K Anderson says:

April 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

In response to the article on state traffic deaths, I’ve noticed that gov. agencies and many media outlets, including the Strib, commonly have a misleading practice of reporting statistics in terms of absolute numbers rather than relative numbers, i.e., a rate - fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. In the recent past, both the MN DPS and the Strib reported a rise in traffic fatalities when in fact, the rate had declined. A very misleading practice. At least this time around, the absolute number declined so we didn’t hear the normal doom and gloom scenario from the DPS used to rustle up more funding or greater restrictions.

Art Vandelay says:

April 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

The transit-pedestrian mall, I’m sure, is the best scenario for the Met Council, because it allows them to secure their funding and move it forward.

That said, I question whether or not it’s the best deal for the public, and really, really *really* doubt that it’s the best deal for the U of M and its surrounding area.

Let’s build it, but let’s build it right, and not cut corners for short-term expediency. Sounds like the same argument from when the Crosstown Commons was first built in the 60’s.

David says:

April 29th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

There are lots of things driving the Washing Ave. pedestrian mall.

The FTA’s Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI) constrains how much we can spend on the Central Corridor. That’s why it can’t be a subway or an elevated train. That’s why the tunnel doesn’t work. There’s nothing we can do about that.

The Northern Alignment was already studied and rejected. Now, it may be that the U, undertaking a more in-depth study, hopes to show that it works better than everyone else thinks. I find that highly unlikely.

I very much question the contention that traffic will somehow become horrible due to displacement of traffic through the university. I base this on a few observations:

The per-capita amount of auto traffic should decrease once the line is running because people will leave their cars. No, not everyone will stop driving and there will still be a lot of cars in the area, but everyone assumes that the same amount of traffic currently on Washington will have to be redirected. Not so, I contend.

Washington Ave. is NOT A THROUGH STREET. The argument that people use it to travel through the university to places beyond is somewhat stretched. University and 4th serve that purpose. The people using Washington Ave. are those going to/from places on campus or nearby housing and businesses. They aren’t traveling from downtown to downtown.

Yes, this traffic has to be dealt with. I would like to know how much of it is students, how much is patients, how much is workers and how much is residents. Of course, no one knows any of this because the models don’t take the information into account. If the majority is students and workers, I would argue that improved transit will reduce a significant amount of this traffic.

The truth is, no one really knows what will happen and no one CAN know what will happen. There’s no scientific way to predict future traffic flow. It’s all a best guess based on computer models and traffic sample data. That’s not a knock on the engineers, it’s simply a really hard problem to tackle.

There’s one final wrinkle no one is talking about but will play a big part in all of this. The Northern Alignment requires the taking and destruction of the section 8 housing in Riverview. The feds don’t take too kindly to transportation projects disproportionately impacting the poor and minorities in a negative way. Given that the Northern Alignment would requre the taking of these homes while the Washington Ave. alignment requires no taking of ANY homes along the entire CC route, this one seems dead in the water to me.

The U’s strategy seems to be to jack up their demands for “mitigation” costs in order to make the Northern Alignment come out much less expensive and have a better CEI number than the Washington Ave. alignment. They seem to be trying to make the Washington Ave. alignment closer in cost to what the tunnel would require so as to make it less attractive.

And no matter that there are other needs along the line that cost much less and would have far greater positive impacts on users of the line. The U seems to only care about what the U wants and would be just as happy to kill this project if they can’t get it. They’re certainly doing everything they can to gum up the works.

Many groups have had to compromise and give up really important parts of the project to get it to a point where it can be built. It’s time for the U to do the same.

Curmudgeon Geographer says:

April 29th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

I absolutely do not trust the assessments on how much it will cost to run rail on the aging Washington Ave. bridge. As soon as construction begins I predict that we will learn of “unforeseen” issues with bridge that will require extra money be found to do it right and safely.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

Prof. S. says:

April 30th, 2008 at 8:09 am

K Anderson - Look at the comments to the post on Metro Transit ridership. You’ll see I completely agree with your position.

David - experts almost inevitably conclude what you want them to conclude. I am willing to bet a significant amount of money that the U’s study will show that the northern route is the best.

As for Washington being a through street or not, I somewhat disagree. As a downtown resident, I’ve used Washington to get to places right there on campus or immediately to the east of it. Also, once the new stadium is up, you’ll see all sorts of increased traffic through there.

Furthermore, as the U has pointed out, creation of the transit mall will have a material negative impact on the businesses (such as the hospital) in the area. I hosted my wedding reception at Coffman Union and it was hard enough trying to get people there (most of whom were from outstate or another state). I can’t imagine having a transit mall muck it up worse.

I continue to think that the northern route is the best overall option and one that addresses the highest number of concerns.

Let’s not build it cheap because we can. Let’s build it right because we should.

barryS says:

April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Building it “right”; it would seem; - is unfortunately the most costly method (tunnel under Wash. Ave).

I’m not opposed to the Northern Alignment anymore… mostly because I see two things playing out:

Step 1. One day after Central Corridor opens with the Northern Alignment, Minnesota and the UofM give the finger to the Feds and build the &*&@#$! tunnel anyway - using state funds.

Step 2. the Northern Alignment is extended along the of U of M transitway to the St Paul campus, the State Fairgrounds and north-easterly points beyond.

Why do I think this would happen? Because the UofM doesn’t see the “transit mall” as a temporary solution. It’s (rightly or wrongly) an all or nothing situation in their opinion. If the traffic mitigation is successful, they would never get a tunnel under Wash Ave. But if they ‘redirect’ to the Northern Alignment - they can come back at any time and say - screw Uncle Sam - let’s build that tunnel now.

Matty says:

April 30th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

How kind of you DGB. I’d be for razing and burying you and your car, but that would be mean. If we were building our metropolitan area for the 1950s, your auto-centric vision is what we’d get. Thankfully, we’re planning for the present and the future where regions with a diversified mobility system will thrive while auto-centric communities will suffer as the cost of driving continues to climb.

The U needs to give up before it wrecks this whole deal. Catering to cars is a losing scenario for Minnesota and the U should embrace the original design of its campus–a design without a four-lane motorway cutting through its heart.

Matty says:

May 1st, 2008 at 8:08 am

P.S. Prof S.- please point out where I suggest that everyone ought to abandon the car all of the time? When you realize that you can’t, please stop dragging out this tired slur against me. Thanks.