Draft Evaluation Criteria
This memo provides a set of draft criteria that can be used to evaluate candidate corridors for the Streetcar Feasibility Study. These criteria will be reviewed by City staff and the Project Steering Committee and may be refined based on their feedback/comments.
The Streetcar Feasibility study focuses on 14 potential streetcar corridors that have been identified based on their inclusion in the Primary Transit Network (PTN). The goals of this study are to:
Evaluate the feasibility and cost of developing streetcar services in these corridors
Identify initial operating segments for streetcar operations; and
Prioritize future streetcar investments.
A critical component of this study is to ensure that any future streetcar investment will provide service that meets PTN requirements in every way. The PTN is a permanent network of all transit lines — regardless of mode or agency — that operates every 15 minutes or better all day for at least 18 hours every day. The PTN can be defined based on performance criteria for five key dimensions of transit quality: Frequency, Span, Speed, Reliability and Load.
Of the 14 candidate corridors, twelve were part of the “definite PTN network” and two were part of the “recommended PTN network,” as shown below:
Definite PTN Corridors:
Broadway (North Memorial to downtown-multiple routes)
Central
Chicago (south to 60th Street E)
15th Ave SE, Como (east to St. Paul)
Franklin (between Hennepin and 26th Ave S)
Fremont/44th Ave N, Osseo Rd
Hennepin (between Lake St. and downtown)
Lake/Midtown Greenway (SW LRT to St.Paul)
Nicollet
University/4th Street (east of Hennepin to Stadium Village)
Riverside/Cedar (between Washington and 26th Ave S)
Washington (between Cedar Riverside and Broadway)

Recommended PTN Corridors:
Penn/Highway 55 (south of 44th Ave N)
Lyndale/Bryant (south to 50th)
The goal of this study is to determine the feasibility of streetcar operations in Minneapolis and to develop initial priorities for streetcar implementation. In order to accomplish this goal, evaluation will occur in a series of “iterations” or phases. Phase I will “screen” each of the 14 corridors to eliminate those with obvious fatal flaws. The list of potentially feasible corridors is then put through a more rigorous evaluation, Phase II, which focuses on more additional criteria that can help in prioritizing corridors. The result of the Phase II evaluation will narrow the analysis to no more than five high priority corridors that will move forward to Phase III where detailed capital, operating and implementation plans will be developed.
It should be noted that new data collection and modeling will not be conducted as part of this study. If data required for any of the quantitative criteria is unavailable or unreliable, then that criterion will be modified or eliminated prior to the Phase II evaluation.
Phase I Evaluation: Initial Screening of Candidate Corridors
The Phase I evaluation uses “screening criteria” to eliminate those corridors (or segments) with obvious fatal flaws, such as difficult street geometry, steep hills and the presence of major utilities that could not cost effectively be relocated. Only corridors (or segments) that pass all of the screening criteria, as presented in Figure 1 below, would be carried forward to the Phase II evaluation. Several criteria include a “tentative pass” category, which if the corridor passes all other criteria, then it will move forward to the Phase II evaluation. For example, sections or a corridor with grades over 6% would automatically fail, but grades between 3% and 6% may be problematic but still possible. A corridor with grades between 3 and 6% will move forward to Phase II, but only if that corridor passes all other screening criteria.
Screening may be used to eliminate entire corridors, or to reduce the viable length of a potential streetcar corridor by limiting service to the parts of the corridor where streetcar operations would be feasible.
Figure 1 Phase I Evaluation: Screening Criteria

Criteria and Description: Failing Threshold:
Grade. Corridors with grades that inhibit streetcar operations, or make streetcar operation too expensive, such as those with grades over 6%, are eliminated from further study. Corridors with grades between 4-6% are carried forward to Phase II only if it passes all other screening criteria. Grades greater than 6%;
Grades between 4-6% (tentative pass)
Note: wouldn’t disqualify for grade if it is already a bus route
Street Geometry. Identifies whether street geometry would inhibit streetcar operation, or require significant capital investments that make operation infeasible. This includes major modifications to interchanges, skyway conflicts, exclusive right-of-way needs or other types of transit priority that would be required (such as bridges, underpasses, etc.). Potential for wheel noise. Required turns that are less than 90 degrees;
Segments with required weaving or curvature that cannot be negotiated by a modern streetcar.

Other Physical Barriers. Evaluates whether other physical barriers besides grade and street geometry inhibit potential streetcar operations without significant capital expenses. Examples include low bridges or skyways, streets that are too narrow and at-grade freight railroad crossing. Bridges or skyways with less than 18 feet of clearance for combined streetcar and auto operation; (less clearance is acceptable if there is an exclusive streetcar lane, to a minimum of 16.5 feet.

Lane widths that cannot be striped to more than 10 feet;

At grade freight railroad crossings (at grade crossing of two tracks requires difficult FRA approval and would likely not be allowed without expensive additional signalization)

Layover and Recovery Terminal. Evaluates whether there is a reasonable location for a layover and recovery terminal where streetcars could change directions safely. May be used to identify potential extent of routes or may eliminate some routes from consideration.
Utilities. Corridors that would require relocation of major utilities (such as water, storm and sanitary) would make streetcar operation too costly to be provided cost effectively. Presence of major water, storm and sanitary utilities within 3 feet of proposed streetcar trackway (fatal flaw)
between 3 – 6 feet of proposed streetcar trackway (tentative pass)

Speed and Reliability. Corridors with substantial traffic congestion, and where exclusive ROW is not possible, may be unable to meet service standards established for the PTN. Corridors or segments with volume/capacity ratios greater than 1.0, which could impact reliability and travel speed of mixed flow corridors.

Not fatal flaw if there is a parallel route for streetcar or for vehicles

Duplication of Service. Streetcar service should not be designed to duplicate other major rail investments. Corridors that directly compete for riders with existing or programmed LRT service will be eliminated at this phase.

The Phase I evaluation will include a clear discussion of how each corridor performed with regard to each criteria. Only those corridors that passed all screening criteria (or tentatively passed) will be carried forward for further evaluation in Phase II. Corridors where streetcars have extensively been studied (such as the Lake Street / Greenway corridor) will automatically be carried forward to Phase II of the evaluation.
Ideally, the Phase I evaluation will narrow the list of 14 candidate corridors down to no more than 8 corridors. However, all viable corridors will be carried to the second phase of evaluation.
Phase II Evaluation: Develop Short List of Corridors for Final Study
The Phase II evaluation will put the remaining corridors through a more rigorous review including more quantitative criteria.
Because one potential source of capital funding for streetcar service in Minneapolis is the Small Starts program, the Phase II evaluation criteria are organized according to four basic criteria the FTA uses to support funding decisions for Small Starts projects:
Transit Supportive Land Use;
Cost-effectiveness;
Economic development.
To adequately evaluate the list of refined candidate corridors, a conceptual operating plan will be developed for each corridor using a standard service frequency and span of service that meets the basic criteria of the PTN network (15 minute service, 18 hours/day). Figure 2 below shows the Phase II evaluation criteria and what is measured for each criterion:
Figure 2 Phase II Evaluation: Detailed Criteria

Criteria and Description: Measure
Transit Supportive Land Use
Service to Major Transit Generators. Evaluates how well the corridor serves major transit generators, such as employment centers, universities, schools, hospitals, neighborhood retail centers, etc. This analysis would be based on a GIS evaluation, measuring the number of major transit generators located within ½ mile of the streetcar line. §1 Number of major transit generators served within ¼ mile of each corridor.

Land Use Types. Measures transit supportive land use types (by square footage) within ½ mile (as the crow flies) from the streetcar corridor. Both existing land uses and potential land uses under existing zoning will be considered. Note: Existing zoning should be adjustment for planned land uses where significant differences are known.
§1 Number housing units (if data available)
§2 Square footage of commercial (if data available)
§3 Square footage of office (if data available)

Transit Operations
Ability to Maintain Adequate Speed and Reliability. Evaluates existing traffic conditions in the corridor to determine whether or not streetcar operations would be able to maintain adequate speed and reliability. (For purposes of evaluating LOS, assumes that streetcars would operate in mixed-flow traffic as buses do currently and therefore be exposed to the same level of delay). Analysis will not assume preemptive signals. §1 Existing transit speed as percent of speed limit (Peak and Midday)
§2 LOS at each intersection along the corridor.
§3 Availability of exclusive ROW with minimal acquisition costs.
Physical Integration with Existing Transit System. Evaluates how well a streetcar line would integrate with the existing transit system. §1 Measures how well a streetcar would mix with existing bus routes on the corridor and crossing the corridor.
§2 Impacts on LRT and BRT ridership (qualitative – i.e., adjusted from PTN ridership data)
Expandability. Measures the expandability of a streetcar system, compared to other high-ranking streetcar, LRT, BRT or commuter rail corridors. §3 Evaluates the corridor’s ability to connect to other streetcar corridors to create a streetcar system (qualitative)
System Continuity. Fits into an overall system for high capacity transit investments. Provides for investments that are well distributed throughout the City. Potential to extend corridor. §4 Coordination with overall transit system.
§5 Opportunities for expansion (qualitative)
Transit Ridership
Bi-directional all day demand. Measures travel demand patterns in the corridor, ranking corridors with bi-directional all day demand higher than corridors that have primarily a peak oriented or single directional demand pattern. §1 Total trips into and out of the corridor by time of day.

Population Within Corridor. Measures total population served within ½ mile of the corridor. §2 Total population within corridor
Employment Within Corridor. Measures the total number of jobs within ½ mile of the corridor. §3 Total employment within corridor
Low Income Population. Measures the population of low income households within ½ mile of the corridor. §4 Total population of low income households (under $25,000 annual household income)
Zero Car Households. Measures the population of zero-car households within ½ mile of the corridor. §5 Total population of zero-car households
Special Generators. Identifies the presence of special generators that may impact ridership, including volumes of visitors and number of events. §6 Distance from special generators; number of events and number of attendees.
Current and Future Transit Ridership. Measures current transit ridership and mode share, and evaluates potential future ridership based on future population and employment and route productivity. §7 Productivity and ridership of current routes modified for future development opportunities
Cost-Effectiveness
Maintenance Site. Unlike a bus maintenance facility, which can be located wherever land is available, a streetcar garage will need to be located on track connected to the main alignment This criterion evaluates the presence of land within ½ mile of the corridor that could be used for a maintenance facility. Sites that are within public ownership will receive a higher score. §8 Availability of publicly owned sites within ½ mile of corridor.
§9 Proximity or connectivity to existing rail maintenance facilities

Capital Costs. Estimated startup costs assuming PTN levels of service (15 minute all day headways and 18 hours of service). §10 Estimated capital costs (assuming standard cost/mile).
§11 Estimated capital cost per rider
Time to Implement. Factors that might affect implementation and/or cost such as scheduled street reconstruction, available funding, etc. §12 Evaluates corridors (or segments) that are slated for major reconstruction
§13 Interest in providing local funding support.
Operating Costs. Estimated operating cost assuming PTN levels of service. §14 Estimated ongoing operating costs (assuming standard cost/hour)
§15 Estimated operating cost per rider based on high level ridership estimates adjusted from PTN.
Revenues Generated §16 Estimated fare collection
§17 Other local funding source potential.
Economic Development
Economic Development Potential. Evaluates in more detail the potential of the corridor to generate significant economic development. Existing land use/density compared to ideal density with streetcar (based on the ¼ mile and ½ mile density estimate done for Hiawatha)
§18 Land use/density comparison of corridors
On-Street Parking Impact. Evaluates the width of the street and whether or not a streetcar line would significantly impact on-street parking – especially through local business districts and in downtown Minneapolis. It is assumed that any angled parking would need to be converted to parallel parking. Parking could be eliminated to create a transit lane and/or to provide for turning movements when streetcars are operating in mixed flow traffic. §6 Number of on-street parking spaces eliminated
Qualitative Measures
Area Targeted for Redevelopment. Measures whether or not a corridor is targeted for redevelopment, either in the Minneapolis Plan or other neighborhood planning initiatives §19 Evaluates redevelopment initiatives in the corridor (qualitative: high, medium, low)
Community Support. Evaluates level of community support for streetcar technology in the corridor. §7 Measures amount of community support from stakeholder meetings and prior studies (qualitative: high, medium, low)
Private Financing Support. Evaluates the level of business/developer support for private financing of streetcars in the corridor. §8 Measures amount of community support from stakeholder meetings (qualitative: high, medium, low)
Ease of Implementation. Evaluates ease of implementation including overall assessment of potential for federal funding, need to coordinate with other jurisdictions, and overall assessment of barriers. §9 Likelihood of attracting federal funds.
§10 Need to coordinate with other jurisdictions.
§11 Overall assessment of barriers.
(qualitative: high, medium, low)

Following this evaluation, the corridors would be measured against each other in a comparative analysis, and the up to five highest potential corridors will be identified for high priority implementation. In this final study, a detailed operating and capital plan will be developed, including more refined operating/capital cost estimates and ridership estimates. The final study will also include a more detailed evaluation of economic development potential in each corridor. The final evaluation will also include potential funding sources, owner/operator arrangements and integration with the local bus network.