Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[MNdible]

What was their dark secret motive to choose the clearly inferior 3A routing?

Incompetence?

Isn't it fun to impugn people you don't know?

[Tyler]

What was their dark secret motive to choose the clearly inferior 3A routing?

Incompetence?

Isn't it fun to impugn people you don't know?

Oh give me a break. What would a better reason be? Or you are 100% sure they are correct? But yes, if they happen to be wrong it's definitely the Illuminati.

[MNdible]

What would a better reason be?

Perhaps that, after assessing the technical and political realities, they determined that 3A was the best route?

Even if that's not the case, incompetency is a weak answer. Groupthink would be better, but this board wouldn't know anything about that.

[woofner]

Interestingly there is a station-by-station run time table in AA Tech Memo 6:

http://www.southwesttransitway.org/tech ... sults.html

It lists a 5 minute shorter end-to-end run time for 3C than the DEIS but a 4.5 minute longer end-to-end run time for 3A (which you have to deduce since for some reason it does not explicitly list this alternative in the table). I made this table to compare the two:



The AA Tech Memo was done by Parsons Brinckerhoff, while the DEIS was done by HDR. It appears that PB consistently projected shorter travel times, but the real difference comes down the fact, as Tyler mentions, that the DEIS is comparing a route that ends in the core to one that ends several blocks outside the core. Not coincidentally, the Blue Line schedule lists 4 minutes between Nicollet and Target Field stations. So yes, the DEIS is either being disingenuous or incompetent, but at the same time the AA's projection of a 5 minute travel time between 4th & Franklin on Nicollet at grade in 3C is fishy too.

Personally I could believe that a politician that either wants to get a big project under his or her belt or else genuinely wants to improve transit could lean on staff to come up with reasons to support their preference, who then either put corresponding pressure on the consultant to come up with numbers that support their preferred route or merely point out to the consultant which way the wind is blowing, and the consultant comes up with numbers that make it more likely they'll win another bid. This is not the Count Chocula villainy MNdible suggests, it's just a normal outcome of the work of a group of humans, all of whom are made of bias and greed. But I think it's also possible that the consultants just both made errors, which had butterfly effects on other calculations that made 3A seem like the clear choice when a different set of calculations might have made 3C seem like the clear choice.

[Tyler]

What would a better reason be?

Perhaps that, after assessing the technical and political realities, they determined that 3A was the best route?

Could be. I never discounted that possibility, and I don't know enough to know better. I think 3C is a better route, but I can't be sure. So I read the documents and try to understand their rationale. When I see things that don't make sense to me I question them. I personally don't see any great logic being used. I don't see any advanced methodology. I see large assumptions being made on limed data and minimal analysis. So yes, I see incompetence. But maybe the answers aren't in the docs. And that's why I'm asking the questions. In the name of group think, yo.

[Nick]

Since everybody apparently thinks there was some sort of conspiracy that doomed 3C, who do you think was behind it? What was their dark secret motive to choose the clearly inferior 3A routing?

Was it the Illuminati? The Freemasons? Henry Kissinger?

Perhaps it was Nick, knowing that snubbing the 3C routing would generate thousands of angry and self-righteous posts, thus boosting UrbanMSP's pageviews.

There was absolutely a William Randolph Hearst/USS Maine sinking dynamic when I picked the alignment.

Other than the Freemasons (my grandpa is a Freemason!) my vote would be the consultancy-industrial complex, but that's probably just because I'm not paying off student loans from a master's degree.

[mulad]

Oddly, if you punch "hearst conspiracy" into Google, the first page of links are all related to the criminalization of marijuana rather than the USS Maine. Ah, potheads.

[ECtransplant]

Take a bus to the LRT. Just like the folks in North will.

That's kinda the point though. You shouldn't have to transfer from a bus to catch the train when you're in the most dense, walkable, transit friendly neighborhood outside of downtown

[UptownSport]

And end to end- WHAT, exactly is at the 'end' of the proposed SW line?
Low density, wealthy 'choice' riders. We need to make the ride as quick as possible for them????

The primary other reason other than cost I can think of in favor of 3A is end-to-end travel time, but that gets outweighed by the vastly higher population able to access the line, and the fact that it would speed up travel significantly over existing Downtown-to-Uptown bus routes.

Every time I hear David making the argument that 3a somehow serves North (about a dozen times now) it sounds more ridiculous.
A SW stop or two in industrial no-man's-land just west of downtown is insignificant for North Minneapolis next to the preferred Bottineau travesty.

[Anondson]

And end to end- WHAT, exactly is at the 'end' of the proposed SW line?
Low density, wealthy 'choice' riders.

There are even more non-wealthy condo living, apartment dwelling, townhome renting residents living out there.

[garfield]

Is this supposed to be light rail, or commuter rail? The reason the Hiawatha line is good is because it connects downtown Minneapolis to the airport and then the MOA...things that are part of a 24 hour, lively metropolis. The Green Line between Minneapolis and St. Paul will connect our two downtowns, and all of their art, theater, restaurants, etc.

If we connect Eden Prairie and Hopkins to Target Field along a bike path where very few people live, and even fewer businesses exist, what is the end goal? If we are transporting people from their suburban homes to their work downtown, fine, but this is a very, very expensive commuter rail line. With the 3C alignment, I can envision people from Eden Prairie going to Uptown for dinner any night of the week, or teenagers from Hopkins going shopping at Calhoun Square. I see people reverse commuting from the Wedge to their jobs in Eden Prairie. I think that's why 3C just seems to make sense for most of us - it just feels better. It is so much more versatile than just bringing people from the suburbs to a Twins game, and why some don't trust the data that has been presented to push 3A forward.

I can stomach spending a few hundred million to tunnel under a major population/business center...but to tunnel under a bike path seems ridiculous.

[blobs]

What's wrong with this route? Streetcars will pick up the slack east of the lakes. LRT is only for getting to baseball/the mall/the airport.

[UptownSport]

Star has another foreboding demi headinen " Open Revolt ..."

http://m.startribune.com/news/?id=220556291&c=y

[FISHMANPET]

You realize there hasn't been a Minneapolis Star for 31 years, right?

[UptownSport]

Is this supposed to be light rail, or commuter rail? The reason the Hiawatha line is good is because it connects downtown Minneapolis to the airport and then the MOA...things that are part of a 24 hour, lively metropolis. The Green Line between Minneapolis and St. Paul will connect our two downtowns, and all of their art, theater, restaurants, etc.

If we connect Eden Prairie and Hopkins to Target Field along a bike path where very few people live, and even fewer businesses exist, what is the end goal? If we are transporting people from their suburban homes to their work downtown, fine, but this is a very, very expensive commuter rail line. With the 3C alignment, I can envision people from Eden Prairie going to Uptown for dinner any night of the week, or teenagers from Hopkins going shopping at Calhoun Square. I see people reverse commuting from the Wedge to their jobs in Eden Prairie. I think that's why 3C just seems to make sense for most of us - it just feels better. It is so much more versatile than just bringing people from the suburbs to a Twins game, and why some don't trust the data that has been presented to push 3A forward.

I can stomach spending a few hundred million to tunnel under a major population/business center...but to tunnel under a bike path seems ridiculous.

Well put.

[David Greene]

I see people reverse commuting from the Wedge to their jobs in Eden Prairie

Would not people living downtown do the same? The Strib has done a great propaganda job convincing people this is a suburban commuter-only line. People from downtown and North will reverse commute to jobs. Students will go to school, in the suburbs and at the U. People will go shopping in the suburbs (*gasp!*).

to tunnel under a bike path seems ridiculous.

I don't think anyone here really disagrees, but if it's what's needed to get the line built, I'm all for it.

[UptownSport]

You realize there hasn't been a Minneapolis Star for 31 years, right?

Sorry to have confused you, and hope it didn't cause you too much trouble;
It's actually the Startribune, under startribune.com.

Well, whomever they are, the article they published also had a quote from R.T. Rybak, (he's the Mayor of Minneapolis, the city the line starts in) that might be a rehash from a previous article, but is worth repeating.

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak on Wednesday said keeping the freight next to the future LRT would be “a flagrant disregard for a commitment that was made.”

[RailBaronYarr]

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/220732001.html

Minneapolis Park Board recommends deep-bore runnel under trail if freight can't be re-located. While I personally think this option is laughable, if the MPB thinks it's the best option, how unrealistic should we all think it is?

[talindsay]

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/220732001.html

Minneapolis Park Board recommends deep-bore runnel under trail if freight can't be re-located. While I personally think this option is laughable, if the MPB thinks it's the best option, how unrealistic should we all think it is?

For the sake of any future transit that might ever be built, let's assume it's *VERY* unrealistic. A wasteful orgy of misspent transit funds on a deep-bore tunnel under a park will pretty much be a death-knell to any future transit funding, I think.

[MNdible]

The Park Board has a rather dubious record of making sound fiscal decisions.