urbanMSP

Probably because engineering is expensive, so if a project isn't going to get approved (or if it will require major changes to get approved), best to find out sooner rather than later.

What if the project doesn't receive municipal consent? Then you've wasted all that engineering time and money.

Not the exact same thing, but I work in the private infrastructure field, and we follow a similar process. We create an initial estimate, doing just the basic engineering work, maybe 2-3% and get preliminary funding based on that.

Then, we put together a more detailed estimate, based on more engineering. This is when site visits and detailed calculations happen. At about 20% engineering, the projects gets presented to a stakeholder meeting, and everyone gets a chance to weigh in on the revised scope, and, if the estimate has significantly changed (pretty common), approve the revised estimate.

Only then do we start actual detailed engineering, creating schematics and ordering materials. We could do the whole thing before the stakeholder meeting, but then, if a showstopper flaw was found, or the budget wasn't able to support the project, all that time and money would have been wasted.

I believe it also has something to do with the federal schedule. Projects need federal approval to get money along the way and municipal consent is almost certainly part of the criteria for getting said money. They literally may be prevented by federal rules from waiting for more engineering before getting consent. I'm not sure, just speculating, but it's educated speculating.

So why is each of these projects - this being the fourth - defining a need for essentially a complete maintenance facility? Reading that Met Council document I know this one isn't planned to be *quite* a complete maintenance facility, but it's still pretty darned close - they're designing it to be able to do all routine maintenance plus some of the heavier maintenance.

Are both of the current facilities really only able to meet the heavy maintenance demands of their portions of the fleet? And do they both have separate heavy maintenance crews? It would seem like one crew with a critical mass of people, working out of one facility, would be the most efficient; I can see why two separate facilities may make sense to keep size down and to offer some redundancy, but I can't fathom why either Southwest or Bottineau would have anything beyond storage facilities and maybe some rudimentary basic maintenance capabilities (e.g., train wash and lubrication station). Nowhere on the whole system will be more than twenty track miles from the Hiawatha shops in my lifetime.

Two potential reasons that come to mind would be for some sort of "Geographic Equity" purpose, and that each line may only be considered on its own, and not as part of a system, under current rules.

I remember Brian Lamb talking at a recent Transportation Committee meeting and admitting that the way they're doing the system ("piecemeal" was his word) didn't allow them to construct OMFs as efficiently as they'd like.

Lots of people have been pointing this out for a while.

I actually don't think it's horrible to have multiple facilities like this. If nothing else, it lessens deadheading. I do quibble with the locations of the Green Line OMFs but I don't have a better idea of where to put them.

I believe it also has something to do with the federal schedule. Projects need federal approval to get money along the way and municipal consent is almost certainly part of the criteria for getting said money. They literally may be prevented by federal rules from waiting for more engineering before getting consent. I'm not sure, just speculating, but it's educated speculating.

Municipal Consent is a process that only exists in Minnesota as a result of legislation by the state.

Here's the state statute that defines Municipal Consent.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=473.3994

Does anyone with familiarity in how infrastructure project management works know why municipal consent is scheduled at only 15% of design?

Why not have a complete picture presented to cities along the route. Everyone can go into the consent process with their eyes open.

The Met Council has moved consent up from Fall 2016 to Spring 2016, but why not wait for more engineering and budgeting to be done?

Also, we'd miss out on the following workflow/timeline:

"Rail Line Gets Initial Go Ahead"
<excitement>

"Proposed Rail Line Over Budget by 40%"
<fear, loathing, argument, finger-pointing, 3C, tunnel(s), uncertainty, doubt, equity>

"Proposed Rail Line Scaled Back"
<more fear, loathing, etc...>
<deadlines looming>

"Future of Proposed Rail Line Uncertain"
<...>

David's generally correct. Having multiple OMF's reduces dead-heading, which reduces operational costs. There's also the matter of, except perhaps Lowertown or up in Brooklyn Park, we generally lack the wide land available adjacent to the lines for a large OMF facility.

September 10th CMC meeting presentation

http://metrocouncil.org/getdoc/f4bdca9a ... ation.aspx

http://www.startribune.com/transit-offi ... 327146301/

The Strib is trying way too hard to fine parallels between Bottineau and Southwest. Yes, there will be opposition. There always is. What's lacking on Bottineau is opposition money. There are some wealthy folks up in Homewood and Golden Valley, but not the concentration there is in Kenwood/CIDNA.

It will be interesting political theater if nothing else. The arguments against it (parks!) are going to be the same. Let's see if Dayton bothers to "pause" the project for the fewer, lower-donor crowd.

Sooooo, it's fine that it's a turd because nobody has enough money to fight it?

Also, if you thinks claims about disrupting the Kenilworth corridor are the same as complaints that it literally goes through a park serving nobody, then... boy I don't know.

You're not on any CACs for this are you? If so who do I lobby to get you taken off? Actually same but for SWLRT? How the hell do I get you off the CAC?

I guess, you don't think that soil conditions, freight rail ROW, state/regional anti-transit (LRT, specifically) sentiment, municipal consent (particularly int he outer ring suburbs where homeowners will throw a loud fit), and general unforeseen cost inflations won't be an issue? Just because the urban population living near the parkland doesn't have the money of the Kenilworth folks doesn't mean there aren't a ton of similarities.

It does not go through a park. It's in a freaking rail corridor, just like Southwest.

If you think working to get people booted off the CAC is going to change anything, then...boy I don't know.

I guess, you don't think that soil conditions, freight rail ROW, state/regional anti-transit (LRT, specifically) sentiment, municipal consent (particularly int he outer ring suburbs where homeowners will throw a loud fit), and general unforeseen cost inflations won't be an issue? Just because the urban population living near the parkland doesn't have the money of the Kenilworth folks doesn't mean there aren't a ton of similarities.

What soil conditions? The northern burbs are nothing like Eden Prairie.

It's true that some suburban homeowners will throw a fit, but again, it's not where the money is. The only municipal consent issue I foresee is in Brooklyn Park where Lunde is just kind of...odd.

Cost inflation is an issue with every project.

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?

Also David we're supposed to listen to all concerns as if the person expressing them is being 100% genuine because why would anyone possibly ever have ulterior motives in a process like this so so seriously you're going to have to explain to me why these communities don't matter.

What soil conditions? The northern burbs are nothing like Eden Prairie.

When the Southwest line completed environmental and engineering work last spring, the price had ballooned by $341 million, due in part to poor soil conditions, additional work needed on wetlands, and higher property acquisition costs.

Eight of the 13 miles along the Bottineau route are located along the Monticello spur — a freight corridor owned by BNSF Railway Co. Metro Transit plans to reconstruct the rail right of way to make room for two light-rail cars and a single freight line. That will require Metro Transit to negotiate a deal to buy part of BNSF’s property.