Slow train coming? A crash course on the Central Corridor

- Torleif Sorenson

For the moment, government policy-makers, downtown business interests, urban planners and “smart growth” advocates are succeeding in their plans for a Central Corridor light rail transit (LRT) line on University Ave. between Minneapolis and St. Paul. But do citizens and local merchants want light rail? Is light rail transit the answer to traffic congestion in the Twin Cities? Is it affordable or cost-effective? In the first place, do the problems light rail intends to solve even exist?

In a word, no.

Two-dozen American metropolitan areas have installed light rail at the behest of politicians, their campaign contributors, politically liberal organizations and “smart growth” advocates. But policy studies and analyses show that, almost universally, light rail never achieves what it promises, with tremendous cost to taxpayers. Statistics from these American cities serve to warn Minnesotans that a Central Corridor train is likely to reduce “urban livability” along University Ave.

The vision

The oft-repeated idea from light rail advocates is that the trains will attract commuters who refuse to ride buses or will otherwise not use public transportation. Their vision is to promote public transport ridership, discourage the use of automobiles, reduce traffic congestion and counteract global warming. In this case, the Central Corridor LRT would run from downtown Minneapolis via Washington Ave., through the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities and on University Ave. to downtown St. Paul. In addition, the Central Corridor LRT is supposed “to connect the two downtowns.”

But downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul are already connected. Interstate 94 and the adjacent University Ave., amongst others, support several Metro Transit bus routes; the 16 and 50 lines serve riders along University Ave. and the I-94 express bus serves both regular and rush-hour commuters needing to avoid frequent stops. I-94 and University are the primary arteries between the downtowns. When I-94 becomes congested University becomes even more important in carrying residential, commercial, industrial, law enforcement and emergency response traffic.

On the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis, increased ridership has done nothing to reduce congestion on Interstate 35W and Cedar Ave. In fact, the Hiawatha Line’s “at-grade” street crossings (meant to contain construction costs) actually cause more traffic congestion – not only on the east-west streets that cross the Hiawatha Line, but also on Hiawatha Ave. itself. This is because of a 1999 Federal Transit Administration rule requiring all new light-rail construction to have traffic signal-priority for trains, to “give an advantage to transit.” Local news reports too numerous to list in this article have documented the resulting 20-minute-plus delays for drivers on Hiawatha Ave.

The Central Corridor LRT plan is designed to displace over 25,000 vehicles daily, eliminate most of the storefront parking in front of restaurants and businesses and reduce left-turn availability along University Ave. That automotive traffic is likely to move onto nearby east-west residential streets such as Minnehaha, Thomas, Marshall, Selby and Summit Ave., as well as I-94.

With the Hiawatha Line as a current example, light rail on University Ave. is likely to benefit only downtown business owners and residents, while having a deleterious effect on commuters, residents, shoppers and business owners along and adjacent to University Ave.

Getting out

Tom Stransky is a specialist in rare and antiquarian books and is owner of Midway Books at the corner of Snelling and University. The City of St. Paul increased his property taxes 15% in 2007 specifically because of the Central Corridor plans and the new CVS drugstore across the street from his store. Stransky says he is not being overtly targeted by the City of St. Paul, but with reduced storefront parking, higher property taxes and decades-old neglect of University Ave., “a lot of my regular customers and other small businesses I support have moved out of the area.”

Like political and economic analysts, Stransky understands why politicians are pushing light rail instead of modifying bus routes or even implementing bus-rapid transit: “The car gave people mobility and freedom and helped them escape high-crime areas and move to the suburbs.” As Stransky points out, the City of St. Paul’s actions point increasingly toward redevelopment of University Ave. through so-called “transit-oriented development” and the gentrification that destroyed the Rondo Ave. neighborhood nearly 50 years ago.

Urban livability

Over the last several years, the Independence Institute’s Center for the American Dream in Golden, Colorado exhaustively analyzed 23 US areas with light rail transit, for the purpose of quantifying and measuring urban livability. While rail transit in New York makes sense, the study concluded, “rail transit reduced the livability of every urban area that has it. This may come as a surprise to those who think rail transit plays a vital role in such urban areas as Chicago and Washington. In fact, transit is declining in importance in both regions and the high cost of rail transit may be contributing to that decline.”

Corroborating the Independence Institute’s research is a study from Thomas Garrett of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that analyzed economic development and policy involving light rail transit. Says Garrett in exploring transit-oriented development (TOD), “although light rail may help attract business, the total societal benefit from these businesses is less than if subsidized light rail was not used as a tool to promote growth.” In the same breath, Garrett writes, “light rail can help guide growth, but it rarely leads to sustainable growth.”

Counting the cost

The Hiawatha Line was supposed to cost about $400 million but, when it opened on June 26, 2004, the actual toll was $715 million. The Central Corridor LRT had been estimated to cost $840 million, is currently at $909 million, and will likely soar well over $1 billion. Garrett says that while all private and public transportation systems require subsidies from taxes and from federal and state grants, passenger fares cover less than half of LRT operating expenses in St. Louis, Sacramento and Portland.

The Metro Transit Web site previously stated that passenger fares covered about 30% of the operating costs of the Hiawatha Line but this information has since been removed. For buses the percentage is typically higher.

But neither the staggering costs nor the current economic downturn have stopped Minnesota Legislature from marching ahead. In February, they voted to override Gov. Pawlenty’s veto of a $6.6 billion transportation bill and, in another political firefight with the governor, the legislature ousted lieutenant governor Carol Molnau from her post as the state’s transportation commissioner. That same week, the Metropolitan Council voted to move ahead with the Central Corridor LRT plans and to increase the sales tax in the metropolitan area.

Metro Transit could dictate higher fares for their light rail lines but, as Garrett explains, “raising fares would probably cause a reduction in the number of riders, which could result in lower overall fare revenue,” which in turn would require increased taxes and subsidies to maintain service. Around University Ave. in St. Paul, where a disproportionate number of low-income residents live, any significant fare increase would be very likely to reduce ridership.

A crash course

The planned Central Corridor train is likely to make traffic on St. Paul’s major north-south arteries a nightmare, particularly on Raymond, Fairview, Snelling, Lexington, Dale and Rice streets. And based on the accidents on the Hiawatha Line, including five crashes resulting in fatalities, University Ave. will possibly become very dangerous and congested. The Hiawatha Line’s crashes are not an aberration; they reflect the inherent danger and flaws of at-grade crossings.

In Houston, the METROrail Red Line earned the nicknames “Wham-Bam-Tram” and “Streetcar Named Disaster” for its alarming rate of car-train crashes – 62 in the first year of operation alone. Houston authorities are hoping to reduce the number of crashes for fiscal year 2008 to 28.

In Los Angeles, where the infamous Metro Blue Line runs between downtown and Long Beach through high-density areas like Watts, Compton and Carson, the damage and body count are more frightening. Since 1990, more than 80 people have been killed in roughly 800 accidents along the Blue Line.

And in a statistic with dark foreboding for Minnesotans forced to ride Metro Transit after dark, crime on the Blue Line has actually risen in the past several years. Former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan has been quoted as saying, “I wish we had never started it,” referring to the light rail system.

As a result, ordinary residents like Terry Arnold are avoiding light rail. Arnold, a history teacher in Orange County, used to board the Blue Line in Long Beach to attend Los Angeles Kings games at Staples Center. But light rail proved to be very slow; “there are too many stations along the Blue Line. The trains stop every two or three blocks! At some point, I think: ‘Gee, only 23 more stops until we get downtown, hooray!’”

Los Angeles is well known for traffic congestion, but Arnold says, “we soon learned that the dispersion of parking lots (around Staples Center) allows for a much quicker getaway than there was at the Forum (in Inglewood), so we now always drive to the games.”

Portland, Ore. is often cited as the model for cities with light rail transit. As the Independence Institute’s Randal O’Toole points out, “from a ridership point of view – that is, ignoring cost – this attention appears well-deserved.”

But the problem was that Portland accomplished their increased light rail passenger miles by raising fares and slashing bus service to cover the stunning cost overruns. What was originally supposed to cost $240 million skyrocketed to almost $1 billion.

Portland citizens actually voted in a 1998 not to increase their property taxes to cover more light rail lines, mirroring similar votes statewide in 1996 and votes in neighboring Vancouver, Wash. in 1995. But like the Metropolitan Council here in Minnesota, local politicians built the lines anyway by acquiring funds in ways that did not require voter approval. According to the Independence Institute, the LRT line that opened in 2004 is actually carrying fewer riders than the bus route that it replaced.

End of the line?

Minnesotans voted down funding for the study of light rail transit in the 1980s, but the Metropolitan Council and the state legislature still find ways to side-step voters’ wishes, first in spending millions of dollars planning light rail, then spending almost double the original estimate in constructing the Hiawatha Line.

Bicyclists, commuters in wheelchairs and others who have difficulty climbing the steps of a bus, feel one of the small advantages of the light rail system; the platforms at Hiawatha stations are obviously an improvement.

But the frustration for the overwhelming majority of residents who have voiced their opposition to light rail is growing. Politicians, especially on the Metropolitan Council, appear to be ignoring the wishes of the residents, business owners and employees along University Ave., including the people who lived through the devastation of the Rondo neighborhood when I-94 was built decades ago.

Will voters eventually be allowed to choose the fate of trains on University Ave.? It appears now that only the politicians will get to decide. Given their recent votes, tax increases and plans for “transit-oriented development,” politicians may be headed for a “crash course” on the Central Corridor.