The URL can be used to link to this page

91-1828 O�IGINA t� ��, �/ ' � ` (� �� Council File # —��a2O ��_--� � s I I Green Sheet # � RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT UL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) has prepared the Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document; and WHEREAS, the RCRRA has distributed these documents to various agencies and organizations, including the City of Saint Paul, for review and comment as required under part 4410.1500 Publication and Distribution of an EAW of the Minnesota Environmental Quali.ty Board rules; and WHEREAS, the proposed Saint Paul South LRT line would be located along Lafayette Freeway from downtown Saint Paul to Upper SSth Street near I-494 in Dakota County; and WHEREAS, the connection from downtown to the Lafayette Freeway would either follow Fourth Street, Wall Street, State Street and Eaton Street or follow Fourth Street and Prince Street; and WHEREAS, the proposed LRT line would have 6 stations, with stations at Plato Boulevard and at Concord Street in Saint Paul; and WHEREAS, the Draft Scoping Decision Document includes consideration of a no-build alternative including some improvements to e�usting bus service; and WHEREAS, good transit service is essential for many transit-dependent citizens and for the health of Saint Paul's neighborhoods and downtown; and WHEREAS, decisions on Light Rail Transit in the Saint Paul South Corridor could have significant long-range effects on transportation systems and land use patterns in Saint Paul; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document and has submitted its comments and recommendations to the Mayor and City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's comments and recommendations; � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council makes the following comments on the Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document: ��il��i��,��) /-/�� , . ��9 1. Consideration of LRT in the Saint Paul South Corridor is compatible with the Transit section of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, which states that the city considers LRT a significant transit alternative with potential benefits for Saint Paul and urges serious consideration of all potential LRT corridors in Saint Paul, specifically including the Saint Paul South Corridor; and 2. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should address the potential economic development and redevelopment impacts of LRT alternatives and the impact of alternatives for the location and design of stations and the feeder bus system on support of Saint Paul's economic development goals and opportunities; and 3. The EIS should assess the impact of each alternative on the quality of local and regional transit service, particularly for transit dependents; and ' 4. A non-fixed rail alternative to provide better public transit service and increase transit ridership in an amount similar to LRT should be considered in the EIS, and the cost per rider for such an alternative should be compared to the cost per rider for LRT alternatives including capital, operating, maintenance and feeder bus system costs. Y� Navs Absent Requested by Department of: imon osw�tz ,� Plannin and Eco anic Develo ment � �acca ee �— ettman � �� une � By: Adopted by Council: Date SEP 2 6 � Fo� Ap roved by City Attorney Adoption Ce if' �`d by Counc' S cretary gy: _ � � BY� � Approved by Mayor for Submission to SEP 3 council Approved by a or: Da � By. �G�� By: 5'9 i , �-� 5� L � c.�� `�"� . , �.�- ��..�' q/-/ DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL D E INITIATED N� 17 511 PED 9/13/91 GREEN `S T CONTACT PERSON&PHONE INI I A INITIAUDATE �DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �CITY COUNCIL ASSIGN CITYATTORNEY CITYCLERK A11an Torstenson ° 228-3397 NUMBER FOR ❑BUDGET DIRECTOR �FIN.&MGT.SERVICES DIR. MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY DATE) ROUTING ORDER �MAYOR(OR ASSISTANT) �j)an ('nrng� �i TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAGES 2 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION RE�UESTED: Adopt resolution with City comments on Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit (LRT) Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document. RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(A)or Reject(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: �PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �• Has this person/firm ever worked under a contrAct for this department? _CIB COMMITfEE _ YES NO A STAFF 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? — — YES NO _DIS7RIC7 COURr _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normall y possessed by any current city employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO Explein ell yes answers on separate shest and attach to grean shest INITIATINO PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY(Who,What,When,Where,Why): The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) has submitted an Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document on the Saint Paul South LRT Corridor to the City for review and comment. This is an opportunity for the City ta identify alternative and issues that should be addressed in detail when a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS is done for the project. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: City concerns and issues that should be addressed in the EIS will be clearly communicated to the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority. �C� D13ADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: None. MAYOFrS 0� DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: City concerns would not be clearly communicated to the RCRRA and may not be addressed in the EIS. TOTAI AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION s CO3T/REVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) „j� U NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAiLABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO.298-4225j. ROUTING ORDER: Below are correct routings for the five most frequent rypes of documents: CONTRACTS(assumes authorized budget exists) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend Budgets/Accept.Grants) - � 1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director 2. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. City Attorney 3. Budget Director 4. Mayor(fo[contracts oyer$15,.000) , _4. Mayor/Assistant � _ . . _ �_ 5. Human Rights(for contracts over$50,000) 5. City Council 6. Finance and Management Services Director - ' 6: Chief AccounCant, Finance and"Management�Services �' - "" 7. Finance Axountfng ADMINiSTRATIVE ORDERS(Budget Revision) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others, and Ordinances) 1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director 2. Department Acxountant 2. City Attorney 3. Department Director 3. Mayor Assistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(all others) , 1. Department Director 2. City Attomey 3. Finance and Management Services Director 4. City Clerk - - _ _ - - _ . _ _ __ _ TOTAL MUM�ER OF$IGNATURE_PAGES _. _ Indicate the�of pages on which signatures are required and paperclip or flag _each of thsse Pe�ss. _ ACTION REQUESTED Describe what the projecUrequest seeks to accamplish in either chronologi- cal oMer or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete sentences. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS - �.._ _ . Complete it the issue in question has been presented before any body,public -_ . __ ,. or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council cbjective(s)your projecUrequest supports by listing the key word(s)(HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This information will be used to determine the citys liabiliry for workers compensation claims,taxes and proper civil service hiring rules. INiTIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY ' Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAQES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens wfll benefit from this project/action. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or maJor changes to existing or past processes might this project/request produce if it is passed(e.g„traffic delays, noise, � tax increases or assessments)?To Whom?When?For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved?inability to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate?Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is going to pay? � ��_��' ��.tr o. CITY OF SAINT PAUL ;0 '�°�,� OFFICE OF THE MAYOR o � � uuum ,? � �=u �tu ^ 0 347 CITY HALL JAMES SCHEIBEL BAINT PAUL. MINNE$OTA 55102 MAYOR (612) 298-4323 , September 13, 1991 President William Wilson and Members of the Ci Council ry 719 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: City Comments on Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document Dear President Wilson and Members of the City Council: I am pleased to transmit to you the comments and recommendations of the Planning , Commission on the Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit (LRT� Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision Document. A draft resolution for City Council consideration is also attached. The City has received the EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document on the Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor from the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) for City review and comment. A summary of the Scoping Decision Document, with maps showing proposed alignment alternatives and station locations, is attached. The proposed Saint Paul South LRT line would generally be located along Lafayette Freeway from downtown Saint Paul to near I-494 in Dakota County. There would be stations at Plato Boulevard and at ' Concord Street in Saint Paul. Our written comments should be submitted to the railroad authority by October 2. The Scoping Decision Document identifies alternatives and issues to be addressed in detail , when an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is done for the project. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City make the same key comments on the scope of the EIS for the Saint Paul South Corridor LRT project as we did on the EIS for LRT in the Midway ', Corridor. Those comments are contained in the attached draft City Council Resolution. I concur with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and hereby submit a draft City '' Council Resolution for your consideration. Sincerely�`�� (G � Ja es Scheibel Mayor JS/bp Attachments cc: Robert Sprague, PED Tom Eggum, Public Works Printed on Recycled Paper aa�g q,i��' � RECEIVED HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 SEP 1 9 1991 PAGE Two ��TY CLERK 7. Administrative Order D-11590 - Addition of �7,100.00 to the contract for Mears Park Site Development (Referred from Council 8-27-91) . THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AND APPROVED AT THE AUGUST 27, 1991, CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8. Resolution - review and comment on the Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document. THIS ITEM WAS SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION chr li � � g�i�� city of saint paui pianning commission resolution file number 91-66 • , �te � S�ntPmh�'�, 1 441 WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) has prepared the Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Sc,oping Decision Document; and WHEREAS, the RCRRA has distributed these documents to various agencies and organizations, including the City of Saint Paul, for review and comment as required under part 4410.1500 Publication and Distribution of an EAW of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board rules; and WHEREAS, the proposed Saint Paul South LRT line would be located along Lafayette Freeway . from downtown Saint Paul to Upper SSth Street near I-494 in Dakota County; and WHEREAS, the connection from downtown to the Lafayette Freeway would either follow Fourth Street, Wall Street, State Street and Eaton Street or follow Fourth Street and Prince Street; and WHEREAS, the proposed LRT line would have G stations, with stations at Plato Boulevard and at Concord Street in Saint Paul; and WHEREAS, the Draft Scoping Decision Document includes consideration of a no-build alternative including some improvements to existing bus service; and WHEREAS, good transit service is essential for many transit-dependent citizens and for the health of Saint Paul's neighborhoods and downtown; and WHEREAS, decisions on Light Rail Transit in the Saint Paul South Corridor could have significant long-range effects on transportation systems and larid use patterns in Saint Paul; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the Mayor and.City Council on municipal planning matters per Section 107.02 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document; moved by MCOONELL seconded by �FT��F� in favor �- � against � ABSTAINED 1 . ��"��a� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends that the Mayor and City Council make the following comments on the Saint Paul South Light Rail Transit Corridor Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document: 1. Consideration of LRT in the Saint Paul South Corridor is compatible with the Transit section of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, which states that the city considers LRT a significant transit alternative with potential benefits for Saint Paul and urges serious consideration of all potential LRT corridors in Saint Paul, specifically including the Saint Paul South Corridor; and 2. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should address the potential economic . development and redevelopment impacts of LRT alternatives and the impact of alternatives for the location and design of stations and the feeder bus system on support �of Saint Paul's economic development goals and opportunities; and 3. The EIS should assess the impact of each alternative on the quality of local and regional transit service, particularly for transit dependents; and 4. A non-fixed rail alternative to provide better public transit service and increase transit ridership in an amount similar to LRT should be considered in the EIS, and the cost per rider for such an alternative should be compared to the cost per rider for LRT alternatives including capital, operating, rriaintenance and feeder bus system costs. - � � �� , � - ., � ' SUMMARY � _� . � The Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority (DCRRA) and the � � Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCRRA) have prepared this . Scopin� Decision Document in conformance with the Environmental } Quality Board (EQB) regulations pertaining to the preparation of an Environmental Imnact Statement (EIS). The Scoping Decision reflects • information prepared for the St. Paul South LRT Corridor Environmental fAssessment Worksheet (EAV�. . • This Scopin�Decision Document identifies the alternatives to be addressed � in the S� Paul South LRT Corridor EIS, and issue areas to be addressed in detail in the EIS. � � PROPOSED PROJECT � The proposed project is a light rail transit (LR'1� transit line to serve the St. Paul South Corridor. The light rail transit line would run south from � downtown Saint Paul to approximately Upper SSth Street, just south of � I-494. This corridor is located in Ramsey and Dakota Counties. ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED IN THE EIS � The St. Paul South LRT Corridor Draft Environmental Imuact Statement � will assess the impacts of two alternatives. � Alternative 1: Build the S� Paul South LRT Route as � shown in Figure 1.0. . The proposed S� Paul South LRT line would be an extension of the LRT � line proposed in the Midway Comdor connecting downtown Minneapolis and downtown Saint Paul.The Midway Corridor LRT line will end on 4th Street at Wacouta (Figure 2.0). There are two major alignment options for � connecting with the downtown Saint Paul alignment and crossing the Mississippi River. � � �� . �,� _,,,_, .� , � ��._ ;=-� � ��;,-��`�'� ,.+w,, �e `��{+.�.'�`'�I''-'�.��',��Yr T:-."�,+-�� "`�.r�..: a.�.... rs. � �•� % ''•i i fi��..,.'ti> �... �. ��,r-� r.�;,-.�_. �a.:�� i.�,�� i� �� 3� ,, �,..�.: [ 'w :,,s . � sL��.�... ��n...; ��, "4 v��'. � .._�ti�m°' ,�P��•-� �,-1`Q x� =`.'a� �`y��,y Y a1`�', � �� .,y,�;._,�,_,. •�e�A �Faj�� s� !� �`�� .�, '�y� �wyK ^,:r1a'^ ss '�C/T`��~�O_. • , �,��.,� _ { ..* - 4 .�M�.rs°• . ' ' .. �t��. :,��a..�� . � �� • ,'1 �7�w'�.- _.Ln,� 1 y fl�lfe a� . . / JY'r �I y_ . . `!S '�h�'� �� . � 1+��1. �� .l`�.„�.-.�•_ � �-_ - -��: s� � �.� '�� .;: .�. �,��,,�y„��c�-.�,=r*�.�,�t-i °,..�_:-�r � � � ! ; .:, �_"",�L�k.t'�" t "" '�' �T�a � � Le end • • � �� .. �"�TM:►�. ; 9 '.,� � " ;�.. ��.'�' �,"Y..'•. ��;�:�--�;j � i ,�:,* _ _ .,�s:' '" ,. �,i °'* =, Z'., �� Alignment !;y..,,��'�'� - .� ` �o `�`,;�_ .'�,'t .f�'� .``�` � .�''s�'''� a. ��,� � � �� e �ti - . �,: Station Location s�;��•��x';.s// � '�"°"�`r ��r. � P O Bi�t�,; ` � O '.�".t+a s f��_%j .��',a��';,e.. }� � ��= ti'`.Y ,r'. � ! .<'... ; ' ' �� `>4 - 1• � ,�� .� \ ��i '� �� - R ��± i,'":��'.�'.`".�� F�, i' :..�. �� ,°`"�`• \ , � � �T � . � -_� ' � i ��-}�i� ` µ-� � � . ,�,. x. ��..,,..�, c�F-.�_'.--�_�-.'_ �1 � �.- , �� . �,_, �, a a�'��'�'� 1,� - ` � ��t� ��-.`;k� . . .: .`.;� , • �. . � .AC�r 1 Se�.• � � . -. p' � �• � +. s ,ar i� 2}d t,f.�/� are' � 4. '�}. . . • '�. r��,� s'"S� / I�M1�eSC � � - .�l49{��""� .� � ��o n c .c�r c�s� �,� '!°�� - • ��,��`��< <: � � � � 1 1,I�i_3�.��-'. � `� �J f'��;��`5��-�- ,.a,��: f r;,l�w �- �� '�,`��%�' � .i J�'°� �1 a.� .,� �• �Y't'�"a'w''�.s'� 1� �•''cs.�,;� � � C9.S �� . :�j�se.��►, -a ��:•��,� �� x�err+v �'L.r Q�f=a�• r �'`• � F_'z� ; .% �'. �� TG+r_�4+. ,r .ecel.,t �.'r° y � d� '�j lsss� � r,!��a � � G�. w+��+ a. '�5��,t �'.l�.s1�'i"'1�,"'_', „ ,!s .tl ; +T.a� 1 � ;.. ,�pt�}'� � ; ,� C .'! t . ,S � �-a-ir°-.:._`-•"J1• •"��. ' � �Q t. ..�'�� ;��.w t � � 't,.�.� a: !S� •� �� /" .=�' ._ '`, � s ' { # , j�x. �`�:• 7 �F 'l � •,.,, + < �/ s ��' a' .�, .• y � i P's - -.�"' r a -��i �vti. 'j �� „�'rwi'`. �/�. j .! �' ( � , ! � t�,� ��1 ..- j �1 y�� ",ti T.'3 �ea� ��!�) 7 ,�, T� w'ak� � � ��_�-+ �,l.��^ .• ��' °-`�\�3!!'�/� � : -.� � �.-4' _ • • ,' R„ "j £� 't Ylle( 0 t�}z ::�'� u- �'� . , ;� , j; �� .�: � � .� ,,_. ,�.�,- k � � a�e. �� --�.. � f .r � . . , , ,� : B�il:er �. �- -�.: . � � NI , _and c. � , �'��,✓ � r '' t ='�=+."�+✓/.+`'� 1 --j.�a � i I ! „�f_.�..,1�� .��-ty..�.: & ,{ : �"� f� � :� � . �'sa j�L - :: � j � l _ � � •M �?•� � *�a+w.!1f�g;'�� .�� • � �� -� , •�! � y ' ��t.�-i- ,_ � '''M�•1 • .'• j b�1to 'y . l. _i L..• �'" ' t .�ti � �� X� � �• }ti A .� = F�. :+r+.�- . _ w -a-e � y.iw.Q�- � �-:3 s r e!- -3' r �' ,�r ' . '�3"' �,.�.� `C r"' t �♦ . : . : ,� rr: �. � r� �� ."'��Y�,.�"'�r _ ,�Gy.`Y r— �.f-�1„x.�'t, � � �Ga s;.� :. ��y . ; ¢ "'2" � s` ��.�,� ;.��.��t k � 's" "° t T�lO�Y1p50�1 '`�r;x � � �� ''�� -� �, '��, � _.� �i i-_• �ent orth ' ��i T f�acr��o=n�; ��:�� ,�� sA=��J. � `,r � �„ � ..i�2_� -_�..� �.! '.r��R4W��#1'61��[Qi'� �� $ ,��r j �; y t� �r"r-Y;�.._7y{�j 3 �({,��`_i r � � k � �%.�.�� a ._ =) . ,`��'` -�iT,•i"'7��u� ` J R V • ; �.�-�1� 2 � �� :. ^u' � .-_... /T }7 � 2, ��!s ' 9t �;,,�,{ '} .� " ' ' -`��yFr-+. :r :'"'-.°.__.•��c .''�� - '�' '"-'�•...v�� !�r � '4 � � �r�et�I -� � �.a�.1�t�� .r....�t+. �,_ ' -� � � ° - . y,�:icwf �+R',� r {.�Ir� , `�J S i, :x � �Jy �. i i-. :» ✓r �,�t. �� x ,��`., ,, -� �� '� , .. _,,.,_: . .�� ,.�.:.. ��,j�view�.x..�-< i ,."'a'a_� � ' 1 3 `�� t ' "+.S o ! 1 I i .�7VYl " '�'� ' y',"� .:�:�„l..�a....' t �pr►��et 1 `�.ii �� ^r_a� . � ;C _� . ^". 4• � y��.j� ` :�3.'��"7�'"..'� ,}�, �av�' �e^.��'J '��.. �'�.w�"{ ...�? �=c L� :� �r'a ��"�_u...; w� -•�.� „1. • yw 7 a�.i ' r - ■,rr��. �� - :�l�pl /� j �,�,. �a , a �.r ?'�' � � �, .: Q�iC�V �11� D�rYY ,� �• ` --�r�- '.,�,._�'i�` �� s-�;. ,�-�...�:H"._�..la'''`y�, �$SO�Jthl/i�.� + � .;,,� .'a�.�...n" - ' � �� .; -�'' ;-, ,;,T; _ '. � — �:�-'`�_"� j�, . ;.��t t . `F�' � � ,i+�-s � �.....:} 7 r $ �v � . ; i a x� ) • 4._ r.�' ,.�.!��-S � � ��+v t - ' �� a Z. ::..r�)��+,� -� �.i'' ' � •-+s-.� �;]y r; �s� }� � � i� ' • �.. � i� `L .. �rd l•a ,� ! � -'s '�F i \ 5��1 •�+.�� .i," }-' � �". . s ' ° ��`�� q 1� : _ w �.� �97ys.'e�+-+ �� . ,� �� '� �� 3 . � ��. .� _ 1�v� � ^� •��' i `;••' � - -•~s 3 !'� �ry��'�.� s : �'�-,�!.�...'....a.c�c�3 _.L � / � � �S. .� .'{ �c n��'� -,_ I � � � � � !'.!� �h. �` �,,.1. � x._ • �� :�_� _---�-•F,s..:Z` _ r ., •""'�,�_ � �!! ' Z t� I M k d ez '"-3'"M`.... � ° 1 /T'�• ;� 1' r� ;_ ��` eS �.5: .ri �,.... - �_ t `+y i� r.y � '_ � L `...,r s '., _ .� �-'�_ _..,.....r. �� t .y��{�' �i��e�' l/1 •�'S R''.� j "�..�.�•... :�'�-� � � � ~lt: � y` ,�� •� )y �+s+ � S . � _ �„ 'p� t °�` :� -....7 f� "�`f r ��t�rt 1 :L �"M1w J '�� \ � '1N�.� �1 .. 7 i:. �°Y � 'y,: - * : ,�� d'��'y� ��e�d'° � ,� , ly,�y�ij 3 �I "'u`yva T`� �,a "�1 ;,.,, r ..I. � '�r �� .s3 �-a�-'�� :i 1 �� .. ; �- � . • � 9�ri.. M�y �� a ,� � � � :� :� �j ° "Y3�. F . .�' ,. . ' �" � �+b3 1 :+, ��J��'��:" . ��3� 7 .0 � "� � � � �i1`jE � S 5 -�� ....� • �. i :y� ��T..`�ACS�sc.3sf [�'� .� t. � U • ! �� F*Ei'S� ~�� 3 ` .v Y •�"--:a�' _ �� ti.l 1 �:�' �� .�. __ i E a...}h St, Paul South lRT Corridor ��' �G�� STATIONS LOCATIONS � E.A.W. /Scoping Decision � � . . � . . . , ' .� � � o� s.000 „�, Figure 1.0 � J ' � o i � � ) � `� ` � � � . � a �- . Q, � `''` � a V v' k � � � ?� � � - � � Z gt O d / � ° '� � � r �s �� y�O � r•7 . � ; A� i5�� \ (�� '6 �J�' • �, 6 ,o� - �, � '•�. y � zi o�� a ,a\� ! 1`` �;.'•,,• y'(,c+ POp,�� S'StA � U �` '�. 0 � � r�� 5�� . �i r �� c- A��. G p � � /� �P �� N �� f : �o f� � � a � � ,� e ' � �o ,�� _C�O a .� ' � `_' ,� �P � y ' ' ^ f'!s 'S1� r`r � J� i � .` ` � �Oi 'ri ` r ` f 1 • 1 ` � :�, � ` . �� . 5.�. - �Z � t �� p,Q� s ,P ��. � g� �, Pe�r � �\ � �P� a D . � W. Q i �s f'�s e�' �a Z �i O . N N NIH M � � rs / �` ,�n = c � J .f� �i� m I � � �'� < � � f o _ 'b 's 'L, a � -0 L O O J6 � O F„ �v r? { b V " �, � �. c � _ r?i`nl � 0 O - � � �� . _� y • c 1s y— V , � v �)e� �O J� ti�(� L.� � m J �b��b/ /�'� G�'�y � � � � _ E � <�� —J C - c j � � � � � � Q `� ¢ cn + c `O �y � � V o m � +� U� y � � � � � � � � „ „ � n� (� �,. � 3 . � � . ' c� u¢.�i - o � � ��•.: . ��/ , Option A: Wall/State Street Alignment Y ,' } Under this alignment option, the LRT continues from Wacouta to Wall Street,where it turns south and crosses the Mississippi River on a newly constructed bridge approximately 600 feet upstream from the � existing Lafayette Freeway bridge. The proposed.bridge would begin ;',_� north of Kellogg Boulevard, bridge over Kellogg Boulevard and the <; - existing pazking deck by the Post Office, over the railroad tracks south of the Post Office parking deck and the Mississippi River. The bridge would continue over Fillmore Avenue on the south side of the river and end on State Street north of Plato Boulevard. From State � Street the LRT alignment follows Eaton Stre�t to the Lafayette Freeway. , Option B; Lafaye�te�Freeway Alignment � Under this alignment option, the LRT continues on 4th Street to � Broadway, bends south around the southwest corner of the Gillette Buildin onto Prince Street and follows Prince Street to the Lafayette �. g Freeway. Under this option, a new bridge to accommodate the LRT � � would be constructed immediately adjacent to either the east or west side of the Lafayette Freeway bridge. South of Eaton Street, the LRT alignment would be constructed in the east or west side slope of the exisring freeway. The LRT track would be separated from the highway tr�c lanes with a raised concrete jersey median barrier. At interchanges the LRT line would follow the exit ramp to the intersecting cross-street where it would cross the intersecting � signalized roadway at-grade. � LRT stations are proposed at: ■. • Plato Boulevard � • Concord Street • - Buder Avenue � ''`- • Thompson or Wentworth Avenue - � • Southview Boulevard . • Upper SSth Street �; .i- 1 _ _l- ! ra4s3 4 1" �- y !. ] � � - ,�� Alternative 2: No-Build. The No-Build alternative assumes that the proposed S� Paul South LRT � line, in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, is not constructed. Transit service would be provided by the existing bus transit system plus any bus system _ � � improvements planned by the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC�, ,� which are consistent with the Regional Transit Boazd's Guidelines for Year 2010 bus service. 1 TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT � ' Topics that will be addressed in the EIS include: � • Wedands/Vegetation and Wildlife ' � • Steep Slopes • Shoreland Zoning/Floodplains/Mississippi River Critical Area/ � National River and Recreation Area ~ • Soils � � • Storm Water • Energy • Air Qualiry � • Noise and Vibration ,. • Transit Service • Traffic � • Cultural Resources • Parklands • Visual Impacts� • FinancialImpacts � • Economic Development, Employment, and Sociological Impacts • Utilides 1 • LRT Ridership Projections � z � . - . :s - - —' � � w +� `v ,� �eas� 5 � �