Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[mattaudio]

Specifically, a route that connects people rather than bypassing them. Southwestitis, as it's known.

[lordmoke]

I think this line does a much better job of connecting North than SW does. The 19 will connect right to the Penn Ave Station, and getting to Olson is a lot more feasible than the SW Van White stop. It would be nice to see the route turn northward before it got to the park, but what's the alternative route?

[MNdible]

Specifically, a route that connects people rather than bypassing them. Southwestitis, as it's known.

Yes, but what, specifically?

Please make sure that your answer glosses over all of the technical issues involved with a routing directly through North Minneapolis. Bonus points if you're able to completely ignore automobile circulation or if you make reference to Minneapolis's magical geology.

[phop]

Isn't Northside community opposition one of the primary reasons for the current alignment?

[mattaudio]

It's interesting... out of all the folks I know who live on the north side (including a few on this forum) most have made mention of their displeasure about the LPA.

[woofner]

Please make sure that your answer glosses over all of the technical issues involved with a routing directly through North Minneapolis. Bonus points if you're able to completely ignore automobile circulation or if you make reference to Minneapolis's magical geology.

Matt is not a transit project planner, so he is not capable of ignoring those things as well as the pros can ignore trip generators, invent car circulation issues, and make up reasons to not study subways.

Bonus points if you can find a roadway on the Northside with more than 5,000 AADT per lane or explain why core samples taken by professional geologists shouldn't be trusted.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Yeah, you're right MNdible. Let's just avoid dealing with the technical and community relations challenges of running a billion dollar rapid transit line where people are. Instead, let's route it along a railroad corridor for three plus miles where there's *supposedly* an available right-of-way next to a park, nature area, and SFH's with no access to stops.

Advantages include -- quicker access to cornfields in NW suburbs, less thugs riding the train intimidating suburbanites by being black, fewer useful stations, avoiding a hospital filled with sick people, less regional integration, a chance to build commuter rail that costs as much as rapid transit, and who gives a fuck it's funny money anyway.

Best yet, then we can build the poors a streetcar even slower than their currently crappy bus service and feel good about not being racist assholes.

[mattaudio]

^You win the Internet.

[David Greene]

Specifically, a route that connects people rather than bypassing them. Southwestitis, as it's known.

But what? Specifically.

[David Greene]

It's interesting... out of all the folks I know who live on the north side (including a few on this forum) most have made mention of their displeasure about the LPA.

The community is split 50/50, so no one can claim there is any clear preference.

[talindsay]

Specifically, a route that connects people rather than bypassing them. Southwestitis, as it's known.

But what? Specifically.

I assume the suggestion here is a line that actually cuts through the northside neighborhoods - following the Penn route at grade, or else running below grade through those same neighborhoods rather than avoiding them as the current plan does.

[David Greene]

Specifically, a route that connects people rather than bypassing them. Southwestitis, as it's known.

But what? Specifically.

I assume the suggestion here is a line that actually cuts through the northside neighborhoods - following the Penn route at grade, or else running below grade through those same neighborhoods rather than avoiding them as the current plan does.

Penn is a no-go due to community opposition. Tunneling is a no-go due to cost. The only thing I could imagine with some remote possibility is a Broadway alignment but that would require starting over and this line has already done that once. And honestly, I'm not sure a streetcar on Broadway combined with the current LRT alignment isn't better for the community.

[MNdible]

I've never said that tunneling through here is a bad idea -- but it will be much much more expensive and complicated than anybody here has acknowledged, regardless of how easy it is to tunnel through sandstone. Look at how expensive the simple cut-and-cover tunnel through Kenilworth is, with no conflicting utilities, no need for ventilation or complicated life safety, and no underground stations and their associated vertical circulation.

As for an at-grade routing through North, it would be massively problematic, as has been discussed previously. Cramming LRT through a (less than) 80' ROW along the Northside's primary commercial corridor will not work.

My real problem is how damned simple everybody makes these solutions out to be.

[HiawathaGuy]

My real problem is how damned simple everybody makes these solutions out to be.

Thank you!

I don't mind open discussion about transit plans - but I'm always amazed at how there are so many people who don't want to either accept or realize that there's a very specific way these projects move through the pipeline. There's no magic solution to pleasing everyone, you can't just change things about advanced plans after they've advanced - not without risking its eminent death or it not happening for another decade or two (or more).

No transit line will ever be perfect. Ever.
That's about the only reliable reality to transit planing.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Nobody's talking about perfect or not. The issue is whether or not these lines are fatally flawed.

Today I went through the depressing exercise of looking at the streetview of every station location north of Robbinsdale. Yes, the 85th ave stop will serve a community college, but the built environment at everyone one of those stops is dominated by very wide and fast suburban roads in a setting w/ a typical suburban/exurban land use. Sure there are many empty lots at these intersections that could host TOD (or park & rides). But what good is TOD if they have to build 2+ parking spaces for every unit? What good is is TOD if it has to turn its back on the transit station because the station is at an intersection of six lane roads? Who wants to live this lifestyle if there's no street grid or places to walk to?

So we skip the city because it's too complicated or expensive only to get out to places that will need park & rides to garner decent ridership. Park & rides are better serviced by express buses anyways, as most are going to and from downtown at peak times. It doesn't make sense to spend a billion dollars to serve this lumpy demand with an all-day train, when we won't spend the money (or political capital) to route rapid transit in the city.

Do you ever hear -- It's too expensive to bridge over 610 to serve one corporate campus in cornfields. Or, there's no way to get across 694 without rebuilding a freeway bridge so we'll just keep rapid transit in the loop. Or, tunneling under a water channel is just too complicated...

Doing things half-assed just to get them done is a mistake that hurts transit investment. I'm afraid Northstar won't be our biggest example of that for long.

I seriously wonder if building these last two lines as planned is really better than not building them at all.

[mattaudio]

Keep in mind we can only pay for $300 million tunnels if they are in a linear park, but not where they actually route a rail line to existing walkable nodes.

[Minneapolisite]

And yet again, we won't blink twice to put LRT in the exurbs in anti-mass transit settings, but bring up a subway in Mpls and people say that the density isn't there. Well, it's not there for the exurbs either: so an argument for such lines is just more anti-urban blather.

[Tcmetro]

There inherent problem here is money. If the transit planners said we could add a tunnel here, increase costs by $500 million, and have a net gain of 5000 riders would it be worth it? Not only does the county have to be convinced that it's a good idea, so does CTIB, the State, and the FTA. Ultimately, all of the project stakeholders are interested in the concept of regional transit; and as a result, things like tunnels through urban areas are considered to be a burden on the budget. Considering the views that they take, things like project cost, travel time and job access are the key variables to consider, as potential riders can take buses or drive to stations. Hiawatha, Southwest, and Bottineau could all have better routes to serve existing densities, but as we have seen the routings chosen have been chosen because they are cheap, fast, and provide direct access to the job centers. Personally, I would like to see things like a light-rail tunnel on Broadway, but in the interests of the region as a whole, a tunnel isn't a cost-effective option. Now if we wanted to see a true urban rail system, the city of Minneapolis would have to be the leader in such an initiative. However, the city lacks the population size and density as well as the political clout in order to pursue something like that. Instead we'll probably just get a streetcar line or two.

[talindsay]

The region could strategize differently. A tactic that's been used by other cities is to use local money with no federal match to build the part the feeds won't pay for; then, once that part is built, apply for the rest of the line to be federally funded, using the part that was already built entirely with local funds as the local match. With strong local funding (CTIB), a system approach and good local leadership this can remove a lot of the so called bottlenecks. We have the right setup to do this but lack the local leadership.

[Nick]

Is it possible for people to be too realistic?