Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[RailBaronYarr]

^I thought it was discussed earlier in the thread how bogus the number of daily boardings (1,000) was given the population of the surrounding area (I've seen numbers from 1,150 to 2,000) and where their likely jobs are (and current mode choice unlikely to be changed given the area's affluence). Seems like this is a natural cost-saver with very little reduction in actual ridership?

[David Greene]

That's why the tunnel is especially bad... it would waste infrastructure and lock us into using that corridor for revenue service even when we develop more lines in the future. Before this discussion, the best bet was to scrap the 21st St station. Then down the road, Green could extend west to West End and a new line could turn east at West Lake and interline with other future lines under Nicollet/Central. the Kenilworth stretch would become a non-revenue connector for two future operating districts... the four lines/two services on 5th St downtown, and the future four lines/two services on/under Nicollet Mall downtown.

There will be no future lines. Blue and Green, that's it for LRT. It's too expensive to do anything more. Even Bottineau is in a precarious position.

I know that stinks, but it is reality. Maybe a hundred years from now we can add something but if we did that we could just as easily go through the Greenway and hook up to the Green Line at West Lake and share trackage.

As a bonus a hundred years from now we'll have a better idea where people live and work in the SW suburbs. Right now we're going to Eden Prairie because we know the jobs are there and there is a lot of development potential (read, "surface parking."). We don't really know what West End is going to look like. It's not promising given the current state of things.

I'm really not being belligerent here. I'm stating what I believe to be reality given countless, countless conversations with transit and transportation experts.

[MNdible]

^I thought it was discussed earlier in the thread how bogus the number of daily boardings (1,000) was given the population of the surrounding area (I've seen numbers from 1,150 to 2,000) and where their likely jobs are (and current mode choice unlikely to be changed given the area's affluence). Seems like this is a natural cost-saver with very little reduction in actual ridership?

That is quite possibly true, and that's a totally valid reason to consider eliminating the station. My point was that conformance or non-conformance to UrbanMSPer's future transit fantasies is a less valid reason.

[RailBaronYarr]

^That's why he said "before this discussion" to qualify that the 21st St station was already quite suspect. Yes, that meant that his particular proposal worked out a little easier (less sunk costs), but he wasn't advocating for it just because of a personal fantasy.

[Chef]

The only advantage of the 21st street station would be to make it easier to get to Hidden Beach for people who don't have cars. If you have ever tried to get there by transit you know what I mean.

[UptownSport]

Right now we're going to Eden Prairie because we know the jobs are there and there is a lot of development potential (read, "surface parking.").

i want to hear, specifically about this claim- (I don't believe it- I see cars coming INTO Minneapolis in the AM and LEAVING Minneapolis in PM from SW, SAME WITH TRANSIT, PEOPLE ARE COMING into Minneapolis TO WORK)

AND, if true (which, again, I doubt) are they hiring any of use city rats?

[mattaudio]

And what's the point in building transit to serve businesses who decided not to locate in areas near transit? Doesn't it seem to legitimize the way we've subsidized auto-centric growth for three generations?

[David Greene]

Right now we're going to Eden Prairie because we know the jobs are there and there is a lot of development potential (read, "surface parking.").

i want to hear, specifically about this claim-

Read the studies. It's all there for you.

[RailBaronYarr]

The only advantage of the 21st street station would be to make it easier to get to Hidden Beach for people who don't have cars. If you have ever tried to get there by transit you know what I mean.

Seems like a pretty absurd reason... wouldn't a better way to grant more people access to this amenity be to unlock some land regulations in the area to increase the population (assuming the beach and other lakely amenities would draw more people)? Do other beaches on Harriet/Calhoun/Nokomis get such a direct transit dedication?

[David Greene]

And what's the point in building transit to serve businesses who decided not to locate in areas near transit? Doesn't it seem to legitimize the way we've subsidized auto-centric growth for three generations?

So we should not have built Hiawatha to MoA?

C'mon, this is getting ridiculous. New York doesn't only have transit on Manhattan. Chicago doesn't limit it to the Loop. We build rail lines out to "suburban" style places all the time. We expect that those places will change over time.

Tom Lowry built rail literally out to empty fields for God's sake.

[UptownSport]

^That's why he said "before this discussion" to qualify that the 21st St station was already quite suspect. Yes, that meant that his particular proposal worked out a little easier (less sunk costs), but he wasn't advocating for it just because of a personal fantasy.

Hidden Beach/21st was added so people can get together and get it stopped- A sacrificial lamb if you will- That way it seems there was a little 'victory' and you felt empowered- meanwhile, the rest of the line goes thru.

So much has been said that's been untrue, I'm getting suspicious of everything I'm told, now- And it doesn't sound like I'm the only one.

[UptownSport]

And what's the point in building transit to serve businesses who decided not to locate in areas near transit? Doesn't it seem to legitimize the way we've subsidized auto-centric growth for three generations?

That's the way I feel- There's *Acres* of land right here for development. Good time to stop the insanity is now-

[David Greene]

[So much has been said that's been untrue

What, exactly? I'm honestly curious here because I can't think of anything official said that's been an outright lie. Some estimates were off but that's to be expected. 10% is really not bad in engineering terms for such a large project, especially since the rules were changed by FTA at the last minute. Plans like these change all the time. It happened on Hiawatha, it happened on Central, it's happening on Southwest and it will happen on Bottineau.

[mattaudio]

Tom Lowry built rail literally out to empty fields for God's sake.

And that was part of the downfall of TCRT... as they built lines further out, trip times and operational costs increased at a higher rate and ridership increased at a lower rate due to lower density in the latter areas of the streetcar company's developments.

It's really fascinating how it parallels the Suburban Growth Ponzi Scheme as well... initial investments were highly productive, later investments were much less productive. Eventually the whole thing fizzled out because there was no more growth to subsidize unproductive services elsewhere in the system. It's also interesting that we're about as far into the post WWII development pattern as TCRT was into the streetcar development pattern when they failed.

[David Greene]

Tom Lowry built rail literally out to empty fields for God's sake.

And that was part of the downfall of TCRT... as they built lines further out, trip times and operational costs increased at a higher rate and ridership increased at a lower rate due to lower density in the latter areas of the streetcar company's developments.

That may have contributed, sure. I'm not an expert in TCRT history. But weren't city-imposed fare limits at least as much a contributing factor?

It seems kind of odd though that Lowry would built out to land he owned and then not develop it to ensure the streetcar would be profitable absent impositions on fares.

I'm honestly curious. I'm willing to grant you the point wrt TCRT. That doesn't mean going to Eden Prairie is necessarily a bad idea. It depends what happens out there.

[ECtransplant]

And what's the point in building transit to serve businesses who decided not to locate in areas near transit? Doesn't it seem to legitimize the way we've subsidized auto-centric growth for three generations?

So we should not have built Hiawatha to MoA?

C'mon, this is getting ridiculous. New York doesn't only have transit on Manhattan. Chicago doesn't limit it to the Loop. We build rail lines out to "suburban" style places all the time. We expect that those places will change over time.

Tom Lowry built rail literally out to empty fields for God's sake.

And much of the outer boroughs are more dense than anywhere in Minneapolis. And there's a reason there's no subway tunnel to Staten Island.

[orangevening]

Kinda silly, but glad kids are getting into the fight...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNEZc8B ... ture=share

[mplsjaromir]

And there's a reason there's no subway tunnel to Staten Island.

Five miles of New York Harbor?

[mullen]

look at overhead photos of mpls. even into the 40's its amazing how much still wasn't built out. lots of empty land. and we had streetcars.

at this point if they decide to build a tunnel i really have no qualm with that. it is a really nice park space and bike corridor. this line just shows how difficult it is to jerryrig transportation into established neighborhoods.

my family first moved into south mpls in the late 60's. my dad used to walk down and watch 35w being spliced through the city. all the homes and streets vanished. the central cities really were affected by freeway expansion. by comparison the sw lrt route displacement is so vastly minimal.

[woofner]

it is a really nice park space and bike corridor. this line just shows how difficult it is to jerryrig transportation into established neighborhoods.

The thing I don't get is - the purpose of the shallow tunnel is to avoid impacting the park space & bike corridor, right? But that's specific to the segment that would be tunnelized, that is, roughly the half mile between Lake St and about a block north of Cedar Lake Rd. But that's the segment of Kenilworth where the park space is nonexistent, and the bike trail is already skinny and squished up next to the rail line. So wouldn't it be better to spend $50m less to take one row of the townhomes, which would provide enough space to actually create a bit of parkland there? In other words, why would anyone whose top priority is the open space and/or nonmotorized transportation value of Kenilworth prefer the shallow tunnel option to the all modes at grade option?