Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[froggie]

Having looked at the real estate plats in that area for a separate project, as long as they remain within the rail corridor ROW (presumably why they need to purchase land or an easement from BNSF), then David is technically correct in that the Bottineau line will not go through parkland. Does the rail corridor go through a park? Sure. But the Park Board doesn't own or have jurisdiction over that land.

There could be some potential cost increase due to soil conditions in the vicinity of Wirth Park, but it won't be even close to the extent that we saw the Southwest line costs jump.

[FISHMANPET]

The objection to Bottineau going through the park is that there are no riders in the park. There are no major trip origins or destinations.

The objection in Kenilworth is that it will disrupt the corridor.

I know you'll (David) refute the first and say that "well there's not-park across the street" or something like that, but it's really immaterial to the point that the objections are not really at all similar, other than that they both have the word "park" in them. So for you to lump them all in together, along with all the other weird things you say about transit, makes me question how much you really understand any of this.

[mulad]

In addition, just because the rail corridor already exists doesn't mean that it's automatically available. BNSF owns most of that corridor, and Soo/Canadian Pacific owns the part that branches off to the west immediately north of Olson Memorial Highway. In order to keep the spacing between freight and light rail tracks that the freight companies will undoubtedly require, some park land will need to be taken. It'll be a narrow strip, but still something.

[David Greene]

You're going to have to translate this for me better because all I'm getting from you is that the opposition doesn't matter because they don't have any money.

So only communities with money should have a voice? Or do you so honestly and genuinely think this is the absolute best possible plan for this line so you can't even fathom why someone would be unhappy with it for altruistic reasons?

I'm talking specifically about the Strib article, where they attempt to make the future around Bottineau look like what SWLRT went through. I'm saying it isn't going to go that way.

I'm literally not saying any more than that. My thoughts on the line itself are on the record.

[David Greene]

I know you'll (David) refute the first and say that "well there's not-park across the street" or something like that, but it's really immaterial to the point that the objections are not really at all similar, other than that they both have the word "park" in them.

I think we are in violent agreement.

[Archiapolis]

Having looked at the real estate plats in that area for a separate project, as long as they remain within the rail corridor ROW (presumably why they need to purchase land or an easement from BNSF), then David is technically correct in that the Bottineau line will not go through parkland. Does the rail corridor go through a park? Sure. But the Park Board doesn't own or have jurisdiction over that land.

There could be some potential cost increase due to soil conditions in the vicinity of Wirth Park, but it won't be even close to the extent that we saw the Southwest line costs jump.

What are you basing this on? Have you looked at soil borings? Do you know something that the engineers don't know that assures good soil conditions?

[David Greene]

The objection to Bottineau going through the park is that there are no riders in the park.

Weird. For some reason I can't edit my own post.

I think your statement here is somewhat narrow in view. SOME people are complaining about that but more people seem to be complaining about disturbing "pristine" parkland. But I haven't gone to a lot of Bottineau meetings lately so I'm not sure.

Bottom line is, my prediction is that Bottineau goes through without much serious opposition. Whether that is good or not is an entirely different question and opinions vary widely.

The Strib is trying to stir up controversy where there isn't much, at least not in the minds of the decision-makers.

[amiller92]

SOME people are complaining about that but more people seem to be complaining about disturbing "pristine" parkland.

I don't know, but man, that makes not sense.

[froggie]

What are you basing this on? Have you looked at soil borings? Do you know something that the engineers don't know that assures good soil conditions?

The committee presentation posted earlier that prompted this latest round of discussion. The area they're most worried about regarding soil conditions is from 55 up to 36th. But that's less length than where they've found a multitude of soil issues in multiple locations along Southwest (including but not limited to Golden Triangle, in Minnetonka, and of course the Kenilworth corridor).

[mulad]

Weird. For some reason I can't edit my own post.

FYI, there is a 30-minute limit for editing previous posts before they get locked.

[David Greene]

SOME people are complaining about that but more people seem to be complaining about disturbing "pristine" parkland.

I don't know, but man, that makes not sense.

What "makes not sense?" My claim about complaints or the complaints themselves? Because I totally agree, the "pristine parkland" complaint makes as much sense as it did in Kenilworth.

[amiller92]

SOME people are complaining about that but more people seem to be complaining about disturbing "pristine" parkland.

I don't know, but man, that makes not sense.

What "makes not sense?" My claim about complaints or the complaints themselves? Because I totally agree, the "pristine parkland" complaint makes as much sense as it did in Kenilworth.

It was supposed to say, "no" but, yeah, well.

The complaints make no sense. Even less than Kenilworth.

[trigonalmayhem]

It seems like a bit of a straw man. Some people are upset it goes through parkland instead of dense transit dependent areas, not that it goes through parkland in general.

[Tiller]

There is a spectrum of complaints. This is literally 3A and 3C, with both sides setting up the same strawmen to knock down (the complaints are about avoiding density/NIMBYism/etc), when in reality opinions on Bottineau can be more complex than that and span both sides.

As far as the people who live in the area are concerned, there is probably more collective concern about the houses being taken than anything involving the park (which is still an issue for some). UrbanMSP's 3A/3C issue seems to be frequently projected onto other things, regardless of the circumstances involved.

[Archiapolis]

There is a spectrum of complaints. This is literally 3A and 3C, with both sides setting up the same strawmen to knock down (the complaints are about avoiding density/NIMBYism/etc), when in reality opinions on Bottineau can be more complex than that and span both sides.

As far as the people who live in the area are concerned, there is probably more collective concern about the houses being taken than anything involving the park (which is still an issue for some). UrbanMSP's 3A/3C issue seems to be frequently projected onto other things, regardless of the circumstances involved.

From the perspective of someone who is very interested in urbanism but not expert in transit, it seems like this region has made the following determinations:

Light rail = A regional transit "solution" from the suburbs to the city center via existing rail corridors and green space whenever possible while avoiding city streets as much as possible with density following after the first two criteria have been met to the greatest degree possible.

Streetcars = A city "solution" in the form of a replication/replacement of high frequency bus routes (with marginal speed/headway improvements over BRT) but a "permanent" infrastructure investment meant to encourage other construction/economic development.

"Budgets" will likely inflate by 20-30%, decisions need to be locked in and not deviated from at a "1%-5% engineering" design.

[David Greene]

Light rail = A regional transit "solution" from the suburbs to the city center via existing rail corridors and green space whenever possible while avoiding city streets as much as possible with density following after the first two criteria have been met to the greatest degree possible.

I guess Central Corridor isn't Light Rail then.

Jesus, literally *no one* is saying LRT should by default go through greenspace and avoid people "whenever possible."

You're just proving Tiller's point:

UrbanMSP's 3A/3C issue seems to be frequently projected onto other things, regardless of the circumstances involved.

[Archiapolis]

Light rail = A regional transit "solution" from the suburbs to the city center via existing rail corridors and green space whenever possible while avoiding city streets as much as possible with density following after the first two criteria have been met to the greatest degree possible.

I guess Central Corridor isn't Light Rail then.

Jesus, literally *no one* is saying LRT should by default go through greenspace and avoid people "whenever possible."

You're just proving Tiller's point:

UrbanMSP's 3A/3C issue seems to be frequently projected onto other things, regardless of the circumstances involved.

Sorry to ruffle your feathers (again) and I'm not going to be offended by the unwanted psychological assessment that I am "projecting." I'll try to better support my contention.

I started my earlier comment by pointing out that I'm not a transit expert so I'll just reiterate that again just to be clear.

AS AN OUTSIDER, there appears to be a statistical pattern and an outlier.

Pattern:
Hiawatha
SWLRT
Bottineau

Outlier:
Central Corridor

I argued with you at length about 3A v 3C to the chagrin of any/all observers and the takeaway from you is that SWLRT was "done and that we should try and do better on Bottineau." I had hoped that Bottineau would sufficiently address density and equity but in my opinion, it is addressing the suburbs.

Feel free to psychoanalyze me if you wish but just for accuracy, I charged that light rail as currently planned appears to "avoid city streets". I never said, the current planning "avoid[s] people." I did say that engaging density was behind the other criteria so perhaps you are conflating the two.

Central Corridor is great and I'm happy that it got built. But, FROM THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN, it appears to be the outlier and not the desired pattern by decision-makers.

"Literally no one" has to say that they wish to "avoid people" in order to take the path of least resistance (existing rail ROW and greenspace) but billions of dollars of planned transit doesn't support your position.

I support transit that addresses density and equity. Hopefully streetcars will address the issues that I care about if light rail is primarily going to be a suburban transit tool and I'll try harder to voice that opinion to decision-makers/elected officials.

Best of luck with regional transit planning and thanks for caring about transit and urbanism.

[mulad]

My perception is that the focus has been on putting transit down corridors that have wide existing rights-of-way, rather than displacing anything that already exists -- except for freight rail, where there's apparently an assumption that it's a dying form of transportation which will eventually give up all of its land anyway. The side effect of seeking wide right-of-way is that you end up distancing the service from places that are dense with buildings or streets with high car traffic, even though those are the places where transit would bring the most direct benefit.

Rather than making some streets transit-only or transit+bike+ped, planners have been too afraid to take away car lanes, so streets need to be widened, which requires buildings to be demolished, which makes the plans unworkable. We could run trains straight down Hennepin for a better SWLRT or take surface streets for Bottineau if we chose to displace cars rather than buildings.

One of the big things making SWLRT unique is that there is a bike path in the corridor, which is a bit of a stand-in for car lanes. The assumption that freight would go away also ended up falling flat because of opposition to rerouting both by Twin Cities & Western and by residents of St. Louis Park (who I'm convinced are going to have to accept more traffic on the MN&S corridor someday anyway because of other projects).

I still think it's a good idea to have passenger service on the TC&W corridor for Southwest and on the BNSF Monticello line for Bottineau, but they should be somewhat more commuter-oriented, perhaps similar to what Denver is doing with their "A Line" and other "commuter" services (which will typically run every 15 minutes during the day and 30 minutes early in the morning or late at night). There should be something of a service hierarchy -- light rail is often trying to be too many things to too many people.

[EOst]

Even if everyone on the Met Council were gung-ho about removing both lanes of traffic on Penn to allow surface light rail, does anyone really think it would attract majority support of people who live near the route? Penn is the only route through several significant bottlenecks.

If Minneapolis were full of huge streets like University Avenue, where you could maintain decent traffic flow while running light rail down the center, I'm sure we would see more of it.

[Archiapolis]

My perception is that the focus has been on putting transit down corridors that have wide existing rights-of-way, rather than displacing anything that already exists -- except for freight rail, where there's apparently an assumption that it's a dying form of transportation which will eventually give up all of its land anyway. The side effect of seeking wide right-of-way is that you end up distancing the service from places that are dense with buildings or streets with high car traffic, even though those are the places where transit would bring the most direct benefit.

Rather than making some streets transit-only or transit+bike+ped, planners have been too afraid to take away car lanes, so streets need to be widened, which requires buildings to be demolished, which makes the plans unworkable. We could run trains straight down Hennepin for a better SWLRT or take surface streets for Bottineau if we chose to displace cars rather than buildings.

One of the big things making SWLRT unique is that there is a bike path in the corridor, which is a bit of a stand-in for car lanes. The assumption that freight would go away also ended up falling flat because of opposition to rerouting both by Twin Cities & Western and by residents of St. Louis Park (who I'm convinced are going to have to accept more traffic on the MN&S corridor someday anyway because of other projects).

I still think it's a good idea to have passenger service on the TC&W corridor for Southwest and on the BNSF Monticello line for Bottineau, but they should be somewhat more commuter-oriented, perhaps similar to what Denver is doing with their "A Line" and other "commuter" services (which will typically run every 15 minutes during the day and 30 minutes early in the morning or late at night). There should be something of a service hierarchy -- light rail is often trying to be too many things to too many people.

An eloquent articulation of most of my complaints by a person who appears to be more measured and less prone to hyperbole.

I've been worn down to nothing by those who are willing to accept the path of least resistance. I'm not claiming some ethical/moral high-ground, I'm talking less about commenters to these forums as I am to civil engineers and politicians. It makes me sick to my stomach that we are spending billions of dollars for transit options that are anything less than optimal.