A New Plan for Our Neighborhhood-- What are the issues?

In Union Park, there is a primarily residential area on both sides of the Health East campus north of I-94 and south of University Avenue. As Snelling Avenue and University Avenue are so close, cut-through traffic is a big issue. Residents complain about commercial tractor-trailors speeding down Fry Avenue and breaking off the rear-view mirrors of parked cars and endangering children. Road detours, bad weather, congestion and light rail exacerbate this problem.

Another traffic issue is Snelling Avenue near Midway Center. The accident rate is highest in the state, and seemingly a concern of no one. The road is not designed for the amount of traffic.

Business encroachment is a third concern. HealthEast purchased then bulldozed several houses to expand their parking lot. The houses near Spruce Tree parking ramp are at risk now.

There is not enough on-street parking to handle residents and visitors. The rail line and higher density development makes the situation worse for both residents and businesses. Is there a plan to deal with this issue?

Is the plan to turn the area next to the rail into a zone for non-profits? If so, do we pay attention to the record of the non-profits that want to locate or expand here? Are we set up to police their activity to make sure their clients are treated professionally? Do neighborhoods want to be located next to large non-profit institutions or would they prefer shopping, services and residential areas instead?

Is affordable housing an issue in Union Park or is Union Park north of I-94 one of the few already affordable areas in Saint Paul?

The 16 bus service runs every ten minutes. With the rail, bus frequency is reduced and half of the stops are eliminated. Transit access has always been a strength of this neighborhood. Will transit improve with light rail? This is not an empty question.

Vested political interests and well represented non-profit groups had more influence than nearby business owners and nearby residents when the Met Council did Central Corridor planning. The anti-rail sentiment of the Rondo neighborhood is not so different from the sentiment of many of those most affected in Union Park. A majority on the Union Park District Council have supported rail and transit oriented development, but we typically respect neighborhood concerns.

The loss of business on University Avenue is counter to everyone's interests. Most people did not anticipate the construction impact-- 30% seems like a lowball estimate. Will University Avenue become business friendly? Or, will mixed use development and transit oriented design requirements keep locally owned business away, particularly smaller businesses? Per the Russian Tea House, fees for streetscaping could put them out of business. What is being done to promote locally owned business?

Businesses such as the fabric store, pet shop and Cambodian Restaurant are missed. Whether local or non-local, will there continue to be grocery stores and other business here or will the migration to Roseville continue?

Our job as a District Council is to make sure that those most affected by the plans we develop are given opportunities to voice their concerns. This is a civics exercise that we are capable of doing well.

Draft comments re: FEIS CCLRT

As an engineer who loves rail lines, my input is that the FEIS for CCLRT oozes competence, but lacks the vision that BART planners had in 1960.

The FEIS indicates that CCLRT will attract 1600 extra riders per day, about one half of one percent of those going past on I-94. Twin Cities percent transit miles will remain at two percent. Transit use in other cities, such as Oakland, California (as driveable as Saint Paul) will remain more than three times higher than transit use in the Twin Cities.

The Hiawatha line included park and rides and indeed, those using park and rides accounted for more than thirty percent of ridership. No park and rides are provided next to the CCLRT. (New bus routes are unlikely to draw a critical mass of ridership as the buses will be too infrequent to be useful if Hiawatha is predictive. Satellite lots rely on buses.)

Practical issues that could potentially impact ridership, such as those raised by Councilman Melvin Carter are not carefully studied, “All I want is a ticket booth and a toilet at each station.”

Benefits and costs of putting the line underground do not appear to be extensively studied. An underground line, given that the roadway is going to be destroyed and rebuilt anyway, may not be as incrementally expensive as forecast. Engineers can not know what they may find underground, so they conservatively guess costs will be high. What if costs of above ground mitigation are actually as high? The FEIS includes no calculation of how much more valuable a below grade line would be. What is the benefit if the rail line is twice as fast? (The FEIS indicates that the rail line will be “faster than current buses.” )

Design should be customer focused. Given the change in presidential administrations, cost myopia may be unfounded.

Based on neighborhood meetings, there is no mandate for CCLRT immediately adjacent to the proposed Snelling Avenue station. I suggest a non-binding vote at the ballot box in November to validate LRT planning and place the responsibility for this LRT investment where it belongs.

My favorite quote about this line, “This is not Paris.”

Snelling Avenue Light Rail Station, continued

Have you ever shopped at Midway Shopping area? Why or why not?: Live Journal Discussion
(My wife posted the question. I did not participate here.) There are substantial differences between the vision expressed by the community (above) and the vision expressed by Brian McMahon of University United to the D13 land use committee.

Do we want collaborative marketing between Met Council and RD Management? Everyone wants to see development, and marketing is certainly a desirable goal to validate concepts in the Station area plan and elsewhere. However, given that RD Management's business model may be incongruent with City of Saint Paul's plans for the area, why not do marketing internal to the Met Council, toward agreements with other developers? Now is indeed the time to do marketing. But, under no circumstances should extensions or further agreements with RD Management be signed, given the history. The best outcome is to encourage RD Management to sell to a developer with a different mission.

The Metropolitan Council should pursue marketing toward a post-RD Management Midway Center/bus barn era. Issues to be fleshed out in order to maximize the long-term benefit to the community and the selling price of the area include:
1) Green spaces
2) Enclosed transit station at Snelling and Saint Anthony intersection with parking ramp, bus transfer stations, taxi stands
3) Pedestrian and bike routes to the transit station and all local bus/rail stops (21/94/84/16/50)
4) Improved freeway access to Midway Center/Target complex-- get them there, get them out design to support regional use of the area, but not further congest Snelling.

A "Transit Oriented Development Demonstration Site, " as proposed in the Snelling Station Area Plan (Section 6) lacks the foundation of public understanding and support.

My Snelling/University Rail Station Input from January contains some supporting data regarding transit: Google Docs

Transit Data

From: sustainlane.com


MSP 2005
2520000 population
28140000 miles/day freeway
23830000 miles/day arterial
383000000 miles/year public transportation
rank 21 in metro transit ridership in 2008
0.42 transit miles/day/person, 1.98% transit miles

Portland 2005
1730000 population
13620,000 miles/day freeway
13850,000 miles/day arterial
466000000 miles/year public transportation
rank 19 in metro transit ridership in 2008
0.74 transit miles/day/person 4.44% transit miles

SFO 2005 
4140000 population
50000,000 miles/day freeway
31100,000 miles/day arterial
2283000000 miles/year  public transportation
1.51 transit miles/day/person, 7.16% transit miles
rank 5 Oakland, rank 6 San Francisco in metro transit ridership in 2008

So, Minneapolis-St.Paul can learn from Portland. Both Minneapolis-St. Paul and Portland can learn from the Bay area.

BART has a total of 45,890 on-site parking spaces. The system normally provides about 340,000 rides a day.  (May 2, 2007)

From the Onion

Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others.

From A History of BART

Between 1957 and 1962, engineering plans were developed for a system that would usher in a new era in rapid transit. Electric trains would run on grade-separated right-of-ways, reaching maximum speeds of 75-80 mph, averaging perhaps 45 mph, including station stops. Advanced transit cars, with sophisticated suspensions, braking and propulsion systems, and luxurious interiors, would be strong competition to "King Car " in the Bay Area. Stations would be pleasant, conveniently located, and striking architectural enhancements to their respective on-line communities.

Brainstorming Park and Rides

"Financial Feasibility of Development Analysis," a report by Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD) for the City of Saint Paul looks at the impact of light rail on land values and economic activity. I asked panelists at a forum given today about the economic activity generated by park and rides. The response was that other uses gave more economic impact than "no charge" park and rides and that this rail line was not designed to be a commuter line. A second concern was that park and rides are very popular and develop a constituency, and they fill up, so overflow parking can be a problem. A third point is that North-South connecting bus lines every one half mile may be constructed.

Not to quibble with the analysis, but, if our goal is to have more people using transit, and park and rides fill up, that is a good thing. Why not eliminate all parking spaces, and roads too, and that will prevent people from getting in their cars at all? Negative approaches likely impact economic activity in a negative way.

Making parking spaces rare for transit users is the status quo as Midway Center patrols their lots to prevent transit users from parking there. Neighboring streets are "permit parking only," 12-4, in part because of demand from transit users. Residents who live in streets that are not "permit parking only" assume it will happen once the rail is in place, and are not pleased by the prospect. How many people do not use the buses because of parking issues?

Why not encourage transit use rather than discourage car use?

Some "park and ride" or "park and shop" parking could easily be made available at Midway Center today, as the lot between Office Max and I-94 is typically vacant, and this lot was made available for the State Fair park and ride. Also, a more limited number of parking spots between the liquor store and American Bank would seem to be available for transit users, if a deal with Midway Center is negotiated. (Plan for, but do not necessarily build a larger park and ride until the rail causes the need.)

What might parking priorities be?

a) handicap users parking
b) parking for University Avenue businesses impacted by light rail (validation?)
c) parking for Saint Paul residents with residential parking permits (nearby zones, or perhaps all zones)
d) parking for all transit users, non-peak hours (with transit pass?)
e) shared cars and/or electric cars
f) motorcycles, bicycles, two seat cars

I will leave it to others to rank this list. Most of these priorities would seem to justify subsidies or free parking.

I believe I agree with those who would charge for parking to commuters from outside the city limits, as the preference would be to offer park and rides closer to the user. Parking fees would be the management tool to prevent use beyond capacity, Details and enforcement are non-trivial. A CTOD representative indicated that he can not point to a "best practice" park and ride.

Grid 8 Neighborhood Issues:Park and Ride Proposal

The case against Portland style development.

Update, 9/24/08:
An e-mail exchange between Sam Zimbabwe, COTD, and me.

Grid 8 Neighborhood Issues (with Park and Ride Proposal)

While collecting twenty signatures for renomination as Union Park, Grid 8 representative, I ran across a delegate to the Democratic national convention, a professor, and many other politically engaged people. A reasonably large percentage recognized me from meetings pertaining to light rail or Health East. The level of engagement was just as high in the urban part of the neighborhood as in the single family homes. People found the blue Union Park District Council flyers to be helpful. One older home owner would not talk to me, but everyone else would.

The top issue this year was light rail, and the most positive comment about the the rail was "I have mixed feelings about it." Several streets are already "permit only, " which causes residents to support a park and ride for bus riders, even before the rail is built.

My priority for 2009 is to start the planning process for a permanent 1000 slot park and ride at the bus barn site and under Midway Center (Snelling Avenue and Saint Anthony Blvd./Snelling Avenue and University Avenue).



Some representative comments from the grid partition process:
William on Fry-- supports a park and ride so that fewer people will park on his street, currently "permit only" 12-4 p.m.
Jeff on Roy Street-- opposes light rail
Rebecca on Shields-- feels apartment residents are treated as "transients" by Union Park District Council
Mario on Roy Street-- "a lot of stuff" happens in the alley next to Snelling and Saint Anthony; concern over security issues
Tom on Roy-- impressed by Rock-Tenn progress (anaerobic digestion)

8/24/2008 Update: Today, I knocked on doors in my neighborhood and collected signatures for a petition. I spoke with twenty neighbors and received twenty signatures. Based on our conversations, there is no doubt about the neighborhood support. One thousand signatures in support of the following statement are in the public record (pages 147- 247). The resolution is as follows:

We support a 1000 slot park and ride at the bus barn site and under Midway Center (Snelling Avenue and Saint Anthony Blvd./Snelling Avenue and University Avenue) to serve State Fair goers, the I94 bus route, the 84 bus route, the 21/53 bus route, the 16/50 bus route, the 144 bus route, the future Central Corridor rail, a future Snelling Avenue rail line, and small businesses and local residents who lose parking with construction of the rail. This park and ride should serve parkers and those transferring between buses with safe pedestrian and bicycle access under the very busy streets of Snelling Avenue and University Avenue, as Snelling Avenue in this neighborhood has the highest traffic accident rate in the state. Ideally, the park and ride will exit under Snelling Avenue, directly to I-94 ramps to avoid further traffic congestion on Snelling Avenue. The park and ride does not preclude development of the bus barn site and the neighboring lot, because the park and ride can be relocated below ground.

8/27/2008 Update:
Q: I am curious to know who you think should pay for this facility?

A: We all agree that Snelling Avenue, between University Avenue and Concordia Avenue, functions poorly for cars, transit users, pedestrians and bikes. Figuring out exactly how to fix it is the hard part.

The area used for the State Fair park and ride could be used as a year round park and ride, serving the bus routes now, and without major capitol expense. The cost to Metro Transit would be minimal-- install gates and a fence, paint lines, unlock the area, occasionally spray the dirt with water. I believe that Metro Transit offered to do this when the I-35 bridge collapsed, but do not remember the exact details.

I assume this park and ride will function similarly to other park and rides operated by Metro Transit.

I do not take a stand on fees, but it is common practice to charge at peak times, if the park and ride is being used to near capacity. I do not think it is realistic to charge fees until construction of a new facility is completed.

There are serious safety issues with Snelling Avenue and Midway Center. I would envision that highway funds pay for the road construction aspect of this-- such as if additional ramps to I-94 are built, or if new bus lanes are constructed as part of the project.

Given the odd economics of Metro Transit, I do not assume that making the Central Corridor light rail accessible to thousands more people will pay for capital expenditures. However, making the rail accessible to thousands more people justifies the expense as part of the Central Corridor light rail project.

A plan that resolves safety and gridlock issues, and makes the area function for cars, transit users, pedestrians and bikes makes the bus barn site and Midway Center more valuable for further development, so it is conceivable that construction of an underground park and ride increases the value of the Metro Transit property enough to pay for itself. People talk about the rail line spurring economic development. This is an opportunity to test whether economic development can be spurred.

9/6/06: Opposition at the 9/6 Union Park District Council Meeting was interesting. Somehow, having a park and ride is in opposition to Merriam Park plans supporting Public Transit. (I can think of no stronger way of supporting Public Transit than to make it available to those who are not within walking distance of a line. ) The suggestion that more discussion was needed makes sense, though I believe the City Council is finalizing plans for the Snelling Station area now, rather than later.

Input to Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

A complex process of politics, government regulations and neighborhood involvement has gotten us to the point where we are at, but a comprehensive marketing analysis based on systematically talking to random residents of Saint Paul to define the needs and desires of potential rail users has never been completed, making it unclear whether the proposed new rail would actually be viewed as a positive development by the majority of residents once they understand exactly what is proposed.

I concur with the testimony of Union Park District Council, as agreed to at their August 6, 2008 Board meeting, that it is critical to validate that the proposed Central Corridor Light rail line meets the needs of local residents, and that it would be irresponsible to proceed to the construction phase of the project without one.

I suggest a total sample size of 1000-- two randomly selected pools of about 500 "captive riders" and 500 "people with transportation options." Participants will need to be paid for their time, and perhaps also entered in several lotteries to assure high levels of participation in a process that should take about 90 minutes. The process will involve clearly explaining what is currently planned and then polling the resident about their opinion of the mass transit options now, and in the future. The survey will determine the expected number of Central Corridor riders assuming the current plan and a broad range of scenarios, many of which are not consistent with the current funding of the rail project.

Only through a process such as this will it be possible to to assess whether the rail project will meet the needs of residents, or whether major changes might required if funding is to be responsibly spent.

From Union Park District Council Testimony:

6. The need for comprehensive marketing studies to determine how the Central Corridor LRT plans can best meet the needs of both captive, transit-dependent bus riders and those who have a choice of transportation options. Many changes have occurred since the basic LRT alignment was determined in 2001, not the least of which is the doubling of gas prices. UPDS recommends that a quantitative marketing study be undertaken to determine if the rail line as proposed will effectively meet the current and future transportation needs of Saint Paul, Minneapolis and greater metro area transit riders.

Any corporation contemplating a billion dollar investment would not move forward without an up-to-date marketing survey to assess the viability of their new product or service to attract new customers and meet the needs of regular clients. As the Central Corridor project prepares to move forward into final design, it would be irresponsible to proceed without a reality check to see if current plans, that are largely based on earlier assumptions, remain valid today.

UPDC urges that a professional marketing company be retained to do a quantitative marketing study, using randomly selected local residents, to determine the actual needs and demands of future light rail riders. The range of questions should address such issues as:

whether station locations are optimal and optimally spaced;

whether park-and-rides are needed to accommodate those not directly adjacent to the line;

whether planned transit speeds will meet people’s needs or if higher speeds would attract more new riders;

how fare increases would affect ridership;

the potential impact of even higher gas prices on future ridership;

what rider incentives would be most effective in attracting new riders; and

how issues of safety, comfort, pedestrian access, bicycle access and business parking would affect the success of the new LRT as a transit improvement and economic stimulus to encourage new development.

Hiawatha Line Service Standards

I viewed the June, 2008 SDEIS for the Central Corridor Line today, which speaks of meeting the needs of low income people, and does not address the needs of moderate to high income people. I wonder if the Metropolitan Council actually wants their lines to be of value to the general public, or would prefer to exclusively serve low income riders, grateful if a train merely arrives.

BART, San Francisco Bay area, was taking about adding WiFi access to their trains and train stations in the early 2000's. Internet access, enclosed shelter and similar needs would be discussed thoroughly in the SDEIS if it was not assumed that the only people who will use the train are those who have no alternative.

2000 Census data and rider surveys indicate high percentages of students and low income people along the line, but as gas prices increase, more people are riding for economic reasons. There is also an increasing cohort of environmentally conscious people who ride transit to reduce green house emissions.

But, the three most recent experiences that my family has had with the Hiawatha Line indicate that Metro Transit is doing their best to discourage new riders:

February 2, 2008, 6 p.m., Downtown Minneapolis, following the Barack Obama Rally at the Target Center
long lines for tickets; three trains pass before I am to the front of the line; the automated ticket printer has run out of paper; I use the Hiawatha line without a ticket

April 17, 2008, 6 p.m., Franklin Avenue Station, preceding a Twins game
ticket machine will not accept bills, only coins; kids ask for quarters but we have none; I am with an employee of Metro Council, so he tells me that I can ride the train on his word

July 2008, 10 p.m., Downtown Minneapolis:
attempt to enter train at terminus, but door never opens; enter the next train when it lets off people and wait 15 minutes for it to move; train stops for each downtown Minneapolis light; train goes past the Metrodome just following a Twins game; transit worker pushes people onto the train which is filled to capacity and says "this is what mass transit is like"

If these are the service standards we can expect from the Central Corridor, my family is better off with buses.

Who Will Use the Rail?

A billion dollar rail is being built connecting Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Give the advocates credit for pushing this through. Who will actually ride the train? The people who currently ride the bus will most likely continue to use public transportation. Those who have no other choice are a captive market. Anybody else?... Bueller?... Bueller?

As someone who takes the bus to Twins games and walks to the grocery store, I admire the goal of driving less. However, anti-car policies, such as not building park-and-rides because we do not want suburbanites to bring their cars to Saint Paul, strike me as hypocritical and counter-productive. Hypocritical, because the weather in Saint Paul causes even the most strident inner-city activist to use their car on occasion. Counter-productive, because if Saint Paul is to thrive, it must be accessible, and if people find the city too hard to get around, they can always go somewhere else. Where I have seen park-and-rides in the San Francisco Bay Area, Chicago and the Saint Louis Central Corridor, I have seen park-and-rides that are used beyond their capacity.

The city of Saint Paul has a marketing director. I hope she is brought into the picture once she has some free time after the Republican convention.

My questions to her are these:

How much of the success of the Hiawatha line can be attributed to the giant "park-and-ride" at its southern tip, the Mall of America, with 13,000 easy to find parking spaces available not far from the below grade train station?

Why are car owners going to use the rail?

How can public transportation be made more useful for people?

The advocates that are getting the rail built should be convinced by marketing data that park-and -rides need to be built in order for this rail line to be successful, even if they may be adamant that parking be made available only to people who drive Dodge Volt plug-in electric cars.

That would be an improvement over the current position, as becoming forward looking, rather than bemoaning the loss of the streetcars, would be a positive development. If we are going to spend one billion dollars or more, we should design a rail to meet the future transportation needs of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The new rail line, as designed to date, is an albatross that could easily cost addition billions to make right.

Rail-- deceased equine

What are some goals that rail could achieve?

Rail could provide faster, more economic, more convenient transportation than alternative means. Mass transit could reduce the need for cars and reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. But, unless it is more convenient and fast to ride the rail than it is to ride buses and cars, then NOTHING is being achieved, as the rail will not significantly increase the use of mass transportation. This has been typically the case for rail projects in the United States. In Portland, mass transit usage was higher in the 1970’s than it is today with rail, per a widely available Cato study.

Unlike in other places of the world, where economic growth is assumed, and visionary transportation systems are being built, in the United States architects design based on the past. For more about the rest of the world, see New York Times Magazine, June 9, 2008, page 72.

At about $10 billion per year, the FTA grossly underfunds mass transit, as is becoming increasing obvious, with gas prices at $4 per gallon. However, the current design of the Central Corridor through the University and elsewhere is not an investment that will reap dividends in the future. It is merely an expense that makes us poorer, as we drive by car from Minneapolis to Saint Paul, since that will continue to be the quickest, most economic way to travel.

If the Central Corridor is to be an investment, then the design must increase use of mass transit by an order of magnitude, rather than by a few percent. The Bangkok design and the Kyoto design give that potential.

More comments can be found here.

Rail Comments

[Revised Version]

The rail line should have limited stops for high speed and well sheltered underground stations for safety, comfort in a Northern climate, and speed, and in addition to serving local neighborhood needs, a major purpose of the rail should be to connect into regional rail lines. The benefits of a well designed rail system are huge in terms of reducing energy use, reducing auto emissions, national security, and the more tangible benefit of meeting the transportation needs of people.

The current Central Corridor design will add congestion and reduce safety, especially at already unsafe intersections, such as Snelling Avenue and University Avenue. The rail line, competing with auto traffic, will be too slow to be of use to many residents, thus limiting its value. Many supporters of this line view it as an economic development project rather than a transportation project, however the focus must be to correctly design a transportation system, if economic development is to take place. Rail line design, such as that in Bangkok (above grade stations) or Kyoto, Japan, population 1.5 million (below grade stations) address the major safety concerns. At grade rail placement two to three blocks from University Avenue, on or near I-94 frontage roads could also be considered as part of a larger project to reduce issues with safety and congestion in Saint Paul. Even without the proposed at grade rail station, Snelling Avenue at University Avenue gridlocks and is unsafe for autos, pedestrians and bicyclists. This occurs every day during the State Fair. Snelling Avenue near I-94 is the most unsafe area in the state of Minnesota based on traffic accident rates, but current rail design does not sufficiently reflect this fact.

San Pablo Avenue in Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito and Richmond, California has the BART rail two blocks away from a major bus line, and stations tend to be one to two miles apart except in downtown San Francisco. The rail and bus are both heavily used all hours of the day for trips short and long, by people of all income levels. However, people with groceries use the bus line, not the rail, indicating that people who need transportation to meet their basic needs are best served by more buses that stop each block. Additional stations are not needed beyond what is currently conceived, unless bus schedules are cut, which is planned despite obvious "economic fairness" issues.

The “bus barn” site at Saint Anthony and Snelling offers an ideal location for a major light rail station near University Avenue (Central Corridor) and for a future Snelling Avenue light rail line deserving of future study. This site offers the possibility of underground commuter parking and retail development at a prime location that has remained undeveloped despite the efforts of many. Here is a location where the possibility of major economic development in conjunction with Central Corridor rail construction can be tested now.

More comments can be found here:
Central Corridor

Portland's Panacea?

The Cato Institute (Libertarian) not surprisingly is critical of Portland's light rail system. It's slow, expensive, has not relieved congestion, and taxpayers are no longer voting for it. Their point of view is rebutted (sort of) here. Portland's light rail system is popular and cheaper per passenger than buses.

I assume both sides are factually correct. I have a point of view, as well.

When I visited Portland in 2004, the light rail was of zero use to me. I would have liked to use it, but it was miles away, on the other side of the river, in the Yuppie part of town. I still might have used the light rail except that once I was across the river with my car, I could only find short-term metered parking spots, and they were rare. If I had taken the light rail, I would have gotten a parking ticket.

I am pleased that the light rail line connecting downtown Minneapolis to the airport and the Mall of America is popular and cheaper than buses, as is true in Portland. The Hiawatha line is underground at the airport and at the Mall of America, and uses an old rail right of way much of the way. I am afraid that the St. Paul light rail line connecting the two downtowns will be slow, expensive, and will not relieve congestion, as in Portland, since the budget, and federal cost effectiveness measures demand it be entirely at grade. Portland provides no panacea, yet it is often cited as the model for St. Paul's planned light rail system.

I suggest we forget about Portland. Underground subways, such as those in Kyoto, should be the model for St. Paul.

Update:10/24/07, A meeting is held to design the Snelling and Lexington stations. Several people suggest that a park and ride near the Snelling Avenue station would only "encourage more driving." None of these people get on the bus on this nice Fall day to return home. One can only assume that these people drove to the meeting.

Update:10/25/07 A back and forth on the Cato report, and on buses versus rail, etc.

Kyoto is far away.

What can be done to reduce emissions toward achieving Kyoto goals? In cities, auto dependence can be reduced via improved public transit.

Light rail in my city is favored based on a perception that it will improve property values. However, the people that support public transportation worry about costs so much that they are designing systems that only current bus riders will consider using. "We" will continue to drive on our grid-locked roads and the value of our houses will increase. "Those people" without cars (renters) will ride public transportation whether we make them wait outside in below zero weather, and whether public transit is twice as slow as the drive. "We" buy into our full color 17" x 24" report with the rhetoric of spurring development. "We" infer increasing property values, based on examples that are better designed, and then build the rail line.

It is a starvation of funds that leads us to create the rail projects for "those people", not the rest of us. The total FTA budget for public transportation is less than $10 billion per year. (Keep in mind that a status quo cheaply designed light rail line in a city costs at least $1 billion, and to network a city will cost at least $15 billion.) This is why American cities have not built subways in the past fifty years, except for BART in San Francisco, the Baltimore line and the Metro rail in D.C., each 25 years ago, if you want to count them-- much is above ground.

We need to increase the federal budget for public transit, perhaps to $100 billion. Both "we" and "those people" end up with fast, comfortable transit. America is on its way toward achieving Kyoto goals. And, maybe, there is less reason to start optional wars in the Middle East.

Is this a difficult idea to sell to ourselves?

I looked up causes of death in Wikipedia. Lung cancer: 938,000 deaths. Car accidents: 669,000 deaths. People quit smoking based on safety. Would we quit driving if we understood our lives depend on it?

Or, maybe, I want to compete with the rest of the world and be number one. If we recognize how far behind American transit is, my vanity will kick in, and Silicon Valley and Detroit will design something first class. The rail line from Hong Kong to the airport leaves every twelve minutes and offers flat screen displays and live video and internet for every seat. Kyoto, a city of 1.5 million, switched from streetcars to a subway system.

Transit in America is a long way from Kyoto.

Update, 10/24/07: I attend a public meeting at 1080 University, near Lexington. The purpose is to help design the light rail stations along University Avenue at Snelling and Lexington. The room is reasonably full. There might be fifty people there, representing their neighborhoods and businesses. After the meeting, I go across the street to the bus stop. How many people wait for the bus with me from a group dedicated to designing our future public transportation? None. How many wait across the street to go the opposite direction? None. The only people to get on the bus with me are two down-trodden individuals, poorly, but warmly dressed, representing two dominant minority groups of the area. They represent well the current ridership of the 16 bus at 9:15 p.m., and represent well "those people" for which we are designing the light rail system... poorly.

Safety at Snelling and University

The photo shows tow trucks, dented vehicles and emergency workers on Snelling Avenue north of St. Anthony, following a collision, May 8, 2007, which closed the I-94 bridge.
Snelling Avenue, between University and Concordia, has the highest collision rate in the State of Minnesota.


I write this as the City of St. Paul proposes alternatives for expanding the car capacity of Snelling, as more big boxes are being considered for the neighborhood, and as proposed Ayd Mill Road construction funnels more traffic to Snelling. Whether the proposed changes to Snelling improve or reduce safety has not been documented by the engineers that presented the plans. The community also raises other issues including alternative north/south routes between Dale and 280 to reduce the traffic on Snelling, land use/zoning and transit oriented design toward development per the principles of Urban Strategies.

Safety concerns at Snelling, near I-94 and University include pedestrian safety, transit oriented development, bike paths and bike safety and car safety.

Little attention has been paid to providing for a safe environment for pedestrians. Pedestrian traffic comes from people of all ages who live in the neighborhood or attend churches in the neighborhood, work nearby, go to a nearby college, or shop nearby. Several of Saint Paul's busiest bus routes criss-cross Snelling and University. Consideration of the safety of pedestrians is not apparant, as there is no walking path through Midway Center to connect the bus stop on Snelling to the bus stop on University. Consideration of the safety of pedestrians should be a key aspect in future development of the area.

To highlight the importance of design toward pedestrian safety, consider the task of crossing Snelling at Spruce Tree. Left-turning cars are challenged to see pedestrians behind vehicles at the Spruce Tree and Snelling stop light, so pedestrians are at risk of getting hit. Once a pedestrian gets across toward Midway Center, the pedestrian is in a traffic lane competing with cars, which are weaving into their proper turn lane. Crossing at University might be safer, but left turning vehicles are still an issue. Crossing at Shields, where there is no pedestrian crossing, is actually safest because it is less likely that a car will turn into you, and because it is there rather than at Spruce Tree, that a sidewalk leads to Midway Shopping Center. Nonetheless, right turns from I-94 to Snelling can make it difficult to get across.

There is no evidence that designers are now considering the needs of pedestrians, as Rainbow expanded in 2006 and took away sidewalk space immediately in front of the building, so pedestrians are now forced to walk on a busy car lane when the narrow sidewalk is crowded. The sidewalk width now matches the neighboring Cub Foods. Wide sidewalks and greenways through Midway Center and the proposed big boxes to the sorth would greatly enhance its safety and appeal, and the safety and appeal for pedestrians using buses or the proposed light rail station. A pedestrian/bike bridge or pedestrian/bike tunnel should be designed above or below Snelling Avenue and University Avenue as part of the development plans.

Bike paths would be welcomed by the neighborhood, as St. Anthony west of Snelling is designed for bikes. Bike storage areas are currently provided at the St. Anthony and Snelling bus stop. Rainbow recently added a bike rack. Development of St. Anthony to the east of Snelling offers an opportunity to extend this biking area with a new bike path. Pascal offers an opportunity for a bike path and pedestrian crossing over I-94 to the neighborhoods and campuses to the south.

The intersections of I-94 and St. Anthony and I-94 and Concordia have the highest traffic accident rates in the state of Minnesota. Shields, near Snelling, is more often than not covered with glass. Left turns from Spruce Tree or the Midway Shopping Center onto Snelling are dangerous because a lane of traffic can block visibility of the second lane of traffic for those making left turns left turns onto Snelling, and because pedestrian crossings compete with cars for a driver's attention. Car insurance rates for zip code 55104, if unregulated, would be double the metro average. A priority of the neighborhood is corrective action to reduce accident rates to something well below the state high. This corrective action should be a primary aspect of any development plans, such as the proposed big boxes and the proposed Ayd Mill Road extension. Expansion of the Midway Shopping Center requires additional streets in the shopping center area and along St. Anthony to safely handle the additional traffic, additional pedestrians, and bikers.

Rail Light or Rail Right?

Last night, at the Central Corridor Resource Center (CCRC), Bob Baker, Director of Parking and Transportation, presented the light rail plans of the University of Minnesota. Safety is the primary concern with light rail, as he is quoted here. Bob points out that the University of Minnesota has the highest density of pedestrians in the state. To prevent further light rail deaths, the University proposes that rail service through campus be underground.

The same safety issue also applies at the intersection of Snelling Avenue and University Avenue, the neighborhood with the most traffic accidents in the state (traffic study). However, at a CCRC meeting in January, Mark Fuhrmann, Metro Transit deputy general manager, was adamant that there was no money to put the rail system underground, insisting that the railway will be safe. However, if the intersection is not currently safe, how will adding a railway make it safe? The argument is about cost, not whether an underground system would be safer.

The St. Paul light rail proposal stands at $932 million per Fuhrmann. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) budget is $8.9 billion for 2007. The FTA prioritizes with a formula which divides construction cost by estimated ridership. Therefore, Fuhrmann pointed out that extensions to existing lines tend to get the funding, because these extensions are cheapest, because infrastructure cost is less. Because the FTA focus is purely on cost, safety issues are not part of the formula, and the safety at Snelling Avenue and University Avenue is really not his concern.

In Bangkok, you can go up or down a dirty river in a public transit boat for less than a quarter dollar. You will see dilapidated shacks and naked, swimming children. Also, in Bangkok, for a little more money, you can take a state of the art, air conditioned, above street level sky train that apparently is too expensive for Minnesota, USA.

Certainly, in an era where climate change is fact, America can enact an energy policy to reduce automobile emissions. Certainly, in an era where countries are going to war over oil, America can do something to lessen its dependence on foreign sources. Light rail in the cities of America is a great idea. Light rail should be funded sufficiently so that systems are safe, reliable and comfortable. Certainly, we can afford what Thailand can afford.

I agree with Bob Baker. Put the rail system underground through the University of Minnesota. That is the only way to make it safe. It should be underground at Snelling and University, in downtown St. Paul, and most all of the way.