1. PROJECT UPDATE PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE #5 MARCH 12 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM Northern Service Center

2. WHY ARE WE HERE? ALTERNATIVES STUDY WRAP-UP Technical evaluation and recommendations Feedback from project partners Study conclusion Future steps Input from you 2

3. WHAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED? PROJECT RECAP Project Scoping Preliminary Screening Conceptual Definition and Preliminary Evaluation Advanced Definition and Evaluation 3

4. PROJECT GOALS 4

5. PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES 5

6. FINAL ALTERNATIVES 6

7. EVALUATION 7

8. KEY CONSIDERATIONS COST Streetcar: $399 Million BRT: $29.2 Million RIDERSHIP ESTIMATE About 3,100 per weekday for both modes ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Higher impact anticipated with streetcar 8

9. TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) Bus Rapid Transit on Robert Street SECONDARY RECOMMENDATIONS Express service on TH 52 Allow for streetcar on Robert St. in St. Paul 9

10. POST-RECOMMENDATION 10 Ongoing dialogue between counties, St. Paul, West St. Paul Reaction to technical recommendation Consistency with broader city plans and goals Broader consideration of transit policy and other plans St. Paul streetcar study (shorter route - to C. Chavez) Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan Need to define policy on streetcar City comprehensive plans Allow and support more intensive development near Robert?

11. POST-RECOMMENDATION (CONT’D) DISCUSSION OUTCOMES Continued interest streetcar alternative Interest from both cities on anticipated development benefits Need for commitment from cities towards more intensive development Changes to comprehensive plans and capital investments 11

12. STEERING COMMITTEE/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Conclude Alternatives Analysis without decision on Preferred Alternative Carry both Robert Street alternatives forward for additional consideration BRT Streetcar Efforts to establish express service on TH 52 12

13. LOOKING FORWARD STEPS TO A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Land use planning with cities Is intensified development a goal of cities along Robert? To what extent? How to accommodate through comprehensive plans? Can one mode help more than another? Define streetcar policy Re-evaluate as needed 13

14. LOOKING FORWARD (CONT’D) FOLLOWING LPA DECISION Environmental documentation Engineering Funding Timeframe for each dependent on mode, decision making process 14

15. HOW YOU CAN HELP Comments today Input on comprehensive plans and neighborhood plans (2015-18) Input to city, county officials Stay in contact (email list) joe.morneau@co.dakota.mn.us 15

16. THANK YOU! WWW.ROBERTSTREETTRANSIT.COM