Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
UptownSport
Target Field
Posts: 599
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby UptownSport » May 20th, 2013, 10:09 pm

My friend, who just sold out of a spot on bike trail, just told me they had enough money for two years- to continue planning.
(Primarily she left because of the rail- her place was literally next to the trail- But also grew to dislike the association)
She'd written the neighborhood's response to the EIS, so she was rather in the middle.

There is, of course, the off chance that fortunes could change and it's not imminent. :Praying Emoticon:

Perhaps then there'll be transit that serves where people, who actually do depend on transit, actually live instead of bypassing them.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4730
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » May 21st, 2013, 7:13 am

Perhaps then there'll be transit that serves where people, who actually do depend on transit, actually live instead of bypassing them.
Is that snark *really* necessary? This is the last I'll say on the subject. People "actually do" live in North Minneapolis and they . "actually do" depend on transit. Really! Bryn Mawr, Harrison, Heritage Park and a whole bunch of other neighborhoods are really excited about Southwest LRT.

I have my own thoughts about why this keeps getting ignored, but we've gone over all that before.

Can we *please* stop with disparaging a whole bunch of people who think the current plan is the best outcome?

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7711
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » May 21st, 2013, 7:40 am

Over at the discussion on the transit line that should actually go through North Mpls, most people agree with you that it's a shame we're bypassing most of the residents of North Mpls in favor of the backside of a golf course: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4730
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » May 21st, 2013, 7:59 am

Over at the discussion on the transit line that should actually go through North Mpls, most people agree with you that it's a shame we're bypassing most of the residents of North Mpls in favor of the backside of a golf course: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7
This is another one that's more complicated than it seems. The residents in North were split 50/50 over the alignment. I for one am not comfortable tearing down hundreds of houses without a clear community mandate.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7711
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » May 21st, 2013, 8:37 am

Well if mandates are the standard, then it sure seems like Southwest via Uptown was a clear community mandate.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4730
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » May 21st, 2013, 9:02 am

Well if mandates are the standard, then it sure seems like Southwest via Uptown was a clear community mandate.
It was? I have some Whittier residents you should talk to.

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2750
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby mulad » May 21st, 2013, 9:20 am

Did people get polled on that in any way? Perhaps we need to start using some form of voter referendum to validate these projects.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 777
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby VAStationDude » May 21st, 2013, 9:23 am

Well if mandates are the standard, then it sure seems like Southwest via Uptown was a clear community mandate.
3C will always live on as the Right and True alternative in the minds of those who won't have to fund, design and build the line. (Not to mention the people who would have to live with blocks long open cuts in their hood) Take solice in that and stop kicking the shit out of a long dead equine.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5782
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby MNdible » May 21st, 2013, 9:58 am

3C will always live on as the Right and True alternative in the minds of those who won't have to fund, design and build the line. (Not to mention the people who would have to live with blocks long open cuts in their hood) Take solice in that and stop kicking the shit out of a long dead equine.
Well stated.

User avatar
woofner
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1310
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:04 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby woofner » May 21st, 2013, 10:48 am

It was? I have some Whittier residents you should talk to.
Do they take the bus? I don't know anyone in Whittier who takes the bus and voted against 3C. Plenty of people who drive to neighborhood association meetings voted against it though, with the help of false statements from the Councilmember, who hopefully will no longer be the City Council's transportation expert come 2014.

By the way, David, I'm still waiting for you to explain how people access the 3A stations from North Minneapolis. Do they walk more than a half mile through Bryn Mawr or the brownfields of the Bassett Creek Valley? Or do they take a bus and walk 2-3 blocks to transfer?
"Who rescued whom!"

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5782
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby MNdible » May 21st, 2013, 12:48 pm

I've always found the 18 to be a route with great frequency that could benefit from some minor aBRT adjustments and serve Whittier very very well -- better than 3C, in my opinion, which is one of the major reasons I didn't support that alignment.

The bashing on Lilligren seems unnecessary. From every conversation I've had with him, his goal was to get transit projects actually built, not to navel gaze about what the ideal (if unbuildable) project might be. He's been a very strong advocate for good transit.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1544
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby talindsay » May 21st, 2013, 12:54 pm

For all those who keep bringing up the alignment question, please go read, "No Exit" or "Waiting for Godot" and get back to me on why you think I might imagine you ought to read them.

User avatar
woofner
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1310
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:04 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby woofner » May 21st, 2013, 1:14 pm

I bashed Lilligren because he used false choices and bullying to get his way on the alignment vote in Whittier, even though the business association dominated neighborhood group was going his way the whole time. If he thought that 3A was a better alignment because it stood a better chance of getting funded and built, he should say that instead of pretending that 3C would preclude transit on the Midtown Greenway and the reconnection of Nicollet Ave. The latter are lies, and maybe you give credit to politicians who lie to get their way, but in a country that likes to feign democracy every now and then it is not ideal for politicians, no matter how much we tolerate it. Regarding Lilligren's transportation advocacy, I suspect he had some influence in securing CMAQ funding for aBRT, but I also suspect he influenced the political decision to build in St Paul first so that his toy train wouldn't be derailed, so I'd say it's a wash. What happens after we spend an enormous amount of money and political capital on the Nicollet streetcar and get Northstar results out of it?

And talindsay, I'll remind you that this line is not even funded yet, much less built, much less ancient history. There are still things to be gained from an adult discussion of the alignment options, and no one is shoving toothpicks in your eyelids and forcing you to read. I skim all the skyscraper porn on here and you're welcome to skim the 3A vs 3C stuff.
"Who rescued whom!"

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6239
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby twincitizen » May 21st, 2013, 1:19 pm


talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1544
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby talindsay » May 21st, 2013, 1:34 pm

And talindsay, I'll remind you that this line is not even funded yet, much less built, much less ancient history. There are still things to be gained from an adult discussion of the alignment options, and no one is shoving toothpicks in your eyelids and forcing you to read. I skim all the skyscraper porn on here and you're welcome to skim the 3A vs 3C stuff.
Actually, I'm not really interested in skyscrapers and participate both here and on Minnescraper before it 99% for the transportation section. If there were *ever* any *new* information then I wouldn't be annoyed by it - gods know the Central Corridor discussion has had plenty of topic recycling over the years - but there hasn't been any new information on the alignment selection in many years - since our moderator Nick was in high school, I think - so it doesn't seem like a productive use of time to keep rehashing the same, tired arguments.

lordmoke
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1406
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 1:39 pm
Location: Nicollet Island

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby lordmoke » May 21st, 2013, 2:27 pm

Thanks for wedging some good news in here.

UptownSport
Target Field
Posts: 599
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby UptownSport » May 21st, 2013, 2:46 pm

Perhaps then there'll be transit that serves where people, who actually do depend on transit, actually live instead of bypassing them.
Is that snark *really* necessary? This is the last I'll say on the subject.
Snark? I strongly believe this is the situation. Disagreeing is now 'disparaging?'
Recall you came on accusing opponents of being racists. That so endeared me to you.
This is the last I'll say on the subject.
That's a promise? http://peanutbutterjellytime.net/peanut ... y-time.gif
Over at the discussion on the transit line that should actually go through North Mpls, most people agree with you that it's a shame we're bypassing most of the residents of North Mpls in favor of the backside of a golf course: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7
This is another one that's more complicated than it seems. The residents in North were split 50/50 over the alignment. I for one am not comfortable tearing down hundreds of houses without a clear community mandate.
WHEN has government actually bothered to worry about what residents think????
Something about a stadium and referendum

And now it's 'If you put a train, trolley, aBRT, stagecoach thru North, we're, we're going to, to have to, um, tear down hundreds of houses!! There's just no other way!

Again it's not 3A, 3C or any other alignment- It's the line itself.

User avatar
LRV Op Dude
Union Depot
Posts: 324
Joined: July 7th, 2012, 10:30 am
Contact:

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby LRV Op Dude » May 28th, 2013, 8:09 pm

Southwest LRT Officials Weigh New Freight Rail Options
However, the reroute options announced Tuesday are different than the one found in the DEIS. The Met Council announcement spelled out two relocation options that it said would “have gentler curves and a flatter alignment” and be safer than the DEIS plan. Those options are:
•“Building freight tracks through the existing St. Louis Park High School football field, which would be relocated to reunite with the main campus. This reroute concept is referred to as the Brunswick West freight rail relocation alignment.
•“Building freight tracks that skirt the field to the east. This reroute concept is referred to as the Brunswick Central freight rail relocation alignment.”

It also listed six co-location options that would keep TC&W in Minneapolis’ Kenilworth corridor.
•“Building LRT tracks along the freight tracks and trail, with all modes at ground level.
•“Relocating the trail out of the corridor between the Midtown Greenway and Cedar Lake Parkway.
•“Elevating the trail.
•“Building a shallow tunnel for LRT tracks.
•“Building deep twin tunnels, with one tunnel for each LRT track.
•“Elevating LRT tracks.”

The Met Council noted that both co-location and relocation options will affect homes and businesses.

“The goal is to choose one option and design it in a way that is safe and operationally efficient for both LRT and the freight railroads and cost effective,” the announcement stated.

Southwest LRT officials will make a presentation to the St. Louis Park City Council at 6:30 p.m. May 28. Outreach staff have already begun contacting property owners whose properties could be acquired under one of the plans.
Blog: Old-Twin Cities Transit New-Twin Cities Transit

You Tube: Old, New

AKA: Bus Driver Dude

Ubermoose
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 175
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:24 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Ubermoose » May 29th, 2013, 10:28 am

I understand that along with having to relocate the brand new field and updated football seating, the gentler alignment would take out 10-15 houses and run through a portion of the parking lot at Park Spanish Immersion, along with moving several businesses including McDonald's.
With all of that, I still don't know that the grade issues to the north have been addressed in the new proposal.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6239
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby twincitizen » May 29th, 2013, 10:38 am

http://finance-commerce.com/2013/05/st- ... t-options/

This is getting kind of nuts. The F&C article leads with co-location and makes it seem like the freight re-route is the backup option now. If they do choose a re-route option, it should be the one that leads to the greatest redevelopment opportunities in the future, not the one which will impact the least amount of properties in the present.

I think mattaudio brought this up before, but I wish a cut & cover tunnel mostly along Dakota Avenue was feasible. I know that it probably isn't, because the N-S freight track is already elevated over the E-W tracks and more grade changes are the opposite of what the railroad needs for safe & economical operation. At first glance, the "Brunswick Central" option seems like the most positive for the commercial area on West Lake Street (and would spare the new football field) but it would run the tracks directly adjacent to the Spanish Immersion Elementary School.

I feel like they are still looking at every decision in a vaccum and not comprehensively planning the area for the future
Exhibit A: rebuilding the Hwy 7 /Wooddale interchange a few years ahead of station area plans without considering other major changes to the area.
Exhibit B: spending $1MM on a football field when they KNEW DAMN WELL that the tracks could be moved.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests