Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[woofner]

Does moving the bike trail one block away for a half mile (at best) *really* impact sustainability. Are people *really* not going to take a bike if this happened (not that it will)?

I think I've written about a thousand times that this is not the official proposal. The official proposal would be significantly detrimental. Thatcher's proposal would be ok, but don't you think that if it was feasible it would have been mentioned by now?

Many people beyond those in the townhomes oppose colocation. Bikes are an afterthought for most people. So you're right that it isn't a bikes vs. transit thing but the townhome owners are a minority in the cacophony. The only way it becomes bikes vs. transit is if the freight is moved AND the bike trail is moved, which will never happen. Freight is the issue, not bikes.

So you're saying the townhomes are being used as an excuse by people who just don't want trains there? That would make sense, although it doesn't explain why the Safety in the Park people haven't advocated removing the townhomes.

[David Greene]

Does moving the bike trail one block away for a half mile (at best) *really* impact sustainability. Are people *really* not going to take a bike if this happened (not that it will)?

I think I've written about a thousand times that this is not the official proposal. The official proposal would be significantly detrimental. Thatcher's proposal would be ok, but don't you think that if it was feasible it would have been mentioned by now?

That's a fair point. My sense is that no one actually ever looked at Thatcher's proposal, though people were made aware of it.

Many people beyond those in the townhomes oppose colocation. Bikes are an afterthought for most people. So you're right that it isn't a bikes vs. transit thing but the townhome owners are a minority in the cacophony. The only way it becomes bikes vs. transit is if the freight is moved AND the bike trail is moved, which will never happen. Freight is the issue, not bikes.

So you're saying the townhomes are being used as an excuse by people who just don't want trains there? That would make sense, although it doesn't explain why the Safety in the Park people haven't advocated removing the townhomes.

The townhomes aren't being used as an excuse. The "park like nature" of Kenilworth is the excuse. That and a supposed "promise" to move the freight. People don't want the freight trains, period.

[woofner]

I'm not sure what we're arguing about exactly, but once you mention removal of the townhomes as a way to buffer against freight and maintain the "park-like" quality of the corridor, you get people to blather about the patriotic duty of homeownership. It's happened in this thread and it's happened with the "save our parks" people.

[David Greene]

I'm not sure what we're arguing about exactly, but once you mention removal of the townhomes as a way to buffer against freight and maintain the "park-like" quality of the corridor, you get people to blather about the patriotic duty of homeownership. It's happened in this thread and it's happened with the "save our parks" people.

It's a complicated issue and different people have different priorities. From what I have seen, the #1 issue in Minneapolis is freight in Kenilworth. People disagree on whether it can be mitigated but nearly everyone in a position to make decisions have said that at-grade colocation is a nonstarter, even though it could be done without taking the townhomes (by elevating the bike trail or relocating it). So the townhomes don't seem to be the real issue for most people.

I'm trying to get as clear as I can on the issues at hand. It's true that people shift their arguments which is why getting clarity takes some work.

The #1 issue in SLP is freight in SLP, period. Safety is the major concern of one group but I think the opposition goes beyond that.

These two #1s are why it has so far been an intractable problem. They are in direct conflict.

[Archiapolis]

So far I've heard:
"...colocation is a non-starter..."
and
"...moving the bike trail is a non-starter..."
Can someone please say that freight rail in SLP is a "non-starter" so that we can complete the trifecta?

Not blaming the people posting this phrase (shooting the messenger), just pointing out that SOMETHING has to give here or...<trying not to...type...it>

3C?

[sad panda]

Can someone please say that freight rail in SLP is a "non-starter" so that we can complete the trifecta?

Jeff Jacobs, mayor of SLP, came close to saying that in his initial response to the drafts just released: "Viable options have been identified to allow for LRT and freight rail to co-exist through the Kenilworth Corridor. Given this fact, and our clear position on this issue dating back to at least 2001, it is difficult to see a path forward to municipal consent in our community should it now be concluded that freight rail traffic should be rerouted in St. Louis Park." http://stlouispark.org/light-freight-ra ... -news.html

Also, Marlys Harris over at MinnPost wrote, "State Rep. Fred Hornstein (DFL-Minneapolis), who chairs the House Transportation Finance Committee, and Scott Dibble (DFL-Minneapolis), his counterpart in the Senate, seemed almost thrilled at the news. "This is a new option that appears to be viable," said Hornstein. "This is a significant new option," echoed Dibble. "All the issues seem to be addressed." Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges was also present, and though I wasn't able to buttonhole her, she looked as though she had avoided a firing squad." http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2014/ ... me-impasse

Sounds like a lot more fighting yet to come. I need to make some popcorn.

[Tcmetro]

Independent consultants will present draft reports on freight rail location alternatives and water resources impacts. The public is invited to ask questions and share comments with Metropolitan Council members and Southwest LRT project staff.

Town Hall Meeting Dates and Locations

Monday, February 10, 6 to 9:30 p.m.
Dunwoody College of Technology
818 Dunwoody Blvd., Minneapolis

Wednesday, February 12, 6 to 9:30 p.m.
St. Louis Park Senior High School
6425 West 33rd St., St. Louis Park

http://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Tra ... est-L.aspx

[BigIdeasGuy]

At some point doesn't the Governor just need to step in and lock the decision makers from SLP, MPLS, Hennepin County, etc. into a windowless room with food or water and say "You have 8 hours to figure our a solution to this problem and I don't care what it is so long as it doesn't cost the taxpayers of the state of Minnesota an extra $50 M. If you do go over the additional $50 M you have to figure how to pay for it locally. Now if you don't have a solution within 8 hours I'm canceling the entire project and asking the Attorney General to sue you to refund every penny the state has put into SW LRT so far."

Does anyone see any other way this godforsaken thing gets done?

[web]

The Feds are paying a large share......

[David Greene]

So far I've heard:
"...colocation is a non-starter..."
and
"...moving the bike trail is a non-starter..."
Can someone please say that freight rail in SLP is a "non-starter" so that we can complete the trifecta?

Everything is a non-starter to someone. That's why any disagreement exists, not just SWLRT.

The question is whether people will be able to compromise.

[MNdible]

I've always felt that an option that runs the freight through SLP would be the best. If this new routing proposal is in fact workable, then I'm all for it. Consolidate the freight in one location, rather than having two lightly used routes.

[mattaudio]

Would colo be cheaper if we single tracked between West Lake and Penn, and didn't build the 21st St station?

Added benefit: We can easily throw the segment away in the future when urban alignments become more feasible.

Still curious about this. It got pushed back from the Woofner/David Green dialog. Seems like it would be a good alternative...

[Archiapolis]

So far I've heard:
"...colocation is a non-starter..."
and
"...moving the bike trail is a non-starter..."
Can someone please say that freight rail in SLP is a "non-starter" so that we can complete the trifecta?

Everything is a non-starter to someone. That's why any disagreement exists, not just SWLRT.

The question is whether people will be able to compromise.

That is EXACTLY the point that I'm trying to make. The problem in this case is that in negotiations it is typically possible for each side to give a little in order to arrive at a compromise. This seems to be an "all or nothing" proposition - one side is going to lose out very significantly and in an obvious public way. I've thrown it out there and the comments from the mayor of SLP seem to hint at it - I think SLP will sue if this comes down to relocating/berming for freight. We'll see...

[David Greene]

That is EXACTLY the point that I'm trying to make. The problem in this case is that in negotiations it is typically possible for each side to give a little in order to arrive at a compromise. This seems to be an "all or nothing" proposition - one side is going to lose out very significantly and in an obvious public way. I've thrown it out there and the comments from the mayor of SLP seem to hint at it - I think SLP will sue if this comes down to relocating/berming for freight. We'll see...

Someone's going to sue no matter what. I expect the Met Council will make the decision based on what they think is politically feasible. Municipal Consent is not veto power. It's a delay tactic at best. It simply requires the Met Council to respond to critiques, possibly over several rounds of feedback. In the end the project can move ahead without Municipal Consent if necessary.

[twincitizen]

If this new freight re-route thing is actually viable, how the hell did we ever arrive at the whole 2-story berms situation? (Which, in turn led to the tunnels through Kenilworth situation)

In retrospect, that is just really embarassing.

The bottom line seems to be that a whole bunch of animosity (and 3-month delay, tunnel studies,etc.) could have been avoided if Met Council had simply tried a little harder to engineer a workable re-route. It all seems a little hard to believe.

Regarding municipal consent, there is absolutely no way a majority of the SLP City Council votes for any freight re-route. The damage has been done (by the flawed process) and in that community's eyes there are viable alternatives on the table. If Met Council forges ahead with the freight re-route, it will be without the support of St. Louis Park, period. And it sounds like in the end, that doesn't really matter. It looks REALLY, REALLY bad for the Met Council and could hamper the process on future lines, but it probably won't stop Southwest from getting built.

[Chef]

Would the denial of municipal consent impact federal funding in any way? Does the federal government have a track record of funding LRT lines that were opposed by some of the communities they went through?

[David Greene]

Regarding municipal consent, there is absolutely no way a majority of the SLP City Council votes for any freight re-route. The damage has been done (by the flawed process) and in that community's eyes there are viable alternatives on the table.

Yep, and Minneapolis is going to say exactly the same, along with "routing through SLP is now cheaper!"

All this study did is make coming to an agreement more difficult.

I see the choice this way. On one hand, we have a less expensive option through SLP (assuming property acquisition is not too costly) that comes at the cost of some houses and businesses. On the other hand, we have a more expensive option that involves digging tunnels but doesn't require any takings. It's ~$50 million to preserve the SLP houses and businesses and avoid more freight near the schools, etc. There are human factors on both sides (losing houses, extra noise, etc.).

I was actually clearer on my choice before this study. Now I think it is a much more complicated decision.

[mattaudio]

Would colo be cheaper if we single tracked between West Lake and Penn, and didn't build the 21st St station?

Added benefit: We can easily throw the segment away in the future when urban alignments become more feasible.

This is the least worst choice right now.

[mister.shoes]

What would it do to scheduling, having to park a train at one end or the other of a 1.5 mile section of track?

[mattaudio]

At an average speed of 45 MPH (max speed of 55 plus accel/decel) it would take 2 minutes for a train to get through this stretch. So unless we were planning to have headways of 5 minutes or less, I'm not sure it would matter.