Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[RailBaronYarr]

Honest question: do you think the opposition to transit from business owners is *mostly* to do with short-term impacts of construction or mostly to do with perceived long-term parking impacts, racism, fear of being priced out, fear of transit ruining the area, or any other issue (with varying levels of reasonable-ness)?

I'm not sure I can say what the right amount of money is to pay a company to help them during projects. They're a part of life; once every 10-15 years a street gets maintenance and once every ~40 years it gets totally torn up. Maybe we add a LRT somewhere in there (or in the case of University, during the scheduled bi-century reconstruct). That's unavoidable, I have to believe businesses have long-enough gaze to see it coming and plan for it. Heck, stores have to close themselves down to re-paint or have work done all the time. They also renovate and put signs on the tarped windows that say "Open During Construction!" because they know people might be otherwise turned off - should we also compensate them for that lost business? Obviously, a public project is different than one decided by the private company, so I can get behind programs to help businesses during construction. But I'll agree I find it... well, at least a little dubious that their customers simply won't visit them if it means their drive takes 2 minutes longer and they have to park around the corner. And, luckily, the Met Council even did that for the Green Line and will likely do so for Riverview (does MnDOT, btw? is this yet another cost put on transit budgets that roads don't see?).

So, if we're going to go talk to business owners opposed to LRT, it'd probably be about the other stuff, which I think is a far more difficult conversation.

[mulad]

My problem is that they're being in my face about it by putting up these posters. I didn't really have the same reaction to the lawsuits by MPR or UMN, for instance, since I just saw that as a negotiating tactic for getting more noise/vibration/electrical mitigation. I avoided Midway Books because they put big signs up in their windows and seemed to have a pretty bad attitude toward the denizens of the neighborhood anyway.

Like RBY said, this same sort of economic impact comes up whenever a street gets reconstructed, and we don't really see businesses organizing to say "Don't rebuild my street!"

[EOst]

we don't really see businesses organizing to say "Don't rebuild my street!"

I'm not sure about that. Maybe no one says "don't do it at all, it's fine," but everyone is concerned about making the impacts as minimal and as temporary for themselves as possible. If you chose a random business on any commercial corridor and asked whether they'd rather have a 6mo reconstruction for a minimally-improved street or a 1yr recon. for a wonder-street, I give you 50-50 chances at best that they'd choose the latter. And that's not an illogical choice, given the pressures that businesses face.

Heck, plenty of people have said that *here* about Nicollet Mall, that the disruption isn't worth the improvement. (Setting aside whether you believe it is an improvement.)

It's easy to be Enlightened here when we don't have a stake in it, but I also think it's perfectly plausible that W 7th with LRT shoehorned in the middle wouldn't be a good outcome for many of the small businesses on the route. Every business will have different reasons, and some of them will inevitably be invalid or racist or whatever. But I really can't fault them for making the choice that's better for their business.

[Mdcastle]

A few comments on Midway Books:

* Just because they don't like the neighborhood doesn't mean it's feasible for them to pack up and leave, just like it's not feasible to sell your house and buy a different one closer to your work every time you change jobs. You have all the closing costs, real estate agent fees, financing expenses, and moving expenses of switching houses times 100.

* I get the idea that Midway Books and Majors and Quinn are the two "flagship" used bookstores in the area. M&Q has better prices and a selection of new books, but Midway has a much better selection of used books. Midway's current location is in a central location, has off-street parking, and is near a freeway exit, things that make them attractive for people from all sides of the the metro to get to. M & Q is in a relatively central location, but you have to drive a substantial distance on surface streets to get there, and adding the cost of parking in the Calhoun Square ramp to the book you buy makes it rather expensive. I probably go to Midway Books once a month, and M & Q maybe two or three times a year.

* I've never seen the owners trash talking, but the lady does appear to be friendlier than the man.

* There's a sign on Midway Books saying that this is not a LRT shelter. If I owned it I'd not want people standing around that had no interest in my wares either.

[mulad]

we don't really see businesses organizing to say "Don't rebuild my street!"

I'm not sure about that. Maybe no one says "don't do it at all, it's fine"

This is exactly what I meant. The implication of this campaign is that the businesses don't want any sort of transit improvement in the West 7th corridor, hard stop. Punt the problem of handling any mode other than the car for another generation. Keep tearing down buildings for parking lots.

[Mdcastle]

Yes, that's really the issue. The businesses that are there presumably like the on-street parking, ease of getting to them via car, and economical land values that enable economical buildings and off-street parking. To get anything done we need either provide evidence that things will be better for them, or just overrule them and say that although things will not be better for them, this is the way it's going to happen for the greater good of the region. Understandably as owners of a business they think they know more about what's good for their business than random people on the internet, or even city planners. Dismissing their arguments without providing hard evidence and then not doing anything when they continue to object isn't getting anything productive done.

My opinion on what needs to happen is we need to build light rail on dedicated ROW. Whether it goes down 7th over the objections of the businesses, or somewhere else I don't have strong opinions.

[UrsusUrbanicus]

* There's a sign on Midway Books saying that this is not a LRT shelter. If I owned it I'd not want people standing around that had no interest in my wares either.

Haven't been through there in a while. Where is the sign located / which physical area(s) does it address? If it's talking about, say, a doorframe area, then while the expression is a bit brusque, at least it's addressing something that's clearly private property. But if it's an attempt to dissuade transit riders from even being present in the sidewalk area, it's extremely toxic from an urbanism standpoint. How can we have communities that are healthy -- economically, socially, or otherwise -- when we're so skeptical of our fellow citizens that we find their mere presence in the public realm off-putting? You're too poor / black / ___ to be here, or no one should be here -- is this the mindset of a city or a citadel?

[Mdcastle]

It says "Please No Bus Waiting", taped to the front door, right below a sign "No Kids Without a Parent Present". I always assumed it was meant to apply to the store only rather than to try assert authority over the sidewalk.

[RailBaronYarr]

Yes, that's really the issue. The businesses that are there presumably like the on-street parking, ease of getting to them via car, and economical land values that enable economical buildings and off-street parking. To get anything done we need either provide evidence that things will be better for them, or just overrule them and say that although things will not be better for them, this is the way it's going to happen for the greater good of the region. Understandably as owners of a business they think they know more about what's good for their business than random people on the internet, or even city planners. Dismissing their arguments without providing hard evidence and then not doing anything when they continue to object isn't getting anything productive done.

What makes you think any evidence provided will be accepted? Countless studies on bike lanes or cycle tracks have been shown to business owners (ex. Cleveland Ave in St Paul) showing neutral or positive outcomes, and they choose to not believe it (for whatever reason: study is from another city, the situation is different, etc etc). It's also worth pointing out that the public should also consider not only the good of the city (or region) relative to individual properties, but also the good of the city (or region) over time. People die, businesses naturally come and go. I'm not saying we should give zero craps about the real people who may suffer if their business closes (which is why we are already spending money mitigating issues!!), but it's *very* unlikely 90% or more of these businesses (and residents) will be here in 30? 50? years regardless of if LRT is built or not. Current business owners' input is one of many, many considerations that need to be weighed. Finally, while we have fun typing on the internet here and may be dismissive, we're not really the people who matter. Project staff/Met Council/City of St Paul are certainly *not* being dismissive to concerns, while the business owners are the ones who have drawn a pretty hard line opposing LRT. So, I dunno.

[EOst]

This is exactly what I meant. The implication of this campaign is that the businesses don't want any sort of transit improvement in the West 7th corridor, hard stop. Punt the problem of handling any mode other than the car for another generation. Keep tearing down buildings for parking lots.

Apparently I haven't actually seen the signs you're referring to. Is it still this one? That sign doesn't say anything about opposition to something like aBRT.

It says "Please No Bus Waiting", taped to the front door, right below a sign "No Kids Without a Parent Present". I always assumed it was meant to apply to the store only rather than to try assert authority over the sidewalk.

This is what I thought as well.

What makes you think any evidence provided will be accepted? Countless studies on bike lanes or cycle tracks have been shown to business owners (ex. Cleveland Ave in St Paul) showing neutral or positive outcomes, and they choose to not believe it (for whatever reason: study is from another city, the situation is different, etc etc).

I don't know. As much as I love to cite those studies myself, there are real differences between the Twin Cities and, say, Portland or Seattle or even Denver that could legitimately render them invalid. I think it would be much harder to dispute if it were a study of, say, Minneapolis. Obviously some people will never change their mind anyway, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.

It's also worth pointing out that the public should also consider not only the good of the city (or region) relative to individual properties, but also the good of the city (or region) over time. People die, businesses naturally come and go. I'm not saying we should give zero craps about the real people who may suffer if their business closes (which is why we are already spending money mitigating issues!!), but it's *very* unlikely 90% or more of these businesses (and residents) will be here in 30? 50? years regardless of if LRT is built or not. Current business owners' input is one of many, many considerations that need to be weighed.

I'm not entirely sold on the merits of parachuting into a neighborhood and telling them what's best for them whether they like it or not. But I know that's not really what you're saying.

[MNdible]

I don't know. As much as I love to cite those studies myself, there are real differences between the Twin Cities and, say, Portland or Seattle or even Denver that could legitimately render them invalid. I think it would be much harder to dispute if it were a study of, say, Minneapolis. Obviously some people will never change their mind anyway, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.

In the same way that I'm suspicious of studies that are funded by the Koch Brothers and remarkably show that "conservative policies benefit everyone!", I'm suspicious of most of the studies that get cited around here.

[RailBaronYarr]

Sure, people are going to believe whatever study confirms their previously-held beliefs, mostly. I find it hard to believe bike lanes will kill business or property values when I look around the country and world and see differently, so yeah I believe studies, even if they're not peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal somewhere. I think Minneapolis' mode share despite our harsh winters, which rivals or exceeds even the Seattles and Denvers and Portlands of the country, supports that. But yeah, there are definitely no pragmatists on this board that totally tout ridership numbers from a study claiming 1,000+ daily boardings in Kenwood because they really think that particular line is good for the region/city.

[MNdible]

But yeah, there are definitely no pragmatists on this board that totally tout ridership numbers from a study claiming 1,000+ daily boardings in Kenwood because they really think that particular line is good for the region/city.

Is this a cleverly veiled dis? For the record, while I fully support SWLRT, and I further supported the Kenilworth alignment as the more achievable routing, I don't believe that I ever once cited the published ridership numbers as part of my argument.

[David Greene]

But yeah, there are definitely no pragmatists on this board that totally tout ridership numbers from a study claiming 1,000+ daily boardings in Kenwood because they really think that particular line is good for the region/city.

Is this a cleverly veiled dis? For the record, while I fully support SWLRT, and I further supported the Kenilworth alignment as the more achievable routing, I don't believe that I ever once cited the published ridership numbers as part of my argument.

It's a dis at me.

[MNdible]

No, I think they usually reserve the ugly "pragmatist" slur for me.

[amiller92]

there are real differences between the Twin Cities and, say, Portland or Seattle or even Denver that could legitimately render them invalid.

Maybe. I mean. We're flatter than all three, so that should mean we'll get even more biking! And we're drier than Portland and Seattle, so still more! But then we're colder, so let's just through them all out.

Anyway, yeah, people don't really like evidence that conflicts with their priors.

ETA: For what it's worth, I thought it was a dis at David too.

[RailBaronYarr]

By god, can't a person be a little salty around here? It was definitely a clearly veiled comment at MNdible, but not meant to be ugly. I guess I consider myself on the more pragmatic side of things (neither a transit sycophant nor a car-lover or a defender of the status quo), even if I'll frequently disagree with folks here.

Aaaaaanyway. My whole point was that business opposition to construction is one small part of opposition to this (and other) project(s). And even when talking short-term impacts, the magnitude, even if non-zero, is likely overstated (is anyone asking businesses to CITE YOUR SOURCES PLZ) ***and*** the government has already shown it's capable of helping mitigate that. So, while it's important, the other objections/challenges to Riverview are far more important in my opinion.

[MNdible]

Oh, and I was just being melodramatic in my response. No harm, no foul.

Regarding the issue specifically, if you're a business that thrives on support from the immediate neighborhood, you're probably looking at a little bump in the road during construction, and then a better situation going forward. If you're a business that needs to draw from a larger market area, the changes could be a long-term loser for you. Studies probably don't do a good job looking at that distinction:

"Look, another coffee shop just opened up where that plumbing supply store used to be! This area is thriving!"

[nate]

I dunno, I wonder if the businesses aren't right, in this case.

University Ave shows that in a 120' ROW, you can fit LRT, drive/parking lanes, turn lanes and amenities like planter walls and make a decent streetscape. But 7th is an 80' ROW There are serious compromises required to fit LRT that may leave the street worse off, for all the pain of construction.

Here's a free idea: tunnel beginning at 5th/Cedar follows 5th Street, goes under Rice Park, and uses the existing ramp at Kellogg in front of the Science Museum to get down the bluff. I calculate ~2000' of tunnel to achieve this. Once at the bottom of the bluff, a station can be placed within a couple blocks of the densest part of 7th. If the Ford Spur is followed, another station can be placed within a couple blocks of 7th/Randolph - the second densest and most TOD-ready node of the street.

Riverview Concept by nathan.roisen, on Flickr

[Silophant]

I wonder if the best way to get an LRT tunnel in Minneapolis wouldn't be to build one in St. Paul and just let the intercity rivalry take it from there.