Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

Personally, I would favor a new all-day route that runs on 55 from the Plymouth industrial districts, then goes down Van White to Dunwoody and up Hennepin to terminate downtown (or as an overly-long extension of the 61 maybe). But I can't think of an alternative that wouldn't inconvenience those riders continuing downtown in order to detour to the Van White station. Can you?

Bus realignment has never been part of those planning documents here. I don't know whether they should be or not. By the time these lines get built the bus situation has usually changed significantly. I don't have a particular bus route in mind. We probably want to aboid unnecessarily routing people out of their way.

We definitely want to ask the people who live and work there what they want.

In St Paul the only stations outside Downtown that were originally a 1/2 mile apart were Fairview and Snelling, and I'd say that calling that area predominantly white ignores a substantial minority (mostly African-American) presence. In Minneapolis the stations were closer together but clearly that is due to the density and student presence.

I'm not sure why downtown stations don't count, except for the existing Blue Line stations. Other than Raymond-Fairview, no other station separation is one mile except for where the previously missing stations are located. Sure, others may be a bit over 1/2 mile apart but that's splitting hairs. The point is that access in the most transit-dependent part of the city was worse than everywhere else.

[talindsay]

I'm not sure why downtown stations don't count, except for the existing Blue Line stations. Other than Raymond-Fairview, no other station separation is one mile except for where the previously missing stations are located. Sure, others may be a bit over 1/2 mile apart but that's splitting hairs. The point is that access in the most transit-dependent part of the city was worse than everywhere else.

You're ignoring the entire reason these stations were dropped though: Bush-era CEI rules were so tight that in order to make the numbers the train had to be as fast as it could possibly be with as many riders as possible; these stations, adding only a few hundred riders each, were cut from the initial plan because their added dwell time added too much time for the number of riders they were picking up. It was a purely numerical reality that it was barely eeking under what at the time was a stringent ceiling on CEI, and eliminating these three stations made the math work. Once the rules were loosened, they could be added back without breaking the math.

There *was* a social justice angle, don't get me wrong, and that's why it was important (and is well worth it) to add the stations back when the equations changed; but you're blatantly misrepresenting the history of this line's development to pretend anybody locally was trying to do anything except get the line built by eliminating these stations.

[mulad]

I'm convinced the projected ridership for those stops was pretty bogus, possibly made worse by the goal of hitting CEI targets. And as much as I'd love to blame Bush for it, the same or similar rules have been guiding transit planning for decades, affecting Hiawatha, Southwest, and Bottineau. Probably others like Riverview and Gateway too.

And there are transit corridors which were only really put forth as alternatives to highway expansion, rather than as routes that have value in and of themselves. Hiawatha again and Northstar. Central has also always had to fight an uphill battle against the speed of I-94 just four blocks away -- even after half a century, it's pretty free-flowing except for peak hours.

[talindsay]

You're right of course, but it was Bush-era policy that made the CEI threshold an absolute must-meet for funding; before and after, a project with a CEI that was *almost* good enough could justify its funding through other things, such as development, but in the mid-2000s projects were accepted or rejected because their CEI made the threshold or not. I think that was actually a really short window - 2002 to 2007 maybe - but Central was in that window.

[David Greene]

There *was* a social justice angle, don't get me wrong, and that's why it was important (and is well worth it) to add the stations back when the equations changed; but you're blatantly misrepresenting the history of this line's development to pretend anybody locally was trying to do anything except get the line built by eliminating these stations.

I'm not implying any such thing. In fact I explicitly stated the opposite. Of course they did it to satisfy the CEI. It doesn't change the fact that the outcome was terrible from a social justice standpoint. Outcomes matter.

The CEI rules were changed at least in part *because of* the missing stations on Central Corridor. Those advocating for the stations got the rules changed after Secretary LaHood visited and saw what was going on.

[David Greene]

And as much as I'd love to blame Bush for it, the same or similar rules have been guiding transit planning for decades, affecting Hiawatha, Southwest, and Bottineau. Probably others like Riverview and Gateway too.

That's not really true. The Bush administration made the CEI a pass/fail requirement. That had never been done before. Cost-effectiveness was meant to be one of several criteria under SAFETY-LU. not the overriding one. Oberstar passed a technical corrections bill to emphasize that but it effectively was ignored by the Bush administration.

And there are transit corridors which were only really put forth as alternatives to highway expansion, rather than as routes that have value in and of themselves.

Isn't that "value in and of itself?" I mean, Hiawatha is pretty dang successful.

[mulad]

Yes, but is there any doubt that lines along Nicollet, Chicago, Hennepin, or University would carry more people per mile? It's good that we built Hiawatha, especially since it gave us an airport connection right away and linked the MOA to something, but it isn't exactly a destination-rich corridor aside from a few big nodes.

[Nick]

I'm on the Jordan Area Community Council. We have discussions about Bottineau and never talk about the bus connections to the Van White station. It would be nice if you stopped claiming to be the voice of the disenfranchised. I know as a white, male who happens to live in north I can't speak for the masses.

Where did I claim that? I have consistently told people to go have conversations with those in Near North. I am simply advocating for what those I've talked to want to see. They are very clear on the importance of this station to their communities.

I'm glad that you are participating in the discussion. It's really important to have people actually on the ground contribute significantly to our decision-making.

[could have quoted like 30 posts]

I'm going to say this once, and only once, because I'm absolutely sure your heart's in the right place, but for someone who wants everyone to talk to "the people who are there", you do quite a lot of speaking for "them", whoever "they" might be. It comes off as increeeeeedibly pretentious. This isn't a competition over who can save the Northside the most courageously. Aside from the entire premise of the 3A alignment as Northside redevelopment tool being really bizarre--and I will remind everyone that it is, in fact, really bizarre--you don't need to talk down to all of the posters on the forum like none of us have ever met a poor/black person before, and assuming that none of us have ever set foot on the Northside, and that you're the only one who has their interests in mind. It's not helping your argument at all.

[David Greene]

Aside from the entire premise of the 3A as Northside redevelopment tool being really bizarre--and I will remind everyone that it is, in fact, really bizarre

I don't know why you consider it bizarre. Lots of people consider it perfectly logical.

As for my advocacy, I'm doing what I can to help people I work with. It *is* important to go talk to people and the comments I've read here indicate people haven't. Yes, that's an assumption but I think it's a pretty safe one.

I'm not trying to save the Northside. The residents can do that just fine themselves. But I think it's fair to say that on this board, there are very few Northsiders participating. I am working with some of them because my destiny is tied to theirs. We aren't going to survive as a city if we keep 1/4 of our land area cut off.

It's not just people of color by the way, though that's the group my heart is with because they have been the most marginalized over centuries.

It isn't pretentious to advocate for justice.

[woofner]

Bus realignment has never been part of those planning documents here.

Actually, the AA, LPA, and DEIS all have extensive discussion of bus reroutings for every station except Penn, Van White, and the Downtown stations.

I'm not sure why downtown stations don't count

You don't see why downtown stations should be treated differently from streetcar suburb stations in a discussion of average stop spacing? Do you think that the downtown stations should be thinned to be a half-mile apart? My point was that there was only one instance of half-mile stop spacing on the line, so it's a false distinction to say that the low-income areas were treated unfairly by have one-mile spacing. It's clearly necessary to exclude downtown stations because they are irrelevant to the station spacing in an obviously different place type.

It *is* important to go talk to people and the comments I've read here indicate people haven't. Yes, that's an assumption but I think it's a pretty safe one.

You may be correct, and I agree with your comments regarding the Northside and that it would benefit from a BCV redevelopment (although I'm a bit more skeptical of Ryan's interest/commitment than you). But when you make a statement on behalf of a group of people, and then tell your readers to go talk to those people, you rhetorically imply that you are speaking for the people. Because you've already stated the opinion of the people you're encouraging us to talk to, the encouragement is more easily interpreted as an implicit proof than a sincere call to action.

[Tcmetro]

http://metrocouncil.org/getdoc/844a2151 ... ation.aspx

Don't know if anyone saw this, but it shows all the changes made to the line and the cost of the changes.

- TH 62 crossing will now be in a tunnel. This is apparently $2 million cheaper than the bridge option.
- Kenilworth shallow tunnel is cheaper than freight relocation. A Kenilworth tunnel means no 21st St Station.

Revised costs are $1.58-$1.82 billion, and estimated ridership is 34-36000.

[David Greene]

Actually, the AA, LPA, and DEIS all have extensive discussion of bus reroutings for every station except Penn, Van White, and the Downtown stations.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I stand corrected. This wasn't done for Central. Bad assumption on my part and I apologize.

I'm not sure why downtown stations don't count

Do you think that the downtown stations should be thinned to be a half-mile apart?

My comment was to the measurement of station spacing. We should look at all of the stations, no?

I do in fact think we should thin out stations downtown, certainly in Minneapolis. We do we need the Warehouse District and Government Center stations? They're too close. It's faster to walk from Hennepin to Nicollet at that point than to wait for the train.

If we ever do a cut & cover on 5th, we ought to combine Warehouse/Nicollet and GC/DTE into single underground stations with an exit on each end.

It *is* important to go talk to people and the comments I've read here indicate people haven't. Yes, that's an assumption but I think it's a pretty safe one.

But when you make a statement on behalf of a group of people, and then tell your readers to go talk to those people, you rhetorically imply that you are speaking for the people. Because you've already stated the opinion of the people you're encouraging us to talk to, the encouragement is more easily interpreted as an implicit proof than a sincere call to action.

Thank you for the very constructive feedback!

I certainly didn't mean to come off that way and my wording must have been poor. I'm trying to relay the sentiments expressed by people who live in the area, given the conversations I have had. Those people are generally not on this message board and it's a bit frustrating to see their hopes and dreams dismissed as "bizarre."

I do in fact think that having these conversations is incredibly important, not just for the residents of North, but for *us*. I know that my own experience has been enriched because of them.

There's a bit of history for me here and maybe relating that will help put my statements in context. When I started to get involved in Central Corridor, I came in thinking that I knew what was possible for the neighborhoods along University. "You'll get one station, but no way you'll get all three given the CEI," I said. I'd been through fights for years at the legislature to secure transit funding -- *I* was certainly an expert, I thought. I actually encouraged people to focus on getting one station than actually advocating for what they wanted and potentially losing everything. I didn't understand the community or why they wanted what they did.

I got a pretty good dressing-down by one of the residents/organizers and it was well deserved. I went on to have an excellent 1:1 meeting with that person and he opened my eyes to what would be possible in Midway/Frogtown/Rondo.

I still don't completely understand the communities along University or North Minneapolis for that matter, but I think I understand more than I did before. On the one hand you've got to be humble and really listen to what people have to say, willing to explore the rich complexity of the stories in the community. On the other hand, you've got to be bold and outspoken to advocate once people have made you clear on what they need. It's certainly a tricky balancing act.

I constantly question whether I am advocating for the right thing. It's not doubt, but rather an honest periodic reassessment of priorities. That's one of the reasons I keep going back to meetings (the other being strategizing and keeping on top of shifting situations).

Harrison has done a metric freightload of work to advocate for the BCV master plan, in the face of extremely bad odds. When you've got the city and county lined up against you, it's tough going. So yeah, I'm pretty invested in that plan because people far wiser than me have been invested in it for a lot longer.

[David Greene]

http://metrocouncil.org/getdoc/844a2151 ... ation.aspx

This was distributed at the joint BAC/CAC meeting. It is well worth reading.

I've been really angry at Pat Doyle at the Strib for putting forward the cost increases with no context. He still has not explained what those increases buy. They buy real improvements to the line.

[twincitizen]

I do in fact think we should thin out stations downtown, certainly in Minneapolis. do we need the Warehouse District and Government Center stations? They're too close. It's faster to walk from Hennepin to Nicollet at that point than to wait for the train.

If we ever do a cut & cover on 5th, we ought to combine Warehouse/Nicollet and GC/DTE into single underground stations with an exit on each end.

Agreed about combining Hennepin & Nicollet Stations if they ever do go underground. Warehouse/Nicollet were built as separate stations because neither could handle peak/event loads, especially considering they were originally only 2-car platforms.

[MNdible]

Wasn't the Warehouse District station a relatively late add to the project? Or am I misremembering?

[mattaudio]

Wow. Every slide in the Met Council deck tcmetro posted makes me facepalm.

P7: This PEC East and PEC West map is actually useful. Everything highlighted in pink (PEC West) should not be built in this phase.

P8: Sad to see so many adopted principles that seem to have no bearing on how this project is proceeding.

P12: $33 million for the bridge over 9 mile creek? More reason this segment of the line is not needed.

P15: Looks like they're already planning to botch a future 169 BRT by placing this segment on city streets to meet up with the Green Line at 70th St. Future 169 BRT can connect in Hopkins. And if we want a connection near the Golden Triangle, it would be much faster for Freeway BRT to build a bus flyover turnaround in the "crotch" of 212/62 to connect City West station using the existing 169/62/212 cloverleaf.

P17: Holy flyover batman! Why is this being done? We all know longer grade separations are better, but only when crossing wetlands, stroads, and low-density industrial. Definitely not when crossing downtowns, universities, or congested urban intersections. "Benefits: Combines Shady Oak Road and TH 212 crossings into single bridge"

P18: Same goes for tunnels! Don't build em where they serve a real need, build them to preserve vacant land for a developer! "Tunnel preserves future opportunities for development infill within Opus"

P19: We know from other threads that the UHG campus is not really going to integrate with LRT at City West. So what will this station do, sandwiched between two freeways and a parking ramp? Oh, just a 190 space park and ride at the end of a half mile cul-de-sac. Totally a good return on investment for the ~$100 million (P20) worth of long cut and cover tunnel at the north end and the extremely long flyover at the south end of the station.

P22: Actually not bad. A modest station in a low-density auto-centric office park/industrial area that could become more dense and transit oriented over time. What's that? Never mind. Let's just save a prime corner for a 90 space park and ride rather than new development. It will be at home with all of the other surface lots in the station walkshed, after all.

P27: When you see this $74 million mile long viaduct, remember why it is too costly to integrate our regional backbone into actual urbanized areas where people live, work, and recreate.

P30: Thomas Lowry financed streetcars by developing land adjacent to lines into places people could live. Met Council subsidizes ridership at expensive light rail stations by providing 500 below-market-rate parking spaces right next to the station at Shady Oak. Because who wants TOD when you can park your car instead.

P33: After spending so much money on park and rides and expensive grade separations over swamps, there's no money left to properly integrate the Downtown Hopkins station with its walkable traditional namesake two blocks away.

P37: OK, this could be worse. A planned 445 space parking ramp (p38 says this structured parking is the prime driver of the $22 million increase over the DEIS) but at least there's room for development next to the station. Still, a $22 million subsidy of ridership through "free" parking. And I'm sure none of us have any better ideas for how $22 million could improve transit.

OK. That's about 1/3 way through the deck. This isn't complicated stuff. Not sure how anyone can look at that deck and think that this project is anything other than a disaster. More to come later.

[VAStationDude]

More to come later.

I'll be waiting with bated breath. I can see it now actually - 3C to Shady Oak plus West End spur along BNSF.

[MNdible]

More to come later.

I'll be waiting with bated breath. I can see it now actually - 3C to Shady Oak plus West End spur along BNSF.

Are you some sort of psychic?

[lordmoke]

This entire thread makes me want to photoshop a giant turd with a Metro Transit logo on it gliding down a set of rails, but I fear that the image would be taken and misused by anti-rail conservatives for their own ends.

So you can all just picture what that would like instead, and pretend that's what I posted.

[Nathan]

But!? is the turd polished?