Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[NickP]

I hope with the at grade station, the planner put conscious care in the surround area, like good lighting, strong connection to the parkway, etc. At first look, placing a train station under two bridges does not see like a great idea for place making, or the perception of safety.

[Bakken2016]

https://finance-commerce.com/2023/12/ch ... ment-plan/

Rivernorth development is moving ahead and is asking Metro Transit to put a station at Broadway/Washington, which makes a lot of sense. But in my opinion then the Lyndale Station should be moved down to Fremont for better connections to the D Line.

[alexschief]

Between Target Field Station and the Lowry/North Memorial Station, there should be a maximum of four stops. Really, I had hoped there would be three. But four has got to be the absolute limit.

Moving the proposed Lyndale Station to the east (Could it sit on the highway bridge? I imagine there are structural considerations to that...) would provide better access to the riverfront area between Broadway and Plymouth that certainly could see significant redevelopment in the coming decade and a half. It might also be good to move the proposed James Station slightly the east (say, between Irving and Girard) as well. This would help space the stations out more evenly.

[Silophant]

If we're building the new highway bridge from scratch with 21st St and ramp reconfigurations, etc, (which I'm still a little flabbergasted that we're apparently doing), I've gotta imagine it can include a station as well. Seems more expensive than the originally pitched idea of elevating the tracks over Broadway and not coming back down to street level until west of the freeway, but whatever, I suppose.

[MidwayLuke]

Does anyone else feel like the KMOJ vs. LRT is an unfair framing of the issue?

It seems to me that light rail would fit just fine through this corridor, but the inclusion of car lanes puts it over the current ROW width.

What's really putting properties such as KMOJ at risk is the assumption that we must preserve vehicle access. It's really KMOJ vs. Cars.

Seems like even just closing NB Broadway between Penn and 26th Av could be enough.

[Bakken2016]

https://m.startribune.com/cost-of-blue- ... 5mnmpqwiti

Blue Line Extension expected to cost between $2.9 and $3.2 billion.

I’m a little shocked that it will cost more than Green Line Extension, but I guess inflation and changing the route does that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[daveybabymsp]

The article says that the “base price” is $2.2 Billion and the rest of the budget is contingency for unexpected costs. So hopefully if it gets built it will come in “under” the $3 billion price tag or at least not go over it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[acs]

Projected ridership is also now estimated at 11,500 to 13,000 a day, so about the same as what the D line is currently doing. Yay.

[Bakken2016]

Oops, I didn't see the base price at first. Well that is good to see.

About ridership, the new model is very conservative I've been told. Also, all of our rail projects have smashed projections in the past I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened here.

[Tom H.]

Inflation is rough. And it sucks that by doing the prudent thing and having more conservative contingencies as a result of the SWLRT issues, this (at a surface level) appears to be feeding right into the "LRT cost overruns" narrative. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[daveybabymsp]

My vibes based ridership estimate is essentially meaningless but that number does feel low considering how strong the routing through north loop, northside, and downtown Robbinsdale looks. That being said the Bottineau Blvd section past downtown Robbinsdale looks terrible and the Brooklyn Park section on Broadway looks just OK. It makes me wonder what the numbers would look like if the line only extended to Robbinsdale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tom H.]

I wish the Mpls to Robbinsdale section could be the "local match", and the extension to Brooklyn Park could be the (second phase) Federal match. That doesn't work in practice, of course, because:

• Inflation
• OMF is in the northern section
• Ridership projections seem to heavily favor park & rides
• Cost-efficiency of building the whole thing at once

Part of me thinks that planning the corridor, then building station-by-station or in shorter segments as funds become available would be the ideal way to do these things, but I'm sure construction logistics say otherwise.

[mattaudio]

Random question, why are we planning to have 4 OMFs when we get to 2 actual lines/services? Because the Franklin Ave and Lowertown OMFs are not expandable? Feels like an inefficient end result.

[Bakken2016]

Random question, why are we planning to have 4 OMFs when we get to 2 actual lines/services? Because the Franklin Ave and Lowertown OMFs are not expandable? Feels like an inefficient end result.

Franklin expanded for SWLRT, and it sounds like Lowertown might get some expansion as well. SWLRT does not have an OMF on it, it was cut from the project. So Blue Line extension will be the third OMF built.

[angrysuburbanite]

I'll admit, I have not really looked followed the Blue Line Extension since the horrible BNSF alignment was rejected, but looking at some of the preliminary maps now, this actually looks like pretty good project, especially south of Robbinsdale. I do have to wonder though: what makes the project so expensive? It looks like it would be pretty similar to the Central Corridor, are there any bridges or tunnels that are driving the cost up? Just curious.

[MNdible]

It's really hard for people to wrap their heads around what compounding inflation has done to construction pricing -- much more so than inflation in general. It's a cliche, but a billion dollars doesn't buy you what it used to.

[thespeedmccool]

Whenever I see Blue Line plans or otherwise, it's always stipulated that West Broadway in Minneapolis will also be reconstructed even though the train is no longer running along it. I wonder if that's in the project budget.

Realistically, that reconstruction is like $40 million tops, maybe like $80 million if the bridge over 94 is included, but if it's included in the Blue Line budget, that could be adding to the projected costs and therefore contingency.

[angrysuburbanite]

I suppose this also kinda applies to SWLRT as well, but I wonder how the trains will be signed once the BLRT opens? These are the options I could see Metro Transit doing:
a. Signed as 'Minneapolis' until splitting off and proceeding as "Mall of America" or "Brooklyn Park" depending on the direction
b. Signed as "Brooklyn Park via Minneapolis" or "Mall of America via Minneapolis", depending on direction
c. Signed as "Brooklyn Park" or "Mall of America" the whole route, depending on direction

I think for tourists it would be really confusing for the Minneapolis train out of the airport was signed Brooklyn Park, so I hope they choose option B. Which do you think Metro Transit will go with?

[J. Mc]

I suppose this also kinda applies to SWLRT as well, but I wonder how the trains will be signed once the BLRT opens? These are the options I could see Metro Transit doing:
a. Signed as 'Minneapolis' until splitting off and proceeding as "Mall of America" or "Brooklyn Park" depending on the direction
b. Signed as "Brooklyn Park via Minneapolis" or "Mall of America via Minneapolis", depending on direction
c. Signed as "Brooklyn Park" or "Mall of America" the whole route, depending on direction

I think for tourists it would be really confusing for the Minneapolis train out of the airport was signed Brooklyn Park, so I hope they choose option B. Which do you think Metro Transit will go with?

I would agree Brooklyn Park / via Minneapolis <-> Mall of America / via Minneapolis / Via Airport would be sensible.
Well, actually we would need to translate this to Metro Transit destination sign: BRKLYN PK / VIA DTN MPLS <-> MALL AMER / VIA DTN MPLS / VIA AIRPORT

Ideally though with how long the lines will be, using dynamic signage would be ideal, so a train starting at MOA would have Airport, Downtown Minneapolis, Brooklyn Park, then it would drop Airport arriving at Terminal 1, then drop Downtown Minneapolis after arriving at whatever the current corporate sponsor name is of the Viking ship stadium station.

On a side note, this also raises something I've wondered about, how tied down are these extensions to their respective lines? I.e. once both the Bottineau and SW extensions are operational, what if longer term it made more sense to run University Ave trains to Brooklyn Center due to most through ridership going that way, and SW trains to Airport and MOA due to most ridership going that way? Or for operator scheduling and run cutting, perhaps combining them differently would be more efficient for scheduling and timing? I assume they'll just stay together as has been promoted all along, but it would be interesting to see if the lines eventually got 'split' in downtown Minneapolis into 4 services to allow for different through running scenarios, or lower frequency on one segment that had lower ridership. (I.e. in 2050 trains run every 5 minutes on University Ave, and every 10 on the SW alignment, and the RED Line is still every 30 minutes but with a more efficient Toyota Sienna EV, okay now I'm really going OT...)

[twincitizen]

Signing transit lines by identifying the terminus station is a common practice. I can practically hear the Chicago L announcements in my head: "This is a Red Line train to Howard".

EB Green Line - currently just signed 'St. Paul', but it should probably be 'St. Paul Union Depot'
WB Green Line - likely to be 'Southwest Station', perfect, no notes.
Blue Line - 'Mall of America'. Probably no changes. I think signing 'MSP-MOA' or 'Airport-Mall' is worth discussing. The airport is a major destination worthy of exception.
Blue Line - likely to be 'Oak Grove' but as I've said upthread, hopefully they'll be forced to cut costs and the terminus (at least initially) will be 'North Hennepin College', which sounds nice