Page 51 of 230

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 10:05 am
by David Greene
So if we reroute the bike path, LRT and the freight train can share the route, we don't have to build a tunnel, the lakes stay clean, and 25 families don't have to give up their homes?!!
I'm not sure about the homes. I have to ask about it.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 10:06 am
by mulad
According to the Hennepin County property map, the townhomes are from 1984. Architecture sucked in the '80s.

http://goo.gl/maps/DGExb

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 10:07 am
by orangevening
I bike the "Burnham Trail" for my commute from S Mpls to SLP. If they co-locate rail and LRT, I wouldn't miss that section one bit. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to see the elimination of one of the worst bike/street crossings in Minneapolis. Bikers blow through the stop sign on the trail when crossing Cedar Lake Ave and motorists stop on Cedar Lake when they shouldn't. Bikers and motorists behave unpredictably and it drives me crazy. HCRRA needs to exercise its authority and get rid of the bike trail. We bikers will survive.
Maybe you but not me. The Dean Parkway and Cedar Lake route is horribly paved and Dean too small to share with traffic. After
biking this trail for 10 years I think I saw my 2nd, maybe 1st, freight train there.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 10:22 am
by orangevening
And make no mistake, that is the problem here. Politics.
I think that's what makes me chuckle a little. If the SW line is so important for providing Minneapolis residents access to jobs along the SW corridor, how could a council member or mayor seriously listen to bike fanatics complaining about the loss of a half mile leafy stretch of trail and slight re-routing OR 25 homeowners getting market rates for their homes (or higher to account for the inconvenience)?

At some point, doesn't someone or a body of people have to say that "if this corridor, and this alignment is so valuable to the city and region at large in improving mobility and job access," (you could obviously debate those 2 as we all have here...) "and further delays will cost this project $x million per week, then we're making the executive decision to do Y." If you allow every constituency to have input or draw a line in the sand that is un-crossable to them, all of a sudden 25 townhomes or a bike path can de-rail an entire project.
I'll chime in as one of those bike "fanatics" (i.e. bike rider who uses this trails and considers it the best in the city). The reroute isn't a reroute- there is already a bike lane and trail where the "reroute" would go. It's a bit of short cut going east, but it's such in bad shape I'd rather go the extra few blocks around anyway. The bike trail isn't very wide there and your going to have to take out the townhomes anyway to do this at grade. Minneapolis is the best city I've been too in terms of off street trails and it's my *home*. It's hung it's it hat as one of the best cities in the country to bike in mainly because of it bicycle infrastructure. To me it would like cutting off Hwy 55 at Cedar/24th and make people drive on Cedar to reach 35w or 94.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 10:32 am
by David Greene
I'll chime in as one of those bike "fanatics" (i.e. bike rider who uses this trails and considers it the best in the city). The reroute isn't a reroute- there is already a bike lane and trail where the "reroute" would go. It's a bit of short cut going east, but it's such in bad shape I'd rather go the extra few blocks around anyway. The bike trail isn't very wide there
So I can understand better, can you clarify what segment you're talking about? What's in such bad shape?

What do you think of Thatcher's reroute idea?

The trails on Dean Pkwy certainly need a rebuild. I don't think we should assume they won't be improved.

To me the biggest issue with the reroute is the hill from Dean up to Kenilworth. It's not horrible but it is a bit of an inconvenience. I don't see a way to avoid that in any reroute scenario, unfortunately. I suppose the Greenway on/off ramp at Dean would have to be beefed up a bit.

I want to take these concerns and ideas to the next CAC meeting.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 11:15 am
by orangevening
^^ Yes, the Dean Parkway path in the blvd. It's hooorrribbblllee. Pot holes the whole way.

I've been trying to find Thatcher's reroute idea that your talking about for 30 mins. No luck. Link or something?

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 11:24 am
by David Greene
^^ Yes, the Dean Parkway path in the blvd. It's hooorrribbblllee. Pot holes the whole way.

I've been trying to find Thatcher's reroute idea that your talking about for 30 mins. No luck. Link or something?
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5&start=880#p30873

Specifically, the second-to-last bullet.

Frankly, it's so bloody obvious that I can't imagine why they did the reroute they way they did.

EDIT: I don't think there's currently a trail along Sunset or France. So I really don't know why they proposed what they did.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 11:26 am
by the kid
So if we reroute the bike path, LRT and the freight train can share the route, we don't have to build a tunnel, the lakes stay clean, and 25 families don't have to give up their homes?!!

For chrissakes this isn't rocket science. Just reroute the damn bike path. Go with 3a and be done with it.
Everyone always thinks their own opinion is the obvious one. Currently 2,000 riders a day use the Kenilworth Trail because of its direct route, separation from cars, and infrequent intersections. If city and regional policies are diligently and consistently followed, that could increase 4-5x in the next couple decades. This trail is an important link in the regional transportation network and it would be severely degraded by the detour proposed by the project office. Thatcher's detour would be less bad, but still worse than the existing alignment.

So why is it more important to save 26 unremarkable townhomes whose residents will probably move in the next 5 years anyway?
Number 1: the "unremarkable town homes" are peoples homes, you arrogant twit. Do you own a home? If not you have no understanding of the pride and attachment that comes with this. Number 2: You have no more evidence than you or I that these people are moving; in any case, I fail to see why that is important. Number 3. Not only would removing the bike trail save 26 "unremarkable" homes - and protect these peoples property rights - it would also have the potential to save HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARs. For someone who claims to be a transit advocate, this represents the best chance to build the SW rail. Number 4. Don't tell me we can't find another route for cyclists to ride into downtown, that's pure crap. I've ridden this trail many times; it's nice, but I suspect we can pave a trail somewhere else that serves the same purpose.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 1:10 pm
by woofner
Alright, it's friday afternoon, I'll get into an internet argument with a halfwit.
Number 1: the "unremarkable town homes" are peoples homes, you arrogant twit. Do you own a home? If not you have no understanding of the pride and attachment that comes with this
Yes I understand that Americans worship at the altar of the Owner-Occupied Single Family Home. However, I think elected officials should make rational decisions, not emotional ones. If you have a different view of the role of government, that's your right. Yes I do own a home, and am proud but not that attached.
Number 2: You have no more evidence than you or I that these people are moving
Over half of CIDNA residents have lived in their homes for less than 5 years, and more than three-quarters for less than 10 years (which is significantly higher rate of transiency than the city as a whole):
http://www.mncompass.org/_pdfs/neighbor ... 102011.pdf
Please note that what I did there was back up my assertions with evidence. That strategy may help you sound less stupid in the future.
I fail to see why that is important.
You seem to fail to see a great deal of things, so I'll help you along: If the reason these homes can't be removed is because of their emotional value to the owners, and the owners move in 5 years anyway, then what has been gained by saving the homes?
Number 3. Not only would removing the bike trail save 26 "unremarkable" homes - and protect these peoples property rights - it would also have the potential to save HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARs.
This is demonstrably false. This press release states that colocating all three modes at grade will cost the same or less than all other alternatives except for relocating the trail, which would only be $15-20m less. I know these are big numbers, but you can tell the difference between 20,000,000 and 200,000,000 right?
4. Don't tell me we can't find another route for cyclists to ride into downtown, that's pure crap. I've ridden this trail many times; it's nice, but I suspect we can pave a trail somewhere else that serves the same purpose.
Give me an example of another routing that would connect West Calhoun to Downtown as directly and as well-separated as Kenilworth. Until you do you're just another ignorant asshole making shit up on the internet. Not that the world doesn't need more of those.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 1:31 pm
by exiled_antipodean
Couple of related questions here that I think are important in this discussion.
1. How many users of the Kenilworth trail are commuters?

I run and bike for leisure on this stretch of trail, and it sho' is nice, but if it were gone I'd find other routes in the same area. My point: re-routing recreational users should not be a big concern in this discussion.

2. At an appropriate average speed for these bike commuters, how much extra time will they spend cycling on a re-routed trail?

From earlier discussion on this thread, it seems we're talking about a half-mile extra with the re-route. At 15 miles an hour that's an extra 2 minutes each way.

3. How many cycle commuters will switch modes because of the re-route?

Go out and ask them, and I'm sure they'll say yes, but really?! 2-3 minutes each way. I doubt it.

4. To what extent does co-location with a tunnel prevent (or make it harder) the SWLRT from connecting to a Greenway streetcar?

Again, taking what I've learned on this thread, it seems that co-location with a tunnel would make it much more expensive to do this.

A Midtown Greenway streetcar with good connections (cross-platform or through running) to the Green and Blue lines at either end would create a great LRT/streetcar network in South Minneapolis.

Keeping that possibility alive seems more valuable than the slight increment on travel time for cycle commuters.

On the question of the townhomes, yeah they're ugly, and eminent domain is meant for precisely these kinds of situations. But the blase over-use of it for freeway construction has made it politically difficult.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 1:41 pm
by twincitizen
^Excellent post.
I don't want to distract from the questions you just asked, but I do want to share this letter that Sen. Dibble and Rep. Hornstein sent to Met Council Chair Haigh yesterday: http://www.scribd.com/doc/159148390/Sen ... h-August-8

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 4:06 pm
by Anondson
^^ Yes, the Dean Parkway path in the blvd. It's hooorrribbblllee. Pot holes the whole way.

I've been trying to find Thatcher's reroute idea that your talking about for 30 mins. No luck. Link or something?
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5&start=880#p30873

Specifically, the second-to-last bullet.

Frankly, it's so bloody obvious that I can't imagine why they did the reroute they way they did.

EDIT: I don't think there's currently a trail along Sunset or France. So I really don't know why they proposed what they did.
Finally got around to tracing that option out on a map... I think it maybe the perfect compromise. Maybe the only reason not to do it would be because it would need a NEW rail crossing, while the one proposed doesn't need a new rail crossing but just uses existing rail crossings. Maybe the freight line is in a compromising mood and if asked to help save a crazy amount of money and good will at this point in time and would oblige... Or maybe it is a federal rail safety consideration when a certain amount of rail crossings in a short distance a created?

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 5:42 pm
by UptownSport
Politics.

Central went thru both Hennepin and Ramsey county, Hiawatha; Hennepin and Dakota, so there was even more cooperation needed.
Both these lines hit un debatable 'Winner' locations, so there was no question of the merit.
Here we have to fabricate terms (i.e. "Near North") to justify it as serving inner city people, theres so much clawing for justification.

The question here is that the lines very merit is the problem, as alluded to in the Star article, and politicians are doing exactly what they're supposed to.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 5:58 pm
by cond8147
Politics.

Central went thru both Hennepin and Ramsey county, Hiawatha; Hennepin and Dakota, so there was even more cooperation needed.
Are you saying Hiawatha goes through Hennepin and Dakota counties? It actually does not. It only resides in Hennepin County.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 6:00 pm
by Anondson
Hiawatha; Hennepin and Dakota, so there was even more cooperation needed.
Fairly certain Hiawatha doesn't touch Dakota county, it is entirely contained in Hennepin County. There is a bus rapid transit into Dakota that was tacked on years later but it was not part of the Hiawatha LRT line.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 6:59 pm
by seanrichardryan
Near North was not a term invented for SW LRT.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 10:12 pm
by alleycat
Near North was not a term invented for SW LRT.
Thank you for pointing this out. Near North is in fact a neighborhood and the larger community south of Lowry. The community north of Lowry is Camden fyi. Anyways I'd love to have Bottineau skip SW in line, but that's because it'll be more useful for me.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 10th, 2013, 3:37 am
by tabletop
Hiawatha; Hennepin and Dakota, so there was even more cooperation needed.
Fairly certain Hiawatha doesn't touch Dakota county, it is entirely contained in Hennepin County. There is a bus rapid transit into Dakota that was tacked on years later but it was not part of the Hiawatha LRT line.
I think he's refering to hwy 55

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 10th, 2013, 6:58 am
by the other scott
The Dean Parkway and Cedar Lake route is horribly paved and Dean too small to share with traffic.
Agreed. I was thinking of Thatcher's idea to continue west on the Greenway, cross the tracks and hook up with St. Louis Ave. From there you can get back on Cedar Lake Trail pretty easily.
After biking this trail for 10 years I think I saw my 2nd, maybe 1st, freight train there.
Huh. Just two weeks ago I had to bike down to the bridge at Burnham road to get around a stopped freight train, and that's not the first time I've been stopped by a train there at Cedar Lake. I've also seen trains parked next to the trail but not blocking the intersection (they would be blocking Thatcher's reroute) a few times. We must bike at different times of the day.

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Posted: August 10th, 2013, 11:25 am
by mattaudio
I've seen trains stopped on the Wayzata Sub or the TC&W line, both short of the junction. Likely waiting for a train to pass on the other line before entering the funnel through downtown. The TC&W guys were stopped short of the trail the two times I saw it, so as to let bikers by- that was nice of them.