Keeping the "U" on track
In what may put an end to the most over-reported and under-understood controversy in Minnesota public affairs this year, two official planning groups overwhelmingly settled this week on a Washington Avenue route for light rail transit through the University of Minnesota’s Minneapolis campus.
The only significant dissenter remains the University itself, which is still clinging to its hopes for routing Central Corridor trains around the campus proper on railroad right-of-way known as the Dinkytown Trench. The ‘U’ contends that closing Washington Avenue to cars in favor of light rail would snarl auto traffic, endanger pedestrians and foul up sensitive laboratory equipment.
Those points are at least arguable. What seems a lot more specious is the University’s complaint that running trains down Washington would reduce access to its medical center and other facilities. That’s car-centric thinking at its most blatant. Won’t thousands of daily light rail riders enjoy much better access, without parking hassles, to the heart of the campus along Washington than is now available? And wouldn’t the more remote Dinkytown detour – which would attract fewer riders, slow the trains’ run between the Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns and exceed federal cost-effectiveness guidelines – do much less to improve the ability to get to and from the campus?
Light rail will be a tremendous boon to the university amid the transportation challenges of the 21st century. But ‘U’ leaders keep looking this gift horse in the mouth, threatening its chances for $450 million in federal aid, without which the project won’t go forward.
The affected cities, counties, state agencies and neighborhood and business groups are all on board with the Washington Avenue route. It’s time for the University of Minnesota to stop insisting on its vision of the perfect and get behind what’s good for the Twin Cities, the state and the University itself.
workaround
Comments
Not everyone agrees on closing Washington Ave
The piece entitled “Keeping the “U” on track “ by Conrad deFiebre contained assumptions that are in fact not correct. Specifically, his statement, “The affected cities, counties, state agencies and neighborhood and business groups are all on board with the Washington Avenue route. It’s time for the University of Minnesota to stop insisting on its vision of the perfect and get behind what’s good for the Twin Cities, the state and the University itself” is inaccurate.
This view, that only the U of M is open to exploring other options for the LRT Central Corridor, has been reflected in other articles from various news agencies and is not correct. Several Minneapolis neighborhoods have serious concerns over the closing of Washington Ave, and feel that there hasn’t been nearly enough analysis performed on what the closing of Washington Ave would truly mean for the surrounding area.
The Southeast Como Improvement Association (SECIA) supports light rail and public transit, but we want to see the right public transit and the right route for the Central Corridor. The problem is with the rush to move forward, we’re not sure what the best route truly is. There are serious issues that have not been answered about the Central Corridor’s potential routes. These issues require more time and attention than they have received to date. SECIA appreciates the desire for finalizing the route decisions and moving the Central Corridor Project forward, but not at the cost of making a poor decision that jeopardizes the health of the surrounding communities. We feel that it is prudent and necessary to investigate the potential Northern Alignment for the Central Corridor, even if it means delaying the project. SECIA would rather see light rail brought to SE Minneapolis the right way, not the expedient way.
Post new comment