voted against the same: Clausen, Pentel and Scanlon whereupon said resolution was denied.