urbanMSP

Wow! That is intense.

Thought it might be interesting to look at population growth for the cities along the corridor over the last decade based on Met Council 2020 estimates. It appears all the cities along the route are growing, and I imagine at least some of the growth can be attributed to denser, TOD-style projects along the Green Line Extension.

Eden Prairie: 64,567 (Increase of 3,770 from 2010)
Hopkins: 19,555 (Increase of 1,964 from 2010)
Minneapolis: 435,885 (Increase of 53,307 from 2010)
Minnetonka: 54,141 (Increase of 4,407 from 2010)
St. Louis Park: 49,834 (Increase of 4,584 from 2010)
Total Estimated Increase: 68,032

Hennepin County is estimated to have grown by 127,556 over the decade, which means that these 5 cities accounted for more than half of the county's growth. Not sure this means a lot, but perhaps the fact these cities are growing will help make the service more successful...

http://www.startribune.com/feds-require ... 459081143/

The feds are requiring a new environmental study for the crash wall. I am so tired of the hurdles this project has had to go through......

Remember when the crash wall separating BNSF and LRT tracks was going to cost $20 Million? Well now it's $93 Million. Par for the course for this project, truly. https://www.startribune.com/cost-of-cra ... fresh=true

I don't understand how a concrete fence on piles would possibly cost that much.

New to the forum.
Is the SWLRT going to be at grade level as it crosses Glenwood Avenue just south of the Farmers Market Station?
I can see the train peirs sticking out of the rail bed, but they are at the same height of the Glenwood Avenue bridge deck.
Is there a mock up drawing of how it will look?
All I can find are maps and drawings showing the intersection, but no perspective drawings of how it would actually look.

Maybe fast forward to the section of Royalston in this flyover video?

https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... yover.aspx

Welcome to the forum!

You're correct, the LRT will cross Glenwood at grade. I haven't seen a detailed mockup of how it would look (it's just far enough from Royalston to not be included in that visualization), but there's an extremely low detail flyover video here that might help a bit. The Glenwood bridge is at 9:04.

Plans: https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... e2017.aspx

I'm guessing the sidewalks on the Glenwood Avenue bridge will ramp down to roadway/track level, as the LRT tracks intersect (?) Otherwise I'm not sure how the tracks could cross both the sidewalks and roadway at grade.

P.S. The city really needs to eminent domain that warehouse and extend 5th Avenue N over to Border Ave. That would allow Royalston Ave to be terminated at a T intersection with 5th Ave, instead of that dumb curve / frontage road condition today. Honestly this should have been part of the SWLRT project scope.

"A mile-long wall separating freight and light-rail trains on the Southwest light rail route will cost nearly $93 million — a 356% increase over what was initially budgeted four years ago."

https://www.startribune.com/cost-of-cra ... 600037772/

They don't make it clear whether it's materials or the stops and starts of labor due to the trains that are the primary cause of the price spike. I'm curious which of those this is primarily caused by.

Why is it that with all the space available between the Bryn Mawr Station and just west of I-94 they insisted on having the light rail tracks right next to the BNSF tracks? Seems like they could've saved some money and headache having the light rail tracks further away from the freight tracks in that area and then less of the crash-wall would need to be built.

Why is it that with all the space available between the Bryn Mawr Station and just west of I-94 they insisted on having the light rail tracks right next to the BNSF tracks? Seems like they could've saved some money and headache having the light rail tracks further away from the freight tracks in that area and then less of the crash-wall would need to be built.

Moving the tracks away from BNSF would have increased the length of the pedestrian bridge to the station. Additionally, there are only two bays available under the 494 structure. Flipping the guideway with the Cedar Lake Trail would introduce more pedestrian crossings of the track and create a less inviting environment being sandwiched between two rail lines.

Why is it that with all the space available between the Bryn Mawr Station and just west of I-94 they insisted on having the light rail tracks right next to the BNSF tracks? Seems like they could've saved some money and headache having the light rail tracks further away from the freight tracks in that area and then less of the crash-wall would need to be built.

Moving the tracks away from BNSF would have increased the length of the pedestrian bridge to the station. Additionally, there are only two bays available under the 494 structure. Flipping the guideway with the Cedar Lake Trail would introduce more pedestrian crossings of the track and create a less inviting environment being sandwiched between two rail lines.

While increasing the pedestrian bridge length would be true, I'm sure it'd still be cheaper than a 93 million dollar crash wall, even if they built it to the Vikings stadium pedestrian bridge standards.

Why is it that with all the space available between the Bryn Mawr Station and just west of I-94 they insisted on having the light rail tracks right next to the BNSF tracks? Seems like they could've saved some money and headache having the light rail tracks further away from the freight tracks in that area and then less of the crash-wall would need to be built.

Collocating with an existing corridor results in lower environmental impact.

Why is it that with all the space available between the Bryn Mawr Station and just west of I-94 they insisted on having the light rail tracks right next to the BNSF tracks? Seems like they could've saved some money and headache having the light rail tracks further away from the freight tracks in that area and then less of the crash-wall would need to be built.

Moving the tracks away from BNSF would have increased the length of the pedestrian bridge to the station. Additionally, there are only two bays available under the 494 structure. Flipping the guideway with the Cedar Lake Trail would introduce more pedestrian crossings of the track and create a less inviting environment being sandwiched between two rail lines.

Looking at an aerial photo from 1974 I see there were 8 tracks going under the Highway 12/394 overpass, though I'm not sure if the location of the support beams changed when they widened the highway. Also I wasn't saying the trail should be between the light rail and freight tracks. The light rail tracks could still easily be on the north side of the trail while being further away from the BNSF tracks.

Why is it that with all the space available between the Bryn Mawr Station and just west of I-94 they insisted on having the light rail tracks right next to the BNSF tracks? Seems like they could've saved some money and headache having the light rail tracks further away from the freight tracks in that area and then less of the crash-wall would need to be built.

Collocating with an existing corridor results in lower environmental impact.

I don't see how the environmental impact is lower being right next to the BNSF tracks versus being several hundred feet away from the BNSF tracks. All of the land in that area is undeveloped and used to be a massive rail yard.

I just assume someone in government at the time just really really liked walls so he made it BIGGER! ..it is what it is, at least it’s getting built.

I saw over the weekend that the freight line between Wooddale and Louisiana finally shifted to its new position.

The nearly $100 million crash wall got me thinking that a shallow tunnel might cost a similar amount and be less obtrusive in that section. OBviously, that's not going to happen and it's far too late to consider such an option. It's just incredible how expensive this project is due to the geography and political compromises of this particular corridor, which was supposed to be the low-cost alternative to running through Uptown.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of extra costs would of been tacked on later if the SWLRT was routed through uptown like people wanted.
Probably would end up with a few more stations like the green line and maybe a few people pushing to "save the greenway" and demand that speeds to be restricted in the trench or have the whole line be underground, which aren't terrible waste or money tbh.