Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[mister.shoes]

On a slightly different note, SLP has some of the TranSystems maps up on their website.

Those are really helpful to get an understanding of some of the challenges of the existing CP alignment. The elevation drawings especially so. The last page shows just how much the CP line goes up and down and how abrupt those elevation changes are. The tallest berm I see in TransSystems' reconfiguration would fall between Minnetonka Blvd and Dakota Ave and would be 10' or so higher than the current rail height. That's not a huge number, but I can understand the impression that it would give to locals. On the other hand, from Lake Street west that's going to be one tall bridge, given the 22' clearance over the LRT tracks and the 8'-10' height of the bridge structure itself. That's not any different than, say, the LRT bridge over MN55/MN62 by Fort Snelling but it's sure to be a jarring change to residents of the area.

All in all, I tend to like the idea of consolidating the freight operations in this little slice of the metro. It would be wonderful to greatly improve the land use of the LRT corridor from the West Lake station all the way to the Louisiana station. Connect some streets across the corridor (I'm looking at you, France Ave and Park Center Blvd) and slowly increase density between those stations with Beltline as the major service point and a lot of good could come out of relocation.

It also makes for the cheapest installation of LRT track through Kenilworth. No tunnels, no bridges = less resistance to Matt's far future dream of reconfiguration of the SW line in conjunction with a new W line. Gotta throw some unrealistic idealism into every post, don'tchaknow?

[David Greene]

All in all, I tend to like the idea of consolidating the freight operations in this little slice of the metro. It would be wonderful to greatly improve the land use of the LRT corridor from the West Lake station all the way to the Louisiana station. Connect some streets across the corridor (I'm looking at you, France Ave and Park Center Blvd) and slowly increase density between those stations with Beltline as the major service point and a lot of good could come out of relocation.

This is a very good point. I hadn't realized that opening France would be a possibility with relocation. Many times I have wanted to take that route.

Not that my vote counts at all but I haven't yet decided which plan is best. I haven't had enough time with the drawings yet and there are plenty of political considerations. I'm for whatever gets the line built.

[mattaudio]

One other benefit to a proper connection from TC&W to MN&S at SLP: It creates a "funnel" which can consolidate future commuter/regional rail service between SLP (West End) and Downtown Mpls (Interchange).

[Archiapolis]

If I see "bite the bullet" one more time...we are talking about $1.5B for a light rail line that primarily serves the southwest metro and grazes a single-family residential area of the north side!

We will have to live with this for decades and pay for it for just as long. "Bite the bullet?!" No way.
Take all of the extra money for berms/tunnels/trenches/land acquisition/bribes and put it towards 3C. If they won't do 3C, I wish they would scrap SWLRT right now and take all of the time, energy and money and devote it to other transit options in this city. I really want to go to the upcoming meetings but I'm afraid my head will explode.

[mister.shoes]

This is a very good point. I hadn't realized that opening France would be a possibility with relocation. Many times I have wanted to take that route.

It's possible in my head, at least. Dunno if anyone with actual decision-making power finds it possible as well. I have a fuzzy recollection of someone on here stating once that SLP would never allow it, though I can't remember who said it or why.

Obviously there'd be a RR grade crossing, and one with far greater train frequency than now. But given the fact that LRT is specifically designed for people it only makes sense to adjust the surrounding streets to be for people as well.

[twinkess]

If I see "bite the bullet" one more time...we are talking about $1.5B for a light rail line that primarily serves the southwest metro and grazes a single-family residential area of the north side!

We will have to live with this for decades and pay for it for just as long. "Bite the bullet?!" No way.
Take all of the extra money for berms/tunnels/trenches/land acquisition/bribes and put it towards 3C. If they won't do 3C, I wish they would scrap SWLRT right now and take all of the time, energy and money and devote it to other transit options in this city. I really want to go to the upcoming meetings but I'm afraid my head will explode.

Hear hear!

[Tcmetro]

BAC/CAC meeting presentation: http://metrocouncil.org/getdoc/f3dd1f79 ... ation.aspx

[David Greene]

If I see "bite the bullet" one more time...we are talking about $1.5B for a light rail line that primarily serves the southwest metro and grazes a single-family residential area of the north side!

I know it's hopeless with you, but your statement is demonstrably untrue. Even if you ignore the benefit to the Northside (it serves far more than a "single-family residental area'), the line will directly serve downtown residents, will keep and encourage new jobs downtown, will directly serve a part of SW Minneapolis that currently has very poor transit service and will serve a good chunk of the lower-income parts of South Minneapolis via the Midtown rail corridor.

Anyone who says this is just a commuter line from the suburbs either isn't paying attention, is willfully ignorant or is lying.

[twincitizen]

No one should be gleefully jumping out of their shoes over the freight re-route quite yet. Let's not forget that TC&W railroad has to give their consent, and unlike either of the municipalities, their support isn't optional.

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/243609331.html

[Archiapolis]

If I see "bite the bullet" one more time...we are talking about $1.5B for a light rail line that primarily serves the southwest metro and grazes a single-family residential area of the north side!

I know it's hopeless with you, but your statement is demonstrably untrue. Even if you ignore the benefit to the Northside (it serves far more than a "single-family residental area'), the line will directly serve downtown residents, will keep and encourage new jobs downtown, will directly serve a part of SW Minneapolis that currently has very poor transit service and will serve a good chunk of the lower-income parts of South Minneapolis via the Midtown rail corridor.

Anyone who says this is just a commuter line from the suburbs either isn't paying attention, is willfully ignorant or is lying.

I get that we disagree and I understand that you take umbrage with my opinion but I've NEVER attacked anything but your argument. I wish that it would be possible to have a philosophical argument about an issue without personal offense.

I've also asked (several times) for anyone who supports 3A to look at a Google Earth image of the proposed 3A alignment and the proposed 3C alignment and make a common sense argument that the area between the Lake Street station and Interchange does more for the city than running it through Uptown.

If you or anyone else has made the argument, I have yet to see it. If you want to say that I am "willfully ignorant" then let me reframe that idea. I AM willfully ignorant...of the ridership numbers put forward for 3C in the sense that I "ignore" them as being not worth the paper that they were written on. Again, show those Google Earth images to 100 people who don't care about urbanism and I'd wager that 75% of them would say far more people live in Uptown. Period.

Since you are stating that my opinion is "demonstrably untrue" do you have any other evidence than the laughable ridership data generated by the consultants that ignores the "demonstrably" more dense Uptown? Do I really need to go down the Greenway and point out the giant apartments ,condos and commercial activity from the Lake Street station to Nicollet and put a caption with the unit counts and square footages in ADDITION to the single family and then compare that to the overwhelming predominance of low-density single-family and industrial rubbish from the Lake St. to Interchange using 3A? You keep on assuming the Midtown Corridor/Streetcar - you realize that this isn't part of the proposal for SWLRT and that it is an ADDITIONAL line/service with the concomitant cost, time, etc. Should we consider the merit of EVERY individual line based on a fully built-out transit system? Do I have to point out the flaw in that kind of logic?

This is the second time I've challenged you on this and if you don't want to take up the argument and instead cleave to the ridership numbers that I feel are "demonstrably untrue" then I will stop arguing about it and just respectfully disagree and thank you for caring about transit in general.

I think this is a $1.5B mistake and I desperately hope that I am wrong.

[David Greene]

I've also asked (several times) for anyone who supports 3A to look at a Google Earth image of the proposed 3A alignment and the proposed 3C alignment and make a common sense argument that the area between the Lake Street station and Interchange does more for the city than running it through Uptown.

If you or anyone else has made the argument, I have yet to see it.

You have seen it many, many times. You're ignoring it. And please note that my latest response didn't directly address Kenilworth, but the project as a whole. The project does benefit Minneapolis tremendously and it's simply wrong to say otherwise.

You keep on assuming the Midtown Corridor/Streetcar - you realize that this isn't part of the proposal for SWLRT and that it is an ADDITIONAL line/service with the concomitant cost, time, etc. Should we consider the merit of EVERY individual line based on a fully built-out transit system?

Yes, absolutely we should, because we are building a SYSTEM, not a collection of individual lines. We know that a Midtown corridor is going to happen. It is best to consider that in our planning. Our current practice of siloing development of these lines has led to too much grief and wasted time.

This is the second time I've challenged you on this and if you don't want to take up the argument and instead cleave to the ridership numbers that I feel are "demonstrably untrue" then I will stop arguing about it and just respectfully disagree and thank you for caring about transit in general.

The numbers aren't demonstrably untrue until someone demonstrates they are, using techniques and procedures acceptable to FTA. And besides, the numbers aren't the only thing. There is a huge issue of service redundancy and waste with an Uptown alignment.

[mattaudio]

How would 3C be redundant in Uptown? Would it be providing the same 60 minute trip time between Henn/Lake and Franklin as it did during a snow event last week?

[twincitizen]

David, I want Midtown LRT more than anyone, but you are far too optimistic about this stuff. If we don't get more funding, rail in the Greenway won't happen at all. Even with additional funding, it's still going to be tough to get it bumped up in terms of regional priorities. I recently heard that Mike Opat rudely told the project manager at Metro Transit that the "dual alternative" of rail in the Greenway and enhanced bus on Lake Street "was not going to happen". Obviously Mike Opat is not king, but he is chair of the Hennepin County board, and that governmental body would undoubtedly be looked at to pick up a larger share of the funding if we want the Midtown LRT to happen sooner rather than later.

[Silophant]

I've also asked (several times) for anyone who supports 3A to look at a Google Earth image of the proposed 3A alignment and the proposed 3C alignment and make a common sense argument that the area between the Lake Street station and Interchange does more for the city than running it through Uptown.

If you or anyone else has made the argument, I have yet to see it.

He has made the argument many times. In brief: The entire population of Near North will take buses to Royalston and Van White stations to transfer to the Green Line to get to jobs in the SW metro. They would absolutely not take buses to Target Field to do the same thing.

There is a huge issue of service redundancy and waste with an Uptown alignment.

Right. Similarly, the Central Corridor is a huge redundant waste, because the University Ave. alignment was already well-served by the 16, 50, and 94.

[David Greene]

David, I want Midtown LRT more than anyone, but you are far too optimistic about this stuff. If we don't get more funding, rail in the Greenway won't happen at all. Even with additional funding, it's still going to be tough to get it bumped up in terms of regional priorities. I recently heard that Mike Opat rudely told the project manager at Metro Transit that the "dual alternative" of rail in the Greenway and enhanced bus on Lake Street "was not going to happen". Obviously Mike Opat is not king, but he is chair of the Hennepin County board, and that governmental body would undoubtedly be looked at to pick up a larger share of the funding if we want the Midtown LRT to happen sooner rather than later.

You are too pessimistic.

I think the two pieces could be done in phases: rail first and then enhanced bus. Or maybe the other way around. But I think it's pretty certain that rail in the Greenway *will* happen, though it might be a decade out.

[David Greene]

He has made the argument many times. In brief: The entire population of Near North will take buses to Royalston and Van White stations to transfer to the Green Line to get to jobs in the SW metro.

Remember that post a couple pages back where I said my position was misrepresented? Uh huh.

[mattaudio]

Politics look favorable to greenway rail right now, but how will they look after the Northstar of LRT is completed to Eden Prairie?

[Nick]

[Archiapolis]

I've also asked (several times) for anyone who supports 3A to look at a Google Earth image of the proposed 3A alignment and the proposed 3C alignment and make a common sense argument that the area between the Lake Street station and Interchange does more for the city than running it through Uptown.

If you or anyone else has made the argument, I have yet to see it.

You have seen it many, many times. You're ignoring it. And please note that my latest response didn't directly address Kenilworth, but the project as a whole. The project does benefit Minneapolis tremendously and it's simply wrong to say otherwise.

I followed this thread very closely after I posed this challenge the first time and I saw nothing from you or anyone else that compares the densities in these two areas. PLEASE link or copy in your argument because I've never seen it.

Also, I am NOT saying this line should be abandoned for all time, I AM saying that 3A isn't good and is NOT worth $1.5B.

You keep on assuming the Midtown Corridor/Streetcar - you realize that this isn't part of the proposal for SWLRT and that it is an ADDITIONAL line/service with the concomitant cost, time, etc. Should we consider the merit of EVERY individual line based on a fully built-out transit system?

Yes, absolutely we should, because we are building a SYSTEM, not a collection of individual lines. We know that a Midtown corridor is going to happen. It is best to consider that in our planning. Our current practice of siloing development of these lines has led to too much grief and wasted time.

I applaud your optimism but I think that it is a very bad strategy to assume a full build out. Can you name a precedent for a city that had no mass transit (rail of any kind) that then followed a LINEAR PATH from conception to execution of a fully-built out system?

...if you don't want to take up the argument and instead cleave to the ridership numbers that I feel are "demonstrably untrue"...

The numbers aren't demonstrably untrue until someone demonstrates they are, using techniques and procedures acceptable to FTA.

Could you please describe why you don't question the numbers that have been put forward? I await the link/copy that refutes MY density claims but I'm talking specifically about methodology. I've offered what I feel to be a very straight-forward and common sense analysis based on density.

And besides, the numbers aren't the only thing. There is a huge issue of service redundancy and waste with an Uptown alignment.

Fair point but other people have refuted this position better than I could. You want to look at a fully built out transit system to evaluate individual lines BUT, you don't want to talk about the fact that current busing options are a generally inferior product compared to dedicated light rail. You have accused my position as being "willfully ignorant." Care to elaborate on why the Central Corridor still got built even though there were "huge issues of redundancy" because - buses?

[David Greene]

You have seen it many, many times. You're ignoring it. And please note that my latest response didn't directly address Kenilworth, but the project as a whole. The project does benefit Minneapolis tremendously and it's simply wrong to say otherwise.

I followed this thread very closely after I posed this challenge the first time and I saw nothing from you or anyone else that compares the densities in these two areas. PLEASE link or copy in your argument because I've never seen it.

I've never argued density. I've argued access, efficiency, development and equity.

Yes, absolutely we should, because we are building a SYSTEM, not a collection of individual lines. We know that a Midtown corridor is going to happen. It is best to consider that in our planning. Our current practice of siloing development of these lines has led to too much grief and wasted time.

I applaud your optimism but I think that it is a very bad strategy to assume a full build out. Can you name a precedent for a city that had no mass transit (rail of any kind) that then followed a LINEAR PATH from conception to execution of a fully-built out system?

I don't have enough information to answer that. But we are reasonably sure some things will be built. Should we not take that into consideration?

The numbers aren't demonstrably untrue until someone demonstrates they are, using techniques and procedures acceptable to FTA.

Could you please describe why you don't question the numbers that have been put forward?

Because they have been thoroughly reviewed in a rigorous process by people at multiple levels of government and at multiple agencies. LRT projects go through a hell of a lot of scrutiny before they're funded.

You want to look at a fully built out transit system to evaluate individual lines BUT, you don't want to talk about the fact that current busing options are a generally inferior product compared to dedicated light rail. You have accused my position as being "willfully ignorant." Care to elaborate on why the Central Corridor still got built even though there were "huge issues of redundancy" because - buses?

See, I disagree that the current busing options are necessarily inferior. Buses on Hennepin and Lyndale wouldn't go away with 3C. Neither would buses on Nicollet except for perhaps the 17. They serve important purposes.

Central Corridor did replace the 50. The only somewhat similar line in the SWLRT case is the 12 which might not completely go away with 3C because some of its service area lies well outside the LRT corridor. It would probably still run on Hennepin, for example. The 16 still runs on University because its purpose is different.

Yes, you could argue that 3C serves a similarly different purpose because it is limited-stop, but would it be better use of funds to create a new limited-stop route that follows, for example, the route of the 17? I suspect (and the studies show) that a lot of transit users in Uptown aren't necessarily going to places conveniently served by 3C or are already on buses coming into the area and unlikely to transfer to LRT.