1) No to lrt on University. Merely increases congestion while not improving bus service. A large fraction (hard to tell from the EIS books) of the opportunities to drive straight across University or to turn left across University will be closed off for the sacred tracks. Many businesses that have a lot of patrons who drive will suffer because people won't fight the backups to get in and out of the businesses. $840 million for only 10 miles of new track, and no new maintenance facilities as part of the deal. The EIS says that an underground tunnel between a parking ramp at the U and the hospital will be cut of by the proposed train tunnel. Most train riders will be displaced from the buses. The bus isn't expected to be significantly faster than the #50 bus.
2) No to lrt on I-94. The most often mentioned idea is tracks down the median of I-94. Can't do that without moving the existing lanes over about 2 lane widths. Just imagine waiting for the train while standing in the spray and wind and dust from all the cars. This route also spits in the face of the large number of people who live along University because the would be able to take the bus. No point in telling them to walk down to I-94, especially the ones on the north side of University. Live halfway between stops? Take a 16 bus that runs less frequently to the next bus route that goes to a train stop and transfer once to the bus and once to the train. Trying to switch to I-94 also has implications for much delay due to the need to prepare a supplemental EIS and do new simulations of traffic, etc. 3) No significant reduction in personally owned vehicle travel. I don't remember whether they predict 0.1% less car/truck trips in 2020 with rail or 0.2%, but it is miniscule. Hiawatha prediction was 0.1% reduction. Of course, the margin of error is probably around 4%, so such a small number is effectively 0. This reduction percentage is common in lrt EIS documents across the country. If you built ten lrt routes, you might reduce car/truck trips by 1% after spending more than $5 billion. The cost of doubling the number of buses is about 1/10th of that and improves service for ALL riders. 4) Of course, with a predetermined outcome and success measures that include whether the project adds to a "multimodal transit system" and a lack of bus alternatives that would be lower cost than the brt option studied (such as the Wilshire Metro Rapid line in L.A.), nobody at the RCRRA is trying to consider the most effective thing to do, just what will let Ramsey County/Saint Paul catch up to the train to the west and become a "real" [important] city, to use the Strib's words. Visit www.EffectiveTransit.org The Independent Unsubsidized Voice of Citizens for Effective Transit in the Twin Cities (no lrt) * lrt isn't a potato chip, you can stop at just one * Bruce Gaarder Highland Park Saint Paul MN [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
