Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[MNdible]

I think the price of a cup of coffee is the least you could offer a planner for asking them to ignore the political and financial realities that they have to operate in, and instead design projects for the future world that you envision.

If you've got a problem with the transportation projects that get built, you need to start way higher up the food chain than a lowly planner. Like, start with convincing the voters that elect the politicians who give direction to the planners.

And I know a lot of you spend a lot of time advocating, but you're mostly preaching to the choir.

[woofner]

North Minneapolis tunneling and station building would be highly disruptive and expensive relative to the airport. Portals and stations would have to be excavated in populated areas. This means expensive impact studies, utility relocation, property acquisition and construction impact mitigation that just doesn't happen at an airport.

You're grossly under estimating tunneling costs. Your blog post linked by mattaudio lists a laughable ~$60 million/km cost for underground central corridor light rail. Sorry but you're being naive.

Why is it naive to extrapolate past experience to analogous circumstances? North Minneapolis has the largest proportion of government-owned land in the metro area and the population density of Richfield. I doubt it would be a problem to design any surface ventilation or utility structure for a tunnelized guideway to be built on one of the hundreds of government-owned lots there. Techniques to make excavation of an underground station no more disruptive than for a surface station has existed for decades and been used thousands of times. Utility relocation is less extensive for deep-bore guideways than for surface systems.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with the $60m/km estimate for Central Corridor, but I agree that that is less analogous to the airport. But either way, all I'm asking for is for it to be studied, given the experience of constructing tunnels in the Twin Cities and given the fact that the alternatives advanced for Bottineau mostly fail to meet the project's objectives to "improve regional mobility and meet long-range transit needs".

I'm not the one needing satisfying. It's not fair to blame Joe for decisions when you didn't take any action to get what you want. Maybe action wouldn't have helped but I'm tired of the victim mentality on this, SWLRT and basically every other transit project people complain about.

I did take action. Gladke made it clear that he didn't give a shit what I thought. I think it's easy for someone like you who doesn't actually use transit to look at these projects distantly, but for those of us who sit in freezing rain waiting with a dozen other people for a late bus or who have moved away from their hometown because there was no chance for them to ever lead a normal life while taking transit, we take the failure to pursue every alternative a little more personally. Yeah, I'm sure it's easy for you to forge relationships with highway engineers who don't care if they've improved transit one whit after spending a billion dollars of public money.

[FISHMANPET]

I'm not the one needing satisfying. It's not fair to blame Joe for decisions when you didn't take any action to get what you want. Maybe action wouldn't have helped but I'm tired of the victim mentality on this, SWLRT and basically every other transit project people complain about.

There are folks who are extraordinarily invested in validating the process that has brought us to this point.

[VAStationDude]

Whatever, I would have been fine with a study but, at this point, delaying the inevitable gets us nothing, except delaying what is, IMO, a good transit route. Clearly you're convinced tunneling can be done through north Minneapolis for less than $100 million a mile. I don't agree but whatever.

We can thank Waginus and Rybak, along with tc & w and Hennepin County, for the current predicament. Hennepin County biffed the planning. tc & w acted like an obstinate child. Wagenius and Rybak never advocated for 3C or otherwise questioned the planning process until at grade colocation became the only sensible alternative. I'm not sure quoting him jives with bitching about the planning process.

[RailBaronYarr]

My quick take: there are real places on this planet building real tunneled transit systems for the price (in purchasing power parity $US) about the same as we build surface rail. In areas with much denser structures and more fragile utilities. Sometimes with more difficult terrain than ours.

I don't expect a project engineer/manager to have the type of influence to change our federal funding requirements, bidding processes, etc etc etc, or make changes to our regional political priorities and funding mechanisms to make that type of transit-building possible. But there needs to be some acknowledgment that those things I mentioned are factual. That maybe there's a deficiency in our ability to do things cost-effectively, and that other people may have answers that a handful of project engineers may never have and hours spent having coffee and building mutual trust will never accomplish.

Also, as far as I can tell, claims that tunneling is outlandish are no more based in fact than claims of its feasibility. Do we have any formal studies showing tunneling wasn't cost-effective for Bottineau? No? Just napkin estimations to rule it out of the universe of alternatives from the project office? OK.

[David Greene]

I did take action.

No you didn't. You submitted some comments. That's not where the real work is.

Gladke made it clear that he didn't give a shit what I thought.

Gladke isn't the target.

those of us who sit in freezing rain waiting with a dozen other people for a late bus or who have moved away from their hometown because there was no chance for them to ever lead a normal life while taking transit, we take the failure to pursue every alternative a little more personally.

With respect to me (and your ad hominem) I don't think you know exactly what I have and have not done to advance transit in our region.

Yeah, I'm sure it's easy for you to forge relationships with highway engineers who don't care if they've improved transit one whit after spending a billion dollars of public money.

I don't forge power relationships with engineers.

And it's your opinion that Bottineau doesn't improve transit "one whit." Many, many other people disagree, including those who actually live in the area.

[David Greene]

I'm not the one needing satisfying. It's not fair to blame Joe for decisions when you didn't take any action to get what you want. Maybe action wouldn't have helped but I'm tired of the victim mentality on this, SWLRT and basically every other transit project people complain about.

There are folks who are extraordinarily invested in validating the process that has brought us to this point.

So...?

I don't think I've hidden the fact that I like SWLRT as it is and I'm fine with Bottineau.

It's no skin off my back what you and Peter W. think you may know about how I view "the process." For the record, there are about a million ways processes could be improved. I remember well a meeting with Mike Opat where we made the abundantly clear. His response? "People always want to talk about process and it's a waste."

So there you go. Guess who's validating the current process?

[David Greene]

That maybe there's a deficiency in our ability to do things cost-effectively, and that other people may have answers that a handful of project engineers may never have and hours spent having coffee and building mutual trust will never accomplish.

If that's really true we may as well just give up now.

The *only* way change has ever happened in this country is through organizing.

[mattaudio]

Of course people who are stakeholders in a flawed process are blind to the need for reform.

We're past the need to organize for better outcomes. It is time to organize for creative destruction, a complete rethinking of how we invest as a society.

[Tcmetro]

Blue Line Community Workshops: Golden Valley Road and Plymouth Avenue stations

Date:

2/26/2015 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM

Event Locations:

Church of St. Margaret Mary – Visitation Hall
2323 Zenith Ave. N.
Golden Valley, MN 55422

http://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Tra ... oad-a.aspx

[twincitizen]

Same news, but in a spiffy flyer: http://www.metrocouncil.org/METC/files/ ... 1b0e4f.pdf

If you feel strongly about them including BOTH stations at Plymouth Ave and Golden Valley Road, now is the time to speak up. I've not seen one person on here disagree with the notion that both stations need to be included, but I would guess the powers that be are somewhat preferring to include only one, for various reasons (cost, speed, Golden Valley residents who don't want it, etc.)

Given that this line is already going to skirt the edge of NoMi, it's really critical that both stations be included. Consider attending the meeting or sending in your comments. Let's help make this happen!

[alleycat]

FWIW Linda Higgins is a big supporter of the two station option.

[froggie]

Keep both and add one at 36th. The lack of a station at 36th is a glaring omission, though I'm not recalling why it was left out...

[mamundsen]

I agree they should do both stations in North Minneapolis and add another few further up the line. They should serve North Memorial and the areas that are more populated. I'm sure the stop spacing is due to time requirements for federal funding.

[twincitizen]

Keep both and add one at 36th. The lack of a station at 36th is a glaring omission, though I'm not recalling why it was left out...

I've been saying this for quite a while, and I don't get it either. There was a station directly serving North Memorial in the Penn-Broadway alternative. It makes no sense for the chosen alternative to omit a station there entirely.

Honestly, if this line winds up with both stations at Plymouth & GVR, and we get the ball rolling on discussions for a station at 34th-36th, this really isn't all that bad compared to the city route that wasn't chosen. Quite a bit of the same walkshed will still be included by way of Olson/Penn and Plymouth. Obviously it doesn't capture 100% of the NoMi walkshed that the Penn alignment would have, but it's not a total loss either (whereas I'd call SW a total loss in that regard, in that it captures zero Uptown walkshed, not including bus transfers)

EDIT: Since we're on a new page, I'll quote the reminder for the upcoming meeting:

Blue Line Community Workshops: Golden Valley Road and Plymouth Avenue stations

Date:

2/26/2015 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM

Event Locations:

Church of St. Margaret Mary – Visitation Hall
2323 Zenith Ave. N.
Golden Valley, MN 55422

http://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Tra ... oad-a.aspx

[xanadu]

A summary for those unable to attend: It started with a short and rather uninspiring PowerPoint presentation on the current status of Bottineau, reiterating multiple times how the purpose of the meeting is to discuss whether or not the community wants both stations or one. Currently, the budget only allows for one station. After the presentation was finished, each table was given 45 minutes to discuss a series of questions on a paper handout.

There were a couple of very anti-LRT community members in my group, but even so the sentiment at my table was 50/50. After the group discussions wrapped up, each table was given the opportunity to share their thoughts. I was relieved to find that most others were generally more positive than mine. A summary of the main points raised:

Positives

• Promotes economic development and transit use amongst the community.
• Positive impact on older residents who may not be able to continue to drive as they age.
• Could potentially raise property values of nearby homes.
• Increase connectivity with other areas of the metro, including the MoA, U of M and both downtowns.
• Makes the area more attractive to younger home buyers.

Concerns

• Because stations are below-grade, potential for station crime arises. One person went so far as to say that she would never use the station, nor let her kids use the station, unless an armed guard was present at all times.
• Concerns about ease of pedestrian/cyclist access to these stations.
• Having freight (especially with the recent BNSF proposal) run next to pedestrian platforms in such a narrow channel was a flawed and unsafe plan.
• Could potentially lower property values due to noise and crime, leading long time residents selling their homes at a loss and a deflation of the current tax base.
• Another person mentioned that they were previously for both stations, but had changed their mind when finding out that they were looking at re-zoning the area on Golden Valley road to allow for mixed-use development. They felt it would destroy the natural beauty of the area and remove the wildlife that resided nearby, but were still largely positive about the potential benefits of the light rail in theory.
• Piggy-backing off the previous point was a lot of concern about this impacting the parks and wildlife nearby.
• Questions about how redevelopment/re-zoning near the GVR station would even happen. A few comments on how they don't understand where condos/businesses would be built without cutting into park land or removing homes.
• Everyone pretty much agreed on the north platform orientation for the Plymouth Ave station.

Other thoughts

• It seemed that most attendees were more supportive of the GVR station than the Penn station.
• A number of residents seemed resigned already, stating "Well it's happening either way" or "I don't want to stand in the way of progress, but..."
• A surprising amount of people questioning why the Penn alignment wasn't chosen. I'm not sure if it was actually due to them wishing to provide transit to an underserved area or if they simply didn't want it in their back yards.
• Most of the very vocal opposition came for older (60+) residents who have lived in the area for a very long time. The younger members of the audience seemed more receptive, though I did catch one younger guy saying that he felt it would destroy the character of the neighborhood.
• One GV commissioner was trying to gather support for his idea of tunneling from GVR to North Memorial, bypassing Sochaki Park and the Rice Lake nature area entirely. Although everyone liked the idea, it seemed unlikely to happen. Nonetheless, he was pushing for a study of the option.

These were my observations. I can't claim full objectivity, but I'm trying to stay impartial while reporting.

[NickP]

Thanks Xanadu! Good report

[David Greene]

I was there but arrived 20 minutes late so I missed the presentation. Xanadu's summary is about what I got out of it too. I did an eye roll at the armed guard comment. My table was pretty evenly divided. No one expressed opposition to the line but about half wanted both stations and half only one. I think all of the other people at the table were from Golden Valley so that was encouraging.

As for the proposed density, I told one lady not to worry, that these images are complete f antasy, which they are. Nothing's gonna happen unless people start selling houses en masse.

I think staff was a bit nervous going in, not being sure what they'd hear. I expect they all breathed a collective sigh of relief afterward.

I heard a bit of, "well it's gonna happen anyway so..." It was an interesting contrast to the noise from SLP and CIDNA/Kenwood on SWLRT. It struck me that there's a Ph.D. in psychology or sociology somewhere in all of this.

[woofner]

Olson Hwy. redesign 'essential' for light rail, mayor's office says:

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/294865921.html

Kudos to Hodges' office for making this an issue. I've been concerned since I saw the preliminary drawings showing Olson retaining six lanes and the median obliterated. This was listed on the Technical Issues list in the Blue Line newsletter and targeted for resolution in Q1 2015, but I haven't seen anything in the Corridor Mgmt Committee meetings about it yet. It's encouraging to see MnDot is willing to look at all options, including lane reduction (this section sees lower traffic than four-lane sections of Hwy 55 further west).

Personally I'd like to see them simply use the 17' wide inside lane in each direction for a transit guideway. That leaves 26' for the remaining two lanes, so curb changes and reconstructions will only be necessary at left turns. Existing left turn lanes can be reconstructed into station areas. This would minimize the amount of highway reconstruction necessary, thus minimizing the amount of transit dollars that go to highways, and keep the overall project budget lower. It would also retain a comfortable refuge median for pedestrians.

One more note: I'm not sure why the pedestrian environment of the corridor needs to be justified in terms of future development when there are existing neighborhoods of people would would cross the corridor every day (including riders of hi-frequency route 19). On top of this, Wagenius is incorrect in suggesting that there is a large amount of developable government-owned land along the corridor. The only significant, vacant, government-owned parcel is a future phase of Heritage Park at the southwest corner with Van White. The rest of the corridor is composed of small parcels splintered into private ownership, and frankly doesn't hold much development potential.

[twincitizen]

Perhaps he was referring to portions of the ROW itself (the huge road, the frontage roads, etc.)?

Of course, they would still have to acquire additional private property adjacent to the existing public ROW to create buildable lots, but it's not totally unfeasible.