Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[alexschief]

Tunnels between stations would also be extremely costly and not really provide significant benefits over what is proposed.

The best case for a tunnel is that it would resolve the surface right-of-way issues at a stroke. As currently imagined, the light rail would entrench Broadway's characteristics as a barrier (even if it would be an improvement over the present condition). It would calm the road, but also preclude a dedicated bicycle facility. If we remove the light rail from the surface right-of-way, but still have to tear up the street, that presents an opportunity to not just build a transit line but also build a complete street on top.

It is clear that a tunnel + street project would bring with it a significant increase in cost. Such a project might require funding from multiple sources, not just FTA, and would be extremely complex. Such a path certainly shouldn't be committed to. But it should be given due diligence. This is a unique point in time where the leadership at the federal level has both the money and the interest to support projects that push the envelope a bit, and I think that the first cities to take advantage will benefit significantly.

[Trademark]

Tunnels between stations would also be extremely costly and not really provide significant benefits over what is proposed.

The best case for a tunnel is that it would resolve the surface right-of-way issues at a stroke. As currently imagined, the light rail would entrench Broadway's characteristics as a barrier (even if it would be an improvement over the present condition). It would calm the road, but also preclude a dedicated bicycle facility. If we remove the light rail from the surface right-of-way, but still have to tear up the street, that presents an opportunity to not just build a transit line but also build a complete street on top.

It is clear that a tunnel + street project would bring with it a significant increase in cost. Such a project might require funding from multiple sources, not just FTA, and would be extremely complex. Such a path certainly shouldn't be committed to. But it should be given due diligence. This is a unique point in time where the leadership at the federal level has both the money and the interest to support projects that push the envelope a bit, and I think that the first cities to take advantage will benefit significantly.

Agreed there should be consideration for it. But when the planners on the project are saying that underground is ten times more expensive then at grade and saying it would cost almost $1bn a mile to build. It won't even be considered. Like they said they only reason that the Airport tunnel got built is because the Airport funded it. Unless some organizations come up with some major money to the tune of hundreds of millions. There's no chance this project will get a tunnel.

[alexschief]

I understand the standard cost increase for building underground is something around 5X building at-grade. If it's 10X and $1B per mile for this project, I'd like to see it documented as something that was looked into seriously and not dismissed out of hand or sandbagged. A tunnel underneath Broadway would be roughly 1.65 miles at maximum length, somewhere a bit less than 15% of the total length of the project, so it's not as if we are discussing a subway all the way to Brooklyn Park.

I think it's pretty clear that the project staff aren't considering it. But this is a public forum where we can play make-believe and ask questions.

[Trademark]

I understand the standard cost increase for building underground is something around 5X building at-grade. If it's 10X and $1B per mile for this project, I'd like to see it documented as something that was looked into seriously and not dismissed out of hand or sandbagged. A tunnel underneath Broadway would be roughly 1.65 miles at maximum length, somewhere a bit less than 15% of the total length of the project, so it's not as if we are discussing a subway all the way to Brooklyn Park.

I think it's pretty clear that the project staff aren't considering it. But this is a public forum where we can play make-believe and ask questions.

Agreed. I think that it probably was sandbagged. Or the problems of the Southwest line's tunnel are coloring the perspective of this one. When they would be two extremely different tunnels.

[Oreos&Milk]

1. Park Board could (and almost certainly would) deny municipal consent.
2. Believe it or not, Victory Memorial Drive is in Robbinsdale city limits, as Xerxes Ave is the border. The entire park ROW (roadway, trail, and all lawn areas, etc.) is technically in Robbinsdale.

I wanted to opine a bit on Robbinsdale and Mike Opat's stance here and how that affects things moving forward. Once an alignment is selected, I think there will be tremendous pressure coming from the Governor, the Met Council, the County Board, Brooklyn Park, the Mpls Regional Chamber of Commerce (including and especially Target Corp), the Biden administration and our federal representatives, etc. to see this thing through. While the pandemic may have dampened some enthusiasm for the building of our transit system, I guarantee that the big business interests haven't changed their tune. Target Corp doesn't care how it gets to their north campus in Brooklyn Park, just that it does. All of the above will be twisting arms on the Robbinsdale City Council and trying to talk sense into them that their greatest fears about this project are unfounded. There will be concessions, whether that be physical mitigations, promises to invest money in Robbinsdale, etc. But I'm more optimistic than not that the forces in favor of building this line will prevail over the Robbinsdale City Council, even if it comes down to a 3-2 vote for municipal consent.

..how about we re-route it through their bank accounts? No? Bet then they would flake out faster than the MOA did when they need money for station improvements.

I like the transit-only concept of 21st Ave N. Even if there is only sidewalks it could be a great biking option and opportunity to build a nice mini-greenway. It could connect to North Commons Park on the western side, and eventually with a tunnel under 94 connect to the riverfront. Given Cub is smack dab in the middle doing so would greatly improve access to good food options for the community without dependable car transportation. Plus maybe it's not to late to see if an actual bike trail could be included in the concept as well?

Talking with the planners of the project they have completely written off tunneling. One of them even told me the only reason the tunnel in the airport happened was because the airport paid for it. I also asked if there was any thought in extending 21st Ave n across 94 and making it into a one way pair with Broadway connecting to the exit at West Broadway which would have freed up a lot of space for protected bike lanes. They said that Kemp's shot down that idea very quickly.

No I meant just a bike greenway tunnel in the long term under the freeway. as a phase 2 of the greenway if it were ever to come together. I don't see the urgent need for connecting car traffic on 21st. However, a bike-only greenway running down 21st and along side the train in the proposed segments would my suggestion to help cut down on food deserts.

[Bakken2016]

Visualizations of Crystal Portion on County Road 81

https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/User ... egment.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alexschief]

The elevated "Interchange Option" is intriguing, but the presence of Lumion people in a rendering doesn't guarantee them in real life. If that's the chosen option (and I think it would be far superior for pedestrians than the "4-6-4 Option") then designing and programming that underside space will be really important. The two case studies shown do not inspire confidence.

[Bakken2016]

Green Space, Performing Space, Farmer's Market could all be good options to liven up the "Interchange Option"

[Tcmetro]

Six thru lanes and double-lefts at a light rail station. It kind of defeats the point of the project.

The interchange option is insane. Those plazas under the roadway are a terrible idea, especially because there's no shortage of public spaces - there's even an adjacent park!

[DanPatchToget]

If those are the only options then I guess I would choose the interchange option. Not sure how well it would work as a gathering space; the biggest deciding factors would be how much traffic and noise there is. Or maybe build a little convenience store under there. Lots of stations, even small ones, I've seen in Europe have convenience stores for riders to get a quick coffee or snack. Wish that would catch on in the U.S.

If it were up to me I would do either the at-grade option or trench the station and tracks. In both cases have a narrower road (2 thru lanes in each direction + 1 left-turn lane + 1 right-turn lane).

[BikesOnFilm]

I've seen in Europe have convenience stores for riders to get a quick coffee or snack. Wish that would catch on in the U.S.

People here still struggle with the idea of how to integrate residential and commercial outside of major business areas. The hammer-meet-nail thinkers at MNDOT would have a Scanners moment if you suggested they build a road with retail parcels built in.

[MattW]

I've seen in Europe have convenience stores for riders to get a quick coffee or snack. Wish that would catch on in the U.S.

People here still struggle with the idea of how to integrate residential and commercial outside of major business areas. The hammer-meet-nail thinkers at MNDOT would have a Scanners moment if you suggested they build a road with retail parcels built in.

The MTR Corporation derives 40% of its revenue (and likely a majority of it's profit) from selling & leasing property around its stations. We're no Hong Kong, but sometimes it feels like our planners wouldn't know a good idea if it smacked them in the face.

[NickP]

Re the interchange, it seems like they are ultimately suggesting doing more work than just elevating the station and surrounding track. Wouldn’t it cost less to do this?

[DanPatchToget]

I'm guessing they prefer riders not having to use stairs or elevators to access the platform.

[thespeedmccool]

I'll be more cynical and assume it has to do with appeasing Hennepin County/Crystal folks who see transit access as a supplement to and not as substitute for car travel. If the Robbinsdale debacle is indicative of anything, it should be that the suburbs only enthusiastically supported the Bottineau Corridor so long as it didn't actually run in the Bottineau corridor.

[Mdcastle]

Well, transit isn't a substitute for car travel because even if you can ride the Blue Line to your job at Target, you can't ride it to your friend's house in Lake Elmo or take IKEA furniture home on it.

I do think that "that the suburbs only enthusiastically supported the Bottineau Corridor so long as it didn't actually run in the Bottineau corridor" is somewhat accurate. Reports of how catastrophic the original Blue line was for people in cars reached the northwest suburbs and they don't want the same for Bottineau. Hiawatha has been mitigated a lot with better signal timings, but it's probably going to take more than that promise to appease the suburbs.

Elevating the tracks and station as opposed to the road might turn out to be actually more expensive, since trains require more sturdy bridges than cars, and pedestrian structures have to assume that pedestrians are packed shoulder to shoulder (or so an engineer working on the Winona Bridge told me), so the live load calculations can even be greater.

[DanPatchToget]

No one is saying transit should replace all car trips, but we need a much better transit system so that more car trips can be substituted with transit. Take for example the fact that, even prior to the pandemic, me taking transit from Bloomington to visit a friend in Maple Grove was virtually impossible. With the Orange Line and the eventual Blue Line Extension it will be much more possible for me to do that trip by transit instead of by car (assuming they bring some decent local transit connections to Maple Grove).

As for Hiawatha Avenue being "catastrophic" with the Blue Line, there's plenty of other route options for drivers to choose. Considering how much motorists have received over the years in road and highway improvements, I can't say I feel sympathy for them with Hiawatha supposedly being "catastrophic" both back when the Blue Line began running and now. Even Hiawatha Avenue received upgrades with the Blue Line. It used to be a 4-lane undivided road, now it's a 4-6 lane divided highway with an overpass at Lake Street, an underpass at Minnehaha Parkway, and a massive interchange with Highway 62. The only way it wouldn't be "catastrophic" for those motorists is if all the intersections were grade-separated, which would make Hiawatha Avenue a freeway and that's exactly what residents in South Minneapolis didn't want and how we ended up with the Blue Line and Hiawatha Avenue in its existing form. So with all due respect to the northwest suburbs, they can handle the Blue Line on Bottineau.

[Silophant]

FWIW, I have very literally taken Ikea furniture home on the Blue Line.

[DanPatchToget]

In Oslo they have a free shuttle bus to Ikea. It's quite popular, especially with university students like myself when I was there in 2015.

[grant1simons2]

In Oslo they have a free shuttle bus to Ikea. It's quite popular, especially with university students like myself when I was there in 2015.

Also transit is literally a replacement for cars in Oslo since all their new tolls for going to the center of the city are paying for transit infrastructure.