Saturday, Nov 21, 2009
workaround

User login

S M T W T F S
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
 
 
 
 
 

workaround
view counter
view counter
view counter

Stop by stop: tracing the route of the Central Corridor

University Avenue in St. Paul is home to a wide variety of small businesses.

March 26, 2007
It may be one of the oldest and most scrutinized public works projects in the Twin Cities. The Central Corridor, the proposed light rail link between the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis, has generated decades of debate, thousands of pages of studies, countless hours of citizen participation and not one inch of rail track. That is expected to change if the project continues to clear hurdles at the regional, state and federal levels. If the current timetable can be held, construction would start in 2010 with the first trains running in 2014.

This story begins a week-long series on the Central Corridor, which is planned to connect the two downtowns and the University of Minnesota with a new light-rail line.

The corridor would be 11 miles long and would connect destinations including the downtown areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul, the University of Minnesota East and West bank campuses, Midway industrial and commercial districts and the state capitol area.

End to end it would take almost 40 minutes to travel from one downtown area to another. Average weekday boardings are estimated at 43,330 riders. Stations would be located either in the center street median or on either side of the street, depending on the location and the space available in the street right-of-way.

Central would connect with Hiawatha light rail at grade, just east of the Downtown East/Metrodome station. It would run in the median of Third Street and Fourth Street, then travel along Washington Avenue. The West Bank station would be on Washington. Trains would cross the Washington Avenue Bridge to the East Bank campus. There would be an East Bank station in front of Coffman Union and a station in Stadium Village. The Washington Avenue route on the East Bank would travel in a tunnel. The route would connect with the U of M transitway at grade and extend along 29th Avenue SE to University Avenue. Prospect Park would have a station on 29th Street SE.

The route would extend along University from 29th Street to Robert Street. Stations would be located at Westgate, Raymond Avenue, Fairview Avenue, Snelling Avenue, Lexington Parkway, Dale Street and Rice Street.

Train tracks would run along Robert Street to Columbus Street, then to Cedar and Fourth Street, ending at a station in front of the Union Depot. The Capitol East station would be on Columbus west of Robert Street, with 10th Street, Sixth Street and Fourth Street stations.

Although Central Corridor has never been closer to reality than it is today, the project still has many hurdles to clear before construction can begin. The preliminary engineering work, addressing project design questions, should start in late spring or summer 2006 and will take about two years, as countless details of Central Corridor light rail construction are hammered out. Final design will take another year, followed by three years of construction.

Metropolitan Council Chair Peter Bell has already warned Central Corridor proponents that the project will have to be cut back. Its costs are a huge issue, already at $932 million. For projects to qualify for federal funding, they have to meet a cost-effectiveness index of $22.99 or lower. Central Corridor is at $24.84 now. Project costs and ridership are the key factors in determining a cost effectiveness index.

So how did the region’s second light rail project get this far? The Central Corridor, originally known as the Midway Corridor, has been on the drawing boards since the 1980s. The original route was to be built in the Interstate 94 median, with connecting buses stopping on freeway overpasses and riders using elevators and stairs to reach trains. Other proposed routes included Ayd Mill Road, Pierce Butler Route, Energy Park Drive, Minnehaha Avenue and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks that cross the Midway. University Avenue, today’s chosen route, was ruled out in large part because of concerns that businesses would lose on-street parking.

The I-94 route never mustered enough support at the state capitol to gain state (and needed federal matching) funds. Ramsey County shifted support in the mid-1990s from Central Corridor to the ill-fated Riverview Corridor as its top priority. Riverview, a high-speed busway connecting Maplewood Mall to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and mall of America, was part of a proposed "transit triangle" with Hiawatha and Central corridors as its other legs. After Governor Tim Pawlenty took office he took $40 million of $44 million set aside for Riverview to address a state budget deficit, which essentially killed the project, although it remains in some long-range transit plans.

Tomorrow: Central Corridor finally on track, but questions remain

Article Tags:

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

University Avenue Portion Needs to be UNDERGROUND!

If they put this train down the middle of the street it is really a net loss. New modes of transportation should add to the overall traffic capacity not compete with it. Having it take over lanes on University Avenue will only make a very heavy traffic situation each and every weekday worse during rush hours. Plus the industrial traffic of semi trucks is very high along University on the St. Paul side, and that cannot ride the train. So, in addition to killing already reeling small businesses on University in St. Paul (from 280 to Snelling) by doing away with virtually every parking spot, you'll be slowing up industrial traffic and possibly disrupting those businesses. I'm more pro-transit than I am pro business (I'm liberal to radical), but it just doesn't make sense to ram a train into all the traffic already existing on University Avenue, since most of it cannot be converted into train ridership. Seriously, it boggles me how we bungle this way. You know there are opponents to transit, so don't give them any new transit bungles to point at and help them slow the growth of transit in the future. And don't bungle simply because we'll pay so much more in the future to fix it forty years from now. Remember the Crosstown 62 bottleneck bungle with 35W? Took forty years, and its just now being fixed... and too late... what they're doing now won't add the capacity needed to keep up with population growth. What about the Hiawatha line? Don't get me wrong I'm glad its there and that it proved light rail can work here. But, everytime I drive down a road that could easily move quite quickly and efficiently, instead it takes me fifteen minutes to go about three miles because the trains screw up the road traffic every five minutes or more. You just can't deny this fact. Above all transit must function. So put it underground or overhead, but not at grade. The cost of tunnels and supposed ugliness of overhead are not reasons important enough to prevent them. Screwing up traffic and not gaining additional capacity is a huge reason to do either that should take priority. Let's get it right the first time for once!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br> <img> <span> <div>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

workaround

News Day

News you can use

Related content