The URL can be used to link to this page

06-495Council File # D( � �( g� j Green Sheet # 3030795 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IZ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESOLIlT{ON PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by WfIEREAS, the Altematives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Central Corridor has been certified by the Federal Transit Adminishation for release for public review by the Kamsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA); and WI�,REAS, the City of Saint Paul has long been acfively interested and concerned with the potential of major transit investments in the Central Corridor; and WHEREAS, at the end of the RCRRA public hearing process, the Metropolitan Council will make final determinations on the preferred mode, and receive comments to be considered during the Preliminary Engineering pmcess; and WI3EREAS, the City of Saint Paul held a public hearing on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 to receive community comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Saint Paul approves of, and lransmits, the attached report as the City's official response to the Alternaiives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Corridor; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Saint Paul holds the public hearing record open until 4:30 on Wednesday, July 15 to receive written comments on issues that should be included for consideration in the upcoming Preliminary Engineering; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Council directs this Resolution and attached report be transmitted to the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority az�d the Central Corridor Coordinating Committee by June 5, 2006. Adopted by Council: Date �7</, o �jJ / Adoption Certified by Council Secre y By: / iL/lSd�v Appr ved y y r: Date j '�jt7— j�j By: Requested by Department of: By: Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Cneen Sfieet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � - � � - - - _ b `'-{ � � co �� CoMactPerson 8 Phone: Couicilmemher 8ererev 2fiC*6640 Nust Be on Council Agenda by (Date): 24�1AY-06 ContractType: ae-aESaunas 17#�{AY-06 � ' Assign Number For Routing Order Green Sheet NO: 3030795 Oeoar6nent SentToPersun 0 I [ " 2 r 3 4 5 Tut # aF SignaWre Pages _(Clip All Locationsfor SignaWre} Action Requested: Transmiiking the City's official response to tNe Aiternatives Analysis and Draft Environmentai Impact Shtement (DEIS) for the Central Corridor. Planning Canmission CB Committee Chil Service Commissfon 1. Has this pe�soNfirtn e�er xarked under a contract firthis depa�tmaM? Yes No 2. Has this persoNfmm e�er heen a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firtn possess a skili not normaliy possessed by any curtaM CM1y employee? Yes No Explain all yes answars on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating problem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, WhaG �Nhen, Where, Why): Advantages IfApproved: Disadvaniages H Approved: Disadvantages 11 Not Approved: fotalAmountof Transactian: Funding Sourca: financial lrrfortnation: (Explainj CostlRevenue Budgeted: ActivAy Number: 11�y 17, 2006 51:17 PM Page 1 v�- �� PLP.NNIDiG CAbIIvIISSION � Brimi Akon, C7wir �••�� CTTY OF SAIN'f PAUL 25 WertFOUr1h Sbeet Telephone: 657-266-G700 Christopher B, Coleman, Mayor S¢bi7Pau1, MN55102 Facsimile: 65I-228-3120 May 19, 2006 Council President Kathy Lantry and Members of the Saint Paul City Council Third Floor, City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saiut Paul, MN 55102 I2E: Plaaning Commission Review of the Drait EIS for the Central Corridor Dear Council President Lanhy and Members of the City Council: Attached is the Planning Commission's report reviewing the Central Cozridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement. On Friday, May 19, 2006, after attending the City Council's public hearing on May 17 and reviewing the DraR EIS, the Planning Commission adopted this review report dated May 19, 2006. Given the short period for public review, the Planning Commission urges the City Council to take frnal action on comments at your May 24, 2006 meeting and transmit the City's official response to the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority and Central Corridor Coordinating Committee by June 5, 2006 so our comments may be incorporated into the official public hearing record for the Central Comdor. Further, the Planning Commission will supplement this recoznmendation after the City's public hearing record closes on July 19, 20Q6. 'I'haulc you for your attention to this matter. �- � a., {' , t','� . �:''�!. � � �• ,. ,,,, , AA.-ADA EEQ EMPLOYER J?'( �r-�'' D �' � �l � G; l ' �`� C( lY� n�1��x-� Add "Hatnline" to the last paza�aph, page 4, to be included with Victoria for an additionai potential ridership analysis. Add "Hamline" to the list of station-azea plans in para�aph 3, page 6. Add the following to the end of the second full text pazagraph on page 14: "Small business assistance strategies should also include consideraYaon af enlisting heip from the local colleges and universities. In Portland, for example, local business schools `adopted' small businesses to help them develop business plans and contingency strategies to thrive during and after conshvction. That model may work well for the Central Corridor and should be explored. Add to the recommendafions in bold at the bottom of page 14: "Finally, the City fittally recommends that local colieges and universities be encouraged to partner with individual smail businesses to support them during and after construction." Add to the listing of Pretiminary Engineering recommendations on page 15: •"Potential for roughing in urilities to supgort potential future LRT stations at Western, Victoria and Hamline." et�—�-q� co��vTS orr: THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FQR CENTRAL �ORRIDOR TRANSIT 5l24/OG INTRODUCTION TO CITY OF SAINT PAUL COMNIENTS The 11-mile Cendral Corridor serves the heart of the Twin Cities Metropolitan ttrea und connscrs some of the largest tra�'f'rc generators in the Tivtn Cities. In addition, the rreighborhoods located in the SYucFy.$rea are some of 1he most cohesive in zhe 7`win Cities Metra�olitan flrea. Stnce 1981, the Centrat Corridor has been a priorify focus for bus transit service and transportation tnvestments. — Draft EIS: Project Background S. i.I Thus begins the Draft EIS for the Central Corridor. For the City of Saint Paul, the Cenh•ai Corridor represents the best "city-buitding" opporfunity of a generation, with potential economic solidification of some built neighborhoods and substantiai new and intense investments in others: Corridors that served transportation throaxghout Saint Paul's history structure the city and are tke lifelines ofconnection and access...Recent carridor studies have identifaed major apportunities to creutejobs and housing in the...MidwaylUniversityAvenue Carridor... - Saint Paul Comprehensive Flan; Summary azid General Policy It is through this lens of city building that this City oE Saint Paui review is formed — a Iens that sees "DflT" (development oriented transit) rather than "TOD" (transit-oriented development) as Yhe primazy objective. Any new substantial inveshnents in transit in the Central Corridor must enhance city livability, maxianize major investment opporiunity, and promofe community cohesion. Such investments, therefare, shouid be for helping build up the city, not rnerely move people. V l,� / �� The foilowing review is divided into three parts, PART i outlines the rationate for the City's position on the preferred transit mode, since this is the only `deeision' that will come out o£the Draft EIS public hearing process. PART 2 outlines those issues that are most relevanY to fhis notion of city-building, and cantains the most significant issues for the City of Saint Paul. And, PART 3 is a review of tha Draft EIS on a chapter-by-chapter basis. These conunents will also be used as a template for City involvement as Che region proceeds through the PrelifnanRry Engineering process. Note thaf the City of Saint Paul may supplement andlor amend responses in Parts 2 and 3 to reflect additianal wnitten eamments received between May 24 and July 19, 2006. o�-�� PART 1— Transit Mode Choice MODE — ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (Section 2) 'F'he regional impartance of the Cenh•a[ Conidor cannot be overemphasized. It constitutes the backbone of the regional transit system. It connects the threa largest transif generators in the region; the fwo downtowns and the Ilniversity of Minnesota. The potential connection to the Fiiawatha LRT line and other future regional transitways (e.g. NorihStaz, Red Rock Corridor, Robert Street Corridor, Rush Line Corridor, Northwest Busway, and Riverview Busway) reinforees its role as the backbone of the entire transit systam. Bus Rapid Transit is a viable alternauve in many oorridors, but not the Cenfral Corridor, since the present and fiztare demand for transit outsTrips the rapacity available on BRT atternatives. With an exclusive right-of-way, BRT maximum capacity is 1,600 passengers per hour as compared to LRT whioh has a maximum capacity of 10,80d per hour. Expanded bus service, withouY LRT or BRT (Yhe `Saseline' Alternative) has such minimal capacity that At cannot possibly meet the projected transit demands over the next 20 years. Projeetions of ridership in 2025 show that even az�ticulated buses could not carry all of the demand. The ma3n reasons for supporting LRT over BRT or expanded bus service in tha Cenhal Cotridor as a long-term, cosf-effective improvement are: • LRT wilT provide a long-term, hi�-performance transit solution in the regions strongest transit corridor. • LRT will provide needed future iransportation capacity in this Coixidor where highway capacity expansion is not eonsidered feasible because o£physical, financial, enviroximental and political consfraiirts. � LRT has the greatest ridership capaeity -- oapacity which can aceommodate reinvestmendredevelopment activities throughout t4ie Con idor. • LRT has the greatest capacity to attract transit-oriented deveIopment and redevelopment opportunities along the Corridor, particutarly around stations. • Neither BRT nor expanded bus service can meet the projected demand for xidership The City of Saint Paul supports Light Rail Transit (LRT) as the preferred trar�sit mode in t�ie Cet�traC CorYidor �� PART Z — Critical Issues LRT STATION LOCATIONS (Section 2) The location of stations is a critical issue being discussed witbin the community. There has been much discussion over the past 20 years as to the spacing of stations with respect to travel times. Wifh the continuation of the Route 16 bus and express bus service on I- 94, the City in the 1990s confirmed t4ie spacing of'/Z to 1 mile between stations along University Avenue (City Council Resolution 99-1164, December 8, 1999). Furthermore, the tocation of stafions at or near the primary north(south streets ma�imizes the accessibility of Saint Paul f�•ansit patrons and maatimizes fhe potential for new invesiment in the Corridor. There are, however, legitimate concerns regarding the locaiion of stations along the CentraI Coreidoc These concerns, voiced over the past 5 years within the community, need further consideratiott. They include: • Adding a station at Western & University, and possibly at Vietoria & Univex•sity and Hamlane & University; • Consolida5ng the 6 & Cedar and 4`" & Robert stations into a station within the Athletic Club blocic; • Locating the LRT sfation at Union Depot to the train platform (and off of 4 Sheet); • Shifting the Snelling & University station eastward to a center platform between Asbury and Pascal; and + Shifting ihe Capitol East station to Robert Street north of 12 SUeet. The Braft EIS lays out the station locations in detail. And adding a station highlights the basic tradeoffs of additional local service versus additional travel time. Analyses regarding adding sfations generally states that ridership attracted to a new station will draw patrons from adjacent stations and, generaliy, will discourage some pah•ons elsewhere in the corridor due to increased travel times. Because of such sensitivities, each decision on stations must take into account both the localized benefts as weli as impact to the entire line. The potential Western Station could be sited within the University Avenue right-of-way. Potential TOD wiYnin % mile cozild be developed as part of the City's Development StrRtegy planning process as weIl as be considered as part of Preliminury Engineertng. Preinninary analysis, done for the Central Corridor Coordinating Committee for a station at Western, shows that LRT ridership may suffer along the route to some degree, and may outsirip the ridership gained at the station. However, the potential for TOD at the potential Western station, and its associated increased in ridership, were not considered in this preliminary analysis. No such ana[ysis has been done fo�• a Victoria Station or a Hamline Station, Such analyses shoald be included as part of Pretiminary Engineering. b�'`�y� Analyses must be done which inciude the development potential around possible stadons at Westem and at Viotoria. After such analyses have been completed and publiciy discussed, the City wili maks recammendations on each potential station. At the same time, the Ci , through the.Development 8lrategy planning process, will develop station areaplans at VJestern and at Vicforia. There are two mutualiy exclusive station locationshoute altemaYives in downtown: Cutfing diagonally thraugh the Athletic Club Block, or extending the ]ine down Cedar to Kellogg PIaza, and then turning east down 2 Street, and eventually onto the platform of the Union Depot. The first alternafive has the potential for consolidarion of fwo downtown stations at 6 & Cedar and at 4'�' & Robert on to the Athietic Club block (bounded 6y 5` Cedar, 4�' and Minnesota Streets). Impacts include: • Accommodation of an easf-west diagonal alignment of LRT withouf demolition of the Athletic Ciub building iYself, and thereby creation of a major opportunity for naw development. Reduction of, or elimination o£, "wheel squeal" by avoiding a 96 degree tutn. Inclusion of major pedestrian amexiities within the Hiock, such as seemless connections to the skyway system and service retail. Consolidarion of two stations into one, thereby reducing travel times. The second alternative uses the 2 Street aligmnent, merging with the exisGng tracks over Sibley and 3ackson, and proceeding directiy on to the Union Depot train platform. Impacts include: • Accommadation for much easier and more direct access to other Cransit modes (Amtrak, Upper Midwest High 5peed Rail, commuter rail, inter-city bus service, Metro TransiC bus service, et. al.). • Creation of a totally integrated and seemless connection among all transit modes. • Likely demolition/reconstruction of Kellogg Plaza. • A Union Depot station farther away from popnlation concentrations along 4�' 3treet. Both alternatives sliould be studied in Preliminary Engdneering. Shifting the Snelling Station ta the east has at least two major advantages to a station right at the interseation. First, the ooncentration of likely patron destinations is closer to Pascal than to Snelling. Relocation would benefit patrons by shortening walking distances. Second, the Sneiling/University intersecYion is one of the most con�ested in the corridor. By shifting the station eastward, fhere would be greater opportunities for retaining turning lanes thaf are essentiat to the capacity of the intersection, However, chauges would be needed to adequately connect hus service. Priznarily, the Route $4 {Snelling Avenue) bus would need ta he rerouted to guarantee direct connection to the LRT station. �� The prafexred CapitoI East Station should shift to Ro6ert Street north of 12'�' Street. The RCRR.�, City and others worked with the State of MinnesoYa to design the recently constructed Public Health and the AglHeafth Iab buildings to accommoda#e the station on Robert StreeL In addition, fhe sethacks for the I.ab now allow for the LRT atignment on the north side of 12 5treet, and allow for a larger-radius 40 degree tum an to Cedar Street. FinaIly, the routing and station locations should always keep in mind the other transit corridors that may intersect or connect with the Ccntral Corridor: Hiawatha; Riverview; Rush Liae; Red Rock; Robert Street; and possible easEem carridor. Most of the Metro East corridors should iniersect at the Union Depot. The RCRRA, in conjuncdon with fhe City, is working on plans for reinstituting Union Depot as THE multi-modal center in the Metra East Regioa Tfie Cily of Saint Paul comrnfts to doing station-area plans at Western, drictoric� and Hamline, regardless of whether stativns are butlt dureng the farst�hase of LRT construction, The City ofSaint Pau! recommends Lhat the routing and str�tian (ocations "rla no harm" in terms of conraecting witla other transii corridors. The City ofSaintPaul recommends that: • Station locations and spacing as tisted irr tlae DEIS {p2-&) and depdcted in Figure 2.3-2 are �enerallv acceptable. • To 2-8, and Figure 2.3-2, add consideration of sfations tat Western, Victoria and Hamline. • To 2�8, Figure 2.3-2, Figure 5.2-16 c�nd Figure 5'.2-17, c�dd consideNntion of consolidating fwo adjncent stations into the Athletic Ctub block, antl show ulignment option that cuts diugonalty through the Athletic elub block. • To 2-8, Figure 2.3-2 and Figure 5-2-I8, add cvnsirleration af using a downtown routing on Cedar to Kellogg Plaza, folCowing 2 Street alignment to existing fracks over Sibtey and Jackson and directty on fo the train platforrrr. • To Z-8, Figure 2.3-2 and Figur•e 5.2-1 D, udd consideratio�a of shifting the SneCling Station to the eas� • To 2-8, F'igure 2.3-2 �rnd Figure S.Z-14, add consirCerativn of shifting the Caprtol East Statio� an to Robert Street north of 12` Street, and show ntignment staying on Robert Streef to 1 Z'�' Street, and sauthwest on 12 Street to Cedar Streef. bl�-�� STATION DESIGN (Sec�ion 2} There are at least five criticai issues related to Station Design to be reconciled witFun Prelimiac�ry Engineerireg: + What aze the safety accommodations for transiY pairons7 � What is the capacity (length) of stations? • 5houid there be a uniform design for stations or should each station 6e distinct? • How will the stations be differentiated to reflect the Iocal chu�acter, history and aspirations of the neighborhood? • What is the appropriate level o1'maintenance? Safety is paramount with respect to stadon design. Protection of patrons accessing the station platfonn, as well as protection on the platform requixes special accommodations including lighting, signal control, railings, security, LRT vehicle warning lightslsounds and many odiers. Particular attention needs be paid to issuss of visually and hearing impaired as well as mobility impaired. In addition, access to the stations must be kept free of snow with well-maintained surfaces and pEeasing aesthetics. Finally, accommodations for maximum passenger comforC and ease of use should include: • Heating in the winter; • Bicycle lockers (either in or near the stations) and potential communit� bicycle servioes; •"Reai-t'vne information" on both the LRT and connecting bus service; and • Weather information. Station capacity is essetttzal to meeting the transit demands in the corridor. The Drnft EIS specifias that station dasign will accommodate 2-car trains (Section 2.3.2 p2-8). • However, given fhe great success of the Hiawatha Can•idor in this region, and the ridership projections £or the Cenh•al Cozridor Iine, it seems short-sighted to limit the iniflal construction of stations to a mere 2UQ feet, (5ee also the discussioii below, under "Transportation Impacts (Secdon 6): Operating Costs.") In Minneapolis, the community opted for having very individualized statian design along the Hiawatha Corridar. However, the sfatious along iiiawatha are physicatly segarate from the community to a much greater degree than the tJniversity Avenue stadons will be, and so the community discussion may be different in this case. In addition, when station locations were discussed as pai�t of the City of Saint Paul Riverview Corx•idor anatysis, thac�e was a good deal of community sentimenY far hauing a more unified design for hus stations. This may suggest a difFerent option for LRT starions in Saint Paul. One variation discussed during the Riveiview Cairidor analysis was that the basic stnzctural elements cauld be uniform, with co(ors andJor public art being the distinguishing characteristics among stations. In any case, fhis is an issue that needs thorough discussion during Prefiminary Engineering. T'he design of the stations should reflect the aspirations and character of the neighborhood surrounding rhem. This differentiation can best.be accompIished throug(� bl� - �-� � a process of community discussion and the assistance of a public artist, experienced in such projects. An interdisciptinazy team should be assembled to assist each sucmunding neighborhood develop elements that can reflecY such aspiratians and characteristic including: engineers; public artistS; planners; and devetopers. There is also need for adequate �unding for maintenance. Exceltence in maintenance is crucial for #he lang-tetm success of the LRT 1ine. The discussion here does not deal with aIl the issues related to £unding for tnaintenance. However, some of the critical issues include the need for funding to ensure: • Excellent upkeep such as replecing broken/damaged materials, sidewalk repairs, flmely cleaniug and snow removal; • Ongoing updating of security equipment; and • Adequate security personnel to ensw•e persanal safety at the stops and on the trains. Finally, there shouid be a focus on the design of bEts shelters as well, with respect to issues of location, safety, uniformity and differeutiation. �'he City of Sainl PauC recommends thcrt ira Preliminary Engineering there needs to be: • Exdensive discussio�as on t&e details of station design with respect to safety anrl security. • A baseline design for sfation platforms of 300 feet (p2-8 "Stations'}. • Extensive discussions nn both the corridor-wide appro�ch to station �lesign as well as to the individuat stations therreselves. • Interdiscdplinnry teanas to assist neighborhoods in differentfating station design that reflects the character, history and aspirations of each neighborhood. • Discussion on the design, tocation, unifor�nity and differerztiation of bus shelters. • IVegotinted aperations trnd muintenance budget to provide for a�lequate resources for excellence irt a,�pearaHCe, timely repairs and sufficient security personnel at staliohs and on irt�dns. CROSS-S�CTION DESIGN CONSIDERATION� (Section 2) The cross-section design is exG•emeIy imporiant to ensm•e that fhe LRT can be easily integrated into the community. The "typical section" drawings, shown in Figure 2.3-3, show what could happen along Ufliversity Avenue in Saint Paul west of Rice Street. {It is not representative for downtown Sa'snt Faul nor Univeasify Avenue in Minneapolis.) The "midblock" cross-secrion shows 12-foot sidewalks, 28-foot wide central-running LRT, two 4�a�c lanes in each direction and on-streef p�rking. This cross-section shouid include boulevaxds with landscaping, straet furniture and bus shelters. d� � ��"� 'Fhe "typical section" at stations eliminates on-street parkaig btrt allow for Ieft turn lanes. This "[ypical seetion" shows "split, side p]atform stations." "Center platform stations" require somewhat narrower travel Ianes. Center platform stations are plannetl for stations at Raymond Avenue and Rice Street, with the remainder of stations on University Avenue being split, side platform stations, Stations in the Capitol East and downtowm require more specialized design given Yhe tighter right-of-ways. One other critical issue for the cross-section design relates to potenual pedestrian barriers except at intersections. Such a bazrier would be a safety feature to prevent pedestrians crassing at mid-biock. If constructed, it would be instalied between the esst and west bound tracks. Although the bazrier is not @epicted on the typical cross sections of Figure 2.3-3, it may bacome a safety issue that the community supports. It is an issue that relates to both safety and aesthetics. Balancing pedesfrian access with pedestrian safety must be considered extensively in Pretiminary Engirteering. T'he City of Saint Paul supports the foldawing: • Suppori for the typicad cross-sections shown on Frgure 2.3-2: • Ceneral oppositioh tn perlestrian &arriers, laowever support for a detailed evaluation of such b�rriers in each segment along the corridor. SAFETY & SECURITY (Section 3.8) Safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists is paramount in the success of an arban transit system like LRT in tha middle of Univarsity Avenue, Safety of pedestrianslbicyeiists crossing University Avenue to either the station platforms or totally across the Avenue will require substantial design consideration and consistenf pedestrian education. Currently, crossing protection is planned to be provided at al( proposed signalized intersections. At such crossings, pedestrian right-of-way will be cIeazly displayed to motorists and transit operatars as weil as pedestrians, Ensuring safe pedestrian precincts (both crossing the street and safe piatform waiting areas) will require detailed design and use of best practices from throughouf North America. Again, particular attention needs be paid to issues of visually and hearing impaired as well as mob3lity impaired with r�spect to safety. Aside fi•om proteeting pedestrians and bicyclists from motor vehicles and LRT velveles, there are important consideiations to proYect transit patrons from personal crime, particularly at station areas and on the trains. Again, there are important lessons to be Iea��ned from other systems. Such security wil] requare not only careful design, but ongoing funding to ensure personai safety. The third important area is fo ensure safety of the motoring pubiic. There have ah•eady been a few major accidents with the Hiawatha Corridor line, ttnd although they apparently were fhe fault of the motorisfs, safety must be preserved through excellence in signal design and motorists' educauon. One advantage that the Cenh�al CoiTidor has over � b(� � �q� the Hiawatha Corridor is that the vast major'sty of intersections aze at right angles that masimize visibiliry. Finaily, there needs to be special accommodations for emergency vehicles. Signal preemption will he avai]able to emergency vehicles. In addiUon, the design calls for mountable curbs separating the LRT guideway from mixed traffic, allowing emergency vehicle crossing, but discouraging illegal crossings by motorists, Same of the safety features of LRT vehicles are listed on page 3-67, but the ultimate design will come out of a carefi�lly-considered discussion with the community during Preliminary Engineering. The City of,Saint Paul recommends: • ftn irx-depth discussion ojpedestrirtn, bicycfe, and motorist safety focuserl on sYStem desi�n. �ublic education and on oin mnintenance during and ttfter Preliminary Engineering. PARHING (Section fi.5) Issues relating to parking will oontinue to be near the forefront of City concerns. Specifically, there are three distinct issues that have been identified with respect to parking and the LRT system; • Loss of on-street parking; + Park & Rida accommodations, if any; and • Appropriateness of additional off-street parking to meet current and fut�u�e needs. The Draft EL5 estimates that ihere are approximately 1,500 on-streef parking spaces along University Avenue, and that approximately 44% of such spaoes are being used at any one point in time. However, the availability of on-street parking and the need for such parking for retai[ establishrnents is not always in the same loaauon. Further, of the 60Q on-street parking spaces that might be removed as pai�t of LRT development, some are inconsequential wl�ile others are very important to the viability of commercial establishments. Therefore, the potenUal measures for miti�ating loss of on-street parking will depend on the location of the spaces lost and the demand by commercia] patrons. Public acrions that may eliminate on-streef parlcing (as does LRT consiruction} do nat r�uire mitigation with "reglacement parking," since it is a puhIic 6enefit and not an entitled benefit to any patticular property owner. However, during Preliminary Engineering it is appropriate to suggest potential off-street parking possibilities, either through joint-use a�xx�ngements of existing off-street pazking or potential land assembly to create additionai off-street parking. However, at this fime, the City daes not commit to "replacing" spaces Iast to construction of LRT. The City does cail for analyses to assess the loss and potential replacement on a block by blook basis. This ana[ysis and proposed mitigation measuras to parking losses must be LO o(�-�� done during Prefiminary Engineering. At the conciusion of such analyses, the City wiIl detennine an appropriate course of action. Park and ride can aiso be a difficult issue. The City believes that excellent north/south bus service wonld provide adequate access to the Central Corridor from areas outside the Corridor, and elirninata the need for pazk & ride accammodations for non-local originations. Historically, the City has disc�uraged park & ride facilitias. And many national land use and transit experts recommend that park & ride lots be at 2east 5 miles from downtowns. However, another aspect of park & ride aee those who come from longer distances to ride the LRT. (HiawaYha Corridor has 1,506 official park & ride spaces plus the 346 park & ride within 640 feet of station areas, for a totai of 1,852.} Skouid fhere be off-street parking accom�nodaEions for such pahons along Cenh•al Conidor? Part ofthe answer will be found in more detailed ridership profiles for each station area to be done in Pretiminery Engineering. And part of the answer will come from the City's determination of whether non-federaily funded, off-streef parking lots and ramgs should be made availabie for such pazking. Some of the questions raised wifli respect to creating such parking are: • Who pays for tha pazking? • Does the creation of such pazking encourage even more patrons to come into the neighborhoods to park and ride? • What is the optima3 size of such facilities so that there is neither under use nor spillover use into the neighborhoods? • What are the "opportunity costs" for dedicating valuable real estate for such p� In addition, along the Hiawatha Gorridor there are a number of LRT pat�ons who park in the immediate neighborhoods of LRT stations and walk. Of the 346 "park & hide" patrons among 3 station areas, the vast majority come from the immediate neighborhood of fhe staiion (within 1 mile), and are not willin� to walic more than about 6Q0 fee� For these local park and ride patrons, there are some mechanisms that can be used to discourage sueh activity including: • Better northlsouth bus service with "on 6me" transfer schedules; • Signed time limitalions far parking on University Avenue; • Localized permit parking in residential neighborhoods; and • Tmproved pedestrian links to the stations themselves. A dlfferent, but related, issue deals with the provision of parking for nerv devetopment along the Avenue and the administration of the City's Zoning Code. Some of the land along University Avenue has bean rezoned to TN-3 (tradi$onal neighboxflood zoning), which has difFerent (usually lower) parking requirements than other zones. More rezonings will follow. The City wiIl consider parking maximums as well as minimums as new development comes on line. If so, how restricuve should they be? And whaf are the consequences of restricting parking for uew development on curreut uses in the Corridor? Ii o�-�f�� T&e City ofSaint Pc�ul will evaluate the pc�rking requirements as�urt of ihe Development Strategy wark being done by the Ptanning Commission. The City of Saint Paul generttlly wishes to confinue discouragement of park and ride activities. The City recommends that the Prelitninary Engineering prvicess inctude: • Station-by-statior2 evaluafions of the potential doss of on-street parking, anrl suggesting potentiat mitigating measures so as not to uKduly btu��den current retail establishments. •,Station-by-station evaluatiores of tikely ttemanrl for park & rirle accommod�ttions and an evaluation of techniques which are most effective in discouraging such activity in each of the cfrcumstances. • An evaluation of a polential singte, major park & ride structure in the Mddway area. OTHER TRANSIT SERVICE IN THE CORRIDOR (Section 6.2) "'The Study Area has one of the highest percentages of population that have zero-caz households, persons living below poverty lavel, persons with mobiliry litnitations and minorifies in the Twin Cities" (pl-3). It is clear that Central Corridor residents coutd greatiy benefit from a major transit investment such as LRT. However, it aiso means that residents are somewhat more vulnerable to cufbacks in current transit service. Therefore, the future of current transit service in the Centra] Corridor is essenrial to the snceess of LRT and of the neighborhoods. Not too many years ago, LRT planners fhougiit that a1) h�ansit in the Cenh•al Corridor must be funneIed into the LRT, and that LRT would carry the vast majority oftransit patrons in the corridor. That maant, among other things, fhat retention of the Routes i 6 & 94B/D were not necessary. However, in the past decade, Metro Transit and transit planners nationally hava come to realize that there are tl�ree distinct easUwest transit markats in major uansit cor�idors such as the Cenfral Corridor: • Local t�ips that want stops evary hiock or two (Route 16}; • Express trips from downtown to downtown or to die University of Minnesota (I- 94 Express); and + Limited-stop sarvica that has stops every %2 to 1 mile (LR'1�. A testament to tliis theory is that the introducfion of the Route 50 has not diminished ridership on the Route 1 b or Route 94 BiD. In addition, surveys done by Metro Transit show that the average trip lengih along University Avenue (including the Route 16) are in the 3 fo 4 mile range. An average trip langth of 3 to 4 miles is logical given the high 12 � l.l' � I 7 J number of destination areas (i.e. residentiat, retail, services, and education) throughout the Corridor. Given that these ate diffexent market segments that wiil use the local (Route 16}, limited stop (LRT) and express {94 Express), what is the appropriate amount of service that is cailetl for in the Carridor? • Ronte 16: This service will be particularly important to those who cannot easiiy walk long distanaes — the very young, the very old, those wha aze transporting goods (i.e. groceries and some durable goods) and/or children, and those who are transit-dependent witl� physica] limitations. Although not unifoimly true, mast of these patrons need service moce duri�g the day, and on weekends; rather than duriug the peak hours. The Draft EIS cafts for cutting service for ai] hours of operaUon by 2/3rds. This is a serious underestiniation of demand. Table 6.2-5 should be amended to show continuation of non-peak and weekend service at current levels. If it is shown thaf after LRT begins operation such freqaency is not in such demand, a schedule cuthack could be considered. • Route 94 BlC/D: The Draft EIS (Tabie 6.2-4) shows elnninauon of ti�e Routes 94 B and C and elimination of all but peak-hour service for Route 94D (20 minute frequency), to be replaced by a 94 Express route. It is not clear from the analysis as to che demand for such service after LRT is built. North/south hus service has continued to see cutbacks, with more cuts likely in the future unless a dedicated funding source for bus system operations is established. Current bus service on Rice Streat is 30 minuEes during the peak hours (Route 62), on Da(e Street is 30 minutes (Route 65), on Lexington Avenue is non-existent, on Snelling Avenue is iS zninutes (Route 84), on Cleveland Avenue south is 30 miuutes (Route 87), and on ftaymond Avenue north is 30 minutes (Route 87}. In order to take best advantage of LRT such northJsouth "feeder service" should ba at the same fi•equency as the LRT (7.5 minute frequency) or ha3f the Frequency (15 minute} during the peak hours. This suggests a major improvemen# to the north/south bus service on the 6 streets listed above. The Draft EI5 shows NO IMPROVEMENTS to north/south hus service. 5peciai needs ofthe ttansit-dependent between University Avenue and I-94 are also not acknowledged in the Draft EIS. �Vith the elimination of the Route 76 service in 2005, there is eurrently no sexvice to the senior azid low-income high tises in this area. The Route 76 service provided rnid-day access to those populations and coutd easily be reconstituted to brin� transit dependent patrons to selecYed University Avenue LRT stops. The City of Saint Paul recommends: • Retain eurrent Route l6 service in the non peak and on weekends (10 minute frequency). Etzhance bus servzce, at no fess than 1 S-minute frequency during the perck hours, of Routes 62, 65, 84, ancl 87. Re-establish service an Lexington AvenuefParkway at no less than IS `ninute frequency draring the peak hours. 13 �l� -1 -`' ° I� • Reconstitute/reconstruct east/west bus service in the area bounded 6y Lexington, Universify, ,St. �4nfhvny and downtown to serve transit-dependent populatiahs. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS (Sectinn 6.9} The Draft EIS lists the following issues with respect to cons€ruction: • Noise • Vibration • Access and Distribution of Traffic • Excavations, Fill Material, Debris and 3poil • Construction Staging Areas The rnost significant issue for the community with respect to construction impacts appears to be access during consEruction. Coordination of road closures and traffic detours aze exh�emely important, especially to businesses on the Avenue and in downtown. It is exiremely important that the agreements emerging from Pretiminnry Engineering be in conjunction with business needs on a"block group"-by-"block group" basis throughout the Corridor. `T'he City understands that new construcfion techniques allow for some flexibility along the length of the route. That may mean businesses anfl residents in some portions of the route may choose to shoiten consiruction disruption but have limited access, while in other areas there is a desire to preserve as much sccess as possible and have a longer consU�ction period. Akhough it is impxactical to vary construction techniques for each block, constructiion phasing and techniques may be able to accommodate three to four block distances at one time. Planning during Preiiminary Englneering needs to care£u�ly consider, in conjunction with businesses and residents, customized construction phasing to best meet their needs. In addiUon, as has been done along other corridors, there will likely be assistance for businesses during const�uction. The Business Partnership is developing a smal] husiness assistance strategy, and is coordinating their efforts with the City of Saint Paul, although no program specifics have been committed to at this time. Sma13 business assistance sh�aYegies shouid also include consideration of enlisring help from the local colleges and universities. In Portland, for example, local business schools `adopted' small businesses to lielp them develop business plans and contingency strategies fo ttu•i�e during and after construction. That model may work well for the Central Corridor and should be exploxed. �inaily, a public relations firm should be hired as part of the eonstruction team to develop a plan for outreach which would deat with speci&c and broad issues related to construction. There should be special construction accommodafions dw•ing consu•uction including a 24-hoar contractor hotline with 30 minute response time to canfact the complainant. 14 o�-�� 7'he Cify of ,Snint Pnu[ recom►nends fhat Ppeliminury Engeneering include eztensive, blockgroup-by-blackgroup (2-4 btocks) aNrahgements wifh lacal property owners artd businesses to determine aciva[ constructfon phasing and �rzitigation. The City atso recoinmends thRt the project hire a public relations fzrm and fhat an emergency response plan be developed. Finalty, the City recommends that loc�rt colleges and universdties be encauraged to�artner with intlividuat smalt bcrsi�aesses to support them during and after construction. DISPLACEMENTS AND PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS (Section 3.5) The other issue related to construction is the list of needed properties for construction. Table 3.5-1 lists properties tliaT are needed for consttuction. However, actual acquisition needs az•e dependent upon more detailed engineering. Therefore, if is not fruitful to speculate too much on actual properties required, The vast majority ofparcels needed are partiat (mostly small sliver land needs) with only 5 parcels/7 businesses requiring acquisition. And it appears that, due to design changes near the Fairview station and recent land transactions with the Capitol Area Areivtectural and Planning Board, that NO total parcel or business acquisitions will be required in Saint Paul. (Note thaf if a diagonai re-roating is selected across the Athletic Club block, the bank and parking lot would need fo be acquired.) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING This is one of the most eritical issues in development of LRT in the Centxal Corridor, and yet it is not part of the official EIS process. As the project proceeds into Prelaminary Engineering, the Metropolitan Council and MnDOT will take the primary leadership in the planning ancl construction of the project. Tfie recent track record of LRT development in the U.S. has focused on building the project on dme and within budget. And although these are laudable obj�tives, to honor these above all other objectives ignores the fact that such traasif projects are to serve communities through which they run, and not just move people. Development of Preliminary Engineering must include community participation in a mean€ngful way, notjust a conduit to infoi•m the community as to how the project should be built according to project managers. The Crty of Saint Paul recommends comrnureity-basecl ana[yses tLaat tcre done as part of Preliminary Engineering include cooperative and thorough investigatio� into these issues: • Route refinements; • Sttttion locations, including�otentittl for roughijag in utilifies for potential future LRT stat�ons at Westerta, Victoria and Hrurzline. IS 6�-�� • Design of station ptatforms with corzsiderations of safety ccnd aesthetics; • Pedestriara access to stations and bus stops; • Lighting anrl other security etements atplatforms, at bus stops and along pedestrian paths to the platforms/stops • Streetscape design antt funding; • Public art; •. ftesthetic design of track 6eds, overhead wiring and support,poles; • Loss nf on-street parking; • Park & ride facilities, if any; • Construction mitigtttion; and • tlyprenticeship programs. Paralded to Preliminary Engineering, the City of Saint Paud will do a serzes of cosnmunity-based anatyses as part of the Development Strategy and Plaraning Process incdudd�ag, 6ut not limited to: • Parks & open space; • Sustainable developFnent; • Pubdic art; • Pedestrian an�l bicycle connections; •,Smald busi�xess ir►zpacds including p�operdy owner and tenant assrstartce; • Off-street parking requirements; • tlffordable housing; • Minority business develop�nent; • Zonfng; • Density; and • Station Area Plans for each station. Finally, tJ:e City of Saint Paul recomrraends community-based work groups/faskforces be establis{�edfor each of the issues lisfed n6ove, and staffed by multi-disciplinnry staff teams (incduding e�agrneers, publie artists, planners, and deve(opers). Results of these analyses should be viewe�l as input fa the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Central Corridor Management Tearra and foundationaf for making decisions on tlze desdgn arad co�struction ofLRT. 16 b�� PART 3 — Sectron-by-Section Review PURPOSE & NEED (Section 1) Section 1.31ists the goals and objectives for the Study. The tltree goals and 8 objectives aze general in nature. They do a good job of outlining the key issues and dixectives for the Study. The objectives include: •"Suppori investments in infrastructure, business, and community that sustain fhe heart of the region." •"Promote a reliable transit system that allows an efficient, effecdve land use development patfern in major activity centers wluch minimizes parkiug demand, facilitates the highest and best use of adjacent properties and gives emp]oyers confdence that employees can travel to/fi•om work." •"Facititate the preservation and enhancement of neighborhoods in the Central Corridar." •"Acknowledge the individuai charaeter and aspirafions of each place served, and of the region as a whole." •"Support regional goals for cleaner air and water, more e�cient energy use and a safer and healthier environmen�." •"Create transportation improvements thaf add people carrying capacity, minimize operating costs, improve opet�ting efficiency, provide high quality modal alternatives and reinforce the region's transportarion system." •"Expand opportunities for all users to move freely to, through and within the Central Corxidor." •"Enhance ths axisting transportation infrastructure to serve the high number of transit dependent persons in the Central Contidor." Thare are some key themes that coincide with the City of Saint Paut's hopes and aspirations for neighborhoods in the corridor including enhancement of neighborhoods, investment in the community, acknowledgement of the individual character and aspiratdons of each place (neighborhood), and service to transit dependent persons in the Centrad Corridor. Section 1.23 (pl-5) states that according to a 1948 study, downtown Saint Paul had a 2340 paz•king space shortage. Two factors shnuld be considered here. First, shortages af parkiag in downtown tand to be very localized and the west end of downtown. 5econd, parking supply/demand is a very fluid situation, depending upon of£ice building occupancy and transit modai split. In addition, Section 1.2.5 (p 1-� states that "[I]ack of parking limits growfh. New housing and cammercial projects continue to be built throughout the area to house all diis growth. Further redevelopment in the downtown would cause atlditional preasure on atready Iimited parking, reducing opportunity for additional development" The overall economic situation in downtocun Saint Pau1 should be re-evaluated within the structure of the New St�rrts Applicrzlion and the City's Devetopment Strategy planning process Furthermore, lack of parking will not necessarily limit growth downtawn since many �ew developmenYS include accommodations for parking. Development of new parking must consider the amount of availabie transit service and the tvpe of housiuglcommercial sUace beinQ developed. �� ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED (Section 2) - �e ��,RT station Locafion" and "Station Design" discussion above. Section 2.1.2 (2-1) references the decision on February 15, 2001 by the Central Corridor Section 23.1 {2-5) lists the necessary transit improvements in the Cenh•al Coiridor. The list is dated, as are the route service "improvements" in Section 6.2. The Draft EIS shoutd be amended to refleet more current uansit impcovements needed I in the Central Corridor. ' SOCIAL & LAND USE IMPACTS (Section 3) Section 3.2 outlines the City oF Saint Paul's comprehensive and small area plan policies as of the year 2002, when the Draft EIS was prepared. Also referenced is the LRT on University Avenue: A Review of the Potantial report, which supported "A two- track light raiI system connecting downtown St. Paul and downfown Minneapolis [which] can be accommodated well within the existing University Avenua right-of-way." (This report was foundational for the City Council's resolution of December S, 1944 endorsing LRT on University Avenue.) Aiso cited are the foilowing plans adopted by the City that at Ieast reference LRT and/or BRT pianning along University Aveuue: • Historic Loweitown Small Area Plan � Thomas-Dale small Area Plan • Haxnline-Midway Community Plan • South St. Anthony Park Small Area Plan • St. Paul on the Mississippi Development Framework The City has also amended its Zoning Code to inolude T'N (traditional neighborhood) zone and selected sites along University Avenue have already been rezoned as T'N-3. Since 2002, the City has completed "station area plans" for Da1e & University, SnellinglLexington & University, and Zonnig Code revisions that inUoduce the new "family" of zoning classifications dealing with "h�adifional neighborhoods." Also, tha Downtovm Development Strategy was con�pleeed. Sections 3.2.2 and 3.23 should be updated to reflect such work. There is also a discussion of major activity areas along the corridor. The City believes that the North Quadrant, a new residential neighborhood, shouId be included. Section 3.2.5 outlines consistencies and differences with the potential of LRT on University Avenue. The Drafr EIS rightly states that the City's 199? Transportafion Plan does not overtiy support LRT on University Avenue. The RCRI2A's policy at the time was to favar LRT on I-94, and the City's comprehensive plan did not challenge its alignment preference. However, shortly thereafter (1999) the Planning Commission and 18 �� City Council reaffirmed an earlier City position of supporting LRT on University Avenue. Section 33.2 outlines impacts related to neighborhoods, and beginning on p3-22 discusses impacts on Saint Paul neighborhoods. Although some o£the points aze debatable in then• precise wording, the Draft EIS is fair ni its overall assessments of social and land use conditions. On p3-24, the Draft EIS asserts specific impacts aa downtawn stceets; specif"icaily Cedar Street and 4� Street: "Cedar Street between 7� and 5�' Streets would be reduced to a single drive lane. 4��' Street woufd be reduced from its cun•ent two-way traffic to a single lane with traffic moving west, and closed between Minnesota and Robert Streets at the station area." The Ciiy recommends that these findings need updating given potential changes in routing and station locations discussed earlier. Beginning on p3-27, there is a discussion of displacement of struchzres tliat states "[t]he displacement of struetures for the proposed University Avenue LRT Alternative would be limited to the ...Fairview Avenue Stafion, Rice Street Station, Robeit Str•eet and Columbus Avenue. The City understands that cmrently NO DISPLACEMENT of structures is being contemplated in Saint Paul as pazt of this project. On p3-28 the Dratt EIS states: "Changes in traffic patterns along University Avenue for both build alternatives would impact neighborhoods because of the Iimiting of turn movements to right-in and right-out only and the increase in U-turns aY signalized intersections." This is discussed fiuther in the review of the "Transportation Impact Analysis" below. Beginning on p3-28 the Draft EIS ouUines paz•klands and potential impacts of LRT on parks, eoncluding "...the UniversiEy Avenue LRT Alternative would not substantially impact or diminish the activities, feattu•es, or attributes at any of the ten parks, within 300-feet of the proposed alignment." The City of Saint Paul agrees with this assessment. The Czty has a"no net loss" policy regarding parkland. Tt should be so noted in 3.4.I on p3-28. In addition, the Museum Park is listed as a public park in 3.4.2 p3-32. It is not, so the text should so note. Also, Hamm Memorial Park is actually Hamm Plaza. Finally, Landmark Plaza (old Firstar site), Harriet Island Regional Park, Lower Landing, Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary and the Wacouta Commons should be added to the list on pp3-32 to 33. The Draft EIS states that stafions along University Avenue would impact 83 parcels and displaea 3 structures, in the Capzfol Area would displace iwo buildings and impact , a parking lot, and in downtown impact two parcels. This analysis needs to be updated given changes since the Draft EIS was completed. 19 �� Beginning on p3-47, the Draft EIS outlines nnpacts rela#ed to visual and aesthetic conditions. Jmpacts along University Avenue state that "...the roadway is wide and somewhat bleak, and this proposed new infrast�ucture might in fact improve the aesthetic qualities o£the right-of-way." Further, the Draft EIS states "jt]he proposed budget for the LRT Altemative would include a complete rebuild of the Avenue, which wouid ailow for aesthetic improvements." The City of Saint Paul whoie-heartedly supports the need for a complete rebui3d of University Avenue, and asserts that this is not only an aesfhetic concern, but a concern for economic and community stability. Since the f,RT alignment is now planned north of the Capitol, visual impacts are minimazed. But the station location in front of the hisforio Union Depot headhouse is still of historic and aesthetic conoem. In the text of 3.62 on p3-49, there should be some recognition of the historic buiidings along 4' Sh•eet, as this is one of tAe best stretches of intact historic facades extant in downtown. The issue of introducing an overhead electrical system along the route is of interest and concern to the City. Poteutial mitigation measures outlined on p3-51 should be vigorously pursued in Preliminary Engineering. The University-Raymond Heritage Preservafion District (local) has now been ' designated and the text on p3-59 should be amended to so note. Beginning on p3-64 there is a discussion on safety and security. Sae the discussion above for the City's analysis —"Safety and Security (Section 3.8)." Section 3.9 introduces the considerations of Environmental .lustice. The objective of the Federal mandate for environmental jusrice states, in part "...identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse hmnan health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations:' Tables 3.1-1 (Itace and Ethnicity by Neighborhood) and 3.1-3 {Income and transit Dependency by Neighboxhood} define geographic areas of particular concern retated to minority populations and low-income populadons. NOTE: In general, LRT on University Avenue does not disproportionately adversely affect neighborhoods wifh high minorify and/or low-i�come populations. However, it may be that simlar impaets may be felt more acutely by Iow-income neighborhoads. The Draft EIS outlines Environmentat Justice considerations with respect fa Social P�actors in this chapter, with respect fo Enviranmental gacfors (Section 4.0) and Econamic Impacts (Section 6.0). 20 �� -'� 95' Section 3.9.3 (p3-71f� discusses environmental iustice with respect to: • Neighborhoods, community facilities and couununity col�esion • Pazklands • Dispiacements {property impacts) • VisuaI and aesthetic impacks The az�ea of concern in this sectian relates ta oommunity cohesion, whereby pedestrian and vehicular crossing of University Avenue will be more limited after compledon of LRT constructioxr. LimiYing pedestrian crossing potenrials may erode community cohesian disproportionately in those areas where perceutage of transit-dependeut populations are high and those azeas where culturally people walk more than drive. In addition, in areas for which Rondo Avenue displacement is still a painful memory, consideraflons of commuuity cohesion is particufarly significant, The City of Saint Paul recouunends that in Preiiminary Engineering, as well as in the City's Devedopmertt Sdrategy work, special consideration be given to community cohesion issues throughout the Central Conidor, and parEicularty the neighborhoods e of Lexington Avenue. The CiTy of Saint Paul is also deeply conceined with the potential impact of rising propei#y vatues an cunent businesses and residents who own or rent propeity along the Avenue. Aldiaugli this is not exclusively, nor even prunarily, related to the potentiai for LRT along iTniversity Avenue, these issues must be oonsidered in both the Prellminary Engineering and 73eve%pment Sfrategy work over the next 2+ yeats. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Section 4} Beginning on p4-1 is an analysis of soils. �eolo¢v and tonoaranhy. Whereas, these are important considerations in some corzidors, the Central Corridor in Saint Paul is "fialiy developed" with faw or nv related issues. Beginning on p4-8 is an analysis of hazardous materials contamination. Tlus is a significant issue within the Cenh�al Con•idor, but LRT development wifl Iikely have Iittle or no impact on the current condition. Most of the potential contazninaYes ai�e outside the University Avenue or downtown stxeet rights-of-way. "The next phase of engineerin� work will inctude sampling and tesring on the proposed transit alignment in the areas of "Medium" azid "High" priority sites to detennine potential for contamination and the mitigadon costs associafed wifli it "(Draft EIS p�}-I2) Howevex, the cataloguing of such hazards is worth inclusion in the Draft EIS in case something is unearthed during construction. Such hazazds should also be considered by the City in its Development 5trntegy work. Beginning on p4-12 is an analysis of air uali issues. Ths Draft EIS concIudes Uiat "...no mitigation measures are necessary in order to demonshate project-level confoi�xnity 21 �� '��1� ofthe project-related emissions inventory." This sausfies federai requirements, however, if the City is to encourage substantially more active pedestaan and bicyclist use of the Central Conidor, CO emissions wifl continue to be of concem. T1us is particularly frue at very busy intersections {e.g. Snelling and Le�ngton). Therefore, the City witl continue to consider CO emissions that may affect air quality along tha Cenh�al Corridor. Be o-�ni ng on p4-25 is an analysis of noise issues. In other corridors in Norfh America, noise has not nomially been a problem with one exception: "wheel squeaP' particularly during shazp turning movemenfs. This therefore, may be a�problem at Robert & Univeisify, Robert & 12�', 12� and Cedaz• and at Cedar & 4' Any #ntersections with a curve with radius of less than 82 feet aze vulnerable to wheel squeal. This is potentially avoided by angling across intersections somewhat (e,g, the University & Robert and 12 & Cedaz alignments). And if the atignment cuts diagonatly through the Athletic Club block {see above) the one 9Q degree turn will be convetted into two approximately 45 deg��ee turns. Noise mitigation for LRT is briefly discussed on p4-36 and lists both operational poticies and noise insutafion measures. Se�inning on p4-38 is an analysis of vibration issues. With new technology, mostly associated with the fxack bed, vibration issues are minimal with LRT systems. Minor mitigations aze listed on p4-44. Beginning on p4-44 is an analysis of ecologv and habitat issues. It includes consideration of vegetatian and wildlife, aquatic habitat, wetlands, rarelfhreatenedlendangered flora and fauna species. As might be expecte�l, impacts of LRT construction on ecology and hahitat are minimal. Beginning oa p4-49 is an analysis of water aualitv and floodplains issues. Again, as might be expected, impacts of LRT construction on water quafity and floodplains in Saint Paut aze minunal. No4e that a significant issue relating to reconsU•uction of existing sp•eets in the Central Mississippi Watershed Management Organization area is currentiy being negotiated. The outcome could have impacts on costs of reconstruction. Beginnin� on p4-54 is an analysis of groundwater rasources issues. Tha priinary issue relates fo contamination from accidental spilis that may be diseovered during construction. The analysis and mitigation wilt be developed as the project pragresses in Pretiminary Engineeri�ag by way of a system of disctosm•e and mitigation set by State and Federal rules. Note again, that a significant issue relating to reeonstruction of existing streets in the Central Mississippi Watershed Managemeat Organization area is currently being negotiated. The outcome could have impacts on costs of reconstruction. 8eginning on p4-56 is an analysis of energv impact issues. Again, as might be expected, there is a net positive effect of LRT on use of energy. Section 4.8 (p4-57ffl discusses environmental iustice with respect to: • Hazardous material contamination 22 U�� • Air quaiity � Noise and vibration . Ecology attd habitat Su�ce most of the nnpacts of LRT with respect to #hese issues are minor, or are actually pasitive impacts (as in the cases of soil cleaaup and reduction in energy use), there are no negative environmental justice impacts noted. ECONOMIC IMPACTS (Section 5) The beginning of the Araft EIS discussion on economic impacts is dated and needs some major updating to reflect economic development potentials. This is true for: • The listing of enrrent developments (p5-2) • The ratings of infill potential, redevelopmeut potential, and overall TOD rating for the Westgate, Raymond, Fairview, Lexington, Date, and 6'"/4"' stations are dated and general]y too low (see below). The City ruill continue to work with the Metropolitan Council to reflect currentdevelopment conditions in the New Starts Appl9cation, which will be submstted to the FT'A at the end of June. • The Westgate Station overalt TOD rating shou(d be "very good" instead of "good." Redevelopment potenfial south of Universiry Avenue has exceeded all expectations of 4 years ago. • The Raymond Station infill potentiat should be "moderate" at least, given khe 3ohnson Liquor site redevelopment. • The Fairviaw Station overall TOD rating should be "very good" instead of "good" given the amount of x•edevelopment potentiai in tha northwest quadranf of the Station Area. • The Lexington 5tation overall TOD rating should be "very good" instead of "poor" given the redavelopment already happening on the southwest quadrant and the potential of substantial redevetopment on the southeast quadrant. • The Dale StaUon overall TOD rating shoutd be "good" instead of "fair to good" given the southwest corner redevelopment, Western Ba�k buitding and potential redevelopments on the other three corners. • The Athle6c Clnb block, if iY is to host an LRT station, should have an inftll raung of "high", a redevelopment potential rating of "high" and an overatt TOD rating of "excellen�" • The Union Depot station infilllredevelopn�ent potenual should be "mode�•ate/high," given the air rights developinent potential over tlie platform area and fhe redevelopmenf potential of d�e Diamond Products faciIlty. 23 oC�- �� Begimiing on p5-3� is an analysis of stations' impacts on surrounding land uses. The Draft EIS indicates a"moderate [negafivej unpact" ai thek'airview Station. However, by moving the sfation to a center plafform arrangement totally west of Fairview mitigates most of the impacts tisted. The remaining negative impact is that access to Episcopal Homes would be only from the eastbound lanes via right in/right out movemenfs. The analysis of ihe Snelling Stafion should be adjusted to reflect moving the station to the east in Yhe text and on Figure 5.2-10. The analysis of the Capitol East Station and Figure 5.2-14 should be adjusted to raflect moving fhe sfation to Robert Street just north of 12 Street. Note that impacts of the 6�' ai�d 4� Street Statioms could be mitigated by combining tha stations into one within the interior of fhe Athletic Club block. Beginning on p5-38 is a discussion of environmental justice with respect to economic impacts. The anaIysis is scant with respect to issues of adding a station at Western andior Victoria, and reduced ability for pedestrians fo cross except at signalized intersections. The City of Saint Paul recommends fhat detailed analyses of these issues be inciuded in the Preliminary Engineering phase. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS {Section b) There are numemus issues relaEed to transportation impacts that must be detaited in Preliminary Engineering. In particular, congesrion at critical intersections need further detailed "Ievel of service" analyses to ensure that traffic issues and traffic conflicts with LRT operafions will not lead to unacceptabie leve(s of congesfion and accidents. The City of Saint Paul is firm in asserting that LRT trains wili not be able to pre-empt signal cyoles, believing it is not necessary for smooth operations of LRT, yet if instituted would cause major congestion issues. This is bofh an operational issue and a safely issue. The City of Saint Paul reserves judgment on the preliminary operationa[ analyses related to levels of service at key intersections p6-10 thru 19). The lisfing of potential mitigation measures (p6-19) is a fair starting point for discussion. The City of Saint Paui recommends fhat detailed traffic operadons analyses be done for each major intersecfion and reserves approval of tkze approach until these analyses are completed to the City's satisfaction during Prediminary Engineering. Such analyses should include the demand for left turning movement and determine the tength of [e$ tarn lanes accordingly. Beginning on p6-21 is an analysis on bus transit operations. See discussion above under the heading of"Other Transit Service in the Corridor." � V Y / / ! �/ Beginning on p6-26 is an analysis of oDeratingcosfs for raii transit. Table 63-1, which suggests that only 2-caz trains woutd 6e needed, may undersEate the hue needs for service, First, the pro,jected ridership has increased substantially since 2002 (from 38,100 to 43,300). Second, the experience with the Hiawatha Conidor may suggest that ridership will actually exceed ridership projections in tke first few yeazs of operadon. Third, fhe City believes that the estimate of ridership on the future Route 16 (Table 6.4-f } underestimates that ridership. And fourth, the estimations of redevelopment done in 2002 may substantially understate the ultiu�afe redevelopment potenrial of the Cenirai Conidor, particularly west of Snelling, A11 these factors should lead to reconsideration of the operating assumptions detailed in this discussion. Thg City of Saint Paul recommends that station areas be planned and built to accommodate 3-car LRT trains. Beginning on p6-35 is an analysis of parking. Por the City's position, see the section above entitled "Parking." Beginning on p6-37 is a discussion of railroad facilities. As might be expected in Saint Paut, there is minimal impact of LRT on railroads. The only area of note is the potential connection of LRT directly to fhe rail �latform at Union Depot. The design will be datailed during Preliminary Engineering. Beginning on p6-40 is an analysis regarding the vedesh•ian and bicvcle environment. As stated in the Dra$ EIS, "University Avenue, which operates parallel to IA4, supplies a minimal amount of pedesU•ian and bicycle facilities." This is true. However, the rest of the analysis Focuses on bicycle and pedestrian accommodations along the Avenue. No discussion is included on ueeded accommodations for accessing the corridor. One of the most important accommodations for pedesfrians and bicyclists is getting access to the stations. Work done on other corridors in North America strongly suggests that the effectiveness of TdD and station usa is highly dependant on paths tlu�ough the nafghhorhoods to fhe s#ations themselves. (For a local application of such principies, see the analysis done £or Riverview Coiridor Land Use analysis in 2004). The City of Saint Paul recosrunends that work done by the CiYy on the Develapment Strategy wark and new Trrsnsportation Plan shouid be particularly attentive to the specific pedestrian eonnections to major conidors, including University Avenue. Equally important are the pedestrian acoommodations aIong University Avenue and the City of Saint Paul reasserts its support for maximum width sidewallcs as welI as pedestrian ameni$es along the Avenue. 25 o� -�� Finally, there are many issues related to bicyclists' use af University Avenue and ' downtown streets, Due to the levels of transportation acfivities and lack of space for ' I bicycle lanes along University Avenue, the City of Saint Paul will encourage bicycle use that does no reqUire bei w the Uni Aven righ j Beginning on p6-45 is an analysis of impacts on utilities. Generatly, the issues on utilities in Saint Paul are fairly minor, with fhe exception of Dish�cf Heating & Cooling. 'I�e Draft EIS states that "[t]he proposed LRT Altemarive is not expected to subsfantially impact shallow dishict heating and cooling dish•ibution systems [because] [t]he proposed LKT Altetnative is not to extend more than 2-feet below the ground surface where these lines are installed." It is possible that the eurrent alignment and design of LRT could still have major impacts on District Heating & Cooting. Beginning on p6-49 there is an analysis ofeffects due to conshuction. Construction impacts inoIuded are: • Construction noise • Construction vibration • Access and distribution oftraffic • Excavations, fiIl matex•ial, debris and spoil These construction impacts are all significant issues that must be defailed out in Preliminary E'ngineering, Generally, of most concern to the community are issues related to access and distribution of traf£ic as well as construction phasing. Both o€ these issues musi be detailed on a"block group"-by-"block group" basis and agreed to by the City of Saint Paul. Beginning on p6-S 1 is a discussion of environmental justice issues related to fraffic impacts, including consideration of • Roadway opezations • Parking • Pedestrian and bicycle environment Effects due to construction Perhaps most significant in this section is a lack of attention to the Eoss of eross- University Avenue vehicular access. Streets currently cross University Avenue approximately eveiy 600 feet. LRT conskruct2on will limit such crassings to every'/ mile (every other block). In addition, a description of consu•uction phasing options also causes concerns particularly to retailers along the Avenue. The City of Saint Paul recommends Uiat detailed analyses ragarding fhe eeonomie I impact of a loss of cross-Uaiversity Avexiue access, and of conshuction phasing options are essential to approval of fhe Preliminaiy Engineering by the City. 26 �� EVALUATiO�t O� ALTERNATIVES (Section 7) This Section suaunazizes the alternafives, which have been evaluated in other portions of the Draft EIS and at earlier times. One additiona[ discussion item is the Secrion 5309 New Starts Criteria of the Federal Transit Administration (p7-25 and 26}. This document is to be prepared by the Me#ropotitan Conncil.and represent the region's best estimate of development potential, need for the project, mobility improvements, environmenYal benefits, operating efficiencies, and cost-effectiveness. This New Starts Application is being prepared by the Meh•opolitan Council in accordance with the FTA requn�ements, and City staff has consulted with the Nletropolitan Council staff in developing the draft. The Nletropolitan Council, after they select a preferred altemative in June, 2d06, will finalize the Application and transmit it to the FTA. The New Starts Application is a dynamic docutnant thaf wili be periodically updated tluough approval of the Full Funding Cmant Agreement (whereby the region receives 50% of the capiYal costs for the project) and Fireal l?esign {which will be completed after Pre[iminary Engineering). The Draft EIS discussion includes information on the FTA's decision-making criteria, including the adequacy of local financial commitments for the canstruction and operation of LRT. PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEM�NT PRQGRAM (Section S) This Section recounts the public participation process that the region followed in the creation and completion of the Drafr EIS. The information is consistent with City records of ineetings and other ouheach. 27 (�(o- �f 9� SUMMAR� OF RECOMMENDATIONS The foilowing points summazize ttse City of Sainf Paul recommendafions noted in this review: • The City of Saint Paul suppoit LRT as tl�e preferred mo�l� • The City supports the current depicted LRT atignment. • The City supports a Preliminary Engineering process that fully engages the community. • The City endorses inclusion of the folIowing factorslissues in Preliminary EngineerBng: - Station locafion options, particulazly at Western, Victoria, Athletic Club blcek, Union Depot, Sneliing, Capitol East; - Station design, including 300 foot platforms, carridor-wide approach and individual sfation designs; - Sidewalk area design, including bus stops, sidewatk width, landscaping, street furniture, accoxnmodations for hicycles, and decorative lighting; - Pedesfrian and bicycle access from the neighborhoods to the station areas - Pinaltypicalcross-section design; - Potential ofpedestrian barriers beiween the LRT tracks; - Pedestrian, bicycle, and motorist safery with a focus on design, education and ongoing maintenance; - Parking, including station area-speoific analyses of potential loss of on- street parking, park & ride facilities, and informal park & hide activities; - Improvements to the other transit service in the coiridor; - Block group-by-block group strategies for construction phasing and mitigation; - Project scope, including reconstruction of sidewalks along University Avenue; - Aesthetics of the overhead electrification system; - Assignment of the degree fo which LRT is promoting increases in property values;and - Traffic operadons at major intersections and stations, • The City is committed to a pazallel and pu�ticipatory Development Strtrtegy process whereby the city may take best advantage of the impending transif investments. Farther, the City comniits to complete such work in a timely manner so that it inay inform investigations and decisions of Prelimirtary Engineering. 28 0�-�R� r �- � 1 { . .v `�-� •` �1 ..__ , ,,,` ----------- — . -,« � CI'i'Y Presen2ed Referred To RESOLtt'�tOIV �INT PAiJL,,�NNESOTA Green Sheet � _��-{ R.�q 1 t Commiitee Qate WHEREAS, major improvements iz� public iransiE planned and anticipated for the ragion wiII undoubtedly have a significan# impacc on the future developmettt of Saini Paul and its neighbarhoods; and Wk�REAS, the Saint Pau! Ciry Council requesfed that #he Planning Commzssion "analyze LRT and other transit alternatives in the Centrai t`orr�dor, and evalnate specific issues related to construction unpacts, design with respect to traffic and parking, redevelopment impacts and design aesthetics" nnd "obtain communiry input on LRT in the Central Corridor with respecf to the aforementionad issues, evaluate the previous positions of the Ciry on LRT devefopment, and consider making specific recommendations on LRT development in Saint Paul;" and � e s reques ' ' �� ' rans� an , WHEREAS, the Planning Commission only found that significanY changes due to improved technology made University Avenue an option for light rail transit, repor[ed those findings with conclusions and recommendat�ons in a report enritled Light Rail Transit on University Avenue: A Revrew of the Potential; and �VHEREAS, the Ramsey Count,y Regionat Rail Authority will be un@ertaking a major study of the Central Corridor beginning next year that wiil include consideration of potential alignments; and � �1�IEREAS, developmentpolicy adoptedby this Council inthe Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan esta6lishes apriority for the Central Corridor Options liniting the two downtowns for major new transit; and WfIEREAS, it is important to condnue to review alternative alignments carefully and continue to cla�iiy our intentions conceming potential light rail development in order to participate appropriately in xegionaI deeisions. RESOLVED, that the Saint Pau] City Council accepfs the report entitled LtghtRail Transif on UniversityAvenue: A Review of the Potential dated November, 1994; and ;� � . O�\ \.�Y�\VCC:..� I��or��.e..' . BE IT FLJRTHER RESOLVED, that the Ci ouncil requests that PED continue to participate as appropriate on �ehalfof the City in the study of light rail �mA*++ �*+�iP a r, A r eratioir'ofall , 3E IT FUKTI�ER RE50LV$D, that the City CounciI requests that the Ramsey County Regional Rait Authority� nctude consideration o�ial�}igj�nxnts in their study o£the central cozridor, and c„�_ �l"�V c�� (,Y�.hrt.J 3E IT FLTRTI-IER RESOLVED, that ihe City Council thanks the Plamung Commission and t]�e citizens and �rganizations who participated in 1he study. a� - �q� Requested by Department ofl � FormApproved by Ciry Attnmey By: Adoption Certified by Council SecreWry Approved by Mayur for Submission to Council ay� "�� ` �� , �,_,.�--- �--s�:— Approved by Mayor: Date � B Adopted by Council: Date �� •_ �� q�� ^— v� � l� �� -��o��,�� 5-r � � `�� Sumniazy and Public Comments from the Hamline Midway Transportation Committee's 5/10/06 meeting on the Central Corridor DEIS �� .. There were 11 attendees, predominanfly from neighborhoods within 2-3 blocks of University Avenue. There were 6 people in favor of LRT, 4 people opposed to LRT and 1 person who accepted that it was coming but was worried about it. Despite these differences, residents had many of the same concems about any project along the avenue. They differed, however, in their optimism about whether those shazed concems would be adequately addressed. Their concems joined the issues of economic impacts and vulnerable populations. The elderly, young, ethnic minorities and the disabled (as well as sma11 businesses) were all presumed to be vulnerable to rising costs of real estate along the corridor. Suggestions were made to mitigate tlus by a ta�� overlay district. In addition, vulnerable populations were presumed to be subject to negative unpacts due to changes in feeder lines to the Central Corridor, in frequency of local uansit along the corridor, and in access to busiuesses across the avenue from their homes. Residents want to be assured that access to local businesses is easy for them - with a min;mum of pedestrian crossings every two blocks along the avenue, and stops every half-mile at least. Environmental concerns were also shared among residents. They want mitigation of noise during construction and especially at aighY during regular operaLion_ They also watit to be assured that air pollution will be decreased at the major intersections. The e�ectation is t�a# any project result in beautification of the aveaue and that the stops aze included in that beautification Parking is a major concern, along with the related issue of cut-through traffic. They want to see enforcement of speeding along residential streets and want to feel assured that they will be able to pazk their own cazs neaz/at their homes. Why are there no plans to anticipate parking issues? Finally, a common theme, both spoken and unspoken, is that communication about this projec# has been spotty aY best and misleading or nonexistent at worst. People want to know that their concerns aze being heard and being addcessed. In this regard, this committee suggests that residents don'Y want to hear the engineering details in jargon they cannot understaud and can easily misinterpret. They want to hear how this project is going to effect them gersonally. They do not see how tlzey fit into a regional picture of development and progress. Many people see this project as another example of something that is being done Yo them, rafiher than something that is being done for them. People do not understand the constraints that are placed on the planners for the project by the £ederal fi�ancing authorities. The planners have regulazly spoken to the pubtic as if they were those federal authorities. The planners need to direcfly address public concerns by saying that they aze trying to incorporate solutions into tl�eir models. Then they need to follow up with specific examples. Such examples are present in the DEIS; they aze just bwied in statistics and engineering jargon. b� -�� To list the concerns expressed once more: 1. Affect on properiy values and YaYes. Will rising property values cause taYes Yo go up? Affects many people, but those on fuied or limited incomes the most 2. Noise, during construction and in operation 3. Cut through traffic on local sireets 4. Access in and out of neighborhood, aud access across University 5. Pazking, especially for business on University and for residents neazby (both loss of spaces and people parking to ride the train) 6. Pollution: don't make it worse 7. $eauty of the avenue: make it better TWO ROIJNDS + of COMMEN'fS Tom and Leslie McNally Concerns about the legality of the process leading up to the presentation of the DEIS LRT seems a foregone conclusion Look at Clucago's way of dealing with mass transit - the elevated trains that preserve neighborhoods Cross traffic will be an issue Need to remove buildings to do ttris? The people making the decisions aze not going to have to live with the outcome. LS1 In Seattle, they took away bus routes, farced people to LRT Lives 4 blocks from University LRT will be noisy, Won't be able to sell house Businesses have very little pazidng now and will have even less with LRT, so cars will use the neighborhood for pazking. Our neighborhood will become a pazk and ride We will be boxed into the neighborhood and won't be able to get out There will big profits to the developers, but high t�es for us Mare money should be spent on educarion, not traasportation. The voters should vote on LRT Property taxes are too high, for the low value we will get from LRT Use Burlington Northern for LRT instead of University. Transit service on Thomas was taken away, moved to Mivnehaha, now people don't ride because they can't walk that faz. (refers to elderly in high rise) $usinesses aze opposed to LRT Old Home left St. Paul due to LRT No parking for busiasesses Who will pay $820 million for LRT? Center median down Snelling prevents her from turning left onto her street Has to go way out of her way to get anywhere Won't be able to afford it Seattle iold us to improve our buses Would like to get rid of BN and put LRT there ��Y /�/� Will LRT cause houses to be torn down? (Note: committee addressed this concern) The block club leaders get information but don't share it with their members J S. He has used bus for 18 years to go to job in ivSinneapolis There is a negative stigma aitached to using the bus There is a posirive feel to LRT, it is clean Gate arms disrupfs traffic LRT will have posiYive impacY to University Ave. basinesses, will force improvemenYs on older businesses There is already a pattern of people cutting thtough the neighborhood when University is congested. Will this make it worse. We will have patterns of cut-through traffic and speeding on our streets if there are �ot enough ways to get across University Ave. and is already a problem � 15 years that they haue lived here, have had 2 cars totalled while parked in front of their house Need more police patrols or he will put down tacks Bicycie route is proposed for Tazget site half block south of University Ave. He is working on Yhe Tazget site plan L S2 Find me people who commute to downtown SY. Paul, it is dead Whiitaker Buick is gone Why leY nursing kome build up to the sidewalk Will go to Rosedale if LRT is built because it will take too long to get to Midway Center Cannot take LRT to her job, and she mast pay for it People should get to vote on it Crossing University Ave. will be a pain Lost her 401K when Bush got in, is 80 years old and stiIl has to work, is tired Someone stole the wheels/tireslhubcaps from her car #his morning People should get to vote on LRT HV Went to Tuesday meeting at Episcopal Homes Worried that there wouldn't be enough access across University Ave. but heard thaz there would be ped crossings every 2 blocks which is good enough. Neighborhood will be isolated Fears that stops wiit be too far apart Plan promises we can get across every 2 blocks, we must hold them to it People aiready park on S� Anthony at Snelling and ride Route 94. Co-workers of her son who live in Hastings won't come to St. Paul Pazking will invade the neighborhood if LRT is built Appropriate pazking needs to be included What about the tunnel idea for University and Snelling? University and Snelling intersection is beyond its capacity now 6 �e -�� MS LRT is better tk3an BRT, but is slower Positive economic impact e�ected with LRT Concerned about gefting across University Ave. Works in noise office of MAC (Metropolitan Airports Commission) Mitigation for noise seems sufficient, she understands how to read DEIS and understauds noiseissues Hopes LRT will invigorate businesses and makes things nicer Is going through DEIS process on another project at her work Many mitigation methods are available — night time operating restrictions, ta�� wnes to keep property taYes reasonable for homeowners and businesses What wili it be like without mitigatioa? TS Has questions about good commuaication on timeline, noise, economic impact She is free to move in a couple of yeazs when her child is in wllege Not necessarily opposed to LRT, but is concerned about noise and its impact on the potential sale of her house Property vaiues are ridiculousiy krigh, could pay lots of tax with no benefit Drove on Hiawatha Ave, and the LRT bell is Ioud, it took twice as long to get to her destination as it did in pre-LRT days Hiawatha line pzoperry value went way up which leads to taxes going up - pluses and minuses Has friend who lives along Hiawatha, stops are noisy, especially the bells Worried about noise from the beIls, wants it to be safe, wants communication Traffic is already bad, and wili be worse with LRT LRT won't reduce the number of cars enough to offset the increase in traffic problems Can't afford to pay anymore taxes VY Lives on Sherburne behind Whittaker Buick, works in downtown Minneapolis Takes tke 94 bus Need jobs Aigh pollution @ Snelling and Lexington intersec6ons, the LRT decision shouldn't add to pollution Perceived impression of crune, security is needed MK Public transportation is lacking, need more Must move forwazd, the cities will be ruined without more of it Stops need to be close together or we who live here wo�'t use it Could be good for University Ave. Beautificarion for University Ave. is needed Understands the concern of the people who live near the line, has many of the same issues with Burlington Nor[hern Must control property taxes � �-�{�� Important that planners make sure that we can get in and out of our neighborhood and prevents iY from becoming a parking lot for suburban commuters JB Must build LRT, wants to know the opinions of the businesses University Ave. could end up with the "wrong" stuff — pawn shops, gun shops, etc. LRT could make it worse TaYes aze a concern, but want to see community developed Wants access to more car-free options Would rathez have LRT on the BN lines than current or proposed options there. Business input is needed Wants to know how LRT will make University Ave. more vibrant and beautiful What is planned for neighborhood bicycle routes? ;��- O(� �95 � . � ° C�+=�Y fz�.�.s - There are legitimate transit concerns in the Central Corridor, but LTR is NOT the answer. LTR on University Avenue in St. Paul would be invasive, divisive, and detrimental to the residential and commercial communities. University Avenue is a unique asset to the city of St. Paul because it provides access to the various neighbarhoods, keeps these neighborhoods vibrant with easy access to commercial venues, and, primarily through its historic infrastructure, presents a palette of opportunities for new businesses and residences and public spaces. I believe we are already well on our way to restoring this avenue to its rightful place of importance and recognition. However, this particular avenue also presents us with undeniable constraints. I-94 is severely congested and University Avenue is the main east- west arterial route for I-94 in St. Paul. University Avenue is also stretched to capacity. Even the EIS acknowledges that we should be anticipating a break-down of these routes, which would lead to increased travel time and increased safety concerns. Any time there is an accident or a back-up on I-94, University Avenue becomes virtually impassable. Even without problems on I-94, especially during the peak travel times, but occurring all throughout the day, even with special turn light signals, it is already difficult to cross or navigate University - whether on foot or in a car. The EIS details LOS (Level of Service) ratings on a scale of A to F for given intersections along the Light Rail path. "A" is where the motorists experience very little delay ox interference -"F" is where the motorists experience extreme i D�e-�f�� delay or severe congestion. ALL anticipated intersections along University Avenue, other than at Dale, are rated as "below D", and at Peak Times they are rated as F's, yet the Drafter's of the report fmd this to be "acceptable"! !! The EIS also admits that Light Rail would have additional negative effects due to the limited turn movements at non- station intersections and the increased congestion from "U" turns at signalized intersections To place further restrictions on travel on University would not only compound these issues, it would also have a negative ripple effect onto the residential streets or other arterial routes. I challenge each and every one of you to drive your own cars, no trolley media event, south bound down Hiawatha Avenue in Minneapolis during an evening rush hour and to try to take a few right turns across the tracks. I also challenge each and every one of you to take the Ford Parkway across to Minneapolis during rush hour and attempt a left turn onto Hiawatha. AND Hiawatha does not hold a candle to the traffic and congestion found on University Avenue. As I stated earlier, University Avenue also supports a large business community. This community is not only essential for meeting the needs of those of us in the surrounding residential community, it is essential for the prosperiry of the city of St. Paul. Depending on the intended audience of the various written materials, there will either be NO parking on University Avenue or there will be (as presented to the Midway Chamber of Commerce) on-street parking except for at the transit stations, plus turn lane portions, plus 2 lanes of traffic in both directions. t� na� i� t�.e �,tik:�� rnkz:�� `�r Ci..YrwueNs — '. �e1' ai� c� S� f�^�'*r`�.$e �v brwe Gu,�.�' �- 5'dveeT �ei�.�tiEs' CLVca,�la� 6v '��. v�-��s The EIS also indicates that University Avenue will need to be at the least widened to accommodate Light Rail, but that displacement of non-residential structures should be of minimal concerns to residents (because it is not their homes that are in danger of removal). Do we really want to be removing entire businesses and business structures from the City? What message does that send? I am also concerned about the economic vitalit�of the businesses that will be difficult to access on a regular basis�t at will be on "the other side of the Light Rail" - those that will be on the opposite side of the tracks from where one lives. I know I will be doing much more of my business in Roseville and Maplewood and White Bear Lake, and I live just 6 blocks north of University. For those who believe that Light Rail on Universih� Avenue will induce many to leave their cars behind, I question their assumptions. Like many people in this current state of the economy, I work several jobs, none of which coincide with the use of public transportation. More and more people are starting their own businesses that involve some level of personal services, and public transportation does not fit their work needs and expectations. As to those who are able to use public transportation, they are already doing so right now or they need to receive some type of benefit for induce the change. For those who think that light rail would provide time savings, there is little or no time savings by utilizing light rail. In fact, it may be even slower than other currently available transportation modes. (i.e., express bus between the 2 downtowns). In addition, there are no provisions in the plans for light rail for 3 01�-�qs additional parking facilities or for any drop and ride facilities. Further I specifically question the assumptions, as they relate to Light Rail down University Avenue, because I am aware of the growing network of commuter line corridor transitways. I believe most everyone has heard of the Northstar Corridor line, but are you aware of the pending Red Rock Corridor Transitway? The Red Rock Corridor will use existing railways and will parallel major highways. And plans include bus waiting areas, passenger boarding facilities, and additional parking in the immediate area. .�et' forecast studies show that this particular mode of transportation will service an estimated 5,900 total riders per weekday, that 4,200 riders will be new to the transit system and that 1,700 riders will transfer to commuter rail from bus transit. Not only will this transit opporiunity occur at much less initial and on-going cost, it will achieve everyone's overall objective to relieve the strains and congestion on I-94 and on University Avenue. AND by doing so it will provide the opportunity to continue the great strides already underway on University Avenue, address the real local needs of the local residents and local businesses, and not divide any communities. �� U �� p,,,��,� �vJ, in rr�jc�s h Y�n i��te.I i�r �� Y� ei� In this last regard, r in addition to putting the Re�Rock and Rushline (Hinkley to St. Paul) Corridor transitways on the fast track I suggest the following: 1. Limit on-street parking on University Avenue during the peak rush hour traffic time periods. Dedicate these parking lanes for only high occupancy traffic during these time �� V�C /�✓ periods. Restore parking during non-peak periods. 2. Move all bus stops to the far side of the intersection, thus not hindering the right turns of other motor vehicles. 3. Invest in newer, modular buses, that feature direct boarding and disembarking access (no steps) for passengers, and that feature accommodation of other passenger needs (i.e., wheelchairs, wallcers, bicycles, etc.). 4. Elevate the bus stops to be above � sidewalk grade, so as to facilitate direct ingress and egress for passengers into the buses. 5. Make the clearing of bus stops areas, including the intersection curbs, a priority during snow emergencies. 6. Provide financial incentives to businesses to encourage mass transit ridership of employees (i.e., vouchers or company vans that would provide direct connections to commuter lines, and park and ride areas, etc.). �Q `�'�� "' c�'vu^' c3.w.s-� 5 o Q � a �e to Li��, � o Q ; Merriam Park Community Council 1684 Selby Avenue • St. Paul • Minnesota • 55104 mpcc@merriam-pazk.org • www.memam-park.org te1:651.645.6887 • fax: 651.917.9991 D(� - y9� Merriam Park Communitv Council Testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Corridor Saint Paul City Council Public Hearing May 17, 2006 Presented by: Theresa Heiland, Executive Director of the Merriam Park Community Council Madame President and Council members, my name is Theresa Heiland, and I am the Executive Director of the Merriam Park Community Council. On behalf of the Council and the residents of the Merriam Park neighborhood, I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Corridor. The Merriam Park Community Council supports light rail transit on University Avenue for three reasons: First, more riders wilf be attracted to light rail than to bus rapid transit, leading to a reduction in automobile traffic; Second, transit oriented development will be better supported by light rail than by bus rapid transit; Finally, light rail is the onlv alternative that can accommodate anticipated future Central Corridor ridership in 2025 and beyond. The Merriam Park Community Council also believes that light rail should serve the people who live and work along the corridor, in addition to those traveling from downtown to downtown. To meet this goal, it is necessary to add one or two stations on University Avenue, with special attention to serving people who depend on mass transit as their only transportation. , , v � , � It is also important to provide access to light rail to people living north or south of the corridor. The Merriam Park Community Council supports a network of connecting bus service, so that people can access light rail without driving and parking at or near a station. The bus network should include north-south bus service on all avenues with light rail stops and continuation of the number sixteen bus at its current ten-minute frequency to assist transit riders' access to light rail stations along University Avenue Finally, the Merriam Park Community Council emphasizes the importance of ensuring that community voices be heard, and have influence, throughout the planning, design and construction of the Central Corridor project. A strong Citizens' Advisory Committee should be created at the beginning of preliminary engineering to serve for the duration of the project. This is essential to ensure that the Central Corridor transit system meets the needs of the people it serves, from downtown to downtown, and all along the corridor. Thank you for your time and attention. 6 �e -�� Merriam Park Communitv Council Testimonv on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Corridor Saint Paul City Council Public Hearing May 17, 2006 Presented by: Scott Banas, President of the Merriam Park Community Council Madame President and Council members, my name is Scott Banas, and I am the President of the Merriam Park Community Council. On behalf of the Council and the residents of the Merriam Park neighborhood, I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Corridor. The Merriam Park Community Council supports light rail transit on University Avenue for three reasons: First, more riders will be attracted to light rail than to bus rapid transit, leading to a reduction in automobile traffic; Second, transit oriented development will be better supported by light rail than by bus rapid transit; Finally, light rail is the only alternative that can accommodate anticipated future Central Corridor ridership in 2025 and beyond. The Merriam Park Community Council also believes that light rail should serve the people who live and work along the corridor, in addition to those traveling from downtown to downtown. To meet this goal, it is necessary to add one or two stations on University Avenue, with special attention to serving people who depend on mass transit as their only transportation. It is also important to provide access to light rail to people living north or south of the corridor. The Merriam Park Community Council supports a network of connecting bus service, so that people can access light rail without driving and parking at or near a station. The bus network should include north-south bus service on all avenues with light rail stops and continuation of the number sixteen bus at its current Ote� yq-� ten-minute frequency to assist transit riders' access to light rail stations along University Avenue Finally, the Merriam Park Community Council emphasizes the importance of ensuring that community voices be heard, and have influence, throughout the planning, design and construction of the Central Corridor project. A strong Citizens' Advisory Committee should be created at the beginning of preliminary engineering to serve for the duration of the project. This is essential to ensure that the Central Corridor transit system meets the needs of the people it serves, from downtown to downtown, and all along the corridor. Thank you for your time and attention. 6� -y�� CapitolRiver W Council District 17 332 Minnesota SVeet Suite W I22 Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 221-0488 FpX (651) 221-0581 Website: www.capirolrivercouncil.org E-mail: info@capitolrivercounciLorg May 17, 2006 Mayor Chris Coleman City Ha11390 15 West Kellogg Blvd St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mayor Coleman: CapitolRiver Council is pleased to pass on comments for the Central Corridor EIS Public Hearing on May 17, 2006. The attached document simunarizes the key points that the CapitolRiver Council believes should be noted at this time. The district council expects to have an on-going discussion during preliminary engineering regazding Central Corridor and impacts on Downtown. Improved public trausit through the development of Light Rail along Central Corridor is essential for St. Paul's future viability as a center of commerce and to make the urban core truly livable. Light Rail along the Central Corridor is a critical inveshnent and should not be delayed. CapitolRiver Council looks forwazd to working with the City of St. Paul in nnplementing this vital link in the Twin Cities transit network. Kind Regazds, �..�r `� W't/vG ' ��1.' /� Larry E�glund Chair of the CapitolRiver Council cc: St. Paul City Council Lucy Thompson, PED Donna Drummond, PED enclosure W District 17 CapitolRiver Council e � � �� 332 Minnesota Street Suite W 122 Saint Paul, MN SS I0t (651) 221-0488 FAX (651) 22I-0581 Website: www.capitolnvercouncil.org E-mail: info@capitolrivercouncil.org May 17, 2006 City Councilmember Dave Thune City Ha11310 15 West Kellogg Blvd St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Councilmember Thune: CapitolRiver Council is pleased to pass on comments for the Central Corridor EIS Public Hearing on May 17, 2006. The atiached docuxnent summarizes the key points that the CapitolRiver Council believes should be noted at this time. The district council expects to have an on-going discussion during preliminary engineering regarding Central Corridor and impacts on Downtown. Improved public transit through the development of Light Rail along Central Corridor is essential for St. Paul's future viability as a center of commerce and to make the urban core huly livable. Light Rail along the Central Corridor is a critical investment and should not be delayed. CapitolRiver Council looks forwazd to working with the City of St. Paui in ixnplementing this vital Iink in the Twin Cities transit network. Kind Regards, � En und�� Chair of the CapitolRiver Council ca St. Paul City Council Lucy Thompson, PED Donna Drununond, PED enclosure �� CapitolRiver Council Testimony for the Central Corridor EIS Public Hearing May,17, 2006 b(�-�q-� The CapitolRiver Council enthusiasticatly supports the development of light rail transit 1 along the Central Corridor. The development of light rail transit between downtown St. ` Paul and downtown Minneapolis is long overdue. St Paul needs light raii transit along the Central Comdor to remain a viable player in the regional and nahonal economy. Development of this transit line should not be delayed. Over the last six years, CapitolRiver Council has been actively engaged in discussions about the development of LRT along University Ave through the Capitol Area and into downtown to the Union Depot. We are pleased to see the development of this critical infrastructure take another important step of releasing the Environmental Impact Study. In the spinit of the EIS process, CapitolRiver Council has developed a list of concerns, recommendations and ideas to explore during Preliminary Engineering. � Station-area desi�n and land use issues Community participarion in the design of station areas is critical for success of the corridor. Public Art is an important element to create stations that are aesthetically appealing and the express the community where the transit is located. J LVI Recommendation: The process of designing station areas should be grounded in an inclusive community process. The outcomes of the transit-oriented design process should account for the inclusion of public art from the initial concept planning. The budget for station development should reflect the importance of community engagement in the design process and the integration of public art early in the design process. Multi-modal transit Center at Union Denot It is crifical that the Central Corridor extend from Union Depot to downtown Mimieapolis. Any proposal that stops the line short of Union Depot is NOT acceptable. Recommendation: To ma�cimize transit use throughout the Twin Cities, transit improvements must connect seamlessly into the Twin Cifies transit system. The multi- modal transit center is critical for linking the numerous transit lines planned to intersect downtown St. Paul at Union Depot. Central Corridor's success lies in its ability to fit into a lazger rietwork of transit for the Twin Ci6es at the Union Depot. Need to clarify how Central Corridor will connect at Union Depot. Need to thiuk about strong connections from L3nion Depot to regional destinations like the MSP Airport- currenUy route 54 is the most direct connection. This link needs to be examined and enhanced with Central Corridor. Bus Service Imnact/Enhancement Oaportunities Route 16- Proposed reductions are too severe. Recommendation: Keep 12 minute headways during the rush hour with a 15 maximum headway. Non-rush hour headways should not exceed 20 minutes. ' „ . � � � Route� S4 Pzoposed recFuctions ace�too 'severe , �' � � � � � � � � � ,, Reeommendation: Elinvnate Route 94B; anc� 94G; Keep 94D at current headway during � � ,daytimed?ourss From� earl� �oming tiuough midclay and thsougfi tat�er evening�honrS �� ' refain the curi headway o�generalty no more than� 30 minutes for ronte 94 service to ' , downtown Mmueapolis: Continue at least hourly route'94 service on weekends , � � � � � Bus IZoute alignment.cutten�ly �on Cedar 3treet � � � � � � � Recommendation: Examin cal and e� ess service 16 50 94 0 e iu►pact of rerouting lo ?cpr (,, ,), ff � � , � � � Cedar'Sti�eet � ' � Bike-friendiv elements and walkab�7'itv alon� corn�or Good transit develo meitt is about' coordin'atin and" o` various mod� of � P � � �� S Pr�u� �, � � � ffio,vement, including non-motorized��travel-��bicycling and ��'alkmg:� �' " � � � � � � ` Recomm''endation: Facilrtate bike usalaiTtry and walkability�� and aroimd infrastruchire ' improvements Ensure that transit infraskructuze comglements distFi„ct pYans thaE autTwe, , , walkab�lt4y'meas�e,es. In downtowq, coor�nate inCiastructure planning �th do�*rnto�vu , estri�n lan a�on Fo ., , Ped �ooP P g urkh Street° � �� or,�:a� � � ��egi �� c nuQn�. Route'of C , Centia[ rnndor around th a it 1 and' e C o u►to do,wntown vs confi�sin 'Lhe ' . P g- eoiridor cfian es ta different stre.ets mau hmes and � are s th �� veiai �90 d�� g , Y� , �, eStee,tu�ns ' � ch we' ensiwe , are,mbre modifica;tons, w o Th� F�ur�h Str�e� Snm, � ' �rrstand xPens' � , elnf w�It " wre ext �nfi'astSucture^ h pa3's FLOP° i� �:, � �� downtown daes not�� setve �key diskncts,, m�ud�ag�tlie Xcel EneFgyll�ve�entrelScience �� 14luseumFHisfory Center distn,ct, and c�icrent aud proposed"FesidentiaY areas rieaz the river � Recommeni�akou: Exanune cuirent a1i entaud o',s� sound ' ;� e � � �addres w fhe non served act to addres � �� mingarion m g ymp s the �nenhon concerns_ Thz czty s� uLd , ho disincts �I Ue connected to L IrT. , Gteneral Becommendahvns: , , ; � ,` i ;,�, °',�, � � � � � �� _town slreetear o or ocal�� ,�'' � 1 e fuhue ��y near fh� er and �he eveutAtnuseum ,,disfr��k., rrov�a peap e mover � � � must bc addressed. � ■ Impact on permaaent, Iane. and s�eet closures matn �cel, , � e f� �■ Studylocafions'forpropo'sed" � tenan sto�ag aa►fityneartlie � � easte�n termni�s o�the proposed' LI�T ""�enhon ��m the E'FS � � � , � , . � , �� . „ , „ . , , , � � � � �� . „ � � „ � � � . � �„ ��,� � � � . . , , , , �,,� , � „ � �� '��, � �� , � ��.�� r _�..:.. � ,� , , r,,, , ' i , , „ , � � � � � � . _ rtolRiver Conncil' Distnct 17 � . . � , , 2 ` � � � �� ltc Comment � � �� ; Centcal Comdor EfS Atb ,� � , , -,.. , � r , ' � i� , � 1! � r . � . ., � . �. i .� ,..., , ��.. .� �YiS � �i �y I iii� Ji I� �. ,. I , , � �,6 . . , . ��-�� Testimony before the Saint Paul City Council – May 17, 2006 Frank Schweigert, Chair District Councils Collaborative of Saint Paul & Minneapolis Madame President, Members of the Council - Good aftemoon_ My name is Frank Schweigert, I reside at 1655 Blair Ave. in St. Paul, and I serve as chair of the District Councils Collaborative of Saint Paul & Minneapolis—a new arganization created by eleven of St. Paul's district councils and one Minneapolis neighborhood association. The District Councils are committed and passionate in their mission to represent the citizens of their communities on matters of public welfaze. Because of the scope of the Central Corridor project, the District Councils have come together to create the District Councils Collaborative: • to facilitate community involvement in the transit development planning process, • to provide information, • to coordinate common concerns, • and above all to cany their collective voice and power in the planning and construction of the transit system. The District Councils h° * �1 hated rhP;r � > + � + ��-.--�--'T�' � r T ocallv Preferred Alternat;�P�e�.are in complete agreement that this transit system must serve and benefit the communities along and around the Central Conidor—with particular concern for the needs and interests of those most affected by transit decisions. In consultation with their constituents and with other member district councils, the District Councils have identified the following nine concerns and potentialities for your consideration, study, and inclusion in the city's response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. I think you will find that our list coincides with the City's staffreport currently under discussion here. 1. The optimum number, placement, and design of stations. 2. Efficient transit connectors�ross street transfers, circulators buses, shuttles, concurrent bus transit service, and resolution of park-and-ride issues. 3. Good pedestrian, bicycle, and disability access—and safety—along the avenue and crossing the avenue. 4. EfFcient traffic control and system routing. 5. Assurance of business preservation and access, including mitigation of negative impacts of construction and operations and resolution of on-and-off street parking issues. 6. Mitigation of negative impacts of rising property values. 7. The best possible designs for beauty and amactiveness of streetscapes and open spaces, including public art. 8. Attention to land use issues as they affect transit system. 9. The formation of a Citizens Advisory Council. �s��w�: � ��-�� P� •r I want to highlight this last point, that the one central concem driving �a3ze€ these issues a� —to make sure that this rapid transit system serves well the people and communities along and around this Corridor. We realize tUax making this concern central will press upon otlxer unportant decisions: c��+� h *'�� --'-- '� t t� other rr '* -' *c. B� priority remains to serve weil the people and the communities. Consistent with this priority, we look forwazd to working together with the City of St. Paul to build citizen and community influence into the decision-making process at all stages, from preliminary engineering to fmal construction and operation. This means strong community representation on the Citizens Advisory Committee, and it means a Citizens Advisory Committee with real power to influence the decisions and outcomes on this transit system. Thank you. � �a -�- �� SJ�Ia� �l� -�l� President Lantry, Fellow Council Members, thank you for your time today. My name is Jackie Stewart and I am a member of the Minnesota Senior Federation's Affordable Housing Committee. Our focus is to work on issues concerning Housing for Seniors as well as issues that affect their abiliry to enjoy a quality of life that helps to ensure vital aging. Today I am here to speak to you about some of the senior issues that will be affected by Light Rail in the University Corridor. On University Avenue itself, as well as the immediate surrounding area, there are a number of Senior Buildings: Public High Rises, Independent Living Apartments, both Affordable and Market Rate, Assisted Living Aousing and Full Nursing Care Facilities. I would also like to make mention the number of seniors that still live in their own homes. A large percentage of the seniors I speak of, do not drive. Public Transportation is very important to them. It helps them to invigorate their social environment by allowing them a sense of independence, such as being able to get to the doctar, receive necessary therapy, pick up prescriptions, go shopping, attend community events, have a light lunch, or just to get out of the house and not be isolated. This is were light rail comes in; *First, it seems the initial plans are to have the Trains stop at intervals of one mile. The Minnesota Senior Federation would like to have the light-trail stop in increments of no more than 6 blocks. A mile would create an almost insurmountable challenge for our Seniors. Imagine the difficulty they would have if they required the use of a walker, ar a cane. ff this would be a hardship in the sununer, the winter could place them in isolation and in danger of falling. Where every year in the United States of America 13,000 seniors 65 years and older die from fall related injuries, and 1.8 Million receive injuries that require emergency room visits. ( National Safety Council — NSC.Org * Second, the plan seems to require the reduction of the current bus services. How can limiting the ability of our seniors to enjoy their environment possibly be a step in the right direction for the future? We all are aware that the Baby Boomer generation is turnir.a 60 years young at the rate of one every seven seconds, and expected to double in Minnesota over the next 25 years to 1.4 million We Boomers don't all want to drive, nor can some of us on fixed income afford to own a automobile. The Senior Federation request that current bus services are not curtailed in lieu of any added transportation, but used to enhance transportation for a growing population of seniors. Jackie Stewart D � �� D� Bong Vang Take a step back and glance ahead, compromise in your mind about the innocent lives, on how they survive to see this up coming days in 1ife, most of us survive by living on what our family lies, while the poor survive on the streets of the ghetto Westside, times at night, when I look up high to the sky and wonder why, instead of abusing 800 millions on the project, we should at lease help the poor to get a chance to glance at this world full of wars, ending with peace that rages from the north to the south and the west to the east coast, gangsters drowning from their own tub full of blood, leaving their family behind, dripping tears with fears, whipping their own eyes dry, whenever they start to cry, but I guess that this is how a lot of homie dies, a lot of brother cries, cause times at night, I hear bullets penetrating through houses, heading towards human fleshes, knocking down the nerves system, sending innocents lives into a coma, we gotta dive to stay alive, being bruise from the misused on universe avenue, but I guess it's time for us to step up to the stage, to put out an awareness about the Light Rail Tracks, IYs the L to the R to the T, about the goods and the bad, the ups and the down, flowing around our community. � � -� �� D7 By Cham Vue Let are words come togather/ Combine aze minds to say whatever/ Strike combonarions of socialize speech/ Kids on sueets just npping to beats/ Calamity gang fights just azound the block / Better not gang bang you might get shoU Excruciating language explode in are head/ Out from aze mouth / Straight to the eazs of another person's house/ Collinding etlucs in one community/ Peacefully living in one society/ District 7 is full of worthy soldiers/ Are voices aze important and strong like boulders/ Shaman to christian we're all mix in culture/ Appazently we live and laught togather/ Aparently we live and laught togather/ Chorus Compramise in youe mind about the innocenes lives/ Survive the violence and we strive to stay alive/(me and Chouchee) Survive the violence and we strive to stay alive(Fugi and Bong) Survive the violence and we strive to stay alive(all of us togather) b � -�9� Growing Seeds By: Fuechee Yang Rain of agony washes away solutions, trapping growing seeds away into sanitation. / Isolated love becomes a contaxnination, prosecuting outer senses of their emorions. / Blurry clips have grown into an education, angrily fading the light into desperation. / Solitary roads block the path of redemption, tripping the youth into a sea of poison. / Chaotic scenes infecting their soul miserably, dramatically, mentally, making their inner senses bleed./ Smoky dust poisoning their body quickly, resisting the energy to keep them healthy. / Every soul was born wealthy, but can rob by being mislead. / Injection of this pain is miserable, hypnotize thoughts inside can be eternal. I Burning scazs make peace unspeakable. / Bmotional, spirltual, bodies lay in the valley, paralyze, unmovable. / Collide our voices to release, the strength to elevate this community.... C!� � �� b �e �`f g � D� Past memories living on these ghetto streets The "LRT" will take this away from me From the "Community" My own "Convictions" Provoked On to stop this "Retaliation" Poke a hole through the dark ha11 You will see the good rise and the bad fall It don't matter iYs 2006, D7 is mixed We were fizst on the list, to be used on the project The Light Rail Track We take it back to the old days, living it the old ways The Street Drama Circulating Frogtown Representing our hood, thaYs how we throw it down W e're voicing our minds, to make a reminder To stop all these projects around our neighbor We wont accept a defeat, without a fight But we fight right, with our voice Rising High The Diverse are immersed, deep within these streets Albums of pictures, take us back to history We got a choice to choose, to either gain it back Or regret and lose... Yahoo! Mail - boa district7@yahoo.com � d Date: Tuz, 2 ftay 2GOo 15:15:�2 -07GG (PDT} From: Subject: Andy=_ Poe.^� Ta: Yo listen to my story about why I strive its about us people in frogtown how we survive we got people from all over and many other places some people hate cause we different so they segregate us we got the pho and and stores so its the place to be but the governments wants to take it away from us by building LRTs yall cant see it cause yafl cant stop fightin each other we better stand up together before the government becomes our mothers listen to my simple words before its too late or else theres no more food on cheng hengs plates I dont care where you from but I still call you family just look around man, this is you and your community - Andrew Pen Page 1 of 2 b (�'�fl5" Print - Close Wincow hitp:((us.f324.mail.yahoo.com/ymlShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=6671 _96503237_13290... 5/3/2006 1�� Switching rails around, metallic clashes in the distance From downtown to Frogtown, it's in the seventh district We gotta make a difference before we lose our houses To the cops and the robbers, bureaucrats and politicians LRT on University, where's the referendum, I'm writing tiem a letter on an economic tantrum Who will pay for the way of incoming construction Finding the instrucrion, minimizing the destruction In conjunction witb the woes of the public housing agency Wanting to raise the prices of rent and housing IY s gonna be lousy for those in the poverty zone I wonder how long it is before they kick us out of our homes And the police station, fire station, library and ALC, Those are all on the University block, so will all their work just grind to a stop? How much damage will be done? I run to the Mayor and ask, How much damage will be done? I run to the City and ask, Aow much damage wiil be done? I run to the people and ask, How much damage will be done? Did you even know? Did you even care to see what it could be? What the LRT could bring to these Saint Paul-itans, Metropolitans, and this economic imbalance? I ask of you to think of giving tissues to the local issues And let us live with the fact that our houses won't go And we can go to the store without getting repdd These are just the questions from one of the five thousand households And there's a lot more of us here So city hall, you should come and talk to your people ��.1 /�� Testimony on the Central Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement St Paul City Council Public Hearing, May 17, 20Q6 Madame President, Council members, my name is Anne White. I live at 1731 Portland Avenue in St Paul. I speak today as one of the few residents of St Paul, I suspect, who has actually read and studied this daunting document (the DEIS). I'm a strong supporter of light rail in the Central Corridor. Done right, I believe it can provide enormous benefits to our city, and to people all along the corridor, today and in the future. That said, my fear is that some of the original goals for the Central Corridor transit line will get lost in the scramble to secure federal funding and to "git- er-done", as they say at the Legislature. When we move into Preliminary Engineering, the main objective will be to complete a detailed transit plan that enables us to secure federal funding to build a light rail line in the Central Corridor. But where in this process do we make sure the local neighborhoods have a voice in decision-making? When is there an opportunity for people to say, "Wait a minute! I live here and you haven't considered X or Y"? Another deterrent to effective community input is that much of the work to be done going forward is highly technical. For example, the computer- generated calculation of the critical CosUEffectiveness Index is awesomely complicated. We're told the required numbers must be met, but how can we grapple with the plusses and minuses of adding or moving a station, for example, when only a highly skilled travel modeling expert can determine how it would affect the overall viability of the project? In any billion dollar project as complex as this, the balance of influence is likely to be weighted toward the technically sawy, the politically connected, those with resources to present their views in a polished, compelling presentation. The question is, what can we do to ensure a more equal o� - �� balance, so that the views of ord+nary people will have weight when they step up and say, "Wait a minute! We need to consider this."? The answer, I believe, lies in the critical importance of setting up a broadly representative Citizens Advisory Committee, with special weight given to transit-dependent populations and those located directly on the corridor, who would be most directly impacted by the light rail line. The committee should be accorded a powerful role in decision-making throughout the planning and building process, with a budget to provide for technical and outreach staff, and expenses for research, publicity, public relations, community organizing, and financial incentives for successful mitigation of construction impaets. I'm currently in the process of researching how such committees have been structured and funded in other cities, and plan to submit more detailed recommendations by your July 19 deadline for additional comments. Thank you. Anne White 1731 Portland Avenue St Paul, MN 55104 612-396-3111 ��1. /�� ► � r � � Impact study, hearings heat up Gentral Corridor The "first We steps toward reality." ThaPs how Ramsey County Commissioner Rafael Ortega describes the Apnl ll release of the drdft environmental impact statement for long-needed trensit development in the long-studied Central Corridor. We hope he's right. There have been plenty of stops and starts along the way that threatened to de2i1 any project for the 11-mile str'etch between the two downtowns. � Since 19SS,�the Central Corrid�r has been the subject of a train-load of planning reports: regional bYueprints, long-range transportation plans, comprehensive pians for St. Paul and Minneapolis, as welt as two draft reports that identified light rail transit as the preferred altemative for the corridor. But now the process starts rolling in earnest, and the clock has begun ticking on a 45-day public comment penod that ends lune 5. ' Four public hearings will give the public its first chance to weigh in on one of three options: light rail, bus rapid transit or the so-cailed "staYUS quo" proposal. Ortega, who heads Yhe Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority, calls the hearings "the beginning of the process" for extensive pubVic input that wou{d continue throughout the two years of pi'eliminary engineering, which muld begin as early as this fall. After the public hearings, the Central Corridor Coordinating Committee, made ap of a wide array of elected officials and government represenYatives,_will recommend its preferred alternative to the Mefropolitan Council. . - �_ We've made cfear our strong support for the light ral opCion. Webelieve a line along University Avenue � will productiveiy tink the two downtowps, Yhe state CapitoV and the UMversity of Minnesota and spur � �� meaningfu! development along much of the corritlor. ` � , We weicome the, public input throughout the process; but we hope cftizens along the avenue and, � ", � throughouY the city will focus on ways to improue the project, not obstruct the�process. � ' .. �� The light rail option is not a foregone conclusion, Ortega says. He argues, however, tfiat the latest report �� cleariy reinforces the view that light raiFis the�way to go. He calls the Central Corridor "one of the �best . �transit corridors in the'naYion" and notes that pre{iminary ridership estimates support that. The corridor's � - � projected 43,000 daify rides, he says, is mose than twice the number predided for Minneapolis' Hiawatha ' line, wbere actual ridership has far outstripped all estimates. . _-, - - Both Ortega and Larry DoWell, president of the St, Paut Area Chamber of Commerce, credit tfie success of the Hiawatha 7ine for clearing the track and changing many-skeptics' minds on light rail's potential. � : - . . �, . . . Central Corridor efforts were "stuck for a while, but now they're really moving," says Dowell. 'The success of Hiawatha has made this alI possibte" — inGUding proposed Fundiog and support from the governor and legislators. , : . . � - . � = Dowell and Ortega also ag�ee that growing support frorri the suburbs has been importartt. "I'm so proud of my counterparCS in chambers across the area for their tremendous support," he sa�id. � We agree. Since the success of�Hiawatha, it seems, the public and officials Yhro�ghout the area have � begun paying more attention to the_importance of creating a metro-wide trensit nehvork. Folks, - understand, Dowel� says, that the Central Corridor "is the spi�e of such a system:' � �� Although the final decision lies with the Metropolitan Council,:both Dowell and Anne Whife,"a member of � the newly formed District Councils Collaborative of St. Pau� and Minneapolis, believe light rail clearly has -� the inside track. �',`I don't see any possibility o� bus rapid YransiY` emergPng'from the. process,-Whfte �says. The report �� ' - summary.itsel�notes.that by 2020, buses coWd not handle Fhe corridor's,anticipated growtb. . ' . � � If others agree and�there are no major gtitches in the scheduje,.Ortega hopeslightra�il,would �be ready to � � ride by2011. � - . . ; _ , � . . � � - � � ' ,- ., � But �fiist, the enviroementat impact statement noEes some challenges = what ilowel! calfs ""rssues ta ' manage.", � , ' , . ' - . - �, . . . � . The report, for example., points�to issues for both,light rail and bus rapid transit, incNd'tng:'. . .- ihe massive reconstruction of Oniversify Avenue; wfiich drould have to be widened so,trd�sit coufd roft . - , down the midd(e. � - _ ,_ � - , � � - _ . , The resuiting loss of about 660 on-street�parking� spois atong�the avenue. � - �' Design issues that would address safety issues for 6oth drivers and pedestrians�. � - - -; Light rail presents a[ least one extra challenge, Fhe stndy.notes_30 poftuted sites abng the raute that � would need substantial clganup. Even that �situatiorr, Utough, is not a real�probtem or surprise,;�backers . , "say. "There are polluted sites all overthe city," Ortega �says, noting that the projected $840 million.price _ , qg for the ucban tine anticipated those costs. �. , � � - � , � � - � �- From a curso,ry ceading of substantial parts of the massive docuroebt; Whfte sees lots of other issues to . resoive - from traffic snads in both downtovrns and at the university's §ladium Village to integrating feeder transit from around the dty ioto the Ce�traf Corridor. _ --' ; � � -' . Even lightrail's most ardeot suppor,ters acknowiedge a long list of issues, but that's what ttie two-year � engineering peocess is foc The community wncetns and design quesGOns can be addressed as the � process un7nlds: � . . . ' . . - . -, . ' � � � � We're sdB not certain �vliat ofher potitica( and financial �speed tiumps lie ahead for thfl needed light rait-: - tine, but we are encouraged by the change of heart Ortega told us he's seen among much oRthe pubiic. "In 1998," he said, "everybody thought I'd lose the (county board) election. Now, folks ask�me, 'HOw. _ corne you haven't buiR that �ine yet? Get with it.' " � . �. , '' � � "fhaPs a senYiment we share. " . � � � � _ , , � . , - , � -Public hearings � - - � ' . � . , � - Four hearings will give the public a chance to wefgh, iFl��on transit options Cnr the Centra4 Corritlor: -,- - ? May 22: 6:30 p.m., Radissan �Metrodome, 6I5 Washington Ave. SE., Minneapolis, open- house f,or, _ quesEions and answers from 5 to 6;30 p:m. . , � . � - � �: , - � � ?� May_23: 5 p��.m.,�lao Famity Community of;Minnesota, 320-1N. University Ave., St. Paul;, open;housz, 4 �to 5 p.m. - ,_ . ' ' _ �, . ,- - , ' ' , ' ' �? May 24: 8 a.m., Minnesota History Center, 345 W: Keffogg Blvd, St::Paul; open house, 7c30 a.m. - ,� '? May 24C 6:30 p.m., Centraf High School, 275 N. Lexingtort Pkwy, St. Paul; ope� hoese, 3:30 to 6;30 � � p.m. " � . - - " � , � . . � . , � . - � '� The draftenvironmental, impact statement is available at svww.cenfralcorridor.org/_. � �� . � Written mmments on theD2ft EIS shoutd be addressed to: Stephen L�Mo[ris, Project Manager, Suite 665 ; RCGC West, 50 W. Keilogg Blvd., St: Paul,_ MN 55102;,e-mail: deiscorriments@co.ramsey:rnn.us. -� � � � D t�-�� CQFITEE ��TI`�: RICK BEESON Position: R'eside�rt antl CEO of Park Mitlway 6ank in SL PaW, chairman of the St Paul Chamber ot Commerce antl co-chairman of the Central Corritlor Partnership. • In the �ws: In his leadership role with the chamber and the paRnership, Beeson wlll be asking the Legislature ne# year for money to 6uiltl a Itght-rail line along Universiry Avenue between Minneapolis antl St. Paul. Wha[ is Me Central Cortidar Partner ship? 4te, astiie St. Pau! Chamber, decided to €orm a partnership among private and public entities, including [he Unicer- siry of Min�esota, smalt bus9ness,large corpmations, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Pavl and Hennepin and RamseV counties [o focus on the funding and de- vetopment of the Cenaal Corridor line. tPs a major business issue fuz [he St Pau] Chamber of Commerce—a billion dol- lazs of dixect constmc[ion spending, in additio� to wMch the otfshnot de� elop- ment will amount ro billions of dollazs over many years. Has anything been approved so far? Five million dolla�s was appruved thie tast session of the Legislature for plan• tring and en�neering. Tha[ matches 35 miilion in Eedeml p)anning money. So m�e aze now in the planning and engineer- ing s[age. Md werepreparing to ask [be Tzgislature this nea2 sessio� for S30 mil- ]ion ro$50 million of actuai construc[ion doilars to construct an 11-mile lighvai3 line benveen downtown St. Paol and the HiavrathaLineinMirineapolis. ' Why does Ne St. Paul chamBer care so much about this transit project? Thepazadipn has shifted, and trans- portation has become a business issue —being able ro mo�e goods and sendces as well as people azound the Twin Cities acea and into the metro area. IPs become an issue ix wasdtbefore, just by vicme of [he congestion weie seeing and the immigration into the Twin Cities of whatk�ll be anothex 60D,000 to 7 million people over the next 75 years. So iC vaasnt a business issue 1� years ago, b�t it is a businessissnenokv. ,_ Oo you think tAe currert gov- ernoy fieutenafrt govenwr antl leadership M Ne L¢gisla ture agree with you on that? Yes. They aze supportive of the projec[. They hae got- ten bebind ihe planning moner, and they see the necessiry of wme son of transi[ system along Univessicv �1��enue. St's �eally che line that should hane been bvilt first, e��en ahead of [he Hia��atha line. Why? Secause it has greater ridership po- teniial.lt connects nno centra! cities, the Uniaersity of Minnesota, goes through fu➢y deve]oped urban neigbtwrhoods. In hct, federai transit authocitfes will rell you iYs probably the best undeveloped [mnsit line in the muntry hecause of the width of the right-of-way thaYs there. Where were you antl the rest of the featle�s M the St. Paul Chamber M Commerce when the tlecision was be- ing made to tlo Hiawatha first? I don't think [he business communiry m�as organi�zd around th3s iccue, artd we [e focusmg now on this opponunitp. and we can t do anything about the past. Bvt we tktink thfs is "ryst such a great op- pqrtumty at preseni rhat we4e made this our No. I prioriTy. What ase youc chances of gettmg fund ing hom the LegistatureT We're very oPtimis[ic abou[ ceceiving consirucYion dollacs and sta}�ng i� the queue for devHOpmern of theproject.l might mention tha[ the federal govem- ment awarded 550 million for the reno- �a[ion of the ISt Pauij Union Depot, and the C.entral Corridoi line will end at the Depot. Talk mme about why the Ce�rtrel Corridor line is a business is- sue. NEhough iPS onh� one segment af a regionat sys- Fem, iYs critically tocatcvt bettveen the nvo down- mtms. Without that, the abiliry to move people east and westthrough che tveo meao ar eas is reallv inhibiEed. Another majur benefi[ of the li�e is the wandfall from developmenc.lYe Ia�ax� �vhere ligh[ rail lines gq economic development SolSows, and it's unponant ihat the ucban azeas not be lefrou[ of the mass-transit moee- men[ a�d iha[ the inner ciTy be able to benefit in ienns oF economic deveiop- ment Housing, for example. If ��ou look at what's going on out in Bloomington at the Mall of America projea, the swle of that project �vould not have happened but For the Fatt [hat lightaail nansit is going through that site. Are you a latecomer to transit advo- cacy? I would say this wmmunin� has been slow to respond to the need, but the time is here nrnv to champion [he need for trans�t funding. Is R too late? ho, iYs mt too late. In fatt, there are some benefits of being IaCe in terms ot having beaer techno]ogy, beeter plan- ning, better cesources.l [Lmk t6e ligl�t- raii line we bulid nmv will be techaolog- cally superior to m�hai we would have buitt 25 yeaxs ago. Thece's}ust that much better science to [he technology. Is dce CeMrai Corridor gang to be used more by city resitlents Nan sub- urban commuters? ] think there will be more resident use becanse [here's more xesidential [propec- ty� that abvts rhis lioe than it does along a bt of [he Hiawatha 5ne. Y�u're going ro see a 1ot of new 6ousing built along t6e corridos 1'ha['s probabLy the mos[ eignif- icant part of the economic developme�[ outcome— housing. People want to ]ive on a mass-transit line. How tlo you know Uaat? Look at aoy of the major cities, like NewYork, Chicago. Foi ex�nple, Chicago:IE you ie in the ciry, you want ro be within walking distance ro the Ei. Wfiat else is paK M qour grand vision for this line 6esitles additional Fwus ing? I[hink at kev intersections on Unieex- siq� Avenue m•e'll see �a�ed-use cede- vetopmentprojec[s. The Midway area needs more retail. We donR have enough big-box retaii in St. Paul riyht �av. Mos[ of it is located in Roseville ox do�r�nin [Nesc St. Pau7.I thinkthis helpsre- � taile�seethevalneoftheMidway area. Theycan come out and do �heir shopging during their ; �,3 Iunch from downfiwn. in the best of ali possibte worlds, when would construction begin, antl when would tite line be rurt� ning? L thinkwe'd be looking at coasavc- tion starting in 2009 or 2070 and fin- ished two years daM1�n from there. � IarzYWerner DCe��f9� ■ ar r� �u�e University Avenue must prepare for LRT • Mayor-elect Coleman should use Phaien as a model. St Paul Mayor-elect Chris Colr man faces no more important task than getting Universiry Avenue ready for light iaiL 3t will be hazd enough to push ahead on federal and state funding for the $840 mil- lion project. It will be harder still to retrofit the azchiteMUre — and the mind-set.— of a corridor that coutinues to entovTagebig-bosr� tail, vast pazldng lots and more au- to tr�c That sort o£suburbani�ation is inrnmpatible with light rait and, if it�eontinues, couId jeopazdize federai support. St Paul mnst un- deistand that� light rail is as much abont land use as tcansportation. The best course now is for Cole- man to launch a tiroad, Iong-Xange .planning process foz the avenue tliat includes everyone. Alzeady 54.� Paul has one of the�besi such models auywhere: �tfie Phaled Corridor. Replicating Phalen's eaergq, commitment and spirit along University i§ a�good place to start. The projects aiaze dif- ferent, co: be snxe- Phalen s ovu- riding visionhas been to.enhince � 1obs and 5ocial sEability onthe giri tyE�t Side. Aniversity Avennehas more assets but far less consensns onwhat i4s3ioiil3bemm� As with � Phalen,forginganewcomdorwill take a unified vision, cotlaboration and the Idnd 'of marketing'sizzle that Phaien'sproject director, Curt Milbuxn, Las supplied. All parties, Ueginning with neighbors and local businesses, must come to see the projec[ as theirs. Most unportan[, they must unagine Che avenue not as it is �ww,but as it should be in 25 years — and then sec policies to en- sure the outeome they choose. Rezoning the corridor for tran- sitroriented devetoPnient, opposed by Randy_Kelly's administration, would make a good beginning. A nevi Lowe'S, Besi Buy and Supex- 'Fazget might still be possible. But their. desi�s.should be comgat- ible with a czty I'ifestyIe that de- pends less on the�auto for every trip. Questioning Metru TransiYs bus garage deaIon SnellingAvenue is unpezative.Doesitmakesenseto sell transit-owned land next to a fu- � ture LRT station without xequuiag that any new development wouid complement transit? Accots�odating the concems � of small business is anotfier impor- � tant factor. Goncentratiug first on the blocks �vest ofSnelIing, where nansit-oriented development u most weScame, might also make sense_ Snecess there could spread eastwazd: ' � Golenfan is on the r3ght track when he says St Paul must scop just responding � to developers ideas and gei out-ahead wi[h a pro- �; spective plan for the Midwap Dis- hict.�Getting I7nivers'xry Avenue ready for lighi rail is vital for the ciryandregion ; . ��'`�� ■ ar ri un� For 40% of light-rail riders, transit stops with the train • TzansitoffioalssaythattheoriginalHiawathalight-r.ulridership estimates were low and they aze revisingtheir forecasting methods. sy i,aut� Br a� Iblake(_a�stactr�bunemm When his carpool collapses for a dap, John Hea]y has no qualms about riding ligfit rail to work in downtown Minneapolis. `It seems a little more predictable and regulaz than the bus," he said. "... There is always another one coming' Healy, of south Minueapolis, is a new breed of �ansit rider — wiiling to take aains, but rarely, if ever, climbing aboard abus. A?A04 survey found that 40 per- cent of Hiawatha's riders are like Healy — not bus riders before train service began. This preference for rail largely ea- plains why the Hiawatha riderslrip is exceeding projeaions. Preconsauc- tion predictions did not factor in pos- itive attimdes toward the train_ The Hiawatt�a ridersMp is 65 percent high- er than predicted. In October, an esti- mated 742,000 riders used the line. Rail's smooth ride and consistent schedule make it appealing to riders who would not consider the bus. The permanence of the track and the fre- quency of service make it easy to use without knowing a schednle. Within one year, light rail has emerged as the single busiest transit line in the metro azea. Ridexs contiarues:NUmbers may affect central mrridoi s rail prospeds. B3 ► F W B G Y x! 2 3< 5 s P � t • il �1• 9t' $ w m �� c� ._ �' � �� n� 9 ` p,K F T �0.�i 'c� Q � � ^ 6 .n � $ouice�Metrolkansit For 40 percent of LRT riders, transit stops with the train � RIDERS FROM Bi IYs ahead of the No. I bus line, Route S, linldng Brookdale, downtown Minneapolis and rhe Mall of America, acrnrding to Metro Transit. Wf�atcomertsl�e The train made atrazLSit ma- vert of Jennifer Johnson of sovth Minneapolis, who said she and her husband never went down- town before the rail line opened. Now they go twiee a month on the Hiawatha "IYs quick, iYs clean, iYs safe and }ittle kids love the train," said Johnson, who had her c}uld in tow «I7°S QUICK, IT'$ CLEAN, IT'S SAFE AND LITTLE KIDS LOVE THE TRAII3. N Light-rail rider 7ennifer Iohnson M� n�� t �_ dant Caza Cobb, from Detroiy said it was the quick, direct rad service tbat pmmpted her to rake thehamfromtheI�2wneapolis-St PaUI IIIteinational AiTport to the Ma4 of America during a break from work. '7t was cheap and it was fun and we didn't have to wait long," she said Had she ev- er taken a bvs to the mall? Cobb shrugged. "L don't imow where you get a bus at the a'sport." Wazrea Nordley, a Bnmsville retiree, drove up to Bloomington to catch the �ainto a class at the University of Minnesota "I per- soaaily enjoy it," he said. "I feel it is a much more pleasant way to go than fl�ebus. The big open windows — iYs just a more pleasantfeeling.And you aze to- tallyunmune to the tcaffic." Nordley said he believes that men in general fmd tfte bus "be- neath their dignity — iYs just not classy enough" As a transit advocate, he does not share that attitude. He prefers the train, but "either bns or train aze faz superior to driving your car." Repexcussionsfoxthefuhue 7'he Metropolitan Council based its rafl-rider predictions on bus-rider behavior. Wary of overstated ridership, the Federal Transit Admuustra- tion discouraged even a 25 per- cent padding for rail prefer- ence, said Natalio Diaz, direc- tor of transportarion planning for the Met CounciL "Now we have real num- bexs from observed behavior," Diaz said. `About 40 percent of the riders are people who were notusingthe bus. Tbat is ahuge amount" Officials have spem more than a year correcling [he met- xo azea's forecasting methods to better reflect rail's appeal This change muld be important for ridership predicrions on a pro- posed central corridor rul line along Universiry Avenue 3ink- ing St Paul and Minneapolis. An upcoming environmen- tal impaM s[atement will com- paze the pros and rnns of a rail line with bus rapid hansit Rid- ership will be central to that rnmpazison and a key part of the choice between rail or bus, Diaz said. Laurie Blake • 612-673-1711 � Central Corridor P A R T N E R S H I P Conriecrirg Peopie. Groxirg BusirRSs CENTRAI, CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT) �� What is the Central Corridor LRT? The Gentral Corsidor is a proposed 11-mile light rail txansit line that will link the two core downtown azeas of �iinneapolis and Saint Paul. The planned line would run from the future transit hub at the historic Union Depot in downtown Saint Paul, link to the State Capitol uavel down University Avenue, through the University o£ Vlinnesota, extend over the Washington Avenue bridge and connect to the Hia�vatha light rafl transit line at the Downtown East1_lletrodome stop. Warenouse District I Nicollet Mall Center Westgafe Drive Downfown East/Met�otloma Minneapolis MulitMOtlal � Union Depot au so-�< mccx What is the Central Corridor Partnership? The Central Corridor Partnership is a business-led coalition founded in 2004 to promote the funding and development of the Central Corridor. The business communities of Saint Paul and nlinneapolis recognized the need to join together to advocate for light rail transit connecting these major urban hubs. The Cenh�al Conidor Pazeierslup consisis oL Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce Nlidway Chamber of Commerce blinneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce Vlinnesota Black Chamber of Commerce l7innesota Hmong Chamber of Commerce Minneapolis Downtown Council Capital City Paztnership Businesses in and along the Corridor Organizedlabor The Universitv of Minnesota Local governments Why Central Corridor now? Light rail transit along the Central Conidor is a crucial investment to the continued economic health and vitality of the state of �Vlinnesota. Light ra$ transit will help alleviate future congestion bzought on by the anticipated 1 million new residents in our metro area, enhance our quality of life and foster new economic development. In addition, transit has proven to serve as a draw for new housing and commercial growth. The success of the Hiawatha LRT is a great example. From opening day in June of 2004, through September of 200�, ridership has been 67% higher than forecast. In August of 2005, over 800,000 passengers rode the LRT. The time for expanded transit options is now. `The Centr¢l Corridor is ¢n import¢nt part of the future growth between the East and TC�est metro. TYte must move forw¢rd and ensure its success." Senatox Noxm Coleman Central Corridor Parmership • 401 North Robert S�eey Suite 150 • Sain[ Paul, MN 55101 www.cen�alcorridorpartnersltip.org • 6512652782 •Novem6er 2005 29t1� Avenue S.E. :WEium Village Raymontl Avenue �� Fairview Aven�e Lexington Parkway Rica S[r 94 Snellin9 Avenue 2005 was successful---but there's a long way to go With your support, the Central Corridor Partnership assisted in securing $�2a million ��unding and 6uilding the CenSral Comdor light rail is in the 2005 bonding biII, which was matched vital to keeping the Twin Cities competitive in the 21s by federal funding to cover preliminary Century". engineering costs. An Alternatives Congresswoman Betty McCollum Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) has been prepazed for the project. This document examines a variety of alternative transit options and their impacts. After it is released for public hearings, it will lead to the selection of an option to be studied in preliminary engineering. FTA's approval to release the document is depettdent upon a calculation called the Cost Effectiveness Index that estimates the cost per hour of travel time saved by transit users in the region in 2030. We are eazly awaiting this calculation. The Partnership anticipates that the A.A/DEIS wfll provide evidence that light rail is the best uansit altemative to connect Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Subsequent action by the Met Council will allow For preliminary engineering to begin. Project Cost and Timeline The proposed budget for the Central Corridor is $840 million. Federal "_vew Starts" funding witl cover 50% of the total capital cost of the project. A non-federal match of $420 million is required from state, county and regional sources to cover the total cost of t$e project. 2006-07: Preliminary Engineering 2007: Secure State Funding 2008: Final Design 2009: Construction Period 20ll: Project Completion Why state funds are needed now To obtain the Yew Starts funding, the FTA requires that one half of the non-federal share of project funding be committed 6e ore they will allow a project to begin the Final Design phase. This means the Central Corridor needs a s �210 million commitmeni for funds by the fourth quarter of 2007, even though dollazs will not be spent until construction begins. If £unding is not committed by that time, the Central Corridor will lose the opportunity for federal funding. Whfle the Central Corridor has been identitied as one of the most viable transit comdors in the country, the competition for federal resources is fierce. We face competition from cities such as Chazlotte, Columbus, Louisville, Norfolk, and Phoenix, that aze building new systems as well as cities that are adding to already existing substantial rail systems. If Vlinnesota fails to ensure state funded support, federal dollazs will be lost to other cities and transportation in Minnesota will again be stalled. We must keep our state funding on track to ensure the federal match. Minnesota's transportation future depends on it. Bonding Request 2006: Along with the Ramsey County Regional RaiLroad Authority, the Central Corridor Partnership is requesting $50 million in state funding in the 2006 bonding bill to match projected federal contributions to ensure that we secure the state and local match by yeaz end 2007. Project paztners will continue to support a dedicated transit funding source (such as the constitutional amendment to dedicate the Vlotor Vehicle Sales Tax) that will reduce the amount of bonding required to fund projects like Central Corridor. For more information, please eontact: Central Comdor Parmership • 401 North Ro6ert Streey Sui[e 150 • Samt Paul, MN 55101 www.cen�alco�ridorpartnership.org • 6512652782 •November 21105 � Central Corridor PARTNERSHIP ConnttAig People. Grwniy Busi� FAST FACTS �� HIAWATHA LIGHT RAIL TR.ANSIT Length: 12 miles, connecting downtown Vlinneapolis, 1Vlinneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport and Mall of America in Bloomington Stations: 17 Ridership: Forecast for 5rst ten months-42 million Actual-6.4 million Power: Electrically powered by wires 16-feet overhead Top speed: 55 mph, with a general service speed of 40 mph and slower speeds in downtown areas Service: • Rush hours: Every 7'/ minutes from 6 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 6 p.m. • Every 10 minutes from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. • Every 15 minutes from 6:30 — 9 p.m. • Evexy 30 minutes from 4— 6 a.m. and from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m. Feeder bus service: 46 Metro Transit routes connect to 14 ra$ stations with timed transfers. Fare collection: Self-service, barrier £ree, proof o£ payment Fares: Light-rail fares aze the same as bus fares. Transfers valid between bus and rail if used within 150 minutes. LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES The Hiawatha line has 24 cars which are 94-feet long and manufactured by Bombardier. Some trains consist of two cars coupled together. Each caz has four doorcvays and can hold 66 seated passengers plus standing room for 120. Inside each car aze four luggage racks and four bicycle hangers. Every light rail station and car is £ully ADA compliant. FACTS AND FIGURES � �, � �, TotaL• $715.3 mil6on • Federal: $ 334.3 • State o£MN: �100.0 • Metropolitan Airports Commission: $87.0 • Hennepin County: �842 • Congestion Mitigation/Air Grant: $49.8 • Transit Capital Grant: $39.9 • VIN Department of Transportation: $20.1 PARTNERS • Meuopolitan Counc$- owner • Metro Transit- operator • MnDOT — design and construction • Metropolitan Auports Commission • Hennepin County • Cities of Bloomington / 1'Iinneapolis � Warehouse �%trict/XeonePin Avenue Sbtion �,� s s y � NkolletMlillStatian .. '� Go�emme�RMazaSWt"wn � � ' �ownta.m EazC/MetrodwneStation ' � BPewarx�a.w.vn.em�rdm..,,eran flWtMOwn . � � ' _ Ninneapol`srwm:m�'k �arrorarside5trtion �_�_.�_. . ._-�� - N w�e __=L� Q_Gke�' Minn�pol"s . �'°" �n �me � rtaasw�en—. ssi �..�.�.�� _" -� '�'e�..��, {nR'ox4¢S} � �s�w�o ' ew..em, -- Airyart �' � f=_" "� soensemrnr �ennneaaaa� 6 srenon •exlmldcown sxmm� izr.is:si" �:�;o� utss 16.14.13 e Stree[ Sfation H�unP�YT; � � . NORTHSTAR COMMUTER R ATf, Central Corndor PARTNERSHIP FACTSANDFIGURES Connecting P¢op�e, Gmvnng 8winess FAST FACTS Location: The Northstar Corridor runs f'rom the Big Lake azea to downtown Minneapolis along Highway 10 & Interstate 94. Length: 40 miles Number of Stations: 6 stations — Big Lake, Elk River, Anoka, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Minneapolis Est. Daily Ridership: 5,600 trips Service Begins: estunated late 2008 Capital Cost: $265 million (FY 2008) (50% federal, 33% state, 17% local) Caz Capacity: 150-162 seated (additional space for standing available) Amenities: Work tables, on-boazd resuooms, individual seating, power oudets. Top Speed: 79 mph Base Service: 8 morning, 8 evening trains, one midday round trip and limited weekend and special event service Connections: Feeder buses to stations, Hiawatha LRT in downtown Mpls. F'CTNDING STATUS On April ll, 2005, Governor Pawlenty signed iato law an $886 million bonding biR, wLich mcluded $37.5 willion in funding for Northstar Commuter RaiL The $37.5 million� witich matches $44 million in local fimdmg, is necessary for tLe approval from the £ederal governwent authorizmg Nortlu�tar to move mto its fma[ desi� pGase. I have worked in daoraown Minneapolis for 22 years w�d commuted from Coon Rapids. Tfiere are numerous delays on the bus and in tiee car. The commuter &ne will alloto me to scleedule my time more efficiently because I won't have to worry about weather or accident delays on the road. - Coon Rapids resident Cen�al Cocridor Pazme:ship., 401 North Robe�t S�ext, Sui[e 150, Saint PauL� MN 55101 www.centralcomdor��armership.�rn 6512652782 November 2005