Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
Archiapolis
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 768
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Archiapolis » April 1st, 2014, 1:26 pm

Which is not the choice at all. But you all know that.
Remember, this is YOUR position and not everyone agrees with you on this point. Some would say that if this situation had to be summed up in one succinct sentence this would a good way to do so.
Likewise, SOME would agree with you. I'm simply pointing out that this is a complex project and simplifying it to one issue is misleading and counterproductive. It is not possible to sum up the project in one sentence.
I will grant you that it is complex but... I wonder if I find the statement to ring with truth because juxtaposing these two ideas aligns with my opinion. I think it IS valuable to critically examine this transit line in this fashion where you do not. I have challenged you to compare the aerials of uptown and the aerials of "the overpasses" and make an argument about density and the two alignments and from what I've seen, you haven't taken it up. If you have a link to a post, I'd love to see it.

I have allowed that the north side needs transit. I've even go so far as to say, ditch SWLRT and do Bottineau (provided those flaws can be worked out better than these) first. I am aware that this is a "simplification" and to do so means sacrificing "place in line" and "funding dollars already allocated", etc. I'm as sick as anyone of saying it but again, "+/- 1.7B for any of the current options is a mistake."

Transit infrastructure minus density is a bad idea.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby talindsay » April 1st, 2014, 1:50 pm

Transit infrastructure minus density is a bad idea.
-1

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 711
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby ECtransplant » April 1st, 2014, 2:24 pm

Don't worry, I'm sure the CIDNA and Kenwood folks will be suuuuper supportive of some denser development to compliment the train line

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 1st, 2014, 8:11 pm

I will grant you that it is complex but... I wonder if I find the statement to ring with truth because juxtaposing these two ideas aligns with my opinion. I think it IS valuable to critically examine this transit line in this fashion where you do not. I have challenged you to compare the aerials of uptown and the aerials of "the overpasses" and make an argument about density and the two alignments and from what I've seen, you haven't taken it up. If you have a link to a post, I'd love to see it.
Density is not the same as equity. Asking me to argue a density position when I care about equity is a non sequitur. We have different priorities for our transit system and that's fine. But let's at least acknowledge that different priorities can in fact be valid.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 764
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby VAStationDude » April 1st, 2014, 8:27 pm

Good thing this line will have station area (job and or residential) density with the exception of 21st.

Uptown isn't half as dense as spending a quarter billion dollars on a tinker toy that's slower than the existing local bus. Of course it'll be cooler to ride the train to a French middle school field trip at MIA than the bus. Maybe I'm crazy for liking transit that boosts mobility and had a realistic chance of being built.

Chef
Landmark Center
Posts: 282
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 7:33 pm

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Chef » April 2nd, 2014, 10:32 am

I will grant you that it is complex but... I wonder if I find the statement to ring with truth because juxtaposing these two ideas aligns with my opinion. I think it IS valuable to critically examine this transit line in this fashion where you do not. I have challenged you to compare the aerials of uptown and the aerials of "the overpasses" and make an argument about density and the two alignments and from what I've seen, you haven't taken it up. If you have a link to a post, I'd love to see it.
Density is not the same as equity. Asking me to argue a density position when I care about equity is a non sequitur. We have different priorities for our transit system and that's fine. But let's at least acknowledge that different priorities can in fact be valid.
Remember when Cathedral Hill used to be Selby-Dale, or when lower Grand Avenue was the roughest ghetto in St Paul? Do you realize that areas of poverty move over time? If you build a rail line that serves poor areas but ignores the fabric of the city, in a few decades time you will have a line that serves neither the poor nor the fabric of the city. It is better to have a line that serves the built environment, because that won't move.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 2nd, 2014, 11:27 am

If you build a rail line that serves poor areas but ignores the fabric of the city, in a few decades time you will have a line that serves neither the poor nor the fabric of the city. It is better to have a line that serves the built environment, because that won't move.
If SWLRT eradicates poverty in North Minneapolis it will have been successful beyond all of our wildest dreams.

If it does that, there will be lots of people there, no?

Chef
Landmark Center
Posts: 282
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 7:33 pm

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Chef » April 2nd, 2014, 11:53 am

When poverty is "eradicated" from the North Side it won't be removed from the system is will just be pushed further out. The North Side will likely start gentrifying over the next few decades regardless of whether SWLRT is built. Poor neighborhoods tend to be temporary, it just doesn't seem like it because the time scale may be half a person's life. Building expensive permanent infrastructure to deal with temporary situations seems foolish to me.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 2nd, 2014, 1:03 pm

When poverty is "eradicated" from the North Side it won't be removed from the system is will just be pushed further out. The North Side will likely start gentrifying over the next few decades regardless of whether SWLRT is built. Poor neighborhoods tend to be temporary, it just doesn't seem like it because the time scale may be half a person's life. Building expensive permanent infrastructure to deal with temporary situations seems foolish to me.
But your argument was that we should route it based on density, not need, because the need can change. If North gentrifies, there will be density so the line will serve density (and SWLRT will have been a big driver of that density). If it doesn't there will continue to be need so your premise that the need will move is wrong.

I guess I just don't understand your line of reasoning. It seems contradictory.

In any case, with SWLRT in Kenilworth the density will come to the Bassett Creek Valley whether or not there is poverty in North so in some sense this particular discussion seems moot to me.

Furthermore, the Midtown line will serve the density you're talking about so it's not like we're losing the density advantage with SWLRT. Compelling SWLRT to serve all nodes of density is a little like saying that Central Corridor should pop down to Grand Ave. between Mississippi River Blvd. and Snelling Ave. because the density there is greater than at the Westgate industrial complex.

Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4663
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Anondson » April 2nd, 2014, 3:09 pm

After testimony, Full resolution posted.

http://metrocouncil.org/getdoc/f29ae190 ... ation.aspx

Archiapolis
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 768
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Archiapolis » April 2nd, 2014, 3:36 pm

When poverty is "eradicated" from the North Side it won't be removed from the system is will just be pushed further out. The North Side will likely start gentrifying over the next few decades regardless of whether SWLRT is built. Poor neighborhoods tend to be temporary, it just doesn't seem like it because the time scale may be half a person's life. Building expensive permanent infrastructure to deal with temporary situations seems foolish to me.
But your argument was that we should route it based on density, not need, because the need can change. If North gentrifies, there will be density so the line will serve density (and SWLRT will have been a big driver of that density). If it doesn't there will continue to be need so your premise that the need will move is wrong.
First, the premise that a transit line can ERADICATE poverty is ridiculous. I applaud your optimism but there is no transit line, no matter how perfect, that can eradicate poverty.
I guess I just don't understand your line of reasoning. It seems contradictory.

In any case, with SWLRT in Kenilworth the density will come to the Bassett Creek Valley whether or not there is poverty in North so in some sense this particular discussion seems moot to me.
This argument is not moot, it is germane. What you describe as “Bassett Creek Valley” sounds very idyllic when in fact, we are talking about a polluted mess beneath/proximate to towering expressway overpasses.

The area between Interchange and Dunwoody is a wasteland by any estimation. The effect of the highways in this zone is massively depressive to any notions about future residential density. Nobody but trolls want to live under bridges. With a shiny new transit line running through then, MAYBE this area will develop job centers/office buildings but we are talking about developing potentially polluted sites in an unsightly area of the city whose ONLY amenity would be a transit line. The kind of development that you are suggesting will not take place for 20 years minimum if ever! The lack of density between West Lake Street and Interchange, a tangled snarl of highway overpasses that is virtually undevelopable and an expensive/wasteful tunnel just so we can graze the north side because “equity” is nonsense. Before you bring it up, the Penn Ave BRT is a bandaid applied to an ugly appendage of an idea that is the SWLRT.

I’ve seen people argue against transfers on other threads and we are talking about taking a bus from actual density in north (Penn and Broadway, etc.), bussing down to SWLRT, transferring, then heading out to suburbia. You can’t have it both ways. Either transferring is unnecessarily time-consuming and awful or it isn’t.
Furthermore, the Midtown line will serve the density you're talking about so it's not like we're losing the density advantage with SWLRT. Compelling SWLRT to serve all nodes of density is a little like saying that Central Corridor should pop down to Grand Ave. between Mississippi River Blvd. and Snelling Ave. because the density there is greater than at the Westgate industrial complex.
This is a straw-man argument and you know it. Nobody is saying that one transit line should serve “all densities.” However, I am saying that a transit SYSTEM should strive to serve density. As Chef points out, any transit system that is predicated on targeting impoverished neighborhoods and not existing density is massively flawed. People/social classes are a *bit* more nimble than transit infrastructure.

Last, you can’t keep dangling Midtown Corridor to assuage all of the proponents of the “uptown alignment” because it is NOT imminent. SWLRT wouldn’t be built until 2020. I’ve already argued that this group should NOT be allowed to make another transit decision in this region but assuming that they are making it, then we can expect Midtown Corridor streetcar in what, 2030?

I've agreed with you that we need a transit system that serves the underprivileged and I've said it over and over. I applaud your valid social concerns but this line is wrong for this city/region.

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1774
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Tcmetro » April 2nd, 2014, 4:50 pm

Also, I don't believe any part of north will experience gentrification because of the line. SW LRT isn't within walking distance of pretty much all of North Minneapolis. What will happen with the SW LRT is development at Bassett Creek Valley. It's pretty much the only tangible benefit that will occur for North Minneapolis as a result of SW LRT, and it remains to be seen if office towers and apartment buildings are actually an economically viable option for the area.

People from North Minneapolis will still have to take buses to reach the light rail line. It's just that those transfers will occur at 7th and Olson instead of 7th and Nicollet.

Additionally, I think that the 3C routing is politically not viable. I would imagine that the city of Minneapolis wouldn't be happy with LRT in Kenilworth or on Nicollet. I think it's a shame that the city tries to be more transit friendly but then tries to blockade such a regionally important line.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 2nd, 2014, 8:35 pm

First, the premise that a transit line can ERADICATE poverty is ridiculous. I applaud your optimism but there is no transit line, no matter how perfect, that can eradicate poverty.
I was being facetious.
In any case, with SWLRT in Kenilworth the density will come to the Bassett Creek Valley whether or not there is poverty in North so in some sense this particular discussion seems moot to me.
This argument is not moot, it is germane. What you describe as “Bassett Creek Valley” sounds very idyllic when in fact, we are talking about a polluted mess beneath/proximate to towering expressway overpasses.
I'll grant you that "moot" was the wrong word. As for the area I'm talking about, it's near the freeway but not under it nor right up against it. The impound lot, for example, extends a few blocks north, at least. There are plans for this area. You can look them up on the city's web site. The zoning changes have already been made.

Yes, it's going to take years to implement. Any project this big does. That is not a reason to abandon it.
I’ve seen people argue against transfers on other threads and we are talking about taking a bus from actual density in north (Penn and Broadway, etc.), bussing down to SWLRT, transferring, then heading out to suburbia. You can’t have it both ways. Either transferring is unnecessarily time-consuming and awful or it isn’t.
I don't think I've ever argued that transfers are killers. Quite the contrary.
Furthermore, the Midtown line will serve the density you're talking about so it's not like we're losing the density advantage with SWLRT. Compelling SWLRT to serve all nodes of density is a little like saying that Central Corridor should pop down to Grand Ave. between Mississippi River Blvd. and Snelling Ave. because the density there is greater than at the Westgate industrial complex.
This is a straw-man argument and you know it. Nobody is saying that one transit line should serve “all densities.” However, I am saying that a transit SYSTEM should strive to serve density. As Chef points out, any transit system that is predicated on targeting impoverished neighborhoods and not existing density is massively flawed. People/social classes are a *bit* more nimble than transit infrastructure.

Last, you can’t keep dangling Midtown Corridor to assuage all of the proponents of the “uptown alignment” because it is NOT imminent. SWLRT wouldn’t be built until 2020. I’ve already argued that this group should NOT be allowed to make another transit decision in this region but assuming that they are making it, then we can expect Midtown Corridor streetcar in what, 2030?
I was making an analogy, not an argument per se and I agree that what I suggested is ridiculous. That's the point. It strikes me a ridiculous to route SWLRT through Uptown given the planned system. I understand it doesn't seem ridiculous to others. We can in fact agree to disagree.

In any case, you are far too pessimistic about the timeline for Midtown. I think it still qualifies as Small Starts which removes a lot of red tape.
I've agreed with you that we need a transit system that serves the underprivileged and I've said it over and over. I applaud your valid social concerns but this line is wrong for this city/region.
I agree that we have similar goals when it comes to social justice and that we simply disagree on the utility of SWLRT for accomplishing that. That's valid and fine. I appreciate your concern for those less advantaged!

JT$
City Center
Posts: 34
Joined: July 14th, 2012, 5:12 pm

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby JT$ » April 2nd, 2014, 10:23 pm

I'm newish to the board here, and have been watching this debate in the news and have never found the answer to one question. I've never seen a reason for why relocating the bike path was rejected, does anyone know of a statement of why parties involved were opposed to this option?

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4476
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Silophant » April 2nd, 2014, 10:35 pm

Because it's not actually about the bike path at all. It's about the rich influential residents of the corridor not wanting trains near their property. They can't say that, though, so they pretend it's about the bike path.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

Archiapolis
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 768
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Archiapolis » April 3rd, 2014, 7:18 am

Because it's not actually about the bike path at all. It's about the rich influential residents of the corridor not wanting trains near their property. They can't say that, though, so they pretend it's about the bike path.
I have to admit that I don't understand the nuance here. What if someone got together with "the bicyclists" and said, "Hey, we want to call the the bluff that the Kenilworth folks are putting out there that we can't move the bike path for SWLRT. We know it isn't ideal/perfect but what if we could give you some carrots (maintenance/beautification/etc.) and moved the bike path?" In my hypothetical, what if this group emerged, with the blessing of "the bicyclists" and they stood on a podium together and announced that the bike path should be moved.

What would happen then? What would the Kenilworth folks do?

beauss
Block E
Posts: 11
Joined: October 30th, 2013, 10:12 pm

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby beauss » April 3rd, 2014, 8:00 am

Imagine if we moved the bike trail in exchange for using a quarter of the money saved on tunnels for bicycle infrastructure. $60 million is what Portland spent on bicycle infrastructure from 1993 to 2011. Just saying.

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1774
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Tcmetro » April 3rd, 2014, 8:23 am

The tunnels aren't about accommodating bikes they're about appeasing the NIMBYs in Kenilworth. If it was just about bike trails then the north tunnel wouldn't exist and the south tunnel would be shorter.

Archiapolis
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 768
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Archiapolis » April 3rd, 2014, 8:24 am

Imagine if we moved the bike trail in exchange for using a quarter of the money saved on tunnels for bicycle infrastructure. $60 million is what Portland spent on bicycle infrastructure from 1993 to 2011. Just saying.
Bang! This kind of thinking is beautiful. How has this NOT been brought up?! Call the bluff of the Kenilworth cake-eaters! There has to be some fatal flaw to this idea...are "the bicyclists" willing to go to war over this idea? I have to be missing some information...

nate
Landmark Center
Posts: 283
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 2:01 pm

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby nate » April 3rd, 2014, 8:54 am

The Kenilworth people almost certainly contribute generously to various politicians. That's the missing information.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], intercomnut and 33 guests