01-1074�=�I�I`�,�L
���..�,e-�,
� .�-. Cb � a a o �
Council Eile # 0 � � �C��'
Resolution #
Green Sheet # � � 3 G � �-
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
CENTRAL CORRIDOR TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS - SCOPING DECISION
0
6
7
8
9
10
WIIEREAS, the Scoping Process for the Central Comdor Transit Improvements (including Light Rail Transit)
will be concluded in the very neaz future, and
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) staff and staff of the Central Conidor
Technical Advisory Committee are making specific recommendations far the Midway, downtown Saint Paul
and L3niversity of Minnesota segments of the corridor for consideration by the Central Corridor Coordinating
Comxnittee (CCCC) on October 11, 2001, and
11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in July 2001, developed three Light Rail Transit alignment alternatives
12 to the two originally recommended by the CCCC in Apri12001; and
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's and Administration's recommendations are based on the need to
directly serve the Capitol Area, the EntertainmentlEvent District, the Business Employment Core and the
Union Depot Intermodal Facility while minimizing the negative nnpacts on traffic accessibility to the
downtown, and
WI3EREAS, supplemental analysis was completed in September regarding those five possible LRT alignments
downtown and included the following conclusions:
— Planning Commission Alternative A(University to Railroad ROW to 4�') accomplishes the
objective of directly serving the Event District, Central Business Core, Union Depot, Capitol
Area, Regions Hospital with the least amount of traffic impact;
— RCRRA Alternative i(Cedar to 4�') serves the Capitol Area, the Central Business Core and
Union Depot with m;nimal traffic disruption but does not directly serve the Event District;
— RCRRA Alternative 5(Jackson/Sibley to 4�`) creates significant disruption to traffic at key
intersections (including Jackson and 12'", Jackson and 1 l�', Sibley and 4t'', Jackson and 4�`) and
creates unfavorable traffic flow on Sibiey between 5"' and 6"' where the street is particularly
narrow. Furthermore, the alignment does not direcfly serve the Union Depot. This alignment is
not recommended by City;
— Planning Commission Alternative B(modified to end at Union Depot, using St. Peter to 4�') can
be constructed provided that St. Peter Street is closed between 6�' and 4"', with the southbound
traffic diverted to Market Street. This alignment serves the Capitol Area, Event District,
Business Core and Union Depot with marginal traffic disruption. However, a number of event
district venues ha�e expressed concerns that the negarive nnpacts outweigh the benefits of
service. The City has significant reservations about selecting this alignment unless these
concerns can be addressed; and
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
04YIo"fy
Plauuing Commission Alternative C(Robert to 4`") requires closing of Robert Street between 6`�
and 4�' and is not recommended by City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to narrow the oprions for consideration in downtown as much as possible
at tius tinne; and
WHEREAS, the hue benefits from LRT or Busway development will include reinvestment in the Cenhal
Corridor as well as wider accessibility options for those who live and work in the Central Corridor; and
50 WF in order to maximize reinvestrnent potential, strategies should be developed for each station area.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
op'�".ers R <Y+� G
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEI�ttiat the Ciry Council recommends elunination of RCRRA
Alternative 5 and Plauuing Commission�� from fiuther considerarion and requests fiu•ther analysis and
refinement of Planning Commission Option B• and
Stiwc p.�..\ �ia.�i ��.v�tey G�. �� an�.\ Q.o..\raa.� A�.Y�1�.�M'�y�,\�cr'Na'�'�vC
BE IT FURTHER that the final �gnment ch sen must directly serve the Capitol Area, Ce niral �
Business Core, Union Depot and Entertainment District without substantially disrupting downtown tr�c
flow; and
60 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that fiu�ther study is required to deternune if there is a viable alignment that
61 will directly serve the four criteria established by the City before a sinele downtown alignment can be
62 recommettded; and
63
64 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council reaffirms Resolution 99-1164 of December 8, 1999,
65 "that the City Council requests that the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority only include consideration of
66 University Avenue in their shxdy of the central corridor."
67
68
Requested by Department of:
Plannina & Economic Development
By'
Approved by Financial Services
By:
Form Approved by City Attomey
Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy
Sy: a" By
Approved by Mayor: Date
n �. � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
� � �..��l�.l a
g T \
�.,,�.� `
S B Y�
S . '�`��
°� w��,�..�..�..
Adopted by Council: Date Q���"_ �a � dO O,
A.
DEPARTMENT/OFFICElCOl1NCIL . . . , . W7EINrtWTm . _ . _ -. .. .. , , . , • - �� a.
EN
cz� couriczL io/oa/oi GREEN SHEET No � 1 s��7�
CONTACT PFRSON 8 PFIONE a�aYmb NNWmye
Councilmember Coleman 266-8620 ,an,e„e,�a,fcr,. a,vmu1u.
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGHJQ4 BY (OA7EJ
I\SE16tl
�C"t. �.�� 200�. �� p1YAROPeEY a[YttIIllc
RWTWG
� ❑ RW1OIfLaEnYICF9Ort RIWGIaBtV/�CGfC
❑wrortlu��sasr�wp ❑
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SICaNATURE)
CTION REQUESiED
Reco�ending elimination of the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) Alternative
A and Planning Commission Option C Erom further consideration and requesting further
analysis and refinement of Planning Commission Option B; and reaffirming City Council
Resolution 99-1164 adopted December 8, 1999, requesting that the RCRRA only include
consideration of University Avenue in their study of the central corxidor.
RECAMME DATION Approve (A) or Reject (R) VERSONALSERVICE WNTRACfS MUSTANSWERTNE WLLOW7N6 QUESTSONS:
t. Hestfi�sce�soM�me�ervlorkeau'Weracanhactiarth�tlecaimieM't
PLANNING COMMISSION YES No
CIB CAMMITTEE 2. tias mis pereoMirm ever been a aty empoyee?
CNILSERVICECOMMISSION YES No
3. Does Mis persoNfirtn poasess a sldll n� normallypossesseE by anY �+� city emPloyee7
YES NO
4. Ia this per�nn a targMetl vendoY7
YES NO
F�ylain all yea answers m sepaiate sheet antl aGach W green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNI7Y (WFp, WhaR When. �Nhere. WhYJ �
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED �
DISADVMIrAGES IF APPROVED
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED
TOTAL ANpUNT OF TRANSAC710N S COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (GRGLE ON� YES NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTNRY NUMBER
FlNANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPWt�
1
�=�I�I`�,�L
���..�,e-�,
� .�-. Cb � a a o �
Council Eile # 0 � � �C��'
Resolution #
Green Sheet # � � 3 G � �-
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
CENTRAL CORRIDOR TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS - SCOPING DECISION
0
6
7
8
9
10
WIIEREAS, the Scoping Process for the Central Comdor Transit Improvements (including Light Rail Transit)
will be concluded in the very neaz future, and
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) staff and staff of the Central Conidor
Technical Advisory Committee are making specific recommendations far the Midway, downtown Saint Paul
and L3niversity of Minnesota segments of the corridor for consideration by the Central Corridor Coordinating
Comxnittee (CCCC) on October 11, 2001, and
11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in July 2001, developed three Light Rail Transit alignment alternatives
12 to the two originally recommended by the CCCC in Apri12001; and
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's and Administration's recommendations are based on the need to
directly serve the Capitol Area, the EntertainmentlEvent District, the Business Employment Core and the
Union Depot Intermodal Facility while minimizing the negative nnpacts on traffic accessibility to the
downtown, and
WI3EREAS, supplemental analysis was completed in September regarding those five possible LRT alignments
downtown and included the following conclusions:
— Planning Commission Alternative A(University to Railroad ROW to 4�') accomplishes the
objective of directly serving the Event District, Central Business Core, Union Depot, Capitol
Area, Regions Hospital with the least amount of traffic impact;
— RCRRA Alternative i(Cedar to 4�') serves the Capitol Area, the Central Business Core and
Union Depot with m;nimal traffic disruption but does not directly serve the Event District;
— RCRRA Alternative 5(Jackson/Sibley to 4�`) creates significant disruption to traffic at key
intersections (including Jackson and 12'", Jackson and 1 l�', Sibley and 4t'', Jackson and 4�`) and
creates unfavorable traffic flow on Sibiey between 5"' and 6"' where the street is particularly
narrow. Furthermore, the alignment does not direcfly serve the Union Depot. This alignment is
not recommended by City;
— Planning Commission Alternative B(modified to end at Union Depot, using St. Peter to 4�') can
be constructed provided that St. Peter Street is closed between 6�' and 4"', with the southbound
traffic diverted to Market Street. This alignment serves the Capitol Area, Event District,
Business Core and Union Depot with marginal traffic disruption. However, a number of event
district venues ha�e expressed concerns that the negarive nnpacts outweigh the benefits of
service. The City has significant reservations about selecting this alignment unless these
concerns can be addressed; and
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
04YIo"fy
Plauuing Commission Alternative C(Robert to 4`") requires closing of Robert Street between 6`�
and 4�' and is not recommended by City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to narrow the oprions for consideration in downtown as much as possible
at tius tinne; and
WHEREAS, the hue benefits from LRT or Busway development will include reinvestment in the Cenhal
Corridor as well as wider accessibility options for those who live and work in the Central Corridor; and
50 WF in order to maximize reinvestrnent potential, strategies should be developed for each station area.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
op'�".ers R <Y+� G
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEI�ttiat the Ciry Council recommends elunination of RCRRA
Alternative 5 and Plauuing Commission�� from fiuther considerarion and requests fiu•ther analysis and
refinement of Planning Commission Option B• and
Stiwc p.�..\ �ia.�i ��.v�tey G�. �� an�.\ Q.o..\raa.� A�.Y�1�.�M'�y�,\�cr'Na'�'�vC
BE IT FURTHER that the final �gnment ch sen must directly serve the Capitol Area, Ce niral �
Business Core, Union Depot and Entertainment District without substantially disrupting downtown tr�c
flow; and
60 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that fiu�ther study is required to deternune if there is a viable alignment that
61 will directly serve the four criteria established by the City before a sinele downtown alignment can be
62 recommettded; and
63
64 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council reaffirms Resolution 99-1164 of December 8, 1999,
65 "that the City Council requests that the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority only include consideration of
66 University Avenue in their shxdy of the central corridor."
67
68
Requested by Department of:
Plannina & Economic Development
By'
Approved by Financial Services
By:
Form Approved by City Attomey
Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy
Sy: a" By
Approved by Mayor: Date
n �. � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
� � �..��l�.l a
g T \
�.,,�.� `
S B Y�
S . '�`��
°� w��,�..�..�..
Adopted by Council: Date Q���"_ �a � dO O,
A.
DEPARTMENT/OFFICElCOl1NCIL . . . , . W7EINrtWTm . _ . _ -. .. .. , , . , • - �� a.
EN
cz� couriczL io/oa/oi GREEN SHEET No � 1 s��7�
CONTACT PFRSON 8 PFIONE a�aYmb NNWmye
Councilmember Coleman 266-8620 ,an,e„e,�a,fcr,. a,vmu1u.
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGHJQ4 BY (OA7EJ
I\SE16tl
�C"t. �.�� 200�. �� p1YAROPeEY a[YttIIllc
RWTWG
� ❑ RW1OIfLaEnYICF9Ort RIWGIaBtV/�CGfC
❑wrortlu��sasr�wp ❑
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SICaNATURE)
CTION REQUESiED
Reco�ending elimination of the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) Alternative
A and Planning Commission Option C Erom further consideration and requesting further
analysis and refinement of Planning Commission Option B; and reaffirming City Council
Resolution 99-1164 adopted December 8, 1999, requesting that the RCRRA only include
consideration of University Avenue in their study of the central corxidor.
RECAMME DATION Approve (A) or Reject (R) VERSONALSERVICE WNTRACfS MUSTANSWERTNE WLLOW7N6 QUESTSONS:
t. Hestfi�sce�soM�me�ervlorkeau'Weracanhactiarth�tlecaimieM't
PLANNING COMMISSION YES No
CIB CAMMITTEE 2. tias mis pereoMirm ever been a aty empoyee?
CNILSERVICECOMMISSION YES No
3. Does Mis persoNfirtn poasess a sldll n� normallypossesseE by anY �+� city emPloyee7
YES NO
4. Ia this per�nn a targMetl vendoY7
YES NO
F�ylain all yea answers m sepaiate sheet antl aGach W green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNI7Y (WFp, WhaR When. �Nhere. WhYJ �
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED �
DISADVMIrAGES IF APPROVED
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED
TOTAL ANpUNT OF TRANSAC710N S COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (GRGLE ON� YES NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTNRY NUMBER
FlNANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPWt�
1
�=�I�I`�,�L
���..�,e-�,
� .�-. Cb � a a o �
Council Eile # 0 � � �C��'
Resolution #
Green Sheet # � � 3 G � �-
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
CENTRAL CORRIDOR TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS - SCOPING DECISION
0
6
7
8
9
10
WIIEREAS, the Scoping Process for the Central Comdor Transit Improvements (including Light Rail Transit)
will be concluded in the very neaz future, and
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) staff and staff of the Central Conidor
Technical Advisory Committee are making specific recommendations far the Midway, downtown Saint Paul
and L3niversity of Minnesota segments of the corridor for consideration by the Central Corridor Coordinating
Comxnittee (CCCC) on October 11, 2001, and
11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in July 2001, developed three Light Rail Transit alignment alternatives
12 to the two originally recommended by the CCCC in Apri12001; and
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's and Administration's recommendations are based on the need to
directly serve the Capitol Area, the EntertainmentlEvent District, the Business Employment Core and the
Union Depot Intermodal Facility while minimizing the negative nnpacts on traffic accessibility to the
downtown, and
WI3EREAS, supplemental analysis was completed in September regarding those five possible LRT alignments
downtown and included the following conclusions:
— Planning Commission Alternative A(University to Railroad ROW to 4�') accomplishes the
objective of directly serving the Event District, Central Business Core, Union Depot, Capitol
Area, Regions Hospital with the least amount of traffic impact;
— RCRRA Alternative i(Cedar to 4�') serves the Capitol Area, the Central Business Core and
Union Depot with m;nimal traffic disruption but does not directly serve the Event District;
— RCRRA Alternative 5(Jackson/Sibley to 4�`) creates significant disruption to traffic at key
intersections (including Jackson and 12'", Jackson and 1 l�', Sibley and 4t'', Jackson and 4�`) and
creates unfavorable traffic flow on Sibiey between 5"' and 6"' where the street is particularly
narrow. Furthermore, the alignment does not direcfly serve the Union Depot. This alignment is
not recommended by City;
— Planning Commission Alternative B(modified to end at Union Depot, using St. Peter to 4�') can
be constructed provided that St. Peter Street is closed between 6�' and 4"', with the southbound
traffic diverted to Market Street. This alignment serves the Capitol Area, Event District,
Business Core and Union Depot with marginal traffic disruption. However, a number of event
district venues ha�e expressed concerns that the negarive nnpacts outweigh the benefits of
service. The City has significant reservations about selecting this alignment unless these
concerns can be addressed; and
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
04YIo"fy
Plauuing Commission Alternative C(Robert to 4`") requires closing of Robert Street between 6`�
and 4�' and is not recommended by City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to narrow the oprions for consideration in downtown as much as possible
at tius tinne; and
WHEREAS, the hue benefits from LRT or Busway development will include reinvestment in the Cenhal
Corridor as well as wider accessibility options for those who live and work in the Central Corridor; and
50 WF in order to maximize reinvestrnent potential, strategies should be developed for each station area.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
op'�".ers R <Y+� G
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEI�ttiat the Ciry Council recommends elunination of RCRRA
Alternative 5 and Plauuing Commission�� from fiuther considerarion and requests fiu•ther analysis and
refinement of Planning Commission Option B• and
Stiwc p.�..\ �ia.�i ��.v�tey G�. �� an�.\ Q.o..\raa.� A�.Y�1�.�M'�y�,\�cr'Na'�'�vC
BE IT FURTHER that the final �gnment ch sen must directly serve the Capitol Area, Ce niral �
Business Core, Union Depot and Entertainment District without substantially disrupting downtown tr�c
flow; and
60 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that fiu�ther study is required to deternune if there is a viable alignment that
61 will directly serve the four criteria established by the City before a sinele downtown alignment can be
62 recommettded; and
63
64 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council reaffirms Resolution 99-1164 of December 8, 1999,
65 "that the City Council requests that the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority only include consideration of
66 University Avenue in their shxdy of the central corridor."
67
68
Requested by Department of:
Plannina & Economic Development
By'
Approved by Financial Services
By:
Form Approved by City Attomey
Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy
Sy: a" By
Approved by Mayor: Date
n �. � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
� � �..��l�.l a
g T \
�.,,�.� `
S B Y�
S . '�`��
°� w��,�..�..�..
Adopted by Council: Date Q���"_ �a � dO O,
A.
DEPARTMENT/OFFICElCOl1NCIL . . . , . W7EINrtWTm . _ . _ -. .. .. , , . , • - �� a.
EN
cz� couriczL io/oa/oi GREEN SHEET No � 1 s��7�
CONTACT PFRSON 8 PFIONE a�aYmb NNWmye
Councilmember Coleman 266-8620 ,an,e„e,�a,fcr,. a,vmu1u.
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGHJQ4 BY (OA7EJ
I\SE16tl
�C"t. �.�� 200�. �� p1YAROPeEY a[YttIIllc
RWTWG
� ❑ RW1OIfLaEnYICF9Ort RIWGIaBtV/�CGfC
❑wrortlu��sasr�wp ❑
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SICaNATURE)
CTION REQUESiED
Reco�ending elimination of the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) Alternative
A and Planning Commission Option C Erom further consideration and requesting further
analysis and refinement of Planning Commission Option B; and reaffirming City Council
Resolution 99-1164 adopted December 8, 1999, requesting that the RCRRA only include
consideration of University Avenue in their study of the central corxidor.
RECAMME DATION Approve (A) or Reject (R) VERSONALSERVICE WNTRACfS MUSTANSWERTNE WLLOW7N6 QUESTSONS:
t. Hestfi�sce�soM�me�ervlorkeau'Weracanhactiarth�tlecaimieM't
PLANNING COMMISSION YES No
CIB CAMMITTEE 2. tias mis pereoMirm ever been a aty empoyee?
CNILSERVICECOMMISSION YES No
3. Does Mis persoNfirtn poasess a sldll n� normallypossesseE by anY �+� city emPloyee7
YES NO
4. Ia this per�nn a targMetl vendoY7
YES NO
F�ylain all yea answers m sepaiate sheet antl aGach W green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNI7Y (WFp, WhaR When. �Nhere. WhYJ �
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED �
DISADVMIrAGES IF APPROVED
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED
TOTAL ANpUNT OF TRANSAC710N S COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (GRGLE ON� YES NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTNRY NUMBER
FlNANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPWt�
1