21 SPIF participants took a position in our recent "survey." In addition, several more folks contributed to the discussion, without taking a "Yes" or "No" position.
=================================================
St. Paul Issues Forum - Week of August 9, 2004
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul
=================================================
1) Based on what you know today, would you like to
see a light rail system built in St. Paul ALONG -
University Ave. (similar to the Hiawatha
corridor system)?YES or NO
Optional: short explanation of vote (or caveat).
150 words or less
================================================
Chris DuffrinYES
I think it is imperative that LRT run on a major street rather than the highway -- transit brings pedestrians to a street and pedestrians are what bring life to a city. LRT will not only be an excellent transit option, it will attract higher density development around transit hubs, which is essential to add one million people to the Metro by 2030. The biggest mistake we have made in our well intentioned development policies of late (Livable Communities Act, etc.) is to promote high density living but offer no new transit alternatives to support that lifestyle. Light Rail on I-94 would be a huge mistake in my view-- it would do nothing to promote new land uses (new retail, high density housing, etc.) and at best would link commuters to buses, but not their feet and at worst link commuters to large parking lots to continue their journey.
------------------------------------------------
Paul Nelson
YES
(Explanation Exceeded 150 Words - See Archive) ------------------------------------------------ Mike Fratto
YES
The one problem I do see is both directions of University will lose a lane of traffic if the system went down the center. Then there would be the obvious need for increases space for stops. This means that we would have to vacate and demolish one side of University.
However, placing light rail anywhere else, will take business away from University Avenue. Unfortunately, there is no other alternative, except possibly using the frontage roads along I 94
-------------------------------------------------
Erik Hare
NO
The money that would consume could serve many times the number of people and provide a better success story if used in other ways. Lite Rail is not a trolley, and is too heavy for the middle of a street, making the cost / service payback totally out of whack.
-------------------------------------------------
Ruth Schumi
YES ------------------------------------------------- Jules Goldstein
NO ------------------------------------------------- Michael Mischke
YES
I'd vote yes if it meant that on-street parking would not be lost for the many small businesses on University that depend on it. University has the greatest transit use (buses) of any corridor in the Twin Cities, and is where the Twin Cities' first light rail line SHOULD have gone.
-------------------------------------------------
John Birrenbach
NO
As is planned it would mean major disruptions in a now thriving community. It will also divide a community just now recovering from being divided once by the Interstate. We don't learn from the past we are destined to repeat it in the future.
------------------------------------------------
Willie Nesbit
YES
Based on what I know about the cost and having had considerable experience with other cities' light rail , subways, and elevated trains, I vote yes. I believe twin citians in general are in denial about the need for improved mass transit. The drivers here are among the rudest and most poorly trained of just about any I have witnessed. The jams here are not caused primarily by poor roads or conditions but by poor driving skills and inconsideration. The increasing crisis in the oil industry will continue to wake all of us up to the coming end to the current dependable fossil fuel based internal combustion engine. Mass transit is the wave of the near future and we need to get on board.
------------------------------------------------
John Harris
NO
I am all for a line between the cities but university doesn't seem like the right route. There appears to be more negatives than positives with this route. Also, seems it would simply take people off the buses and put them on a train instead of getting people out of their cars.
------------------------------------------------
Dan Dobson
YES
YES, but not along University Avenue. Lite rail in St. Paul needs to be along I-94.
Most of the light rail systems in America separate cars and lite rail, i.e. New York City, Chicago, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.
The only place I know of where cars and lite rail are combined is in downtown Portland, where lite rail is slower than molasses.
Lite Rail along I-94 will be faster, less expensive and lead to less congestion in the long run. Lit rail then can be extended to Hudson and Stillwater.
YES to Lite rail in Saint Paul. No to Lite Rail on University Avenue. ------------------------------------------------ Pam Ellison
YES
The only thing that would change this for me is if PRT were being considered. Seeing it is not, I would vote for a rail system that would allow for going below or above the street grade on major intersections such as Hwy 280, Snelling, Fairview, Hamline, Lexington, Dale Rice and 35 E. I think it could go east where University becomes Minnehaha, out as far as the 3M complex and go West as far you can into downtown beyond the U.
I believe that an elevated system like Chicago could work as well. ------------------------------------------------ Paul Skrbec
YES ------------------------------------------------ Joelle Tegwen
YES
We need public transit and a line between Minneapolis and St. Paul is essential. However, I'm with Dan. It really aught to be along 94. When we go to Chicago we drive in, get off at Cumberlain, park in their 1.75/12 hr parking and take the walk bridge over the freeway to the train. Then we can go to all the places we like/need to go. In the dense areas (like between the cities) we could put parking ramps over the freeway and not use up that space either.
------------------------------------------------
Pat Byrne
NO
At this point I'm not sure we have paid the proper attention to development of the mass public transit system needed to make this work as it should, and I think there may be higher priorities and a better return in spending money elsewhere - other than light rail - for mass public transit.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew M. Hine
YES
But use 94 or RR corridors for high-speed East-West service, with North-South spurs coming off this Mainline every mile. The Victoria Line, for example, could be boarded at Juut and make stops northward until it gets to 94, when it turns to either downtown for a straight shot. The southbound Snelling Line could be boarded at Har-Mar Mall, stopping at Larpenteur, Midway, Como, Hamliine U., Thomas!, over Univ Av through the ugly Green Thing, Frontage Road, and off you go to Downtown.
I just think considering the ring, or Triangle, on it's own is short-sighted. What would 494-694 Loop be without 280 and 100 and 169? Where would the tree be without the branches? The hand with no fingers? The aorta sans capillaries? x, y, z, dimensions and beyond!!!
The reader is left to apply this approach to the Riverview Corridor on hir own. ------------------------------------------------ Gail O'Hare
YES
to an east-west route!
But then I'm overwhelmed with questions. We did indeed destroy Rondo with nary a qualm. (Well, ok, maybe a few qualms, but no one cared about saving communities - especially minority communities - back when the interstate was envisioned as a defense system.) Now we can weigh impacts. I look at University and see an emerging success-story that might be seriously threatened. Someone said a line along I-94 would threaten those businesses, but I'm thinking it could build up the area substantially. As I think over the terrain I don't picture any vibrant businesses right along 94. Please forgive me if my ignorance is leading to another Rondo-like blindness. Wouldn't stations and park-n-rides lead to diverse businesses, jobs and improved housing?
I want to emphasize the park-n-rides. As I remember it (again, could be wrong) the way Hiawatha was kept on-time and on-budget was by reducing the number of railcars and park-n-rides. Shortsightedness we should not repeat.
------------------------------------------------
Andy Driscoll
YES
(Explanation Exceeded 150 Words - See Archive) ------------------------------------------------ Mike Wassenaar
YES
(Explanation Exceeded 150 Words - See Archive) ------------------------------------------------ Katherine Sherman
YES
As a person who lives a block from Uni in the Midway area, and works on the U of M East Bank, I've used both cars and buses in my commute. Right now I'm a car person, because the 16 is way too slow and the 50 is timed wrong, but LRT would put me firmly and permanently back on public transit. U of M staff and students-- especially the graduate, professional, and commuter students-- are huge riders of the 16 and 50. If you're even going to consider LRT in the I94 corridor instead, you're going to have problems linking it to the U of M-- or you're going to have to bypass it all together, and the U of M is a place that would provide enormous ridership for the LRT, and could really use the service. I'm going to confine myself to these points, or I'm going to get way too long-winded.
------------------------------------------------
Bruce Gaarder
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.
=================================================
"The St. Paul Issues Forum is a interactive e-mail
discussion on important issues about St. Paul public
policy. Participation is free and open to anyone.
We currently have about 350 concerned citizens and
community leaders subscribed to our discussion."
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul
=================================================
_____________________________________________
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/
