Central Corridor process and the players

A veritable trainload of folks are involved in the decision-making process that surrounds Central Corridor. While it’s not surprising that a large and complicated public works process has so many players, that’s also a factor in the confusion that sometimes dominates the debate.

At one of the public hearings last year, Prospect Park resident Julia Wallace quipped, “twenty years. . . is that how long you’ve been asking for participation?” It’s actually a longer time than that and that is what no doubt adds to the confusion over who makes what decisions and who weighs in where.

Previous articles in Central Corridor series:
Stop by stop: tracing the route of the Central Corridor
Central Corridor finally on track, but questions remain

The express route overview

Under Minnesota law, counties and the Metropolitan Council are respectively responsible for light rail planning and implementation of the transit system itself. The Metropolitan Council will lead preliminary and final engineering, which will decide a myriad of project details, and oversee construction. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) also plays a key role in these processes.

Cities along a rail route or busway make the decisions that affect land uses along a corridor, such as zoning changes and comprehensive plan chapters. St. Paul’s recommendations on land use and zoning changes along Central Corridor will be adopted by the City Council later this year.

For more views, updates and information about the players in the Central Corridor process, visit these websites: The Central Corridor Coordinating Committee District Councils Collaborative The Met Council’s Central Corridor page The City of St. Paul’s Central Corridor page University UNITED is a coalition of 12 community organizations and several businesspeople. Businesses are weighing in through the Central Corridor Partnership

The state has a say on Central Corridor’s fate through funding, such as bonding to assist with engineering and construction costs of the project. Like other projects vying for state dollars, Central Corridor has competed and will continue to compete with many other needs.

The rubber hits the road, so to speak, at the federal level. Final decisions on federal funding for Central Corridor are in the hands of the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) and Congress. The FTA has the say on whether projects can proceed to the point where they’re even eligible for federal dollars.

Where do the average citizens, the residents, business owners and workers, fit in? They have input in all of the processes, including land use issues and the design and construction of the transit line itself.

At the local level. . .
Ramsey County was the lead agency in Central Corridor planning for more than two decades. Hennepin County is also involved because a portion of Central’s route is in Minneapolis, connecting to the Hiawatha rail line.

Ramsey County worked closely for the past few years with a group called the Central Corridor Coordinating Committee. This group, of elected and appointed officials, disbanded after the Central Corridor draft environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed and the final decisions were made to built light rail on University Avenue. The EIS was used to compare bus rapid transit and light rail transit on University Avenue.

Once decisions were made on a mode of transit and a route for Central Corridor, responsibility for the project went to Metropolitan Council. But Ramsey County, and to a lesser extent Hennepin County, still have to chip in a share of the capital costs for the project. Unless changes are made, the counties could have to pay on an ongoing basis for corridor operations. That would come out of property taxes all county residents pay.

Land use and zoning decisions

At the city level, the issue is land use. Central Corridor has been the focus of two St. Paul Planning Commission task forces, which are making recommendations on possible land use and zoning changes along the proposed rail route. One groups is studying University Avenue. The other is focused on downtown St. Paul. Both task forces plan to wrap up their work, which will produce a land use plan, for the St. Paul Planning Commission and City Council to act on in 2007. City planners Donna Drummond and Shawntera Hardy have indicated the groups studying downtown and University Avenue redevelopment ideas should be done with their work by the end of March or in April. Then the proposal goes to the St. Paul Planning Commission and City Council for final review and approval, and inclusion in the city’s comprehensive plan.

The focus is on making University Avenue more green, inviting and pedestrian-friendly. “University Avenue now is gray,” Hardy said. “It’s just not very inviting.
In a subsequent phase of planning, there will be scrutiny of areas around the proposed transit stations. Station area planning focuses more narrowly around station sites, design of stations and the surrounding land uses. This where sometimes lively debates over public art can come into play, During debate of the ill-fated Riverview Corridor busway a few years ago, some of the proposed public art was criticized for bringing “Star Wars to West Seventh Street.”

The city’s role is limited because it doesn’t own the developable land along the corridor. Financing is a way the city, through its Housing and Redevelopment Authority, could influence development. But funding for commercial redevelopment is largely limited to tax increment financing (TIF) and pass-through grants for pollution cleanup. The HRA does offer a few more resources for housing and non-profit development, but those are also limited.

Regional government

The Metropolitan Council is the planning agency for the Twin Cities metropolitan area, overseeing a wide range of programs and activities including regional parks and trails, transportation and transit, land use planning and pollution remediation. Its members are appointed by district by the governor.

The Metropolitan Council has one standing committee—the Transportation Committee—and four interim committees that work on Central Corridor issues. The council has a standing Transportation Committee, which reviews and makes recommendations on Central Corridor issues. The interim committees, which are specific to Central Corridor and will disband after the project is complete, include Corridor Management Committee, a Technical Advisory Committee, a Citizens Advisory Committee and a Business Advisory Council. The Citizens Advisory Council includes representatives from the neighborhoods along Central Corridor. The Business Advisory Council is made up of business owners and managers along the corridor.

Metropolitan Council Chairman Peter Bell has repeatedly called for holding down costs, saying the project needs to go on a “diet.” That doesn’t sit well with folks wanting more stations and other amenities. One huge sticking point looming between the City of St. Paul and Metropolitan Council centers on the costs and extent of street reconstruction. City planner Al Lovejoy said the project is a rare opportunity to rebuild and enhance University Avenue.

The greater community

Many of the citizens involved in the Central Corridor debate weren’t even born in 1972. That’s when a Pioneer Press article declared that a new transit system would revive the sagging business fortunes of University Avenue.

If there is an active group in any neighborhood along Central Corridor’s route, chances are it has weighed in on the light rail issues. St. Paul district councils and Minneapolis neighborhood associations, neighborhood business associations and community development corporations, faith-based groups and ethnic business associations have all had and continue to have a say. The district councils and neighborhood associations are organized under the umbrella of the District Councils Collaborative (DCC), a group that monitors and weighs in on the transit and land use issues. The DCC is affiliated with University UNITED, a long-standing umbrella organization of groups along University Avenue.

Businesses are weighing in through the Central Corridor Partnership, a group that initially organized a few years to help in the push for funding for Central Corridor. The Midway Chamber of Commerce, St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce founded the group, which has emerged as an advocate for businesses and industries along the corridor.

Concordia University Professor Dr. Bruce Corrie. Corrie proposes organizing the east end of University and possibly surrounding neighborhood business districts to promote ethnic diversity and the small businesses there. His proposed World Cultural Heritage District would give small businesses a voice, but it is not yet a reality.

The Central Corridor Equity Coalition represents low-income and minority constituencies and is raising issues centering on environmental, economic and social justice. This is one of two groups focusing attention on the issues of potential gentrification, loss of ethnic businesses, rising property taxes and displacement of residents and businesses. The other is the University Avenue Community Coalition, which includes many of the same jobs, faith-based organizations and social groups that rallied around University Avenue and Lexington Parkway issues a few years ago when the Lexington Park redevelopment project was proposed.

The loyal opposition

Businesses and residents have expressed deep concerns about displacement, especially if property values and property taxes spike as light rail is built, but there is little organized opposition. Citizens for Effective Transit in the Twin Cities, a group that has been vocal at past public hearings, doesn’t have a web site up any more. Advocates for other routes, such as Interstate 94 and for other modes of transit, including personal rapid transit or PRT, were heard last year during the review of the draft EIS studies. Some of the most pointed criticisms and thoughtful discussion of the project can be found on the St. Paul Issues Forum/e-democracy web site.