Central Corridor finally on track, but questions remain

Anticipation and frustration come out in equal measure when the Central Corridor light rail project is discussed. Much of the frustration comes from how long it has taken for any kind of transit plan to get traction. Controversy lingers over rail versus buses, and over University versus other potential routes.

First article in Central Corridor series: Stop by stop: tracing the route of the Central Corridor

Some type of rail transit connection between Minneapolis and St. Paul has been discussed for almost 30 years. The first round of Central Corridor studies began in the early 1980s with what was then Midway Corridor. Many of the residents and business owners who testified at public meetings and served on community task forces are no longer on the scene today.

University Avenue Comments As part of our Central Corridor coverage, TC Daily Planet writer J.P. Frederick asked business people along University Avenue for their comments on the plans. “This was decided 10, 12 years ago. They have feel-good meetings to make people think they have input, but they don’t have input. It is what it is, we’re not going to change it. The council is omnipotent. They’re not accountable to the people. They’re on their own sheet of music, their own agenda, and they have momentum that won’t be stopped. Then they’ll buy out property because people won’t have a business anymore. I’m luckier than the guy across the street, though. I’m going to do my best and try and live through it.” Mike Glasgow, Glasgow Automotive “I’m not crazy about it. I think it’s going to slow down business. People won’t come as much anymore, and I think some businesses will end up closing. Construction is going to block lanes, streets, and there will be fewer customers. And you see buses going by with two people in them. Why add this? Are we a big enough city for this? Maybe they’re looking ahead to the near future, who knows. I don’t think we need it right now, though.” Cecilia Woode, Kenkayba’s Place “I totally oppose it. It’s going to take out parking spaces. The construction and the traffic will be fine, but if you take out the parking spaces, people won’t come. The corridor is good for people working downtown, but after work, when they go to eat, I guarantee less than 10 percent will take the rail, especially in Minnesota winter. And if they do take their car, there are no parking spaces. The city only looks at one side. They never asked the residents or the business owners here.” Kevin Lam, Cheng Heng Restaurant

Neighborhood issues require a constant re-education process. New people move in and out. Business ownership turns over. Industries and centers of employment change. Elected officials come and go. Think of a project that has dragged on for so long, and the challenges of public outreach and education are compounded tenfold.

Then there’s the project itself. The questions of how minority and women contractors will be allowed to bid on aspects of the project still have to be hammered out. Concerns about transit-linked redevelopment pushing out smaller, Mom and Pop, and ethnic businesses persist. The specter of the Rondo neighborhood and the displacement of much of St. Paul’s African-American community during Interstate 94 construction looms large.

As Central Corridor nears its preliminary engineering phase, much of the focus – and the controversy – centers on physical aspects of the rail line itself. Traveling west to east, Minneapolis to St. Paul, here are the key issues along the route that will spark debate in the months ahead.

The University of Minnesota tunnel, $155 million.

U of M officials say the tunnel is essential to getting rail to serve the university, while not snarling traffic and jeopardizing pedestrian safety on Washington Avenue.

The tunnel’s price tag has even raised questions among rail proponents. Concerns have also been raised about whether building the tunnel also means totally rebuilding the Washington Avenue Bridge, which would add even more to project costs.

Other communities along the Central Corridor route have asked about tunneling and have been told that it wouldn’t be financially feasible to tunnel any more sections. That in turn has raised questions about equity and fairness of the project.

Prediction: The tunnel stays in but not without a huge debate over its costs and practicality. Most of the elected officials involved in Central Corridor discussions cite the clout the U of M has at the state and federal levels

More stops along University Avenue.

University currently has a $55 million reconstruction cost; adding stops would increase that amount. St. Paul district councils, community development corporations and neighborhood residents have asked for additional stops along University. They argue that more stops are needed to better serve neighborhoods that will have bus service cut back after rail is up and running. University will probably lose its Route 50 express bus and cutbacks to the Route 16 bus are likely. It’s a long walk between stops for even the able-bodied, let alone the elderly, parents with small children and the physically disabled.

Summit-University Planning Council has led the charge for stops at Western Avenue and/or Victoria Street. Merriam Park Community Council has asked that an additional stop be considered at Cleveland Avenue.

One suggestion made during the EIS process was that the infrastructure for more stops be added when Central Corridor is built, so that the actual passenger platforms, lighting and other features can be added at a later date.

For transit riders, the argument over number of rail stops centers on speed versus convenience. Adding stops adds to the travel time along Central Corridor. Travel time not only affects future ridership, it also is a factor in that all-important cost-effectiveness index federal funding hinges on.

The St. Paul Midway stop could be relocated, with sites suggested to the east of Snelling at or near Pascal Street.

Prediction: Adding stops will be difficult at best in light of efforts to keep project costs down. It may come down to cost tradeoffs. St. Paul and Ramsey County officials may be put in the untenable position of having to either ask for more University stops of pushing for the rail to be extended all of the way to the Union Depot concourse.

University and Snelling avenues, costs unknown.

The cost estimates for Central Corridor don’t include any costs of rebuilding this already-congested intersection to make it easier for light rail and motor vehicles to pass through. Because the intersection involves a state highway (Snelling), a county road (University) and surrounding city streets, the jurisdictional issues get complicated. The City of St. Paul, Ramsey County and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) have joined forces to study the intersection and have brought forward a number of ideas.

In February, Ramsey County requested $1.28 million from Congress for further studies and preliminary engineering for intersection design.

One idea would be to complete the ring road system around the intersection, to divert vehicles to the east and west. One-quarter of the ring road system was built when Spruce Tree Drive as built several years ago, to the southwest of Snelling-University. Spruce Tree Drive allows northbound Snelling vehicles to more easily travel west, bypassing the University-Snelling intersection. But completing the ring road would require taking properties in the three other quadrants and changing the character of what are now neighborhood streets.

Building an overpass or tunneling below one street or another has potentially huge costs. Another idea that’s been floated, but not seen as feasible, would be to route light rail to the south, through part of Midway Center’s property and through the neighborhood west of Snelling. These ideas would also involve taking properties.

Prediction: The need to rebuild this intersection seems like a given if and when rail comes through. But paying for it will be a massive challenge. Adding it as an element to Central Corridor’s costs could push up the project’s cost effectiveness index, the key criteria for federal funding.

That most likely will mean the local government units and the state will have to pay. The overlapping jurisdictional issues assure some level of cost-sharing but how much could become a huge sticking point.

Fourth and Cedar, costs unknown.

In downtown St. Paul’s Fourth and Cedar area, project planners have to deal with trains making a sharp turn from Cedar to Fourth. Some transit planners have proposed having the rails cut diagonally through the block. A bank building would have to be removed but the St. Paul Athletic Club building would be spared and a transit hub with retail and connections to the skyway system could be created.

Prediction: The Fourth and Cedar diagonal design would no doubt make getting around the corner much easier but the costs still have to be considered.

Union Depot, $72 million and counting.

In the St. Paul downtown area, the plans call for stopping trains in front of Union Depot. Ramsey County and St. Paul city officials have asked that the route extend another block or two to the former Union Depot concourse, which is eyed as a future multi-modal transit hub. The county recently obtained $50 million in federal funds for the hub project. Getting the hub built is pushing the United State Postal Service to relocate its St. Paul facilities to Eagan. Putting rail in front of Union Depot isn’t seen as practical because the historic depot building itself is being redeveloped into condominiums.

Metropolitan Council has promised more attention to the connection to the multi-modal hub area. But in last year’s discussions of ways to cut Central Corridor costs, some regional officials suggested ending rail at Fourth and Cedar and connecting to Union Depot in a subsequent project phase. That didn’t sit well with the county and City of St. Paul.

The notion of a multi-modal hub also was threatened recently by another transit plan, for a rail line between Minneapolis and Duluth. This service would operate on existing railroad tracks and has the support of Anoka and St. Louis counties.

Proponents of this line, led by former Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg, said this line would be less expensive to build that Ramsey County’s proposed Rush Line, which would start in St. Paul and end in Duluth. Ramsey County Board members objected to the idea of a rail line that would bypass St. Paul and the multi-modal transit hub planned at the depot.

Prediction: Despite Metropolitan Council’s recent pledge to look at the concourse connection, the need to keep Central Corridor’s cost down could still be a factor in its postponement. Having other counties making plans to bypass the hub doesn’t help the proponents’ case.

The loop.

The 3.5 mile loop, often called the “Bennett Loop” or even the “Bloop” after Ramsey County Commissioner Tony Bennett, appears to be dead after the full Metropolitan Council voted to reject the idea February 28.

The loop would have taken rail riders down Rice Street and then to destinations including St. Paul College, the Minnesota History Center, the Science Museum of Minnesota, Ordway Center and Xcel Arena. County officials promoted the loop as a connection to popular destinations and to the concourse area. After reaching Union Depot the trains would travel up Jackson Street and back to University Avenue. It would be the only section of Central Corridor with a one-way track; all other sections of the 11-mile route would have two-way tracks.

Metropolitan Council, cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Hennepin County. University of Minnesota and St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce oppose the loop and support the plans okayed in June 2006. St. Paul city officials and members of the Planning Commission say that adding the loop could derail Central Corridor and hamper its chances for federal funding.

“Without a doubt, this is the most important thing we are ever going to do,” said Planning Commissioner George Johnson. He said the chances to obtain federal funds for Central Corridor have never been better, but that adding to the project costs could scuttle its chances.

One huge argument against the loop is that it would add more than $49 million in construction costs and $1 million in annual operating costs to the Central Corridor project. Added construction costs would be needed to bridge I-94 and I-35E and build an elevated station at Smith Avenue.

Another objection is that the loop would put rail farther from the downtown core and downtown workers. Workers would also have to wait extended periods to continue their commute and be discouraged from using the trains.

The county’s own analysis of the loop showed that downtown St. Paul average daily light rail board would be less than one-third of the boarding for the chosen plan, 1,490 versus 6,430 riders, The overall Central Corridor ridership would be about 13 percent lower with the loop, or about 5,870 fewer riders per day. The number would decrease from 43,330 riders to 37,460- riders. Adding the loop would add downtown layovers and travel time of 20 minutes to the entire Central corridor route.

A third strike against the loop is time. It would require reopening the environmental impact statement (EIS) study of Central Corridor and could take another six months’ study.

Prediction: Despite continued support from some members of the Ramsey County Board, the loop idea is unlikely to circle around again.