Central Corridor hearings: ‘Let’s just get this thing done’

A majority of citizens voice favorable opinions about light rail in the Central Corridor

A large majority of residents, employers and workers who testified at public hearings in May favored light rail (LRT) as the preferred mode for rapid transit in the Central Corridor.

“I think the economic vitality of the Twin Cities hangs in the balance if we don’t improve mobility in this region and invest in infrastructure,” said David Simpson, member of the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce. “High quality transit investments like light rail give people more choices of where to live and work, which enables them to travel less each day,” he said, “and that benefits everyone.”

“I’m not a bus rider but I will ride light rail,” said Ellen Watters, a resident of the Saint Anthony neighborhood of St. Paul. “[Light rail] will get folks like me out of our cars and on to transit.”

Ellen Watters, of the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and a Saint Anthony Park resident, talks with Scott Thompson, a Metro Transit service planner, before the public hearing held at Lao Family Community of Minnesota in St. Paul.

A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) that evaluates three alternatives for the corridor – LRT, bus rapid transit (BRT) and enhancing the existing bus system – was the focus of hearings held at four locations in the corridor. The Metropolitan Council is expected to select a “locally preferred alternative” for the project on June 28 after receiving a recommendation from the Central Corridor Coordinating Committee.

Affordable housing, construction impacts among concerns

About 180 people total spoke at the hearings. While voicing their support for LRT, many speakers nonetheless expressed concerns about its impact. Affordable housing was mentioned by several speakers.

“It is imperative that existing affordable housing along the corridor be preserved and that new affordable housing opportunities be created,” said Margaret Levin, a member of Jewish Community Action and resident of the Hamline-Midway neighborhood.

The construction phase of LRT has the potential to be disruptive to many businesses in the corridor. Lori Fritz, president of the Midway Chamber of Commerce and strong supporter of LRT, urged corridor planners to develop a “viability plan” for area businesses whose survival may be threatened during construction.

Ken Smith, representing District Energy in St. Paul, said that the current route of LRT in downtown St. Paul could require the replacement or rerouting of large pipes that provide hot and cold water for heating and cooling to businesses and homes in the area. The potential cost would be $20 million, he said.

“[We] don’t have the means to defray these costs,” Smith said. “It is essential that LRT not be achieved at the expense of one of our community’s success stories.”

Opponents decry proposed reduction in local bus service

Among the dominant concerns expressed by opponents of LRT was its potential impact on car traffic, pedestrians and existing bus service along University Avenue. Ginny Harris, a resident of downtown St. Paul, said she was concerned about reduction of local bus service on University Avenue if LRT is built. “The beauty of the [Route] 16 bus is that you can get off at almost any corner,” she said. With LRT stops spread a mile apart between Rice St. and Snelling Avenue, people with young children or older people would have a much greater time getting to their destinations conveniently, she said.

Jules Goldstein, a Mac-Groveland resident, noted the distance between stops along University Avenue on the St. Paul side and said the station plan has a “ Minneapolis bias.” He also described the DEIS as “vague” on the issue of traffic impacts both on University Avenue and crossing University, particularly at “…the 800-lb. gorilla on the route – the intersection of University and Snelling.”

Lisa Lee lives one block off of University Avenue. She opposes light rail in the Central Corridor and said that the draft environmental impact statement is “seriously flawed.”

Others wondered why a rail alternative on existing tracks wasn’t considered. Ed Felien, publisher of The Pulse newspaper, said that passengers could be delivered in less than half the time of the 35-minute projected ride between the two downtowns if the route were on existing rail tracks.

On balance, many more speakers expressed enthusiasm for the light rail alternative. A few took a long view and pointed with admiration to cities that have had viable rail systems, like Chicago, for more than a century.

“Our kids need this,” said Joan Thompson, executive vice president of Minnesota Wire and Cable Co., a business in Energy Park. “We need to make sure we’re thinking of future generations. Let’s just get this thing done.”

Council scheduled to choose preferred alternative June 28

After the public record closes on June 5, the Central Corridor Coordinating Committee will make a recommendation to the Metropolitan Council for a preferred alternative. The committee includes policy-makers from Ramsey and Hennepin Counties, St. Paul and Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council.

Once the Council makes its choice, scheduled for June 28, it will submit a draft application to the federal New Starts program to begin preliminary engineering. A decision from the FTA about whether the project may enter the preliminary engineering phase is expected sometime in the fall.