Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

Or did I miss where Eden Prairie adopting zoning all throughout to resemble policies in Mpls or St Paul?

I don't know how much they resemble policies of Minneapolis and St. Paul, but is that REALLY what you want? You want parking minimums and height limits and all that other nasty stuff that we always complain about here?

In any case, Eden Prairie is, in fact, planning for more urbanized development. That's why they wanted the line routed through Town Center. Which you would know if you'd been at the meetings where Eden Prairie staff explained all of this. Is it super-compact zoning? No it isn't but it's a lot better than what they've done in the past. Eden Prairie does in fact understand that they're running out of developable land and demographic and resource shifts don't favor past suburban planning models.

Again, don't assume. Research and *then* present your case.

Oh, and we've been centers of immigration too, so where's the rail line with as many stops in Mpls as there are proposed for the SW burbs?

Blue Line, Green Line, Midtown LRT, Nicollet streetcar?

You're actually arguing that Minneapolis isn't getting it's fair share of rail transit?

[woofner]

It's pretty bold to state that engineers don't know what they're doing. They've certainly been informed of the so-called ideal tunneling conditions here. I was at the meetings where people told them.

I'd be interested to know which meetings and which people you're talking about. I'm assuming it was related to the deep-bore option. That was of limited applicability to the typical regional subsurficial situation because it is located in a bedrock valley. If they brought in tunneling experts on this one specific issue, that's encouraging, but again in light of the personal experience I've had and shared here about local transit officials' (generalization) ignorance of tunneling I'm not sure it's enough. In other words, Minneapolis is not Manhattan, and not just because of the tall buildings thing.

Additionally, I think it unfairly oversimplifies my argument to characterize it as an attack on engineers' expertise. I have full faith in almost any engineer's ability to design a highway that will efficiently drain rainwater, will not cause significant substrate erosion, will safely handle a car at 55 mph on turns, and will operate to an acceptable level of congestion at peak assuming current traffic conditions. But please peruse the following course list and tell me where it gets into the effect of that highway's design on bike/ped activity, the relative likelihood of patronizing nearby businesses, the impact on local transit operations, or even the effect of the design on user behavior such as likelihood to speed, much less levels of isolation or impact on consumer behavior:

https://webapps-prd.oit.umn.edu/courses ... ignator=CE

We know that the design of a street will impact any number of interrelated activities. So why do we put full responsibility for its design on someone with compartmentalized knowledge?

[mattaudio]

[Archiapolis]

Wow.

I am really impressed by the attention and time spent on becoming informed on this issue. With that said...

Credentials, bona fides, details, who went to what meeting...

Use. Common. Sense.

Density + Transit = win
Desolation + Transit = failure

Again, look at the Google Earth images from where the 3A and 3C proposals diverge and make a common sense argument for transit through what is current desolation vs. existing density.

I'm sorry but I'm going to keep beating this drum until one of the 3A proponents takes up the other side of the argument. The 3A argument *appears* to be, "3A kind of serves the north side (sorry about those bus transfers from actual density), eventually development will happen underneath the highway overpasses, and 'we'll do better next time (sorry about that $1.5B) <nervous chuckle>.'"

I'd LIKE to reject the whole thing and look at other transit options that actually serve metropolitan density instead and I'd accept the frowning if it meant doing things right. However, if I AM to accept that Eden Prairie to West Lake is a "done deal" then fine <gag> but now that this tunnel/berm question has appeared and looks intractable, I want to fight for a line that actually does more for the existing density.

Thanks again to all for engaging in this discussion.

Exempli Gratia regarding suburban policy: St. Louis Park is one stall PER BED minimum and yes, they have height limits, CUPs and all of the usual hoops. Minneapolis is no picnic but the suburbs aren't exactly magnets for density.

[David Greene]

It's pretty bold to state that engineers don't know what they're doing. They've certainly been informed of the so-called ideal tunneling conditions here. I was at the meetings where people told them.

I'd be interested to know which meetings and which people you're talking about.

CAC meetings. The CIDNA folks have brought this up repeatedly. As I recall they were speaking more generally. They mentioned the deep bore through Kenilworth but the statement was more to the effect of tunneling being easier in the overall region. Tunnels under Nicollet and Lyndale, alignments along Park and Hiawatha have been discussed _ad_nauseum_.

But please peruse the following course list and tell me where it gets into the effect of that highway's design on bike/ped activity, the relative likelihood of patronizing nearby businesses, the impact on local transit operations, or even the effect of the design on user behavior such as likelihood to speed, much less levels of isolation or impact on consumer behavior:

As an engineer (though not a civil engineer), I can quite confidently state that there is book knowledge and there is experience. Book knowledge is useful to get a grasp of very basic concepts but it gives nowhere near enough training to actually design something real. I don't care how much a course talked about bike/ped, the engineer is not going to know how things really work without real-world experience. It is a night-and-day difference to be able to talk about something and to be able to actually do that something.

What I learned in college was nowhere near the depth of information I needed in grad school and that in turn was nowhere near the depth of knowledge I need in my day-to-day work in the field.

The people who do these designs have years and decades of real-world experience. Do you *really* think they have not heard about the latest ideas in urban design? Every time I've brought up some (presumably) newfangled idea talked about on this board at CAC meeintgs, Jim Alexander and crew certainly knew what I was talking about. They had good answers to my questions.

Engineering is fundamentally about tradeoffs, it is not about finding a perfect solution. No perfect solution exists, which I think most lay people don't grasp. Engineering is not science, it is art.

[David Greene]

I would say, "so what?"

[David Greene]

The 3A argument *appears* to be

It "appears" that way because you cherry-pick what you want to hear.

I'm certainly willing to discuss tradeoffs but it does me no good to engage with people that either misrepresent what I've said, insult my intelligence or call my position "stupid," "a disaster," "fantasy" or any number of other not-so-nice things.

Respect goes both ways.

[woofner]

Do you *missreally* think they have not heard about the latest ideas in urban design? Engineering is fundamentally about tradeoffs, it is not about finding a perfect solution. No perfect solution exists, which I think most lay people don't grasp. Engineering is not science, it is art.

If only every engineer shared your attitude. I have talked to several engineers on transit-related or transit-focuses projects that have expressed ignorance or apathy towards basic transit planning or transit engineering concepts.

[David Greene]

Do you *missreally* think they have not heard about the latest ideas in urban design? Engineering is fundamentally about tradeoffs, it is not about finding a perfect solution. No perfect solution exists, which I think most lay people don't grasp. Engineering is not science, it is art.

If only every engineer shared your attitude. I have talked to several engineers on transit-related or transit-focuses projects that have expressed ignorance or apathy towards basic transit planning or transit engineering concepts.

I just edited the post you replied to. In my interactions with Jim Alexander he's always come off to me as very competent and informed. Engineers don't always have answers to on-the-spot questions. Sometimes they need to do a little research to make sure they're giving the right information. In my experience Jim's crew has done a good job of following up in situations like that.

I can certainly see how interactions with engineers at one-off events like open houses might be frustrating as there's no avenue for follow-up. That's why I think attending things like CAC and TAC meetings are much more useful. There's a long ongoing conversation at those places with lots of back-and-forth. Of course it takes a lot of commitment to attend these meetings and not everyone can do that.

Public engagement is a really difficult problem. Personally I feel like the federal process is very wrong in this area. One-off meetings aren't very helpful for anything beyond simple project updates. People quite reasonably feel like they're being talked to because, in fact, they are being talked to. It's not a forum for deep conversation.

NTN has done a great job working with Hennepin County on Bottineau. Those meetings feel more conversational because there's a vision of a series of meetings. There's always a challenge of getting new meeting attendees up to speed. My sense is that with each new line, the various public entities have become better at public engagement. That obviously doesn't help what's happened in the past but it's good progress.

[mplsjaromir]

Hot damn finally some epic memes! So much win! I need some sriracha flavored bacon after so many lulz. U mad? Cause I ain't.

[FISHMANPET]

It's gonna turn into a he said-she said game, but on another forum I read there's a thread by a traffic engineer in Connecticut. He's a young guy and is up on the new things, but the older guys in his department aren't, and they're just good at building highways in a vacuum. Hell, the entire StrongTowns movement is built on the idea that traffic engineers need to do more than engineer roads that move cars quickly.

That's not to say that all engineers are like that, but I don't think anybody should be lambasted for questioning the agenda of experts.

[Nick]

It's almost like...this conversation has happened before.


Routes by UrbanMSP, on Flickr

"What engineers devised these routes?"

This is the best thing I could find on microfilm in a half hour, will definitely return next week and try not to get sidetracked by all the references to the "Reds" in headlines.

[MSPtoMKE]

Except then the armchair engineer goes on to propose a system of one-way streets and a double-decker elevated viaduct... Eww.

[lordmoke]

"Mobile Home Resident Not a Freeloader"

[min-chi-cbus]

Wow.

I am really impressed by the attention and time spent on becoming informed on this issue. With that said...

Credentials, bona fides, details, who went to what meeting...

Use. Common. Sense.

Density + Transit = win
Desolation + Transit = failure

Again, look at the Google Earth images from where the 3A and 3C proposals diverge and make a common sense argument for transit through what is current desolation vs. existing density.

What if my argument for 3A was the redevelopment opportunities that would make the "return" on this project much more digestible than anything along 3C? It's not the alignment that I would personally opt for, but the politicians and the governing bodies that are proffering these ideas to the Federal Government have to demonstrate some kind of smart "return", or at least maximize it.

I'm afraid that's probably the primary reason we are talking about a 3A alignment and not 3C. That, and 3C is more expensive, to boot.

[Anondson]

Density + Transit = win
Desolation + Transit = failure

It's not that simple, of course. The original Hiawatha line was rather desolate when it was built out. And some critics consider it still rather desolate to this day as we wait for development to happen to make it "dense".

[Tcmetro]

Actually, future development isn't considered in the process for federal funding (or at least it wasn't when SW began through the process). I would imagine this is to prevent developers from getting too much input into transit plans, and to prevent transit service from being redistributed from current residents to residents of future developments.

My honest belief is that the choice of the 3A routing over the 3C routing was cost. Despite the fact that I believe the modeling was incorrect, the potential ridership from the Uptown area would not justify the cost of a tunnel on Nicollet Ave under the FTA rules for cost-effectiveness. I also think 3A was chosen because it allows interlining with current services. The 3C sub-option that allowed interlining was ridiculous, IMO, and would have increased travel times too much to be useful. It probably would have been one of the worst options because it was trying to do too much.

[mattaudio]

My honest belief is that the choice of the 3A routing over the 3C routing was cost.

The 3A costs have increase dramatically. Now that we're paying 3C costs and getting 3A crap, I hope we can step back and reconsider.

under the FTA rules for cost-effectiveness.

Thankfully the Bush-era FTA CEI was changed, and urban rail now has a recognized function beyond moving suburban commuters to the CBD.

I also think 3A was chosen because it allows interlining with current services.

I'm also not a fan of the sub-option for interlining with current services. But will there not be a day when our metro demands more than four lines operating as two services (green and blue)? We shouldn't let that get in the way of good transit. Eventually 3C could interline up Central Ave or east to Rosedale.

[Tcmetro]

Density + Transit = win
Desolation + Transit = failure

It's not that simple, of course. The original Hiawatha line was rather desolate when it was built out. And some critics consider it still rather desolate to this day as we wait for development to happen to make it "dense".

Hiawatha is well-used because of it's major trip generators on the south end of the line. You have the Mall of America and the airport, the VA Hospital, two large park and rides, major bus transfers at Franklin, Lake, 46th, and MOA, and a high-density, low-income neighborhood at Cedar-Riverside.

I wonder if the riders from Terminal 1 to the parking garage at Terminal 2 are counted in the ridership figures. That would be a significant inflation in the number of users per day.

Southwest lacks a lot of the large trip-generators that Hiawatha has. First, the bus connections are less used and some are non-existent today, the job sites are more "9-to-5" office park settings, and the incomes are higher, and neighborhoods less dense. This line will certainly be more important than Hiawatha for downtown commuting. Still, the line serves some large nodes: West Lake and Hopkins for instance; Wooddale is adjacent to a large redevelopment project; Louisiana to an industrial park and hospital; Blake to a lower-income apartment area; and Eden Prairie Town Center to a prosperous suburban shopping area with loads of low-income, entry-level jobs.

[Tcmetro]

My honest belief is that the choice of the 3A routing over the 3C routing was cost.

The 3A costs have increase dramatically. Now that we're paying 3C costs and getting 3A crap, I hope we can step back and reconsider.

If 3A costs have escalated a lot, 3C costs likely would have increased as well. I wouldn't be surprised if a 3C line was in the range of $1.7-2 billion.

under the FTA rules for cost-effectiveness.

Thankfully the Bush-era FTA CEI was changed, and urban rail now has a recognized function beyond moving suburban commuters to the CBD.

The problem is that Southwest would have to go through the federal funds application process again, which is more and more competitive, with more regions wising up to the usefulness of adding rail transit to their portfolios.

I also think 3A was chosen because it allows interlining with current services.

I'm also not a fan of the sub-option for interlining with current services. But will there not be a day when our metro demands more than four lines operating as two services (green and blue)? We shouldn't let that get in the way of good transit. Eventually 3C could interline up Central Ave or east to Rosedale.

I certainly agree with you that we are lacking plans for a line to provide service to the NE of downtown Minneapolis. There's nothing in the plans, and it seems that nothing has been acknowledged by the powers that be.