Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

The Trackage Rights Agreement can be found here.
On page 10 is the following:

5.3. TCW and Soo will vacate all use of, and permanently terminate all rights to use, the
Rail Corridor no later than thirty (30) days after a new connection between the Soo Hopkins line
(TCW's current operating route) and the former Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern line in St.
Louis Park (MNS connection), and between the MNS and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway (BNSF connection) becomes operational, or at such time as any other feasible alternative
to use of the Rail Corridor satisfactory to TCW becomes available and is operational. The MNS
connection and the BNSF connection are shown on Exhibit D attached to this Agreement.

A couple key words in there that I see: 'becomes operational', 'satisfactory', and ' available and is operational'.

Yep, that makes things a lot clearer. Thanks Panda! Looks like indeed the reroute is not a feasible option.

[David Greene]

Why don't we consolidate freight in Kenilworth and route SWLRT through SLP. Everyone wins!

I could get behind that if Midtown were extended to Louisiana.

I don't know that SLP would go for it because it would likely result in a lot of takings.

FWIW, I could even get behind 3C *if* new ridership studies justified it AND Minneapolis committed to a streetcar or other rail in Kenilworth. My bet is that would never happen because a) there is no money for streetcars and b) CIDNA/Kenwood would still fight colocation.

Also both these options are a decade away and I don't think we can afford to wait that long.

[RailBaronYarr]

FWIW, I could even get behind 3C *if* new ridership studies justified it AND Minneapolis committed to a streetcar or other rail in Kenilworth. My bet is that would never happen because a) there is no money for streetcars and b) CIDNA/Kenwood would still fight colocation.

Wouldn't this fit into the triage plan outlined by mattaudio? https://streets.mn/2014/02/11/southwest-lrt-plan/ Build the SWLRT now, saving money by single tracking in Kenilworth (no tunnel, no freight re-location, no 21st St, no takings). Tracks built so a streetcar with ~10 minute headways could be run in the future straight to [5th/Nicollet or Interchange or VW depending on need] from W Lake. I think the boom in housing around Hennepin & Lyndale would more than likely justify the ridership, particularly if this retrofit is done 10 years out (after more construction).

[Sara Bergen]

(as an aside, I also asked about bonding re SWLRT and what our reps are doing to counteract Dibble and Hornstein, and I thought the response to these questions were pretty good).

What was their response on this? Probably should move that to the SWLRT thread.

(as an aside, I also asked about bonding re SWLRT and what our reps are doing to counteract Dibble and Hornstein, and I thought the response to these questions were pretty good).

What was their response on this? Probably should move that to the SWLRT thread.

It's on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnUvzxKh-5A

This post is from the sunday liquor sales thread. The video has Latz, Winkler, and Simon responding to SWLRT questions re involvement in the ongoing decision process and bonding for the swlrt

[David Greene]

Wouldn't this fit into the triage plan outlined by mattaudio?

No, not at all. Matt's plan is to route to West End, not to Eden Prairie.

Plus Matt's plan doesn't solve a fundamental problem: at-grade colocation. It's not a realistic plan.

[RailBaronYarr]

Wouldn't this fit into the triage plan outlined by mattaudio?

No, not at all. Matt's plan is to route to West End, not to Eden Prairie.

Plus Matt's plan doesn't solve a fundamental problem: at-grade colocation. It's not a realistic plan.

Matt's plan builds SWLRT out to EP, just like the current plan. If you'd be fine with 3C (assuming 1 not the interlined 2 version) if ridership justified it, why would it matter what eventually would/could head out to West End? You make a fair criticism that the plan as laid out doesn't actually discuss the trickiest part of at-grade co-location, section B (which currently has a 49' trail/freight ROW). Without knowing specific curve space requirements between a freight and LRT track, it seems this could be done by acquiring just ~12-13' of ROW from the townhomes:


SectionBB_Co-Location_Single Track by RailBaronYarr, on Flickr

The plan for co-locating all 3 at grade used those trail widths, as well as distance to the eastern property line and LRT track. Like I said, I don't know if the distance to the freight rail is acceptable, and obviously a freight train 12-13' closer isn't ideal for townhome owners, but it wouldn't be the first rail line that close to homes and it avoids having to destroy them (while giving them added mobility 1,000-1,300 feet to the south in the W Lake station). I dunno, thoughts?

[mattaudio]

Anyone heard about this shallow-deep-shallow plan the Park Board is going to push for?

[Silophant]

What, three tunnels? Is the park board going to pay for it?

[mattaudio]

http://minneapolisparksmn.iqm2.com/Citi ... eep;tunnel;

[garfield]

In all seriousness, what is the end game here? It seems that so many different parties (cities, neighborhood, corporations) want so many different things, and with each new thing it gets more ridiculous and more expensive.

I'm not sure if I agree in the idea of the Met Council (the whole taxation without representation thing...), but since we have the Met Council, its role should be to push an agenda. Pick something and stick with it. With each new "proposal," people are getting turned off by the idea of this line in general. At this point, I have no idea what is truly the best solution, or if there even is a good option that is currently being discussed.

[Mdcastle]

Not in my opinion. The three that make the most sense to me are 1) Buying out the townhouses, 2) Elevating the bike trail, or 3) moving the bike trail (if it could be built to satisfy the serious "spandex & helmet" type riders as well as the " casual jaunt around the lakes" type. I'm not familiar with the area so I don't know if it could or couldn't). These are the 3 that won't happen for political reasons.

I don't like the met council, either, but it's' more their anti-suburb stance than the fact that their not elected, although the two are probably related.

[HiawathaGuy]

I think people often forget what Met Council has enabled the Twin Cities to be over the years... I didn't grow up here. I moved here after college. I can assure you, that even with Met Council being somewhat imperfect, it is WAY better than most any other Midwestern Metro in regards to planning, growth, etc.

To say that it's taxation without representation is an interesting take. Since we all have Council members dedicated for where we live. They just aren't elected by us, but rather selected by the governor. I'm not sure that the statement "taxation without representation" really qualifies in that case. Maybe I'm wrong.

Regardless, I would much rather have a Met Council, than county boards deciding what they each want to do - without care of their neighboring counties or the metro as a whole. Which frankly, happens in a lot of other metro areas in the US.

[VAStationDude]

The met council certainly doesn't serve the city at the expense of the suburbs. Minneapolis and Saint Paul, who don't need new infrastructure grow, pay the same sewer rates as far flung burbs like Waconia and Lakeville.

[Silophant]

I feel like if the Met Council really had an anti-suburb stance, they wouldn't be planning two massively expensive LRT lines that mostly skip the core city in order to better serve second-ring suburbs.

[NickP]

I don't like the met council, either, but it's' more their anti-suburb stance than the fact that their not elected, although the two are probably related.

MDcastle, what actions have the met council taken for you to think they are anti-suburb? I mean this as a actual question, not as a snide remark. Hope to hear from you

[Mdcastle]

Admittedly I don't know a whole lot about what exactly they do, and probably the latest transportation plan reflects the reality of the funding situation rather than pushing a political agenda. But my impression comes from having an urban growth boundary, which while isn't totally unique to the Twin Cities isn't the norm, and that usually when there's a tiff between the met council and a local agency it's usually one of the suburbs- Lake Elmo and Scott County had highly publicized disagreements, and Ramsey County and the local agencies keep complaining the transportation plan is making it difficult to get funding for the Armstrong / US 10 interchange.

[mplsjaromir]

Ramsey County and the local agencies keep complaining the transportation plan is making it difficult to get funding for the Armstrong / US 10 interchange.

*Anoka County - City of Ramsey

[David Greene]

Wouldn't this fit into the triage plan outlined by mattaudio?

No, not at all. Matt's plan is to route to West End, not to Eden Prairie.

Plus Matt's plan doesn't solve a fundamental problem: at-grade colocation. It's not a realistic plan.

Matt's plan builds SWLRT out to EP, just like the current plan.

Sorry, I meant that the rail through Kenilworth would be redirected to West End. At least that's how I understand it.

You make a fair criticism that the plan as laid out doesn't actually discuss the trickiest part of at-grade co-location, section B (which currently has a 49' trail/freight ROW).

Again, I think you're making a wrong assumption. The pinch point is not the issue. Freight in Kenilworth is the issue. That's the *only* reason we're proposing a north tunnel at all. People want the freight gone. Any plan with at-grade colocation is a total non-starter. The number of tracks or takings matters not a bit.

Of course, I'm speaking of one opposition group. There are others opposed to any LRT in Kenilworth. Another group likes LRT in Kenilworth and doesn't really care about freight. A fourth (likely largest) group doesn't really care at all what happens.

[David Greene]

In all seriousness, what is the end game here? It seems that so many different parties (cities, neighborhood, corporations) want so many different things, and with each new thing it gets more ridiculous and more expensive.

I'm not sure if I agree in the idea of the Met Council (the whole taxation without representation thing...), but since we have the Met Council, its role should be to push an agenda. Pick something and stick with it.

That is what is happening. There really isn't anything new here. These kinds of controversies come up all the time. Central went through the same pains. This is just getting more air time, probably because of the wealth involved and also frankly because more white people are familiar with the area.

The Met Council will make a decision. Then there will be a long process to get the cities on board. This is how the process works.

From time to time I get a little frustrated too. But then I step back, take a deep breath and remember that there really isn't anything happening here that hasn't happened elsewhere before.

[mattaudio]

Central went through the same pains.

True, but people worked through the pains because nearly everyone saw what an asset the line would be. That's not the case with SWLRT. As chef said, "it is a line without a popular constituency"