Loading...
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