Central Corridor: North or south?
Posted on May 1st, 2008 – 6:05 AMBy Roadguy
Roadguy had the privilege of attending yet another Central Corridor meeting yesterday; the story I wrote is here. After listening to additional hours of debate over how to route the light-rail line through campus, I now seek your opinion: Washington Avenue at grade, or northern alignment through Dinkytown? For a PowerPoint of “outstanding issues” with the northern alignment, click here; I’ll add other links as the day goes on. And somewhere around here is a map showing both routes….
Semi-relatedly, many thanks to alert reader 406er, who sent in the photo below. It shows rail tracks trying to re-emerge on University Avenue along the Minneapolis/St. Paul border — how’s that for a metaphor?
29 Responses to "Central Corridor: North or south?"
Years ago, while re-surfacing University ave. in Mpls., our mill ‘found’ some of these hidden rails. Tore half the teeth off the cutting drum. MnDOT guy said they had no idea they were there.
Why would anybody choose the northern alignment? Of course light rail should go through the heart of the largest university in the state. Isn’t that what light rail is designed for, to bring people to where there is a demand for it? Yes, that could cause problems with people being unable to use Washington Avenue, but first of all, getting traffic off of that street would help the pedestrians at the U. Second, with the 35W bridge out, the Lowry Avenue bridge out, the 46th Avenue bridge over 35W out, and so on, we seem to be able to pretty easily find alternate routes when major thoroughfares are closed. Closing Wash Ave won’t be the end of the world.
Obviously, Washington Avenue at grade is the way to go. That quasi-freeway needs to be transformed into a prosperous urban boulevard rather than the blighted swath of nothingness that it is today.
The so-called Northern Alignment is the U’s last gasp at clinging to an automobile-oriented campus that is well suited for the 1950’s. How can the U be so backward thinking?
Doctor Gonzo, here are all of the reasons:
1.) Closer to sports facilities.
2.) Rest of campus already very well connected with transit (Campus Commuter bus).
3.) Avoids negative impact on Washingon Avenue businesses; positive impact on Dinkytown.
4.) Makes use of existing bridge (that is underutilized by students, and actually sketchy at night).
5.) Makes use of existing trench, instead of trying to convert into roadway.
6.) Requires less reconfiguration of existing roads.
And we could go on.
As for the PowerPoint, here are some things I’ll note:
1.) Having lived very close to it, I can say that very few people use Bridge #9. More people use Cedar Avenue Bridge. The impact on pedestrians is negligible.
2.) The Law School is largely in a basement. They’ll be fine with the trench. That space in there is fine. In fact, I bet a lot of law students would welcome the light rail.
3.) If they put the light rail there, there is no need for Granary Road.
4.) Is that really an operating freight line? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a train there.
Prof. S.
That slideshow indicates that this alignment will have significant costs. The existing bridge will need a lot of work.
Furthermore, it will have lower ridership (which is why the route was rejected in the first place) which means lower cost-effectiveness. It also means a delay of at least a year.
For each trench you utilize, you have to dig another one - one that will further separate the West Bank from Seven Corners, rather than provide a common transit stop for them to grow around.
You’re right that the U’s main campus has good bus service, which is precisely why it should receive an upgrade - you’ve got a large transit-oriented population there.
It all adds up a no real savings in terms of cost and a less effective line. It’s a bad idea.
Washington Ave all the way.
Prof,
Look at the second to last slide in the Met Council presentation for evidence of freight rail–it takes center stage in the frame. There are more than a handful of non-starters for the so-called NA outlined in the presentation.
I’m not really worried that we’ll get the inferior NA alignment as it’s been evaluated and rejected ad nauseum. I am worried that the U’s continued stubbornness could risk the entire project. That would be tragic.
While I agree with Dr. Gonzo that the light rail on Washington Ave. is ideal, I have major reservations about closing it off to automobile traffic.
The U. is a commuter school. Certainly not all of the students live in the dorms, within walking distance of campus, or along University Avenue. Additionally you also have to consider the faculty and staff as well. There’s a reason why closing the Huron Blvd. parking facility was such a big deal.
Additionally, closing Washington Avenue eliminates a way to get traffic to and from the U.’s sporting facilities. Remember those? That big structure going up on the east side of the campus (TCF Bank Stadium) is supposed to hold 50K people, and closing one of the routes to and from it is not a bright idea.
And sporting facilities aside, you also have to wonder about the access to Fairview-University Hospital. Making it more difficult to reach the hospital is generally a bad idea. About the only saving grace is that it isn’t a trauma center.
I also have to laugh at Matty’s comment. “Quasi-freeway”? Maybe if you like rush-hour 12 hours a day (7a-7p) and don’t mind a stoplight every block. Yes, it’s an (or THE) alternate to I-94. But I think folks would be better off staying on the freeway 90% of the time unless they were actually going to the U.
I’m happy to provide comic relief, but I don’t think this is a laughing matter. Consider Washington Avenue SE at Cedar Avenue in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood:
I guess quasi-freeway was a little weak. Full on freeway it is.
Let’s be fair, it’s a short freeway on the west bank, and anything but on the east bank. Wouldn’t the CC join up with the Hiawatha on the Bank anyway?
Screech:
I totally agree with you that the U is a commuter school and the closing of the Huron Blvd. parking facility was a big blow to commuter students. However, after that, I wonder at the reasoning. I think the train would be a great way to get people to all those places, all those 50K people in a train instead of a car? Folks heading to the Metrodome often take advantage and park for cheaper and avoid the traffic headaches by taking the train–why wouldn’t people do this at the new stadium?
Washington Ave through the U doesn’t really help nor hurt the commuting population as there are few parking facilities along that route and most of them are mainly accessible from other routes instead, such as coming from Dinkytown or up East River Road instead.
That’s just my unscientific opinion!
Screech,
Yes, the U is a commuter school. What a better way to serve a commuter school than transit services serving the heart of that school? With all bus lines serving the downtown hubs, the LRT would transfer them faster and at a higher capacity than the 16 or 53? bus.
The sporting facilities are along University. However, weekend auto traffic is not going to get there using Washington, they’ll use University from I-35 or Huron from I-94.
The hospital is an issue. Ambulances can use the Transit Mall, not an issue. Many hospitals also have an “Emergency Room Parking/Dropoff”, and there’s nothing to say that if the emergency room is facing Washington, that they can allow emergency room drop-off traffic to use the Transit Mall with the proper sinage. Non-emergency traffic should be sent to the appropirate parking ramps off East River Road or whereever general traffic is routed.
Didn’t we just pay extra for the 35W bridge to hold light rail? How about looking at a combo of that and the north route? I know they are saying the existing Washington Ave. bridge can take on light rail but I have a hard time seeing how considering all the other bridges on the CC route need to be reinforced. There is Federal money every year so missing this one doesn’t mean we lose it forever. Maybe Washington Ave. is the best option but I would hate to spend close to a billion dollars and regret it in 10 years. Washington is the fastest and easiest way to access the U from downtown and 35W north right now and shutting it down completely to vehicles would be a disaster IMHO.
Duly noted on the responses. I have three additional thoughts…
(1) Folks coming from outside the 494-694 loop to Gopher football games are going to be using the Central Corridor (except for maybe those taking the Hiawatha Line and making the connection).
(2) Folks wanting to tailgate aren’t going to take the Central Corridor.
(3) Huron isn’t always the greatest way from and to the freeway. If you’re coming from/going to the south on 35W, using Huron means crossing over multiple lanes of I-94 traffic. The U. of M. East Bank exit from 35W onto SE Washington is a much better alternative.
Correction on my #1 — Folks coming from outside the 494-694 loop to Gopher football games are going to be using the Central Corridor (except for maybe those taking the Hiawatha Line and making the connection).
Argh. AREN’T.
I don’t understand why they say the northern alignment will have fewer riders. If you’re going to the campus, does it really matter which side of campus the train is on? When I used to work there and was trying to decide between driving and taking the bus, the proximity of the bus stop to my buiding was not a factor. The fact that the bus went to campus at all was the deciding factor.
Suz, the Northern Alignment will have fewer riders. That’s what the ridership model the Feds use says.
This is important because the Fed model determines if it qualifies for Fed funding.
And yes, it matters. There are far more intensive trip generators on and along Washington than there are in the trench.
I work at Coffman Union, in a shipping and receiving capacity. With the way the streets are configured now, there are only two ways to our loading dock, both directly from Washington Ave. Drivers get lost around here already, so I’m not looking forward to this.
They’ll probably have to make the current ramp from Washington Ave eastbound to East River Road (at the Weisman) a two-way street (it currently only allows you to go down the hill to the parkway, and not the other way around.) Also, they’ll probably have to get rid of the pedestrian mall on Church Street (in front of Lind Hall).
In terms of transit, if they eliminate buses from Washington (I can’t remember for sure if this was part of the plan), this will make certain parts of the area much less convenient to commute from. Any area not directly served by a light rail line will be inconvenienced, due for the necessity of a transfer between a bus and a train. Timing transfers between routes already seems to be a common complaint among bus riders.
Then again, I’ve always hated Washington Ave. Its too bad it wasn’t made into a tunnel in the first place, which would have allowed the mall to be uninterrupted between Norththrop and Coffman.
The problem with 50,000 people taking the rail to the stadium is there aren’t anywhere close to enough park and ride spaces along either Hiawatha, Northstar, or Central. And no, people that currently refuse to ride buses aren’t going to start riding buses to catch the train.
Also I don’t understand why there concern is the northern route will reduce ridership, but no concern that the addtional stations St. Paul wants will reduce ridership- both would slow the train down and make it more inconvenient for “through” traffic.
Transit expert John DeWitt had a good letter in that other paper yesterday:
http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_9097969?nclick_check=1
The traffic issue is a red herring. There will be traffic problems whether or not the LRT goes at-grade on Washington because the region is growing. The congested intersections are not caused by the LRT, they’re caused by growth. I have confirmed this in conversation with transportation and planning engineers.
So that leaves us to consider what the U’s real objection is. It’s not traffic because the LRT doesn’t create the traffic problem. It’s not pedestrian safety because a transit mall with traffic operated by professional drivers is a heck of a lot safer than 25,000 cars operated by people on cell phones, eating lunch, etc.
So what is the U’s real objection? Possibly money. The U fears that the number of patrons to its hospital will be reduced. That has been publicly stated.
And Monte, ridership levels with additional stations WAS considered. That’s why no one can commit to building them right now.
The really upsetting thing here is that the NA proposal will cost more (the U claims $15M cost reduction but doesn’t take the $40M in inflation into account), serve less riders and delay the project a year. Why is this thing still being considered when adding stations, which would cost about $15M and provide much-needed benefit to the local community is off the table?
And don’t for a second think that the $15M cost savings claimed by the U (equivalent to adding the stations) is a conincidence. They’re clearly trying to divide the CCMC by appealing to the county and city who want the additional stations.
Hmm, could there be a power dynamic here? Nah…
Monte writes
“The problem with 50,000 people taking the rail to the stadium is there aren’t anywhere close to enough park and ride spaces along either Hiawatha, Northstar, or Central.”
Clearly. I don’t think the argument is that every attendee of the stadium will take light rail - its certainly not true of Metrodome attendees. But what IS true of Metrodome events, is that the trains are packed on game days. Standing-room-only, and they run extra trains before and after the games - at least during the football games.
A benefit at the ‘dome is that the city parking lots on the west edge of downtown become viable alternatives for ‘dome attendees. Perhaps this would be a similar impact at the U. With light rail running near stadiums and arenas, more parking lots become viable for attendees - spreading the traffic impact of events over a wider area. One benefit of that is that people in the area for reasons other than those events aren’t impacted as significantly.
First, Matty, I know there are tracks there, but I don’t know that they are used. I’ve never seen a train go through the trench. Not once. Maybe it’s happened, but as often as I’ve lived over there, it’s amazing I’ve never seen one.
Second, Alex, I’m willing to bet the next study says that there will be no impact on ridership. Also, as Deadpioneer notes, the Washington Avenue alignment may overlay/displace other transit, meaning that lower ridership on the train may not mean less desirable, since the loss may be to existing bus routes. I understand that buses will continue to use the mall, but they may overlap people being served.
Third, the West Bank is not separated from Seven Corners. Far from it. Those bars are filled with law and business students, and many of them park in the municipal ramp right there.
I would prefer the Washington Ave route overall but only if it were tunneled of elevated.
Without a tunnel or elevation, for the money, the northern route is best to me.
Prof. S.
I don’t know how you can argue that ridership won’t dip. That’s precisely why it was rejected in the first place, and nothing has changed since then. The Northern Alignment is the one that stands to lose riders to buses, not Washington - and the obvious reason is that the uses along Washington are far more powerful ridership generators.
It also doesn’t matter if no trains run in the trench, the liability is still a huge issue. Denver had to deal with this for their LRT system. It’s a stupid regulation, really, but it is reality and certainly not trivial.
As for Seven Corners, I’m talking about physical separation. There’s already a nasty trench for Washington Ave, and adding another for the LRT isn’t exactly the best practice for urban design these days.
When all is said and done, the Northern Alignment offers less benefit and saves little cost (and may actually cost more), and means a delay of at least a year.
I think it’ll be best if the two areas swap roles. Turn Washington into a rail area (plus bus/pedestrian), and put a road in the Dinkytown ditch. I doubt the #9 bridge could carry car traffic, so the road would have to head over toward St. Anthony Main to start off, but eventually that bridge could be replaced with one for cars. The #9 bridge never made much sense to me as a bike/pedestrian connection anyway (especially on the east end), so I wouldn’t mind seeing it go.
The impacts of converting Washington Avenue into transit mall are going to be whatever the U wants them to be.
Traffic analyses show that the real problem is the forecast growth in traffic, not the transit mall. A transit mall is about 10% of the problem. The analyses used Minneapolis’ forecast of a 0.5% per annum growth in traffic. I’ve been told that the U was pushing for a much higher growth rate - which obviously would make congestion worse. And the U is demanding that buses not be allowed on Washington if it’s a transit mall. Hmm, 1,000 or so buses a day on the streets surrounding the U will sure help congestion.
Anyone paying attention knows that we’re dealing with issues of petroleum price and availability, global warming, an aging population, and an obesity epidemic. It’s irresponsible for the U to push for even more auto dependence. As the third largest trip generator in the Twin Cities, it has an opportunity and a obligation to implement a comprehensive trip reduction program. Driving has leveled off over the last few years and is actually declining now, why does the U want more?
The northern alignment also completely misses the U of M Medical Center. When the U frets about access, it only means for drivers. I guess if you’re transit dependent, you don’t count.
And while the U argues that they’re planning development along the northern alignment (the Bruinink’s Detour) I suspect we’ll see far more intense development in the medical center south of Washington.
If the U wants a transit mall to work, it can be very successful. If the U keeps building parking ramps, a transit mall won’t work very well.
Can the U be an agent for change or is it forever committed to preserving the status quo?
Yeah, put the LRT blocks away from campus
so no one uses it?
I think they want Wash Av car traffic
for people to drive to the giant stadium
they are building at the end of Washington Av. so they came up with the “northern
alignment”.
The University seems to be living in a world where federal funding is not important to them. Whenever the date is for federal funding they need to make up their minds quickly. I just hope they don’t stop the project in its tracks completely. Everybody needs to give up some stuff if they want to see this project come to fruitation as federal funding guidelines are very strict.
Here are some points I thought to bring up:
-One of the main problems here is the University has yet to study how the northern alignment affects ridership. This is one of the most important factors in determining the cost index as it depends on cost per rider. If ridership goes up the U certainly has a reason to support it but supporting it without this information is troubling on their part.
-In their last master plan, they have church street being turned into a road from the existing pedestrian mall. This would certainly help with access to the medical area.
-They can give better access to the medical area with LRT on Washington Avenue and keep the street network connected. There could be one long road constructed from church, across Washington, to the medical areas, then behind the Coffman and eventually back up to East River Road by the museum. This part can be done by removing the one way ramp by the museum.
Washington avenue should be a transit mall. I am not sure why the University thinks Washington Avenue should be a pedestrian mall? Have they even thought about where their own buses, the campus connectors, would go? If students road the train there instead within campus it would certainly be overwhelmed with passengers. By keeping the campus connectors there students would not overwhelm the trains. Also the stations on for the LRT would not be convenient for most students who want to get from the west bank to the student union area or medical area of east bank, which is where the majority go. That is a good thing as it should be used for getting to and from campus but not within campus. That would be the purpose keeping the buses there. It would not just be good for the met council by preventing rider overflow on the LRT, students would also be very angry to see those buses go.
-The trench is used by trains. I am not sure where they go but when I took a class at the University one semester I noticed a train going through there a couple times during the semester. Also, the University and city already has a plan to extend a road through there. The bridges in Dinkytown were built high enough to allow for vehicular traffic below them.
-The LRT on Washington would not affect business that much as most patrons are pedestrians already. Even if they built the Northern Alignment, the parking along Washington will soon have to go as there is too much traffic for just a two lane road. If anything with light rail it would help businesses as it is free publicity for those who ride by. Dinkytown already is known for its businesses, this could be a good boast for those along Washington Avenue.
-Do we know what condition the old railroad bridge across the river is in? It seems wide enough for one train width but for two it may cost much more to retro-fit it than the Washington Avenue bridge.
-The federal government is changing its formula this summer to allow for more funding to nearby road improvements. With this extra money, these improvements to side streets could make the Washington Avenue Alignment more feasible.
Right now I think the University is jumping ahead on things. They need to take a step back and gather the ridership data that shows why the northern alignment is better than Washington Avenue route.
Making the East River ramp a two way would create more car-train conflicts with a surface alignment. Think about the cars coming up from E.River trying th go over the bridge to the left. Right now, that traffic has to go under the bridge and up to Arlington and turn onto Pleasant which dumps them on the bridge (Thanks Google Street View). That is a heavy student pedestrian area right now because of the other buildings along the river on one side and the mall on the other.
If the U was able to find more classroom space, they could knock the Science Classroom building out and build a cloverleaf to make that left turn instead. There’s no problem with moving major lab equipment. You’d have to build a bigger elevated walkway or something over that corner to handle the students, but it could be done fairly simply. The rest of the streets can be rerouted/restriped to allow hospital and clinic access. The U’s ER is closer to East River anyway.
The at-grade alignment can be done. I agree that a tunnel would be far preferable. I can’t see how the northern alignment makes sense because it avoids most of the Cedar-Riverside ridership. It would help with Dinkytown, but if the goal is serving people, keeping it along Washington is far preferable. If the federal formula wasn’t so rigidly applied by those with an interest in continued automotive use, the tunnel could also be approved.
