Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

I hadn't really ever thought about this, but I like the idea of extending the 2. That would make this station a pretty natural transfer point for a lot of trips, and may help justify the ridership number that many people are questioning for this station. Does anyone know if route extensions / transfers were included in the ridership analysis for the 21st St Station?

I'm not absolutely sure but I'd guess not. I believe the models have to account for what is in approved plans, not some speculative development or extension of service.

The Harrison folks were upset that the BCV master plan wasn't included to drive ridership at Van White, even though it's in the Minneapolis comprehensive plan. I'm not sure how that works, exactly. So those Van White numbers are also lower than they would/will be.

Maybe they can only include developments actually approved by the city?

[Tcmetro]

I've always thought the best thing to do would be to eliminate the 2, extend the 67 over to 21st (and improve service to every 10 minutes from 21st to Raymond), swap the ends of the 4 and 22, creating 2 crosstown lines (N-S Lyndale, Johnson-Cedar), and have the 6 serve SE and the U of M better.

Wishful thinking, I know.

[twincitizen]

F&C's update on this catastrophe: http://finance-commerce.com/2013/08/lrt ... r-go-over/

[FISHMANPET]

You can take the 2 out of my cold dead hands, I think it's current route, while a little slow, is really good at bringing people to and from campus from areas that I think have pretty heavy student presence.

[exiled_antipodean]

I can see the emotional reasons (safety, schools!) that SLP doesn't want the re-route, but do they really have a point? It seems like people have accepted that unlikely events (major disasters from freight derailments) justify co-location.

[woofner]

Does anyone know if route extensions / transfers were included in the ridership analysis for the 21st St Station?

They assumed a slight increase in peak frequency for the 25, and I think a slight detour to stop directly at the station instead of a half-block away. This explanation has never satisfied my mind, though, because I don't see why someone in Lowry Hill would take a 25 to 21st St but not a Hennepin bus to 28th St to go to Eden Prairie. If you're assuming people would transfer downtown, it would 1) be bonkers to take a westbound 25 to 21st St station to go downtown, and 2) be a vastly greater capture area from the Uptown stations than from that little corner of St Louis Park served by the 25.

[David Greene]

I can see the emotional reasons (safety, schools!) that SLP doesn't want the re-route, but do they really have a point? It seems like people have accepted that unlikely events (major disasters from freight derailments) justify co-location.

What sold it for me is when the railroad demanded a redesign of the relocation, all of a sudden many houses and businesses in SLP would be destroyed. I am not willing to take people's homes and businesses when we have acceptable colocation solutions that do not take any properties.

[MNdible]

Looking at slide 18 from the presentation, is it just me or does the LRT portion of the bridge over the channel seem much, much wider than it needs to be?

[RailBaronYarr]

What sold it for me is when the railroad demanded a redesign of the relocation, all of a sudden many houses and businesses in SLP would be destroyed. I am not willing to take people's homes and businesses when we have acceptable colocation solutions that do not take any properties.

When the difference is ~$100m, the discussion needs to be had.

[Ubermoose]

I can see the emotional reasons (safety, schools!) that SLP doesn't want the re-route, but do they really have a point? It seems like people have accepted that unlikely events (major disasters from freight derailments) justify co-location.

What sold it for me is when the railroad demanded a redesign of the relocation, all of a sudden many houses and businesses in SLP would be destroyed. I am not willing to take people's homes and businesses when we have acceptable colocation solutions that do not take any properties.

And I think that the noise pollution from putting a freight train 2 stories above an existing neighborhood and near schools is underestimated.
There are the very real safety concerns about the over 2000 students, many of whom walk to and from the 3 schools, that will cross over the tracks every day.
There is also the cost of relocation. It is cheaper to keep it all in the existing corridor, plain and simple.

[seanrichardryan]

If the train is on a 20' berm, they can use underpasses. NO need for the little darlin's to traverse those dangerous tracks at all.

[woofner]

You can take the 2 out of my cold dead hands, I think it's current route, while a little slow, is really good at bringing people to and from campus from areas that I think have pretty heavy student presence.

How about if the 22 had a frequency matching the 2? How about if, alternately, rather than proceeding directly down Johnson & 10th and over to Cedar, the 22 had a detour through the East Bank similar to the current route of the 2? Basically I'm asking is the one-seat ride from Uptown important or is the East Bank coverage important?

[twincitizen]

^Let's not get too into that in this thread. I had been meaning to start a dedicated thread for Southwest LRT related bus route changes, but never got around to it.

[talindsay]

I can see the emotional reasons (safety, schools!) that SLP doesn't want the re-route, but do they really have a point? It seems like people have accepted that unlikely events (major disasters from freight derailments) justify co-location.

THIS. Exactly.

[David Greene]

What sold it for me is when the railroad demanded a redesign of the relocation, all of a sudden many houses and businesses in SLP would be destroyed. I am not willing to take people's homes and businesses when we have acceptable colocation solutions that do not take any properties.

When the difference is ~$100m, the discussion needs to be had.

It's at least ~$50m more to relocate than colocate with a shallow tunnel. I don't see how relocation is better under any realistic scenario.

[David Greene]

Peter McLaughlin made an interesting comment at yesterday's CMC meeting. He suggested that since we can't add all of the requested goodies to the line and have it pass CTIB, we should consider setting up an organizing like the Central Corridor Funders' Collaborative to pay for some of the improvements. Earlier in the meeting, the CTIB rep asked Chair Haigh if Met Council would have a grant request dollar amount at the next meeting. Chair Haigh said they wouldn't have a dollar amount, but a rough percentage of the project budget they'd be requesting.

Since statue says (I think) that CTIB funds 30% of projects, perhaps the Met Council is already thinking about finding other funding sources for some of the extras. I hope so. That model worked pretty well on Central.

[Anondson]

You know, maybe all the goodies should be funded by special bonds paid through a TIF-like district around each station that a goodie is asked for. Then development around the stations end up paying for the goodies and the cities demanding the goodies have an incentive to get significant transit oriented density along the line to get the bonds paid for.

The heavier the development at particular stations along the line, the more goodies and the more expensive goodies can get built.

[David Greene]

You know, maybe all the goodies should be funded by special bonds paid through a TIF-like district around each station that a goodie is asked for. Then development around the stations end up paying for the goodies and the cities demanding the goodies have an incentive to get significant transit oriented density along the line to get the bonds paid for.

The heavier the development at particular stations along the line, the more goodies and the more expensive goodies can get built.

Sounds fine to me!

Some of the changes requested really do make sense but others really should not be part of the project and a TIF district makes sense.

[the kid]

At the (considerable) risk of getting hammered again by some of the nice people on this board, doesn't the least expensive, simplest, most acceptable option seem like co-locating freight and LRT, skipping any tunnels, and relocating the bike path???

[David Greene]

At the (considerable) risk of getting hammered again by some of the nice people on this board, doesn't the least expensive, simplest, most acceptable option seem like co-locating freight and LRT, skipping any tunnels, and relocating the bike path???

All things being equal, yes. I would certainly support that. But Minneapolis will not. I think probably the very least they'll go for is a shorter shallow tunnel only south of Cedar Lake Pkwy. Even that is shaky at the moment.

All speculation on my part, of course, but I don't see a way Minneapolis supports all three at grade throughout the corridor. They've basically backed themselves into a corner by drawing lines in the sand and making promises to residents.