The URL can be used to link to this page

88-619 .fE - CITV GLERK WK i- FINANCE G I TY O SA I NT PA II L Council ��s� I �L�1�ERV - MivPORTMENT File N 0. ' ` .Coun Resolution ,_,� _ �..�> � �� Presented By / R Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the Regional Transit Board nd the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority have initiated a Study of ight Rail Transit (LRT) Alignments in the Midway Corridor in Saint Paul , and WNEREAS, the RTB and the RCRRA have equested the opinion of the City of Saint Paul regarding selection of a prefer ed alignment, and WHEREAS, the Study report has evalua ed the alternative alignments against 10 major criteria, and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul 's Co prehensive Plan identifies Land use and Transit policies and factors to be c nsidered regarding location of major transit corridors in the city, and WHEREAS, the Study by the RTB and th RCRRA provides information on six alternative alignments within the Midway Corridor, and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Co ission finds that the RTB / RCRRA Study information indicates that Universi y Avenue still remains the best overall option for location of an LRT align ent in the Midway area of Saint Paul because it has the highest potential for: 1. Attracting and serving iders to and from the Midway 2. Attracting non-working iders to use the comnercial uses found in the Midway 3. Complementing and encou aging the development objectives of the Midway area and the Cit 4. Getting built at a reas nable cost level 5. Providing the most dire t accessibility for riders from the Midway to Downtown and the Cap tol area, and - COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond Lo,� [n Fa or Goswitz Rettma° B Scheibel A gai n t Y Sonnen Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY gl. Approved by lVlavor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY WMITE - GTV CIERK PINK ` - FINANCE G I TY O SA I NT PA U L Council CANARV -l�EPARTMENT �/J ��BLI?E - M14YOR File NO• -T' /� ` Counc 'l Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the Planning Commission als identifies certain issues concerning the placement of LRT in the University A enue right-of-way which must be resolved before it can be bui lt, and WHEREAS, there is still considerable uncertainty among residents and business owners in the city about LRT's role 'n transit service and its effects and operations, questions which can be a swered in the next stage of engineering studies, and WHEREAS, the City Council has receiv d comments from several neighborhood and business organizations detailing the'r concerns, BE IT NOW RESOLVED, that the City Co ncil of the City of Saint Paul strongly endorses University Avenue as the ci y's preferred alignment for Light Rail Transit development in the Midway Corridor between downtown Saint Paul and the City of Minneapolis if LRT is to be uilt, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Cit Council requests the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority to establish University Avenue as its preferred alignment for LRT and to proceed to preliminary engineering to resolve the engineering issues, inform residents and businesses, and to work with them to resolve issues and problems before ny final decision to build LRT, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Ci Council offers to the Regional Rail Authority our support, participatio and appropriate resources to complete the development of LRT in the Midway Co ridor to the satisfaction of the County, the City and our residents and busi ess owners, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Ci y Council commends the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority on their wo k on transportation issues affecting the county, and endorses the Rail Autho ity's proposal to proceed both with Preliminary Engineering for the Mid ay corridor and with development of a Comprehensive LRT and Transit Plan or the county. COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond �ng [n Fa or Goswitz Rettina�� B �he1be� _ A gai n t Y Sonnen Wilson AUp - 3 19 Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certifie a • Coun ' S et y By By � J Approv Mavor: Date ��t7 — Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council g By PU9I.ISNEB A U G� p 1 g 8, WHITE - CITY CLERK PINK - FINANCE . GITY O SAINT PAUL Council r,('��p BLUERV - MAYORTMENT �� File N 0. � Counc 'l Resolution Presented By Referred To Committ e: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also identifi s certain issues concerning the placement of LRT in the University venue ri t-of-way which must be resolved before it can be built, BE IT NOW RESOLVED, that the City Co ncil of the City of Saint Paul strongly endorses University Avenue as the ci y's preferred alignment for Light Rail Transit development in the Midway Co ri or between downtown Saint Paul and the City of Minneapolis, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Ci Council requests the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority to establi University Avenue as its preferred alignment for LRT and to proceed reliminary engineering to resolve the engineering issues surrounding u o University Avenue as the LRT alignment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that e Cit Council offers to the Regional Rail Authority our support, parti pation and appropriate resources to complete the development of LRT in the Mi way Cor idor to the satisfaction of the County, the City and our residents. COUNCIL MEMBERS Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Dimond ��g [n Favor Goswitz Rettman B s�he;d�� _ Against Y Sonnen Wilson Form Appro ed y it Attorn Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY— � gy, Approved by Mavor: Date Approve y Mayor for Su i ion� Council gy By \ . ;� r . . � WHITE - CITV CIERK PIdK - FINANCE. G I TY O SA I NT PA U L Council C'/IG_/`p CANARV - DEPARTMENT BLUE - MAVOR File NO• �d (O ] Cou c 'l solutio Y ��,�-� � �� Presente By `Ly'��'" Referred To l��`�S� � �- -' � Committee: Date �"'-�� Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the Regional Transit Board nd the Ramsey ounty Regional Rail Authority have initiated a Study of ight Rail Tra sit (LRT) Alignments in the Midway Corridor in Saint Paul , and WHEREAS, the RTB and the RCRRA have equested e opinion of the City of Saint Paul regarding selection of a prefer ed align ent, and WHEREAS, the Study report has evalua ed the alternative alignments against 10 major criteria, and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul ' s Co pre ensive Plan identifies Land use and Transit policies and factors to be c ns dered regarding location of major transit corridors in the city, and WHEREAS, the Study by the RTB and th RCRRA provides information on six alternative alignments within the M way Corridor, and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning om ission finds that the RTB / RCRRA Study information indicates that Unive sit Avenue still remains the best overall option for location of an LRT a 'gmm �t in the Midway area of Saint Paul because it has the highest pot tial for: 1. Attracting and se ving r ders to and from the Midway 2. Attracting non- rk ride s to use the commercial uses found in the Midway 3. Complementing and encour ging the development objectives of the Midway area a d the City 4. Getting bui at a reaso able cost level 5. Providing the most direc accessibility for riders from the Midway to Downtown and the Capi ol area, and COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond �� [n Favo Goswitz Rettman B Scheibel A gai n s t Y Sonnen Wilson Form Approve b y ttorne Adopted by Council: Date i Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY gy. Approved by �Navor: Date _ Approved y Mayor for Submission to Council By BY � . ��i� -+ �S``�i•o. CITY OF SAINT PAUL 4 .a�';P �' '� OFFICE F THE MAYOR '' 'i��eiii°u ; � �� .... 347 ITY HALL SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA 55102 GEORGE LATIMER (61 ) 298-4323 MAYOR April 12, 1988 � � James Scheibel, President and �pR � 8 1nn Members of the City Council ��Q� Saint Paul/Ramsey City Hall and Cour house J,�C�USCjLI�A� Dear City Council Members: c��g£L� The Ramsey County Regional Rail Aut rity (RCRRA) and the Twin Cities Regional Transit Board (RTB) have recently f arded to the City copies of their joint report on "Light Rail Transit Plann' g Analysis for the Midway Corridor." The Report provides comparative informa ion on six possible alternative Light Rail Transit (LRT) alignments connecting owntown Saint Paul, Minneapolis, and the University of Minnesota Minneapolis ampus with the Midway area of Saint Paul. The RCRRA/RTB study involved city/c nty residents and businesses in a Midway Corridor Task Force consisting of d'strict council and business representatives as well as a county-wide Rail Autho ity Advisory Committee consisting of residents. ri The RCRRA and the RTB have asked th City of Saint Paul for its comments regarding the Report and recommenda ions regarding the alternative alignments. I understand that the Authority and Board have also requested comment from the various citizens and business group affected by any of the alternative alignments. I have asked the Saint Paul Plannin Commission to review the Report and develop recommendations for our con ideration. The Commission has completed its review and forwarded to me its ecommendations. I am enclosing them with this letter. The Planning Commission recommends hat if LRT is to be built in the Midway area, University Avenue should be t e preferred alignment. The Commission bases its conclusion on the fact th t the University Avenue alignment best attracts and serves riders to and f om the Midway, best complements the city's Comprehensive Plan land use and dev lopment objectives for the Midway area, and has the best chance of being built t a reasonable cost. S^�c•46 . . . . . . . (;��i� • � .James Scheib'el, President and Members of the City Council Page Two April 12, 1988 I strongly support the Planning Comm ssion's recommendation and urge you also to endorse University Avenue as Sain Paul's choice for location of the Midway LRT line. University Avenue is an e citing place attracting many new businesses. It is used by many lfain Cities residents. LRT could greatly increase the accessibility of both U iversity Avenue and Downtown Saint Paul to the region. It would be the new lin that keeps the Midway and Saint Paul in the center of Twin Cities commercial activity. All of the alignments under consider tion have pros and cons attached to them, and the University Avenue alternativ is no different. The Planning Commission identifies a number of issues that a fect LRT development in University Avenue: Access to businesses, traffic flow a d capacity, provisions for on-street parking or alternatives, station spa ing and access to the LRT by riders. You will hear these issues raised as unresolvable problems making LRT on University Avenue impossible. I don t believe that they are unresolvable. They are, however, consistent and le itimate concerns which must be addressed seriously. But they can only be add essed by going the next step to actually perform the engineering of the LRT 1'ne. The Planning Commission recommends that these be among the critical iss es resolved at the next stage of engineering and planning an LRT line using University Avenue. That is the point at which we can resolve these uestions about LRT's function on the street. You should also be aware that there re some folks who will be strongly in support of LRT on one of the other 5 alignments studied by the county, , particularly the "Burlington Norther (BN) Southern Alignment" . This alignment has also been intriguing to me and I have welcomed the county's efforts to further analyze this alternative. e BN alignment offers a different mode of operation in LRT than does Universit Avenue but I agree with the Planning Commission that the University Aven alignment is the all-around better choice. A big issue regarding the BN as a ch ice revolves around the feasibility of actually securing a separate right o way from the railroad and the safety of LRT operations adjacent to an active freight rail line. I have been discussing these issues with Commissioner John inley, Chair of the County's Rail Authority, and we intend to jointly ursue an answer to these questions with Burlington Northern. If any conclus'ons are reached with the railroad I will report these to you. One issue is quite clear from the co nty's study of LRT options in the Midway. This corridor has the greatest pote ial for strong transit ridership of any transit corridor now being studied i the Twin Cities. LRT would make the Midway an even stronger backbone to he public transit system and to the Midway's role as the center of the in Cities. .. . , . . �r ��9 " James Scheib�el, President and Members of the City Council Page Three April 12, 1988 With these issues in mind, I am atta hing a resolution for your consideration. I hope you will also strongly concur in the positive role LRT can have for Saint Paul and the Midway and will a so endorse University Avenue as the City's preferred alignment. Very truly yo rs, Geor La.timer May � GL:ss Enclosures cc: James Christenson, Planning Co ission Chair Don Nygaard Ken Johnson Peggy Reichert : . . - ,� ,�. , � � � �,-�--��i 9 c�ity of saint paul plar�ng commission reso tion f�e number 88-1 S �te March 25, 1988 WHEREAS, the Regional Transit Board nd the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority have initiated a Study of ight Rail Transit (LRT) Alignments in the - Midway Corridor in Saint Paul, and WHEREAS, the Study report has evalua ed the alternative alignments against 10 major criteria, and • - WHEREAS, the RTB and the RCRR.A have quested the opinion of the City of Saint Paul regarding selection of a prefer ed alignment, and WHEREAS� the City of Saint Paul's Co rehensive Plan identifies Land use and Transit policies and factors to be c sidered regarding location of ma,jor transit corridors in the city, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission in 1 84 issued the report "University Avenue Transit: Bus or LRT" in which the C ission recommended that LRT be the preferred technology for transit imp vements, and WHEREAS, the Study by the RTB and the RCRRA provides information on other corridors in addition to University enue and the Commission and staff have reviewed that study, BE IT NOW RESOLVED THAT, The Saint Pa 1 Planning Commission finds that the RTB / RCRRA Study information indicates t at University Avenue still remains the best overall option for location of a LRT alignment in the Midway area of Saint Paul because it has the highest potential for: 1. Attracting and serving ri ers to and from the Midway 2. Attracting non-work rider to use the commercial uses found in the Midway 3. Complementing and encoura ing the development objectives of the Midway area and Lhe City 4. Getting built at a reason ble cost level 5. Providing the most direct accessibility for riders from the Midway to Downtown and the Capit 1 area moved by M� �onded by in favor i 4 G�.��1 � Abstained 1 r BE IT FURTHER RESOLUED THAT, the University Avenue alignment needs further review of the following important issues and their impacts: Access to businesses and land uses along University Avenue during construction and operation of IRT Traffic flow and capacity questions along the Avenue On-street and off-street parking need and supply for business and uses along the Avenue Station spacing and locations and physical accessibility by riders Development of a bus system and routes which will complement the LRT and the surrounding neighborhoods without detrimental impact AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the Saint Paul Planning Commission recommends to the Mayor and City Council that the City of Saint Paul's position be that the University Avenue alignment be chosen by the RTB and the RCRRA as the preferred alignment for LRT in the Midway Corridor and that the Transit Board and the Rail Authority proceed to preliminary engineering to resolve the issues surrounding use of University Avenue as an LRT alignment. , � , . . l�� ,�� , CITY OF SAlNT PAUL �.•' % � - PLANNING COMMISSION �; ;F: ' j�j'jlta' := . � � �C )ames Christenson,Chair `��°Q _o`E 25 West Fourth Streel Samt Paul,Mmnesota 5�10. �•.• 612-2:8•3:'U GEORGE LATIMER n��rc�a T0: Saint Paul Planning Co ission FROM: Economic Development Co ittee DATE: March 17, 1988 SUBJECT: Midway Corridor Light R il Transit (LRT) Study conducted by the Regional Transit Board nd the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority I. INTRODUCTION In December of 1987 the Ramsey Coun y Regional Rail Authority (RCRRA) and the Regional Transit Board (RTB) jointl initiated a new Light Rail Transit rtudy of the Midway Transportation Corrid r. The Study's purpose was to re-examine the alternatives for location of a ight Rail Transit (LRT) line that would serve the Midway area and connect i to the University of Minnesota and both the Minneapolis and Saint Paul down owns. Various alternative alignments were suggested by commissioners and board members, and others developed by th consultant. In all, six alignment alternatives (five of which had A a d B sub-alternatives) were selected for review. The alignments are shown on Map l. In order to establish a Citizen Par icipation process for the Study the RCRRA established a "Midway Corridor Task Force" consisting of representatives from the 16 neighborhood organizations a d business groups affected by any one of the alignments; the State Fair Boar ; and the members of the County-wide Rail Authority Citizens Advisory Committ e. A review process was established by the Rail Authority using the two citize 's committees. (See Figure 1.) A series of criteria have been sele ted for use in evaluating the alternative alignment. These are shown in Figu e 2. II. AUTHORITY FOR PLANNING COMMISS ON / CITY OF SAINT PAIIL REVIEW 1987 Minnesota Legislation (Senate ile 282) provides that preliminary design plans for any LRT line must be appr ved by any cities through which it passes. While this level of study is not "P eliminary Design"� Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority has requested Saint aul's review and recommendations on the proposed alternative alignments. i. ' ��✓�. • " -�� . � � � ,:~',' �_yi�.�-+ _ _ . . , �_ ___ - �1`� ` /�' '., �r_.,. f�� '_i � � ./ � , - �• L I- 'I � ' - ' , — � J ' � — -- �� ,•f� :•�- . — �..�'�� •�`- � ' ... - � . . �� - _ ��r _—��,..,� ;. , - a . --� � � -�-,i � ' �..�''-� ;• �"'. �. — ��., `-- ' � .--�,. � � • �--- t— W � ` `.,._ _ -� . µ'=_ � �'.;-'-. ---�-�-� 'a ! � --•�`,' _�� . � : . . m •�"" ;.' �,�-1•'"= , 1- - - .J !�/ �� . .—; = - -=�-: _�` � �,' "T �;;1�:� Q a �� ,-r-. � _ --- _ - - �' _y ,� �� . �c - O G ._�•�• . �`� •.J�� ._ �l--- - ,1 . . �• ,� W :��;� ,C. F---==.� r=: .,: _ _ _ -.�:� .� .,; � .,� - . '��' �. -�; - �� __-- , -�._ - .� : � ;: w , � .�� T .�"''. � —•.4�, � .`t: `` . � ��= - _ ��'— � .._� _— f _ 1• T�.�, ^=�� . �^\•t2M= � . �-�-=--- _ -l"_'�.�'- — N ' �. � _��_.. . . � -t _ - _ .r. • � :--� • :� ---. _ � _ �.�" �,`�•__-_ c_�::'� ; . .�.�"� �,_ .��:.tit�� +°�'�--i.:� - � d C r ..-_+. t' �� -" ' � ��'� �� ' rS. ��.�- �� .�� F f� . ,T'� � 4 . t, 4�. . . . Y ��._�� - -. —� �•. '�•��_;. ' M�-1�' ' ' . � ' _.. � _ � �T. _- ._."� .�: ��: j�_ _ ' ' ' { - � _ �r -' - • -.�.—_ ' �- ► —� � . - � - '�--�--_- -�- � � - - ; - -- - _ � �" rn. ni� . � �`°� � " .. _ - �.---�-_ _ _�� - -^_.. =_ - �t•"'- �'�_- �?., � ' _ �- �,'��e' - ' - � _ _ - _ r , •O'=' � :��-�\c' �c, �'�� . . Y• . . .� - _` _ .� � ' . _ . . i _� l�:n � ,i ^� ' . � � � � • ' .f T: r' �� _ -�_'. •_ . _� ' •� ��,♦ .� �~�� - «�' : :f-__i._. � _'_. _ _ . _ -._ � . ,r .�� . . • � � �---- .. /'rr_dr _ � : �� •. � . �i; . . � i . -• . �u±'�� `'� .� '�• �\•' / � � h� .'� �`_��.�--a°= ��3S1I1/!F � - . ! �-'- _.�------- - • 1 • _�( � •'i,-�� .lIVf10C�lid�iPF31 -c.. --- , .. -._. - --- ---_ _...-- `V i __`�"�� Q• _= �' ..0 ��_� --- - ---��-^.�'' � � � - -. — —' i � ' _ - - .� _ � ��r- --��. .'/-- — O � � , . � • . . r- �( `.r��__- = T_ ��, .�: -.- � � , �.��-- �— ; j s, _��,—_ _ ;--,----::=��- ...�� ;.� _— = •� � .:....., �.:_ _ ;��.. f,f�,� -_ _ -- i ,� � � .1=r` . ;1:�. ��--- � .. (`..�i��_ �� -�/• _ _ �_ . '_ O _ �� . .: ..J �� .-J'�/�--�-�-�- ��.� . /'. �._��` �_� •_ __ � �� r�r'LCa', ��T.�1�• ••'/'� - ' N�„�.. = � •f �= r .�..�_�-�. � � � � � �� ```��!��/ � __- __�I�= 1 '� =- ._��__ �.—� : ' �— . �_ __ � .��'b^.,,'�!- � �� Y __ . _—'_"___'_..._'" _ "' � � -= — ! '"' ��•1�' -r. _ � - •— . " - - - - -- � � : •.r` ,,; �,= -•';'•• . ^' :,ti:' - _ . . . . . - - -- - __' _ _ - ''?�`'� •i�.- .�. ---- - _�_ . - -- - --- _--_- _ — �_ -- 'f�'��- �, - _ _� ' _ .. ..__ . _ - - ._ .� , . , _ .. . . --- - - - - - --- _ •i.:.-:.. _ ._. . � � - .'�- "�,.` ��..��i � -- � - ---�- - - . -- - _ . � � ---=' :,r'fr`�••,'� _� - -- - —__ ^ - - 1~ � t _. - •�. . ,f x• �a •� - -- -- -- -- ---- - -- ` � ( � -_ _��' �' .!� :�.;, _-- --_- _ :-- - _- - • :%�:�'� {=`>,��--_---- ---- - _ -:— ' . ----- ' •:••� -- - . -- r• � - -�-.._ . _ _ ._... - � - - /, .--.G..�-�:i ----� - --- -- -- -- - - -- ' -- " - -- ��. / . .._ ' -- � - �� --�- - - -- - - - - '—��'�1' r�-' . - � ` -� - - - '.- - ' -- -_ - -_,._ -��-- - -- --- i� ' . . . . - �- ' - ---- � - "_�' " 'T� '� - �� -.'_+a�_.� ' �.'_-.* .. " ' _ " " .'_'_ . ' " ' ' " ____.'_"_ � � o • W -` • � � , � s : o � � � � - c ' (� a•� << � o — � �i w � � � Ve > c oi \ i� ��i c _ �'C � � � � � On i � t = a t' • H .'� � � W � ' � ° � � Cl W�Q � Q' � � ♦ f � 2 � � = 0 O ► t � 0 i � o � � i r � � J . _ : � . � , � �.�.. • _ - _' s� � � a o � � ri _ �� t O � _ : � a s �o � 4 . , t C .� .� . � � ; �o C � � � • ►� � f�•'�r � s - �� , �/ N � £ ��p - 4 O �� O � = O � , t�< V i�1� � i � � '� : , ♦^ i Z ` ' ° `r� � ; _ � ; : � ; \ C ~ ♦ � j 0 C� i � � I� t/) p • � � � W ac �O ; ° � _ � I � _ � � ` •i � � _ ; = = o � ,C I O . ; � o � , � _ � = V � � ;� + � � �� I Z n �. � � c�s ,; O � � � � � - � � � _ � � � -- � l.� : o �� ! W � v �d �� 3 III. BACKGROIIND " As early as 1979 the University Avenue / Midway Corridor has been identified as a major transit corzidor in need of transit service improvements. It is unique in its routing from one major metro center, through a high transit use community to another metro center yet also accessing the University of Minnesota. Since 1980 various regional studies have consistently given the Midway Corridor the highest priority ranking for transit improvements. The most recent regional study, the Metropolitan Council's 1986 "Long Range Transit Study" again identif ied this corridor as the region's first priority. In 1983-85 the Metropolitan Council conducted an "Alternatives Analysis" of the University Avenue Corridor evaluating several alignments and technologies for transit improvement. As part of the study the Saint Paul Planning Commission issued a report� "University Avenue: Bus or Light Rail". The Commission, after review of the study data� recommended University Avenue with Light Rail as the preferred alternative for transit service improvements. The Planning Commission recommendation was reviewed and adopted by the City Council in January, 19$5. Nowever, in 1986, the Minnesota Legislature adopted a moratoriwn on any LRT planning or engineering within the Metropolitan area. That legislation stopped all effort to proceed to preliminary engineeriag for University Avenue. In 1987 the Legislature 'allowed county regional rail authorities to proceed with LRT planning, design and implementation. Ramsey County, having formed a Regional Rail Authority in June, 1987, joined with the Twin Cities Regional Transit Board in December to again study the Midway Corridor. The County Rail Authority designated the Midway Corridor as their top priority. According to the Study report, the purpose of the "LRT Planning Analysis for the Midway Corridor" is to conduct the analysis necessary to advance LRT in the corridor. The results of the study will be used by Lhe Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority and the RTB to determine the alignment, scope, timing and funding for LRT in the corridor. ZV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PIAN A. TRANSIT PLAN: The Transit Chapter of the Comprehensive plan identifies LRT as the main new option available for improving transit service in the city. The Plan identifies seven corridors radiating from the downtown which should be considered for LRT service. The University Avenue / Midway Corridor is one of those identified in the plan. The plan states: °The city urges the Metropolitan Council to seriously consider all potential LRT corridors in Saint Paul for further evaluation. The city will assist in this evaluation." The plan also encourages transit service improvements to the major mixed use cluster areas and ne� high density housing/employment areas identified in the Land Use Plan. 4 � '� �� / ►� �� _��_ _ , ■ �--___-„'� �:"��',� �' ��-�- ��.------,� i� �rii�== �► �= �i' ----- - i\� f1lIIIY11 � �.�C�� / �� 11 � ...� ��n��r =`- . . �� /__� ..��e��.,��i�� ...� 1■ �'!��r'�;� n��l�� , � .��E.r�� ■�� • �.. ._• ..�, -.��..r.�.,� � „l_�� .-.- i '�! '��■• _�C 0 , !��I.r11111�111111�� .. ��`.�-' "�� `�%IIIIII ,�tll111 �==r� �► ��i��=- � I tiJ�' s'l�s�� '� �'. / � . �� ■�iiiiii�� { i��is��• � ��,� � � '�■►!',�� /��♦�� u� � ��i �� __`��=V"w_—_ ■ "'i/!!�l�� ■�s��t� ►� �� \I�.��I��t�i� • ■��iiiiis (T� � �� l��1/I111�//�1! � � ■��t�� w s�� ` �� :, . ` __t�1�i��f��;��rs��\��1 � �:��a �, _ '� =' �, ■.11111i�� ,�„� . .,__ c !��_ ��_ ��' �► .��11�� ,,, � � s '1 '�� ° � :��/fil�_�� si �■�■ ■�r�� F , � �� ■ ��s� - -�� 1 �I� - ' ' ,��1► �. ��,' . '�� 11� 0 �1. ��.�a ��1 `�.�,�* '�� a��■■. � ��Ilf; �sa�s�� ■■�. �,. 1 .r ��.,��* ��' s�s�.��■ � r . t ��■��s�s�� u��ii�--�� !�! •►. s� ��s�t��at■�� ,i�� - �� ► ,� �' ��s��s��7��a��t7 � �► � ��s��■��7r ��■� �� y� � � . b. �� vm,ww�wr�Aw�/��r�ww♦•r�wwlww�wr��s■ Ni� � �� L�„�� ' , (�� i►��1�tViY`i/b1ii�iJr�7.iiW ��I ��J� �`\ �,'1♦ \ ': ' '� '1'� ��■��/��• ��I ��`. �'v: ��y ; ,�S♦1,\ ��q�s�� ,� �.' � :1�� sl��v�� -`� �� 1 � . • . - r- . . � ��/ � � i—r�i■� co��i�1�-�=!=' :��j��3ii � � ■f�■ : ��a�� j��♦ �9'` ; ........ .r.� ,� �'�i ��..�: •.-...•.�i,.�°-� ��r��a�..�� s�� /�I�;��1�♦fj �`��t�■��t� ��s��ni��r�"�■.:��Iw a1i'��i��/�, ��■��lwne��..w� ��s��■�w�s��....�.�� ! ♦ ♦�.�.� ;a..c:c.�ai�..0 ��11 1.[1 l 1 i 3 i �jijJ.l�!\ r as�►_si.��1�� t1� ......_...____=� ------�._...�_---- r� -- . .. . �� .■■■■aa��.. ��■�C�C��l�� :��:%•./;� ��■.�� ' �,� �i � \ �/��.'"�7��.1,��1■��i��► �`S� �.�,A'� � �w��t��wwiw�N� �y■r.►s• . �,, :: : �� a�w .i��, 1J.i.ii��ili.� ` ''��J��. �� _ ��t�� ss i� �1�,� . > ��s��.` ��' ��■��I �� l��e1±� �� ' ��l��( �.�� lt�� w ��r� ��s�� 7'.i��s�. ��i �� "T_�l ��S�kL-!1.a �� .�7/�e�� .' / ��■ \��■ �� ■��Iill�'tl��i�. Ifl!�t► ,- �...�:-._.. ■�� ■.■�....■■� ■��„�� ' � \� ��/�� t�It� .;. ,��SF'��S �� '�','.� �� ■►�� i1��1��r � _ � ��-r•�a�� ■�I r•�♦ t��IIIt��.� ..� Ilf .�.■■■..-■.•..►�� .* 1'I��♦��s�i�i�lf�� t�' /��s��. ��l�'1 •.�'�Jl�3i ls�� '.�, � ■■ �� ■��t��s��s�Or`�� '�� 111 ��. .��.��-. ...�.��..�■.......�. .... �� . �..�� ■■■�■��■s■ ...■■.■.►...■. � ��s��'��s' �ii��i::� 1 Eeii iiii�r i:� �i:iii:i: ___ ___��=-==:r ��;:��-•. ....._.....--�•--.•-. -�- �� -, �.�.�n"�.�.�. ,�� 1��11�1�� t-��i �� / ..��.� a�■ I��L��/ f�lt�r � � � �� t l��a �'. . �� / --- c��i� �� '�♦ ,�:. ��`C�s s� tt� � .. � i=__ �.* . . lll �,��/� �� `�� . . - �� ``� �� E�� I a�' ' .., � �._ �.r .�� _ �9 �� . i��C ��"j�� .� ` .. ��___..r� �t ..s `�'i�� 1�� •.YF �rr� e' �' i_�r t _<° B. IAND USE PIAN: The Saint Paul Land Use Plan Chapter of the city's Comprehensive Plan identifies several categories of land use and appropriate policies for each. Generally the Land Use Plan's approach is to preserve the city's existing low density residential areas; focus new development demand within the major "Mixed Use Clusters^ in the city including the Downtown, and improve the functioning of the "Mixed Use Commercial Strips" . Priority is given to increasing the mix of uses in the major Mixed Use Clusters while also seeking opportunities to develop new "Employment/Housing Clusters" where possible. See Map 2 for the location of the various land use designations in the western half of the city. In their 1984 study of LRT in the University Avenue corridor, the Planning commis'sion concluded that "Light Rail Transit will create opportunities for improvement both on the Avenue and downtown that are fully consistent with goals for sound neighborhoods, strong business centers, and good economic opportunity for the citizens of Saint Paul." The Land Use and Transit Chapters would support LRT construction on either the Burlington Northern or the University Avenue alignments. These routes contain the major employment/housing and or major diversified commercial mixed use clusters that the plans desire to support. Alignments along I-94, Marshall Avenue, and the Soo Line would � not support these areas and could lead to unwanted development along areas designated to remain as stable residential neighborhoods. The University Avenue alignment would provide greater access to existing commercial and mixed use developments and would be the most consistent with the comprehensive plan recommendations to stabilize existing � commercial and residential development. IV. ANALYSIS The Midway LRT Corridor Study established 10 Criteria areas for use to evaluate alignment alternatives. Figure 2 identifies these. Planning staff analysis of these is described below. A. Development Potential: PED staff have developed a separate report which analyzes the development potential along each alignment. The conclusion of that report is that a University Avenue alignment best serves the most development opportunities in the Corridor, best supports the City's land use directions for development, and best supports existing PED priorities for development and redevelopment efforts in the Midway. B. Connections with the Downtown and other LRT lines: All lines have been developed to connect with the end point of the University corridor alignment proposed by Hennepin County. However� the eastern endpoints provide a series of different methods of access into the downtown. 6 . . � � . . �� i� FIGURE 2 PROPOSEO EYAI,UATIW�I CRITERIA Right-of-liay Ava11aD11ity Conneciton to Other LRT Line o Con�ection to Ornmtorm li9nments o Con�ection to Universit of MinnesoLa Traff ic I�acts o impact on Street/Highr Capacity • o Impact on Traffic Circu ation and Access - o Impact on Curb Use itoa ing Zones, Taxi Stands, On-Street Parking, Etc. Development Poiential LRT Ridership o Travel Time � o Market Si2e (?opulation Employment) o Park and Ride Potential o Proximity to Market (Or gins or Destinations) o Ridership Differences Transit System Integrity o Impact on 7ransit Oepen ent o Impact on Curre�t Trans t Users (Service FreQuency, Station Spacing) Land Use Compatibiiity a Impact on Existing Busi ess o Impact on Existing Resi ential Neighborhoods o Impact on City Land Use 6oals Environmental Impacts o Air Quality o Noise o Yibrations o Aesthetits Capital and Operating Costs �onstruction Iaipacts 7 The 2A Burlington Northern/Como/Rice St. alignment and the University Avenue 3 A&B alignments best serve the Capitol area in a direct fashion while connecting it to the Dovntown. The 4 A&B I-94 alignments can be made to serve the Capitol area but only tangentially. The other alignments serve it poorly. The 2A and 3 A�B alignments also are the most direct into the downtown. and can be accessed to many different downtown alternatives. The 4A alignment must jog northward around the Capitol Mall to enter powntown from the north. The 6A alternative must use an east/west access bypassing the Capitol area entirely. The 6B alternative would require major ramps up from the river valley or an expensive tunnel through the downtown. Ridership levels: Unlike the past University Avenue LRT Studies� the "sketch planning" methods used to estimate ridership did not provide total ridership figures for the corridor under each alignment alternative. Instead ridership numbers were developed for the LRT service only. Variations in background bus service; elimination of some routes or creation of "forced transfer" situations result in much of the ridership variation. The following ridership levels were estimated: T0T111 lRT R10ERSMIP ESTIMJITES ALT, ZA J1LT. 3A ALT. 3B JILT. 4 ALT. 6 L 6URLIN6TON UNIYERISTY NORTHERN ONl1 IMCLUOED 1 MILE I-94 SHORT IINE HI6H 41.300 39.800 �6,600 46,500 47.200 �0,600 MEDIU4 37,200 35.800 11.900 41,800 �2,500 36,500 �pyr 33�000 31.800 37.300 37,200 37,800 32,500 { NOTE: These ranges ue dereloped frae an absolute perspettive. For illustra- tlon of untertainty fra� the perspectivc of toopulson �uong alter- eatives, see Figure 25. Because all routes reasonably serve the Mpls to U of Minn and the Downtown to Downtown riders there is a base of ridership that varies little between alternatives. Thus the final ridership figures seem to show little difference between alignments. University Avenue and I-94 alignments produce the highest ridership totals. There are significant differences in the alignments service to potential riders going to or coming from the Midway area. The University and I-94 alignments best serve riders living in the Midway but traveling to other parts of the Twin Cities. 8 . . . , , . ' . �� 9 In' addition the University Ave e aligrunent best provides access to the important commercial service a eas within the Hidway and the best ridership for vorkers employed in the Midway. University Avenue IRT alignments alternatives have t e best opportunity Lo bring transit patrons to existing business a eas. These alignments provide this better Iiidway service without acrifices to other markets such as the Downtown to Downtown travelers. D. Transit System Integrity: The 1984 Planning Commission r port discussed the criteria of accessibility for rid�rs. Thi study identifies the need to evaluate the accessibility of alternati es for the traditionally transit dependent users. The Universi alignment provides the best access for transit dependents to not only other metropolitan locations but also to the good and sezvices along Un ersity Avenue. All of the alignments offer im rovement in accessibility to the general transit rider. However, only e University alignment offers direct accessibility to the commercial and service area in the Midway. E. Land Use Compatibility: As identified in the discussio o£ development potentiai and in the review of consistency with the omprehensive Plan, the LRT transit service seems most compatible ith the commercial environment along University Avenue. Use of existiag railroad alignments can offer advantages to LRT operations b t they do not provide an attractive environment for the rider, unle s extensive redevelopment is committed to station locations. The I-94 frontage roads alignment would conflict with the general residential st eet character of the area between Lexington and Western Avenues. The aerial alternative would be even less compatible to the residential environment already compromised by I- 94's presence. Transit service belongs in the rea where there are activities to be accessed and served. Universit Avenue best meets that criteria. F. Environmental Impacts: Traditional environmental areas such as air, noise and aesthetic issues are the most likely to be affected by LRT. Non of these are identified in this level of study, as bein particularly onerous. Air quality along University A nue has been a perennial concern. However, the level of analysis ontained in the RTB/RCRRA study does not evaluate how LRT on University venue or the other alignments would affect air quality along Univer ity Avenue. Construction Impacts: All alignments will create vari us types of construction impacts, including traffic disruption an changes in circulation along University Avenue; bridge and coliision ba rier construction along the rail alignments; and major infrastru ture requirements for subway and or ramp construction for other alignmen s. At the level of this anaiysis solutions or mitigations are no identified but the problems are 9 chnracterized. The preliminary engineering stage which fo�lows an alignment selection will determine mitigations. There vill be negative short term construction impacts Wfth each alternative. The type of impact, duration and affected parties will vary by alternative. Preliminary engineering will be necessary to define these for any alternative alignment. Right-of-way Availability Availability is relative. The use of public rights-of-way is assumed for the University Avenue and I-94 Frontage roads alignments. Discussions with the various railroads invo2ved have resulted in mixed messages about their willingness to lease or sell portions of right .of way for LRT use. The University and I-94 street portions have the highest probability of availability. The Railroads are reluctant participants at best and may in the end refuse to allow use of their rights•of-way. The purchase price, safety, and separation measures that the Railroads will probably require add considerably to the cost of the IRT line. I. Traffic Impacts: Potential suto traffic impacts a best documented for the University Avenue alignment because of previous planning studies of that alignment. Major changes to the street and use of the right-of-way would result from LRT construction. Auto traffic impacts will occur along the other alignments also, along the street portions of the rail line and I-94 routes. Impacts on rail traffic will also occur and have not yet been fully identified. However, there are methods that can mitigate the construction and long- term operational impacts for the street. Traffic impacts and solutions to them will be a critical part of the preliminary engineering of any route once an alignment is selected. J. Cost: "Capital and Operating Costs" were developed for only the LRT itself, not for the background bus transit service upon which it depends, In the 1984-85 study costs were calculated for ail Lhe transit changes within the corridor. Total corridor transit service costs were not done for thi`s study because of the large riumber of alternatives and the different corridor service areas associated with each alignment. Figure 3 shows generalized capital costs for the IRT portions of the corridors. A University Avenue 1/4 mile system would have the lowest total capital cost and the lowest cost per mile. However the 1 mile alternative, 3B, would have the lowest capital cost per projected rider. Generali2ed operating costs for the alignments were also developed for the LRT alone. The cost of feedez bus service to bring riders to the i.RT line have not been calculated. Total corridoz costs for each alignment wiil not be determined within the RTB/RC?.RA Study. Before 10 . , • � � �o ��a�i o id.°.im i h ^ w �°r> � � _ �� NN�lV � O�OAf � $ .�i N N �C A Q � g: .. '" � �Y N N x� 1 q � � � 11 � N O+t�f�n � A'f�p IH • IA � �p 1f1 � (�� J� O�.y�f wf �f �p�D�p A A O O� w1 N 1ef • v `1� �O�Nb �n ��wf N a � N 1��1 IN p � _ g �� "' '' Q �a � � . O � bp!�CI�O O�f�N iD O N i� 1f1 1!f � A L N O IA f�t � 1A O��O �r N O �[f O � �D .- q �-.O N 119 N �� N O►1�1 N • O !� 1� I�f rr p d < 1n �•+ f� N A rr N wf O O N � N < y W C� �O O O►�.r O O O C► Hf tff �D af • p f C 4� N Oi f��f wf� I� .+e�'1� wf O O O .+ p �r � � � A C O N1lfNNw1 �O 00^ O IA � Oi N � � � �C rr a.`OC N w1 .-�rr N �D r+ �r O1 � �C � N � 1_ � ~ � O �[ T L O . � �. � � ' ~ � . �� • O �D��O � 1�f.�+Itf O► 1� N � O v p� `7� O��[f Q►N !� 1C.r�f N O Nf C {y >>= O �N�O N e0 Cf af� � ' t� � N N u'1 z N � f� q H C<� 1 � � L O M � � .. g < L O N � � O m 1� O� tn.•r 1A O� � r O O N N �.+ N � O r- O C�OI IA �C.+�A N .r N N 7� 1 >>♦ O . .N�I N �G af I�f� �� f Q� .f-� n 1^A � Y a A 1 � I � �<� d �1 N � � s � � ! N� N O � � � m . �i � C C�6i ' L C f�f�t�N O► N O e�f� 1� O► ...� �.f wf O n1 G 4 �+ _^O 1�1C 49.r ILf 1� �f!�� f �r !�f �C .� ♦ IA Q � � �+ C f.+N O N .+ �01 1H N f f f nY p/ N � a H 2 r0 f�f N �O N fD .�r N � 1!f � p � L W � O ' � q O. ' � L C> <D O N O N N ��O RI Rf 1l'! � A'1 �O O b r0 � 1L � O�< NIDNNN ilf OOi1A 1ff O 01 O N � � � ' r C l�f �d �N N I�I�Af m r+ iD f� f f�� .r ~p �� N nf �+ 1!f .r� f� Iff e�f O M C r H G� -- --- . � _ ..� ♦ _� � � ` G � p O N � �.. H �� C � �p � lT7 O W O O = O O O L ~ o w v c � p� ?� N �C N � � ' ~ � N � .-. N N N Y W C �� Y Wt- V � �� H O � � = W � �.. C A h � � �+O y� a,+ C7 � O �O O C ++ Y �+C� Z Y C H �. �+ � n E N� C � N • J L � N � 4J t- � 8 �t � C�� O T�t C t� ++ �.+ p �.. � N O G L C C� A L O �O J N q J � � }- N O �0 � = Q ti.4, t c u t r- o t� � u a� J� N j L\ F O �L� 1� N Z � � J � < a+ � T� N O V QL r- O Z t S ac � .� T C F� C O ��A� O ~ iL� � C) !- O N A F- A 701 M d� Ep� �� OC•r � � Y N A � Z �- Z \ � ; ~ �rf � U p O O�? CO� N `^ Oi � � Z� � U O 1-- O O� E W Q^ O ��C7Zf/f � 1-WN O C7 � J U W �•+ 7 � N � �S � . . . . . j� . . . � = 0 p o � C� C O W � �� J .r N f''f t 1A Vf .-�N fn In � (..� 1- � d � ..+ E `J GJ CD . � o^'� � ~ � � O V.. U v .... .-• ►-• .�r 1 NI 2 11 implementation of any alignment choice, preliminary enginee�ing studies � will be needed to pin down total corridor transit service costs using LRT. VI. STAFF CONCLIISIONS: University Avenue alignment options still remain the options with the highest overall potential for: 1. Attracting and serving riders to and from the Midway 2. Attracting non-work riders to use the commercial uses found in the Midway. 3. Complementing and encouraging the development objectives of the Midway area and the City. 4. Getting built at a reasonable cost level 5. Providing the most direct accessibility for riders from the Midway to Downtown and the Capitol area. But, University Avenue needs further review of important issues and their impacts: Access to businesses and land uses along University Avenue during construction and operation of LRT. Traffic flow and capacity questions along the Avenue On-street and off-street parking need and supply for business and uses � along the Avenue Station spacing and locations and physical accessibility by riders. Development of a bus system and routes which will complement the LRT and the surrounding neighborhoods without detrimental impact. Many of these issues would be the same for any alignment selected. They must be resolved in the next stage --preliminary engineering. LRT should be built on University Avenue if these issues are satisfactorily resolved. VII. STAFF RECOl+II4ENDATION The Planning Commission recommend that the IIniversity Avenue alignment be chosen by the RTB and the RCRRA as the preferred alignment for LRT in the Midway Corridor and that the Transit Board and the Rail Authority proceed to preliminary engineering to resolve the issues surrounding use of University Avenue as an LRT alignment. 12 . , : . - �-��,� VIII. C624iITTEE RECOMPiENDATION - At the Economic Development Committee's March 16, 1988 meeting, Imogene Treichel moved and Dr. Frank Indihar econded a motion to accept the staff recommendation and forvard the report to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for adoption. The mot on passed 7-0 vith Bob Van Hoef abstaining. A resolution is attached for your co ideration. 13 � • �� (D�� Members: CITY OF AINT PAUL B�� W��son, chai�,�� +�'ii;'�� Tom Dimond OFFIC� OF T E CITY COIINCIL Kiki Sonnen Oate: July 27, 1988 WILLIAM �. wi�soN RECEIVED MARK VOERDING �°"n"`m�, Commi tee Report ��"� JUL 2 81988 To: Saint Paul City Council �i� c�ERx � From : Housing and Econo ic Development Committee Bill Wilson, Chair 1. Resolution approving the reappointme t by the Mayor of Victor Reim and the appointment of Howard Guthmann to th St. Paul Port Authority, terms to expfre August 19, 1994. (CF 88-1110) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF AP OINTMENT OF VICTOR REIM AND TWO WEEK LAYOVER ON APPOINTMENT OF H WARD GUTHMANN 2. Ordinance creating a new chapter of he Legislative code pertaining to replacement housing. (CF 88-997) COMMITTEE RECOMrIENDED REFERRAL TO PL ING COMMISSION WITH I1�ITERZM REPORT TO THIS CONIMITTEE IN TWO MONTHS /`. _---- _ _ _ _ .._. . . _ _ _ . _ __ . . . . ! 3. Discussion of Economic Development A pects of LRT Development and Resolution � endorsing University Avenue as the C ty's preferred alignment fQr the Light Ra�l Transit between St. Paul and Mi neapolis, requesting the Ramsey County � Regional Rail Authority to establish the same endorsement and to proceed preliminary engineering to resolve 3 sues, and offering to the Regional Rail Authority support, participation and appropriate resources to complete the development of the LRT (� ��bI9) J� `, COMMITTEE RECO1�iENDED l�PR4VAL, AS NDED _ _ ._ . .__._..._____.--.�'" --- _ . _ . . ____... ._._ .____. ____. . . 4. Resolution requesting the Mayor's Ad inistration to direct appropriate Citq Departments and Divisions to perform ecessary procedures with the State of Minnesota to fmplement the City Coun il's intent for fire protection sprinkler systems. (CF 88-990) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL S. Resolution Mandating that all buildin construction projects requiring public financing shall be required to have f're protection sprinkling systems, that the Mayor's Administration require th t appropriate City Departments and Divisions develop the approprizte pro edure to implement this intent, and requesting the St. Paul Port Authorit implement a f ire protection sprinkler system policy for all new constructio projects which require their financing.. (CF 88-991) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) CIT'Y HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/298-4646 s ,� ____..��.___