Legislators: Please vote NO on Central Corridor funds
Submitted by kitkat on May 6, 2008 - 3:58pm.
I'd like my first post to present my reasons, as a progressive, that I oppose funding the current Central Corridor light rail plan.
Believe it or not, I'm not the only one!
Sure, perhaps I'm one of the few who blog. ;-)
But I've hit the streets, meeting others, taking their names. Many folks who're against it for progressive/liberal reasons are low-income or busy with families and feel that no one will listen to them even if they do speak up, but they're there if you can meet them during their few spare hours!
--------------
I'd like to try to persuade you ask your legislators to vote no on--and, if possible make speeches against--any proposals to restore funding to the current Central Corridor light rail request.
There is plenty of opposition to light rail on University Avenue on the left because of left-leaning voters' interests in economic justice. For example, before Gov. Pawlenty issued his April 7 veto, several University-area workers, owners, residents, and I and organized and contacted him asking him to do just that!
To be clear--probably no one in that coalition is against light rail trains in general--or, for the most part, even against a form of transportation from one downtown to another that's ritzier than the #94 bus.
What they and I ARE opposed to is putting trains on a street that is already highly "developed" and already highly "transit-oriented"--but oriented towards the business needs and transit habits of our cities' working poor, lower, and middle classes.
Why? Because business ownership builds wealth. Perhaps it's the only reliable wealth builder that the poor and many segments of the middle classes can get involved in.
.
Currently, University (is one of only two streets that) provides the three essential factors leading to profits for business owned by people with low wealth:
- high traffic
- affordable rent
- frequent public transit that comes within a block of the door
If trains were to become the only frequent form of transit on University, all buildings within a block of transit would become high-rent, and all low-rent buildings would have no frequent to-the-block transit service.
The entirety of University Avenue would cease to be a place where Twin Cities residents with little to no wealth can invest what income they have and build wealth.
.
I believe that a University Avenue route would increase skin-color-correlated "wealth gaps" in this city.
Many current business owners on University Avenue would never find another bootstrap like it. Many of them could easily become locked into a pattern that makes them tomorrow's perpetual "working poor"--never passing wealth from generation to generation.
Their employees would also lose valuable economic benefits. As every progressive who's fought for economists to include "unpaid home labor" into their formulas knows, there is a phenomenal opportunity to build family wealth when one works for a cousin and can bring kids in to work instead of paying for child care!
.
University Avenue is already a highly "developed" of a business zone. And it is as "transit-oriented" as it gets, but it's oriented towards every-15-minutes transit that is capable of stopping at every block.
I believe that, despite the cries of, "Green! Green! Green! Green! Green! Brown and black can go find some other place! Green! Green! Green! Green! Green!" that seem to pop off the page of advocacy for the Central Corridor's current plans (and the truly green aspects of train-based transit in general)), putting trains down University Avenue is as heinous, on account of its wealth-gap effects, as housing discrimination was a few decades ago.
Please consider these points and consider the core values that drew you to progressivism. I urge you urge your senators and representatives, from all over the state, to vote "no" to funding any light rail proposals that include a University Avenue path.
If they or you can help with a floor speech, an editorial to media, or even just a "no" vote on funding, it would help even more. Thank you in advance.
------------
(Happy first post to me!)
»
- kitkat's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Stumble It!
Not alone
I was wondering if I was the only one who has been railing on about University Avenue light rail because of the evil it will wreak on the businesses and residents along the Avenue.
I have reservations about transit. I see it as something which fosters economic segregation, an opinion that I suspect that kitkat or most readers of mnblue may not share. However, it is nice to see somebody [especially somebody with a greater audience] sees the shortcomings of this project.
Ray Sammons
Capitol City Musings
How dare you!
We need more trains come hell or high water!!!
Mass Transit is the only way. Cars are for Repugs. Ethanol trains are for Progressives.
LRT
I find the business argument unconvincing in an economic system constructed to keep most people down. If a few do well, someone else suffers. More useful is an argument about a neighborhood where ordinary people can live and work. So then the question becomes whether this neighborhood needs more transit than the #16 bus.
Is higher-capacity transit a good response to the coming fuel crisis? Will this substantially help people's ability to get around in a metro area where fewer and fewer people will have cars, as we watch gas go past $20 / gallon. I don't know for sure.
I don't like the LRT approach with excessively fast trains that will kill people, but the need for transportation has outweighed the risk of accidents in people's minds before, and it may do so again.
I had become resigned to LRT. Much of the harm that was going to happen to University Avenue when LRT went through has already happened. As soon as they thought they had it, the big developers started buying and building. Now large stretches have already gone to overpriced condos, and small shops like the Saigon are being pushed out. There are other small businesses that may survive if LRT is dropped, but much of the damage is already done.
Very thought provoking
I think many people have been talking for a long time about avoiding a Rondo Part 2, but logically, where else would you put the train? Or are you saying scrap it altogether? Anyway, it is good that people like you have the human cost in mind during development because it is often overlooked.
What would your solution be?
Thanks,
Alec
Where else?
Alec,
I would put it down I-94, the way trains go down the highway in Chicago.
Essentially, just as buses currently get the breakdown lane to go fast (well, okay, not CURRENTLY, thanks to bridge collapse rerouting, but in normal times), trains would get "the extra space." (The breakdown lanes would go bye-bye.)
Though it would be interesting to see how the people of the area feel about more houses being eminent domained to KEEP breakdown lanes AND have trains. I mean, now that the businesses are gone off that area, you're not ruining people's last wealth-building opportunity--you're eminent domaining something that isn't a huge wealth-builder anyway, as wealth-builders cities can ruin go.
I'd have to see how people who live & rent there feel about that, and I'll put that off until we get this University Avenue thing buried.
Anyway, I...I...I wouldn't mind scrapping it altogether, honestly. I LIKE the #94. But I get that people at Ecolab and downtown law firms and Travelers and such don't. They're just...weird suburban upper-middle-class people, and for some reason, they don't.
So if you put a train down I-94 and nix the #94 bus, well...eh. I guess, yeah, I would slightly rather altogether scrap the project and put $1 billion into better bus service for every single useful route imaginable, but I would tolerate pleasing the snobs if it didn't steal University Avenue from the low-wealth and give it to the high-wealth.
As far as why I-94 didn't happen?
I have STRONG reason to believe that it's because "the high-wealth" didn't WANT it.
They can make money throwing buildings down on a city street. Whether they & their tenants stay is another matter. I think they won't. I think the "redevelopment"-built buildings will be like Calhoun Square--empty because the trendy place to be went somewhere else--in 15 years. And I don't think they HAVE to stay to make money. It's like Business Week once explained about why so many banks gambled on loans that would decline in value & be ruined--they all figured they'd get out while the getting was good. Right about that or not in the end, it IS why they pushed for permission to enter such loans & have them rated well. Likewise, I think that stay or not, the idea that they can make money no matter what happens IS why a lot of "developers" would LOVE to get their hands on University Avenue during an "upper-middle-class customers" bubble.
But dammit, I don't want to see a bubble happen there. I shop there! I live near it!
-Katie
(P.S. I don't remember who I heard it from, but some investigative lib'rul type like me once said that the Ramsey County commissioners switched from the unanimously-recommended I-94 route to the University Route was, "It's 'cuz the developers said they couldn't put nothin' on '94!" So, if they heard something true, wherever they heard it, that corroborates the "city street land grab from the low-wealth and redistribution to the high-wealth" theory I described above and had previously just put together by reasoning.)
Have you noticed oil prices lately?
I promise they are not yet near their highest point.
In 15 years the "trendy" place to be will be where people can afford to transport themselves--along high quality rail transit lines accessible by bicycle and on foot. Businesses will locate where they are guaranteed that customers will have an affordable and predictable way to get to them--along high quality rail transit lines accessible by bicycle and on foot.
The neighborhoods along the Central Corridor in St. Paul have an opportunity to reinvent themselves in a sustainable way for the next century. Opposition to the public investment that can catalyze this is difficult to understand.
I disagree with you.
I disagree with you that 1) a general trend of "in the city" will mean "along any particular route and that 2) it is morally acceptable to "reinvent" one of the 2 last places low-wealth people (a wealth gap largely skin-color based, what's more!) can reliably turn income into wealth. (Lake street is the other.)
I guess we can arrive at calling ourselves "progressives" for different reasons, though, so I won't argue--I'll just say that I disagree.
It should go down Hennepin.
It should go down Hennepin. There is already more than enough room on the bridge from Downtown Minneapolis. Once you pass 8th St it is an area that could use the economic boost that the train will bring. Once you get across in to St. paul the train could turn down rice into DT St. Pail.
Rail transit is great for the local economy
It's getting old hearing the fear-mongering campaigns against LRT. University Avenue in St. Paul is currently the anti-thesis to transit-oriented contrary to the author's assertion. One need only note the auto-oriented big box development along the Midway creating a sea of autos to dodge between the public right of way and goods and services needed by the community.
Once again, I'll point folks to look at what LRT has done for the local economy in Portland Oregon. Minneapolitan filmmaker John Akre produced an episode of On Trnasit where he visits Portland and asks small business owners along the Yellow Line what they think about LRT:
On Transit Episode 30 >
The overwhelming response from small business owners: We love LRT and wouldn't have it any other way.
Those in opposition to the Central Corridor LRT are misinformed at best and disingenuously looking to prevent a much needed investment in our urban core at worst.
Regarding the (one line, the Blue line) in Chicago that (for only part of its way) follows a freeway, that was built years ago when construction costs were cheap enough to put high quality rail transit into undesirable real estate (freeway right of way). LRT on University will lead to much private investment along the corridor, adding to the tax base and allowing overall property taxes rates to remain the same or decrease while generating more revenue for the city which leads to more and better services for residents.
If we want strong communities we need a strong tax base to support schools, police and needed health and human services programs. Opposing LRT on Central Corridor would result in more people living, working, shopping and paying taxes in the suburbs while Minneapolis and St. Paul are slowly strangled by the flood of resources exiting our city coffers.
University IS transit-oriented.
The area between Snelling & Lexington is only one mile. Lexington to Rice is very transit-oriented. Plus, there are still lots of small stores owned by people who started with low wealth even sprinkled among and across the street from the Snelling-to-Lexington big boxes. People walk to those for food, hairstyles, clothes, etc. (Not to mention, they also get off the bus at the little streets that empty out across from the big boxes when shopping at the big boxes. The big boxes are used by a lot of bus riders. But I'm more focused on the non-big boxes.)
Please take a better look at the hundreds of tiny stores that don't get any significant car traffic. Look at how many people get off the bus and go to them. Look expecting to see them--if you open your eyes looking for them, you will notice them. Really.
Look we agree on the end
I am very much behind your goal of creating a sustainable local economy along the University Avenue corridor. By local I mean small locally owned businesses, not multi-national corporate big box retailers which currently dominate the Midway. I think you are mistaken in your analysis that LRT is a negative piece to the local economic development puzzle.
Look at how much space is devoted to moving and storing automobiles along University Avenue compared to the amount of space that is devoted to people (sidewalks, bikeways, plazas, public open space, etc.) This is why it's a fact that University Avenue is currently auto-oriented in its design and not transit-oriented. You are correct that there are a ton of people along the corridor who are transit dependent some by choice and some not by choice. This is why LRT (high quality transit) is needed on the Avenue along with wider sidewalks, space for bicycling and less room for moving and storing cars. I'm one of the choice transit dependents as I gave up the burden of my car years ago so I know the Avenue well.
The current design for University Avenue favors driving autos from suburban sub division to big box 1, to big box 2, to big box 3, before driving back to suburban subdivision of origin. What does this model do for small businesses trying to compete with multi-national corporations? It kills them and everyone suffers during the economic race to the bottom.
You mention Lake Street where I live. The worst parts of Lake Street are the suburbanized auto-oriented intersections near the freeways. Displacing much of the tangled mess of automobiles on University Avenue with LRT, bicyclists and pedestrians is exactly what the Avenue needs to be a thriving corridor and a sustainable local economy. Let's make it so.
I disagree with you that the
I disagree with you that the transportation organization of University Avenue is 1) very correlated to what transit use it ends up actually being filled with and 2) that small businesses are dying on account of big boxes down and across the street.
I believe that many (though not all--hardware stores don't fare so well) small, minority-owned businesses can compete with big boxes, but that BECAUSE small, upper-middle-class-person-owned businesses WILL NOT, in any significant numbers, MOVE IN unless small, minority-owned businesses number no more than a smattering, anything that entices small, upper-middle-class-person-owned businesses to move in MUST involve restructuring things in a way that makes it extremely difficult and inconvenient for low-wealth shoppers who support low-wealth owners to shop in the area.
Actually, not just
Actually, not just restructuring against people who would patronize low-wealth owners (such as making every-10-to-15-minutes transit no longer have the option of stopping at every block), but also restructuring directly against ownership by low-wealth owners (such as rent hikes that come along with high-wealth owners moving in in large numbers. Though that CAN be counteracted by subsidizing low-wealth owners' rent. But still, it's also a 2nd type of restructuring that is worth considering, just in case its fix doesn't happen. It would then be compounded with the fix that is NOT on the books for the 1st problem (which would be leaving the #16 running at its current frequency) and never will be, since leaving the #16 in place wouldn't help "look how many people ride the train!" propaganda after construction.)
Design of the built environment matters
I'm saying the current design of University Avenue is a driving-oriented design. You cannot argue with that. As population grows and the cost of driving (and running diesel powered buses continues to rise) more of the same would result in University Avenue, the surrounding neighborhoods and the existing small businesses on the Avenue all in gridlock choking on their own exhaust.
Redesigning the Avenue around high-capacity electric powered rail transit along with a larger pedestrian realm, buildings that respect the street, are built at a human scale and consist of a variety of uses (so people do not have to drive everywhere for everything), space for bicycles and more public open spaces to support community would result in a built environment where small owners and a local economy can thrive on an ongoing, sustainable basis.
Here's a quote about the importance of the built environment if you don't want to take my word for it:
“Of the man-made things, the works of engineering and architecture and town plan are the heaviest and biggest part of what we experience. They lie underneath, they loom around, as the prepared place of our activity. Economically, they have the greatest amount of past human labor frozen into them, as streets and highways, houses and bridges, and physical plant.
Against this background we do our work and strive towards our ideals, or just live out our habits; yet because it is background, it tends to become taken for granted and to be unnoticed.
A child accepts the man-made background itself as the inevitable nature of things; he does not realize that somebody once drew some lines on a piece of paper who might have drawn otherwise. But now, as engineer and architect once drew, people have to walk and live.”
~ Paul and Percival Goodman
Communitas, 1960
Matty, surely you know that
Matty, surely you know that the proposal that officials are trying to get funded right now doesn't include any space for bikes where cyclists can physically see what businesses are on University, right?
Right?
If not, please know that.
The project that officials are trying to get funded diverts bike riders off the University Avenue business corridor. 2 blocks off. The funds are not being used for a project that will allow bike riders to explore and see what is there.
If you want such a project, you might want to consider getting behind halting this one.............
Brilliant
Didn't even think of putting it down 94, but, now that you mention it, Duh!
There's a lot of misunderstanding going on here
With all due respect, I think readers and authors alike would do well to study up on Transit Oriented Development (TOD) as it's clear that folks don't have a good grasp of the concept. Here's a very good resource that should help:
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/static/twincitiestodtoolkit/index.html
Now I forgot to add my name
The previous post is from me.
Wheels o' commerce
Just found this discussion and I'm just curious if anyone has seen any real studies on the project's effects on University Ave. Right now I'm hearing a lot of fear, but not much in the way of details. It's a complicated issue, obviously, but at the moment, I'd lean toward believing that a lot of these businesses will thrive if they can make it through the construction. What worries me is the us vs. them mentality I'm seeing in some of these threads. Wealth generation requires redistribution of assets, and I'd imagine those suburban folks are a lot more likely to hop off the train and stop in at one of the restaurants lining University if they can turn right back around and hop on the train, rather than trying to figure out when the next bus that goes to the right place is coming.
So how 'bout it. Anyone got any hard numbers to tie to this argument? If you do, speak up and I can make my next post all about it.
What would you consider a "real study?"
Rich,
Before I ask this question, I would like to know what you would consider a "real study."
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the work of humanities and social science works that show how common it is for studies to be considered "real" or "scientific" by white, not-extremely-poor, male, heterosexual, and/or cisgendered "authorities" when actually, as the books/works demonstrate, those studies break at least one if not many of the parts of the scientific method in hideous, laughable ways. (The works point out that the common factor that seemed to lead to "authorities" legitimizing such studies as "real" or "scientific" was that the particular ways in which those studies ignored the scientific method led to the studies having conclusions which concur with beliefs that were mainstream among whites/not-extremely-poor-people/men/heterosexuals/cisgendered-people (whichever is/are most relevant to the conclusion/belief in question).)
.
So I guess...before I try to go figuring out an answer to your question...I really have to know...are you coming from the perspective I'd be coming from if I asked "real?"
That is, looking for studies that a critical analysis would show aren't breaking scientific method (or whatever other method--like following logic or something--is supposed to ensure the truest possible conclusions for that field) in ways that lead to "conclusions" that are actually unsubstantiated by the study (but happen to coincide with "mainstream" beliefs)?
Or, when you ask for "real" studies, are you looking for studies that have been approved as "real" or "legitimate" or "scientific" by people deemed "authorities" (no matter what an outsider with a good head for logic says about the true scientificness/legitimacy of the study's methods of reaching a conclusion are)?
I'll try to see what I can find for you, but as I said, knowing this would help.
What happens when people start getting real
Kat,
As much as I'm loathe to put aside class war, a real study would be one in which an expert of some sort conducted an objective study of the effects LRT would have on the area. An economist, a sociologist, someone who can speak to the subject with more expertise than just common sense and a high enough IQ to form a coherent opinion. And I'd guess neither of us qualifies to conduct one of those under those guidelines.
Now, seeing as how I work in public relations in addition to my blatherings at The Rake, I'm well aware of how studies and survey data can be skewed and twisted. But why don't we start by seeing the studies you view as valid and work from there?
http://www.rakemag.com/blogs/defenestrator
Rich, I will try to
Rich,
I will try to look...though because of time concerns, I'm allocating 99.999999% of my time on this to organizing and activism.
Anyway, if I understand you correctly, it sounds like you are indeed looking for #2. However, based on your positive word choice to describe #1 ("common sense and a high enough IQ to form a coherent opinion"), I do feel inspired about your belief in the value of "non-expert" yet "common sensical" looks at social issues.
And because I feel inspired, I do feel even more inclined to try to find something...but I have to say, I'm not sure I can do it while also trying to hit the streets and get the names of the thousands of Black, Brown, and otherwise oft-ignored people whose "just common sense" has led them to believe that this project will increase the wealth gap...against them and theirs. :-)
Happy First Post Also
And a great conversation!
Thank you!
Thank you!