Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[HuskyGrad]

When are we going to admit that we're just bad at designing light rail?

I'm not sure that we're bad at design it light rail. It's more that the constraints levied by stakeholders, federal requirements, and budgetary pressures can lead to poor projects. As an agency I do feel Met Council puts more value on operations than others. There are other agencies out there that made decisions that continually impact system reliability and maintainability that require massive capital projects to undo.

[Bakken2016]

When are we going to admit that we're just bad at designing light rail?

I'm not sure that we're bad at design it light rail. It's more that the constraints levied by stakeholders, federal requirements, and budgetary pressures can lead to poor projects. As an agency I do feel Met Council puts more value on operations than others. There are other agencies out there that made decisions that continually impact system reliability and maintainability that require massive capital projects to undo.

Yeah, just be happy we have never decided to single track a LRT project, and then have to go back later and double track it.

[alexschief]

The Met Council's unwillingness to use grade separation to improve operations is definitely a source of ongoing frustration, especially when contrasted with their seeming eagerness to use grade separation to placate small localized opposition.

But also, these are complex projects, the Bottineau LRT is considering alignments that are all significantly improved from the original LPA, and the two existing Met Council LRT lines are two of the most successful current-gen light rail lines built in America, only Seattle's Line 1 has higher riders per track mile. SWLRT, for all its faults, will probably be a mild success as well.

Bigger picture aside, I've consistently said that I hope they choose the Lyndale N and 1 Station options and nothing has changed from my perspective.

[Trademark]

Cub being the only grocery store and pharmacy over North Minneapolis does change things. Maybe more investment will come in the meantime, but I understand them studying 2 stations. It's a tough call.

As for grade separation I don't think it's just being used to placate localized opposition. This line does not have grade separation in the majority of the line except to cross freeways/highways and North Memorial. The community is completely opposed to elevated at every turn. And as long as the MetCouncil thinks it costs $1 bil a mile for tunneling, it will never make sense to tunnel underneath North Minneapolis.

I don't see why people don't think we aren't planning good routes. Can it be better, yes. But let's not forget that we have one of the most successful light rail systems per mile. And this project will also see strong ridership.

[alexschief]

Right, but the reason they are giving the "East of 94" option a hard look, despite the increased time and significantly increased cost, is because of opposition to the train on Lyndale N.

[Trademark]

Right, but the reason they are giving the "East of 94" option a hard look, despite the increased time and significantly increased cost, is because of opposition to the train on Lyndale N.

This is true, but it isn't going to cost more than tunneling thru the north side. And the city isn't gonna support elevated.

[thespeedmccool]

I feel like Met Council is just completely without the political will to get anything done. Like, at every juncture, it seems like projects are planned with the only consideration being upsetting absolutely no one. Maybe we shouldn't bend to literally every block's parochial concerns and stop letting micro-community engagement get in the way of the obvious answers.

Maybe I'm just an authoritarian, but sometimes you gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet. Otherwise, you spend so much darn time, money, and effort researching everything about omelets, the pan, the eggs, and the kitchen looking for the best way to make the omelet with the fewest eggs possible, only to find out that you can't actually save any eggs unless you just don't make it. Not to mention that while you spent weeks deciding how to make the omelet, your ingredients went bad and the grocery store jacked the prices.

Maybe just look at a couple recipes and cook the omelet knowing that you'll have it 99% right the first time.

Or something.

[alexschief]

There was a Blue Line Extension meeting yesterday at the Capri Theater. As you can see in the materials posted the last page (accessible here) have basically refined two alternatives for the North/South segment north of Target Field and Broadway and four alternatives for the East/West segment east of James.

1. The decision for the North/South segment is whether to put the train on Lyndale at grade or on the eastern shoulder of I-94 on an elevated structure. The main differentiators between the segments are station location and the additional cost. I was told that the cost for the I-94 shoulder alignment was about 1.5X the cost of the Lyndale alignment. Surprisingly to me, project staff said that their models did not show significant travel time differences between the two. All the same, I think the Met Council should choose the Lyndale option here, which comes with less up-front cost and less risk.

2. The decision for the East/West segment has two mostly independent components. The first is whether to put the train down Broadway or whether to put the train down 21st Ave (which would be mostly closed to cars). This issue primarily comes down to takes. I was initially skeptical, but I've come around to feeling that the 21st Avenue option is probably the better of the two. The Broadway option involves demolishing a larger number of buildings, including some of the area's historic fabric. But I would hope that if that option were chosen, the City would also get involved and re-design Broadway Avenue as a safer and more ped/bike friendly street at the same time. Paired with the LRT construction, this could really be a big step towards boosting this commercial district.

The second issue is whether to put two stations in the area or just one. When I see an alternative like this show up later in the process I tend to think there must be momentum behind it. While I don't think two stations would be a disaster, I would support the one station option. I don't know what two stations would be needed here, when one can serve the area pretty well. It's also strange to me that the project would deliberately choose not to make a a direct-ish connection with the METRO D Line, even though it's true that they both basically head to the same place southbound.

Anyway, work is still progressing and I hope they are able to make some decisions on the alignment soon. There is some opposition to parts of this and I heard grumbling about parking at the meeting, so there's a lot of work to go.

[Trademark]

There was a Blue Line Extension meeting yesterday at the Capri Theater. As you can see in the materials posted the last page (accessible here) have basically refined two alternatives for the North/South segment north of Target Field and Broadway and four alternatives for the East/West segment east of James.

1. The decision for the North/South segment is whether to put the train on Lyndale at grade or on the eastern shoulder of I-94 on an elevated structure. The main differentiators between the segments are station location and the additional cost. I was told that the cost for the I-94 shoulder alignment was about 1.5X the cost of the Lyndale alignment. Surprisingly to me, project staff said that their models did not show significant travel time differences between the two. All the same, I think the Met Council should choose the Lyndale option here, which comes with less up-front cost and less risk.

2. The decision for the East/West segment has two mostly independent components. The first is whether to put the train down Broadway or whether to put the train down 21st Ave (which would be mostly closed to cars). This issue primarily comes down to takes. I was initially skeptical, but I've come around to feeling that the 21st Avenue option is probably the better of the two. The Broadway option involves demolishing a larger number of buildings, including some of the area's historic fabric. But I would hope that if that option were chosen, the City would also get involved and re-design Broadway Avenue as a safer and more ped/bike friendly street at the same time. Paired with the LRT construction, this could really be a big step towards boosting this commercial district.

The second issue is whether to put two stations in the area or just one. When I see an alternative like this show up later in the process I tend to think there must be momentum behind it. While I don't think two stations would be a disaster, I would support the one station option. I don't know what two stations would be needed here, when one can serve the area pretty well. It's also strange to me that the project would deliberately choose not to make a a direct-ish connection with the METRO D Line, even though it's true that they both basically head to the same place southbound.

Anyway, work is still progressing and I hope they are able to make some decisions on the alignment soon. There is some opposition to parts of this and I heard grumbling about parking at the meeting, so there's a lot of work to go.

Having a station right outside Cub as was proposed could be useful to the community given the ever growing food desert of North Minneapolis.

[twincitizen]

I’d choose the east of 94 alignment and 21st Ave transitway options. There’s so much more development potential between 94 and the river than along that particular stretch of Lyndale, not to mention serving a higher number of jobs that exist today. That and the neighborhoods along Lyndale not wanting it. Getting that station at Plymouth should not be underestimated in terms of importance to the system. I think about how that opens up access for the growing population across the river, putting a station in that location with a 1-seat ride to the airport, etc. Why would it be sited north of Plymouth Ave though? Seems to be more room on the south side of Plymouth. I wouldn’t be against a Lyndale alignment at all, I just prefer the other option. Neither are bad options on paper.

[Tyler]

I’d choose the east of 94 alignment and 21st Ave transitway options. There’s so much more development potential between 94 and the river than along that particular stretch of Lyndale, not to mention serving a higher number of jobs that exist today. That and the neighborhoods along Lyndale not wanting it. Getting that station at Plymouth should not be underestimated in terms of importance to the system. I think about how that opens up access for the growing population across the river, putting a station in that location with a 1-seat ride to the airport, etc. Why would it be sited north of Plymouth Ave though? Seems to be more room on the south side of Plymouth. I wouldn’t be against a Lyndale alignment at all, I just prefer the other option. Neither are bad options on paper.

100% agree ^^

[Nick]

Not that it couldn’t be changed, but most of that industrial land between 10th Avenue and West Broadway is marked as industrial (production and processing) in the 2040 plan and can’t easily be redeveloped into housing or other uses.

[SurlyLHT]

Light rail plans put a hair salon’s generational wealth on hold

"The challenges residents continue to live with come from a lack of investment. Porter and Spicer both wonder if the intention of light rail really is designed to lift a community or allow others to more easily pass through it?

“We can already see change happening, but why did it take light rail to suddenly help people create spaces that can help them enjoy living here?” Spicer said. “Drug use has exploded, guns, shootings and all this craziness and they’re not doing anything about it. You’re running light rail through communities, not helping them stay alive while these changes are coming.”
https://mynorthnews.org/new-blog/2023/ ... noaJ7yoJUI


Opposition is building, there are yard signs in Robbinsdale and it looks like WBC Executive Director Kristel Porter is tepid.

[Tcmetro]

I listened to the Blue Line CMC meeting that was held today and a new option is being considered that uses 10th Ave to Washington to Broadway/21st. This reduces the cost of altering the I-94 slopes and allows the train to operate at street level.

There are a few issues with the routing, namely: 10th Ave is narrow and they are considering restricting to light rail, buses, and emergency vehicles only; and that the NB 94 exit to 17th/Broadway needs to be redesigned.

[Silophant]

Wasn't that a previous option that got thrown out because it was going to slow the train down too much to wind through the North Loop?

[Tcmetro]

That's right, at some point the Washington route was modified to run along I-94, but now it looks like that is too costly.

[Silophant]

Seems like we should have learned our lesson about bending over backwards because a couple dozen homeowners do not wish to look at a train, but I guess we'll see.

[VacantLuxuries]

It also sounded like there was some pushback against the train being elevated on the east side of I-94 on community division grounds.

Which if we were building this on pristine green field sites where elevated tracks would create a barrier that doesn't exist, that would be a valid concern. But when we're talking about elevated tracks next to a massive freeway that MNDOT is actively trying to expand, it feels like similar vibes to Robbinsdale's "putting a train in the middle of a six lane freeway will divide our community!" gripes. And transit is being asked to meet a standard that freeways have never (and given where our funding priorities continue to lie, will never) account for.

[thespeedmccool]

Someone has got to be willing to take a stand and tell "the community" when they're wrong. This is ridiculous.

Light rail collocating with a freeway would divide their neighborhood? Come on. We need someone to just dismiss these bad faith arguments so we can talk about what real concerns people might have. If residents are concerned about gentrification or noise, let's actually talk about those things and not let disingenuous NIMBYs pretend like this would be a real problem.

The same thing is happening now that happened with Southwest. We're gonna spend billions trying to placate an un-placatable constituency and get a worse product for it. These projects need to be given strict budgets and timelines so we can stop this silliness. The current way of building transit lets ballooning budgets and ever-extending timelines more palatable paths of least resistance for planners than upsetting a few dozen people.

It's unacceptable: we need bold leaders to just go over community opposition sometimes and do what's right. We more-or-less saw that caliber of leadership with Minneapolis 2040. We need someone to organize a Metro 2050 coalition or something to build out a real transit network and do it over the dissent of the few.

Imagine if we could give someone the power Robert Moses had when he was building New York's freeways, but have them build trains. Give them $10 billion to play with and zero roadblocks. Just do transit right. Crack a few eggs, but actually get an omelet.

[Tom H.]

Meeting materials were recently posted describing the various options being studied.

https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... rials.aspx