Jacob Dorer wrote:
> ASIDE:I think that one of the first actions of the new Governor (Hatch)
> will have to be to remove Mr. Bell as the head of the Met Council. His
> uninspired leadership of that ever increasingly important group is
> dangerous to our regional growth. His consistent anti-transit stance
> will result in a line that won't meet the communities' needs. He has
> worked to raise rates, cut service and derail transit planning. Anyway...
Unfortunately, I believe the governorship will remain with Pawlenty.
However, you are right on about Peter Bell. As much as he likes to
portray himself otherwise, he is no friend of transit.
But rather than new appointees, what we need is an ELECTED Met
Council. It was absolutely ludicrous for Peter Bell to actively
testify AGAINST a bill that would have given his organization
more funds for transit. No elected official in their right mind
would have done so unless they were elected on an anti-transit
stance. And the way the metro is going, we're seeing less and
less of that sentiment in the general population.
> We need to stop thinking about the Central Corridor LRT/Streetcar route
> as a unique entity. St. Paul needs a transit system. How well does the
The METRO needs a transit system, not just St. Paul. We must think
regionally.
> route as currently planned meet our need for a line on University? What
> we are trying to do is get double duty from the LRT solution. On the one
> hand, we want a high volume people mover to reduce congestion and on the
> other hand, we want to provide a high quality transit option to the
> residents and businesses along University and Downtown St. Paul.
I need to correct this. Expanded transit does not reduce congestion.
At best it slows its growth. What transit does is provide an
alternative to avoid congestion entirely. That's a better goal than
reducing congestion.
While transit should have minimal impact on our automobile
transportation system, it should NOT be designed to make driving
cars easier or more attractive. Not because driving cars is a bad
thing. Some people don't have a choice and/or there are times when
the flexibility of a personal vehicle is important. Transit should
not be designed to make driving easier because it is too difficult
or impossible to do so. If the goal is to make driving easier,
transit is the wrong answer. We should just lay asphalt all over
the place.
> What University Ave. needs is a return to the streetcar days of the 20s
> and 30s. The current bus line along University is the most popular in
> the city for a reason, it goes where many people live and shop along the
> corridor. It just does it poorly. A streetcar can do this so much better
> than a bus AND will have a similar economic impact as a LRT line. It can
I don't think a streetcar does any better than a bus as far as
efficiency of service. A streetcar on University won't be in a
dedicated right-of-way, so it will have to contend with traffic
just like buses.
The advantage of the streetcar in this situation is an economic one,
as you pointed out, but also a psychological one. People just like
to ride rails more than tires.
> share the road with cars and requires much less in up-front construction
> costs. Jay Benanav's office estimated a few years ago that we could do
> streetcar on University for around $50 Million all the way to Hwy 280.
> It would surely be more now, but still way less than LRT.
$50 million sounds way too cheap to me. That's the estimated cost
of the Midtown Greenway streetcar, where there's no road or utilities
to contend with. I don't know if modern streetcars are heavy enough
to require utility relocation given that University hosted a streetcar
in the past.
> IF YOU WANT TO SKIP TO MY IDEA HERE IT IS -->
> Since we seem to be going the way of LRT we can lay out the track and
> budget and plan for bare bones LRT. Don't tunnel, don't take down
> expensive buildings and keep the 90 degree turns. The LRT won't be able
As far as I know, the only building that might be taken down is the
bank on the athletic club block IF they eliminate the 90 degree turn
onto 4th and they don't go with the alternate alignment.
I agree with you that the tunnel can probably be dispensed with. It
might even make for a nicer campus experience.
But it would be a real shame to throw away the new alignment. With
Bell at the helm we probably won't get it, but the new alignment is
so far superior to the current one that it would be foolish to go
with what's on the table now. But this administration is hardly
known for its good, logical public policy.
There may be even better alignments, but I haven't heard anything
about that.
> to get up to speed anyway downtown since the stops are so close
> together. Do the cheapest we can, but don't sacrifice route at all! If
> the funding gets cut, we will have planning, right of way etc ready for
> streetcar. It uses the same gauge track, so we can use that if it comes
> to it. If not, we can put in LRT and be happy for 5-10 years. After we
> realize that we actually want LRT to go in a more direct high speed
> route, we can convert the University LRT track and line to streetcar and
> then put the LRT into the US 94 corridor.
The problem is utility relocation. Much of the cost of LRT is due to
the need to move utilities out of the way. We'd have to do that if
we built a system to handle LRT or streetcars. The actual vehicles
are a small part of the total cost.
> The two lines would complement each other wonderfully. The 94 LRT line
> will work as intended - a high speed people mover which will travel at
> high speeds and stop only at high traffic stops like Snelling, Downtown,
> UofM, etc. The University line would do the circulatory duty it wants to
> be doing. If you look at most transit systems around the world, it isn't
> an either/or LRT or Streetcar, but rather an attempt to solve existing
> transit problems.
We'll still have the 94 express buses with the University route and I
think that's adequate for our needs. We don't need an expensive rail
system to go down I-94 because we will get none of the value-added
benefit of rail: economic development, revitalization, etc. Putting
rail down I-94 would be a tremendous waste of resources that could be
better spent developing entirely new rail lines like the Southwest,
Dan Patch and Riverview corridors.
> We need to start planning for regional transit needs and not as though
> we will only have a single solution that will do everything for
> everyone. That is also why I disagree with the roundabout plan for
> downtown. Just put in the straight line. Future lines will go where
> needed (7th, Arcade, Capital/Rice, etc). One line can't serve all needs,
> especially not downtown!
Those future routes you mention should definitely be streetcars.
That doesn't conflict with a circulator LRT route downtown, it
complements it.
Here's the deal with University: any system will be a compromise
between speed and accessibility of service. Streetcars and buses
don't have the capacity to handle the projected ridership 30-50
years out. If we penny-pinch now, we will pay even more later.
We have to build this thing at least 50 years out. The current
downtown alignment has too many stations. We ought to move one
or two of those to University, probably somewhere in the Midway
industrial district and maybe one at Western or somewhere near
there.
I haven't studied the circulator alignment enough to form an
opinion about station placement there.
One thing I do know: LRT is the right technology in the corridor.
It's not an absolutely perfect fit, but nothing ever is. It's
the best technology available to meet our needs.
David Greene
The Wedge, Minneapolis