Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[thespeedmccool]

DC Metro recently changed all their signage to indicate when routes go "via downtown DC."

That seems sensible to me, considering what a destination downtown is in comparison to Brooklyn Park.

[uptownbro]

Downtown should be the "destination" and we could assign colors or something to make it clear as well

[UrbanMPLS]

Exactly what twincitizen said. I think Chicago gets this right. This makes the lines identifiable not only be color, but by destination as well.

Being consistent with this avoids the need for the signs to say “Blue Line.” Even if someone is color blind, they can know they’re on the right train by the destination. Although I could see them keeping this either way.

It also means you don’t need to worry about saying cardinal directions on lines that don’t exactly run in them.

Chicago does a few things to help out visitors. I’ve heard announcements on Blue Line trains say “this is a Blue Line train to downtown and Forest Park.” It also puts an airplane icon on the destination sign for trains that are headed to the airport. This is a little more intuitive here because the airports themselves are the final destination, but I think MT could figure out a way to make this work on MOA-bound Blue Line trains

[Trademark]

Ain't a chance in hell Blue Line extension gets under even 15,000 riders within 12 months of it opening.

Remember ridership formulas are just that, formulas.

And all the formulas are messed up due to COVID and Transit being down in ridership even tho our light rail has gained 20% ridership increases each year for the last 2 years.

If the current Blue Line is hitting 20k the extension that hits a community college, 2 dense suburban downtowns and the highest transit ridership in the entire metro (North MPLS) its going to get good ridership.

Also I don't expect we'll need the 40% contingency that is a trump policy. Remember that our first two light rail lines came in both on time and under budget. We aren't building a tunnel thru a swamp, matter fact we aren't building any tunnels and only a few short non complex bridges. This project has far less of a risk profile then SWLRT.

Stand strong. We need this line to be built!

[Tom H.]

As someone mentioned upthread, once the extensions are complete, we will be nearing a point where the track infrastructure and the color line designations will be less tied to each other - for example, a new "Silver Line" connection SPUD to Brooklyn Center becomes possible, or an EP to MOA "Pink Line".

This also opens up the possibility of developing shorter track segments that aren't standalone lines on their own, but rather contribute to new line combinations. Think of adding a 4-mile segment from West Lake Green Line station to the East Lake Blue Line station, or a few miles to connect 46th St Station to Riverview via the Ford rail spur (or, for those who like to open old wounds, a standalone 3C routing through Uptown).

The point is that network synergy starts to become more of an advantage to us once the two-line core of the network is completed. If we can move away from the "corridor" analyses that the FTA seems to love, and instead target high-value strategic connections from a network perspective, we could make big improvements at relatively lower costs.

[Wezle]

Metro Transit says that they'll continue to reevaluate ridership calculations as new data comes out each year on post COVID rider recovery. Once full 2023 numbers are confirmed, they can re run the formula using 2023 instead of 2022 numbers and will get a higher ridership estimate. That should get better and better each year as LRT ridership continues to rise closer to the pre COVID totals which will help with public support of the extension.

Agreed on the shorter track segments! I really think that the Midtown Greenway is the next logical step for a light rail extension after the SWLRT and Bottineau extensions. They shouldn't have nearly as difficult of a time with securing ROW and the county has left space in the trench for a light rail system of some kind in the future. In my mind, its a matter of when, not if.

[Tom H.]

Agreed on the shorter track segments! I really think that the Midtown Greenway is the next logical step for a light rail extension after the SWLRT and Bottineau extensions. They shouldn't have nearly as difficult of a time with securing ROW and the county has left space in the trench for a light rail system of some kind in the future. In my mind, its a matter of when, not if.

The real difficulties are probably going to be (1) finding an agreeable way to maintain the bike infrastructure in the trench alongside LRT, and (2) connecting the tracks to continue southbound along the existing Blue Line tracks (considering all the elevation changes and bridges). Maybe it's an excuse to do a full rebuild of the entire Lake Street station setup, especially if the narrative continues to be that more controlled access is needed especially at that station.

[Bakken2016]

Agreed on the shorter track segments! I really think that the Midtown Greenway is the next logical step for a light rail extension after the SWLRT and Bottineau extensions. They shouldn't have nearly as difficult of a time with securing ROW and the county has left space in the trench for a light rail system of some kind in the future. In my mind, its a matter of when, not if.

The real difficulties are probably going to be (1) finding an agreeable way to maintain the bike infrastructure in the trench alongside LRT, and (2) connecting the tracks to continue southbound along the existing Blue Line tracks (considering all the elevation changes and bridges). Maybe it's an excuse to do a full rebuild of the entire Lake Street station setup, especially if the narrative continues to be that more controlled access is needed especially at that station.

Lake St Station is already getting a rebuild in the next couple years, so I don’t expect another rebuild anytime soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Silophant]

I've always really liked the idea someone pitched on streets.mn tenish years ago of completing the wye in Cedar-Riverside, allowing (Teal Line?) trains to go directly from the Hiawatha tracks to the Washington tracks. Allows direct connections from campus to the airport, and enables increased frequency on both the Hiawatha and University corridors without having to run any more trains through the capacity constrained downtown segement.

Might need a pocket track somewhere for the trains to turn around in if there's not demand to run them all the way to DTStP, but that's just details.

[BigIdeasGuy]

I've always really liked the idea someone pitched on streets.mn tenish years ago of completing the wye in Cedar-Riverside, allowing (Teal Line?) trains to go directly from the Hiawatha tracks to the Washington tracks. Allows direct connections from campus to the airport, and enables increased frequency on both the Hiawatha and University corridors without having to run any more trains through the capacity constrained downtown segement.

Might need a pocket track somewhere for the trains to turn around in if there's not demand to run them all the way to DTStP, but that's just details.

I've always loved that idea as well especially with pairing it with a spur running to the St. Paul Campus basically following the U of M Transit Way. My idea generally is for tracks to spilt off of the Blue Line after Cedar-Riverside station then tying in the Green Line before the West Bank Station. Following the Green Line through the Stadium Village Station and splitting off at 29th where the GL tracks turn south. Take the current transit way ROW all the way to Commonwealth where tracks spilt into a 1 direction counter clockwise loop using Randall, Buford, Eckles/Cleveland and Commonwealth before turning back onto the transit way.

I would have stops at Malcolm and Raymond and look at including bypass tracks if an express service is deemed necessary. I would also include a few platforms at the Transit Hub on the west side of the State Fair Grounds for use during the Fair. Not sure exactly what the best way to include those would be but they would be absolutely packed when needed.

I'm also not sure if the better alignment is to close 15th to cars or take a piece of Currie Park for the wye, neither are perfect options but both would work. A rework of the West Bank Station would probably be needed if the current rail limitation couldn't handle the frequency needed between the campus, I could envision taking the current center island platform and dead ending the tracks under Cedar then constructing additional platform on the outside with the through running tracks. That would result in eliminating Washington between 3rd St/freeway exit and 19th ave entrances but that's seems like a minor sacrifice.

[Wezle]

Haven't seen anyone post here the updated 30% design plans that were released in March. Fun to look over the more detailed changes to the route they have planned. Lots of road dieting and pedestrian/bike improvements on 21st and Broadway. Will be nice for North to have a second connection over I94, especially one that looks to be pedestrian friendly unlike Broadway. Though they may end up redesigning the Broadway crossing as well it seems.

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

[COLSLAW5]

holy wow looks like they have done a lot of good work in minneapolis to improve the pedestrian and bike environment. It even looks like they got rid of on street parking along N washington Ave. I hope they finish it off by including a good landscape design with lots of trees.

Main thing I saw was the inclusion of slip lanes at the pedestrian crossings for the 63rd street station and bass lake road station.

[angrysuburbanite]

Agreed, Minneapolis section looks great!

It might be possible that the extension will exceed the ridership of the existing Blue Line just on the section south of Crystal alone.

[Wezle]

As I look over it again, I'm pleased with the decision to make 10th Ave and 21st Ave into transit malls. I was worried that they would end up caving to outspoken North Loop residents on it. Additionally glad to see them restore some of the street grid underneath the I94 viaduct. Could work towards momentum on eventual removal/reduction with more development encouraged around the Plymouth Ave station.

With all of the street reconstruction and bridge building over I94, I think the budget for this project is more than reasonable, especially if they don't go over. Lots to like in the Minneapolis sections of the design, less to love on the suburban portions of it, though I'm not as familiar with those areas.

[angrysuburbanite]

The only thing I'm really worried about in the North Loop area is how it meanders through with lots of sharp turns reminiscent of the Green Line in downtown St. Paul. I hope it doesn't slow down the trains too much.

The planners on BLRT seem to have learned from our previous projects - the route runs through dense nodes rather than bypassing them, generally runs at street level (which improves accessibility and reduces cost, but comes at the expense of run time), has pretty good stop spacing, and has transit malls (Washington Avenue is awesome, I want more!). The suburban section is also a bit less offensive than SWLRT's. It hits a number of nodes which could facilitate ridership (Downtown Robbinsdale, North Memorial, North Hennepin College, and some commercial stuff), and doesn't rely on intense station area redevelopment except for its terminus. I say this even as a strong SWLRT supporter, too.

[thespeedmccool]

Yeah these plans are better than our previous LRTs, but there's still lots of room for improvement. I'm still skeptical that the right decision was to route along 21st, but the transit mall they've drawn up is pretty cute.

I am concerned that we may be including too much extraneous road reconstruction in these plans. These include a reconstruction of:

• 1/2 mile of 93rd in Brooklyn Park
• 3/8 mile of 85th in Brooklyn Park
• 1/4 mile of Broadway in Brooklyn Park
• New interchange at Bass Lake Road and Bottineau
• 1/4 mile of Bass Lake Road itself
• Broadway in Minneapolis and all the streets between it and 21st (plus maybe a new Broadway bridge too?)
• Reestablishment of some street grid under the viaduct in the North Loop

None of which seem essential for the LRT. These expenses should be broken out so the public sees that the train isn't quite as expensive as it looks.

Slip lanes need to be taken out anywhere along the project, full stop. If drivers have to go 5 MPH slower for 4 seconds, so be it. And, if we get rid of the slip lanes, we can get rid of that pedestrian bridge linking the 63rd P&R to the platform which will probably save many millions.

For all the consternation about potential takings along the heart of Broadway, it seems like the Penn Avenue station is where the most losses will be. Nothing particularly worth saving, but interesting nonetheless. Good redevelopment opportunities.

I wonder if they could sneak in a crosswalk across Broadway at Logan by Capri in Minneapolis. It looks tight, but I think that segment is a little long without pedestrian accommodation.

Anyone know why the sidewalk on the north side of the new 21st bridge looks like it's about 30 feet wide, plus a painted median? I'm all for comfortable sidewalks, but this looks a little, uh, generous for the context. Couldn't we save a lot of money with a more narrow bridge?

And one last thought: it would seem to me that project planners should be expecting the removal or extreme diet of Olson Memorial Highway, and I don't think they are right now. I know nothing's concrete on that front yet, and there's plenty of time yet for project coordination, but I'd hope they're thinking about that.

[COLSLAW5]

Anyone know why the sidewalk on the north side of the new 21st bridge looks like it's about 30 feet wide, plus a painted median? I'm all for comfortable sidewalks, but this looks a little, uh, generous for the context. Couldn't we save a lot of money with a more narrow bridge?

Im wondering/assuming it will be a landscaped bridge maybe?

[Silophant]

Man, even if I wasn't convinced before by twincitizen's comment upthread about chopping off the northern couple stations, I am now. Absolutely no reason to rebuild half the streets in Brooklyn Park with transit dollars. If another OMF is necessary, there looks to be plenty of underused land in the Brooklyn Blvd area near the tracks that wouldn't require half a mile of additional track past the last stop.

As far as the rest goes, my big concern is how many signalized intersections there are - hopefully the city and county have learned a lesson from the Green Line about the importance of getting signal timing right. The Broadway bridge is another frustration point - especially if 21st Ave N is going to be closed to traffic west of 4th St, there's no need to spend transit dollars on an additional vehicle crossing of 94.

[MNdible]

In the North Loop, they're so close to getting it right. But they REALLY need to connect 8th Avenue through to Washington, and give it a real street profile to accommodate actual cars actually driving through it.

[twincitizen]

Haven't seen anyone post here the updated 30% design plans that were released in March. Fun to look over the more detailed changes to the route they have planned. Lots of road dieting and pedestrian/bike improvements on 21st and Broadway. Will be nice for North to have a second connection over I94, especially one that looks to be pedestrian friendly unlike Broadway. Though they may end up redesigning the Broadway crossing as well it seems.

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

Thanks for sharing! Lots of engineering detail in these roll plots that you don't get from looking at the simplified route maps.

I have to applaud the creativity in some of the tougher spots, like the Lowry Station / Theo Wirth Parkway area. The current configuration and sightlines of that intersection are less than ideal, and adding LRT tracks could easily make it worse. But on paper anyways, I like what they've come up with to shift the at-grade Parkway/Lowry intersection so it will no longer be underneath the overpass bridges. It will also change from a 4-way stop to a traffic signal, along with gates at the LRT tracks.

I certainly agree on needing to extend 8th Ave in North Loop, as I've been obsessed with that idea for over a decade. It really needs to connect to 3rd Street, not just the bare minimum of connecting to 4th. It looks like they could get nearly 60' of ROW measuring from the edge of Salvation Army's loading dock to the edge of the pavement of the Cameron building's parking lot. You could squeeze out a few more feet by narrowing the parking lot's drive aisle and going to all compact parking, going diagonal, etc.

Edit: Jesus Christ that loading dock is new, built sometime in the past 5 years. It infuriates me that the City has had the 8th Ave connection in small area plans for 15-20 years, but has made less than zero effort to acquire or preserve the ROW to make it happen. They could have acquired an easement when the Cameron building was vacant for years or when it needed approvals for residential conversion a decade ago. They could have acquired an easement from Salvation Army as well during the planning for the loading dock addition. The way things are going the City will probably let Shafer-Richardson plop another apartment building directly where 8th Ave would go.