Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

You have a skewed view of the suburbs. St. Louis Park, Hopkins and Edina are all pretty urban in form, if not always in development.

Hopkins is the only place listed that is urban in form:west of 169 and north of Excelsior. Hence why it's the one place I'd visit. St Louis Park is only urban at Excelsior and Grand and Edina only in the NE quadrant at the border with Mpls. I'd say you have a skewed view of "urban".

I said form, not development. All of those cities have pretty regular street grids. The potential for good dense development is built-in to the cities' forms.

The *sprawling* suburbs embody a wasteful lifestyle that requires intense warmongering all for the lowest common denominator of cultural vacuity: why shouldn't we as intelligent human beings be vs. that?

Ah, elitist and ignoring political and social reality, would rather complain that it's not perfect than work toward realistic solutions. Got it.

[UptownSport]

Minneapolisite, I completely agree with you. If the SWLRT project derailed, I wouldn't be the slightest bit bummed.

x2

And the people from North ain't getting jobs in SW, and some great build out in near North is in the same category, promises to cram the line to nowhere down our throats using race.

It's a line to move Brent quickly from his Eden prairie McMansion to his office in the IDS.

[David Greene]

I'm sorry, but I was reacting to the *supremely* unhelpful worldview held by minneapolisite. It's an all too common view - *I* live in the city so I am sustainable and good. Everyone who lives in the suburbs, regardless of circumstance, is an irredeemable worthless jerk. That is the subtext of minneapolisite's message.

It's completely unrealistic and harmful. Not only does it not address any problems, it actually makes solutions to those problems harder.

SWLRT is far from perfect. But you know what? So was Hiawatha. So is Central. Why are we routing an LRT way around the capitol, doubling back to Cedar, then doubling back again to Union Depot? Because some people on a capitol grounds committee decied that we couldn't possibly have an LRT running exactly where streetcars used to go. It is no better than the Kenilworth tunnel, really. The marginal cost of the tunnel is ~$70 million. I don't know the marginal cost of the cut along University & Robert plus all the trackwork needed to complete that circuitous route. It's got to be in the tens of millions. It was a compromise. A lot of people complained but no one said we should shut down the whole project over it.

Perhaps I didn't express things as well as I could have, but minneapolisite isn't going to be successful in his endeavors if he isn't willing to examine everybody's self-interest, find intersections and work toward compromise solutions that are good enough for everyone. It is the nature of power. One can choose to be powerful and get something done or choose to work on unwinnable campaigns, get frustrated, complain and give up. I've been on both sides of that fence and I know which one I'd rather hang out on.

[min-chi-cbus]

^I agree completely. BTW, I for one would be very upset is the SW Corridor never came to fruition. It's the one alignment that connects the Southwest suburbs to the city, and in doing so hopefully lowers the barrier between the suburbs and the city in the process (each has a negative viewpoint of the other). Also, it's the one line that (sort of) connects Uptown and the Chain of Lakes to the LRT "network".

[orangevening]

Good god, forgive me, I just can't help it...



Building a tunnel through here is fuckin' assinine. How long do we expect this transit investment to last? I'm as frustrated with the slow pace of our transit buildout as anyone, but we should build this right, even though it will kick out the timeline.

Asinine? Why? because it's not going though a heavily populated urban district? Directly, your saving a awesome bike trail and equally awesome parkland, and Minneapolis has hung it's hat on being one of the top bicycling cities with one of the best parks system in the country. Indirectly (or maybe directly) your saving homes in Minneapolis and saving homes plus all the other issues in St. Louis Park that relocation freight would cause. What is asinine is that I've seen freight trains on Kenilworth maybe, maybe *once*. I don't know the details on why they can't move a freight train that comes maybe at most once a day to another line already established.

Would tunneling to save parkland and a bike trail (looking on the surface) would be completely unprecedented? I can see Minneapolis spining it that it shows where it's priorities are.

[David Greene]

What is asinine is that I've seen freight trains on Kenilworth maybe, maybe *once*. I don't know the details on why they can't move a freight train that comes maybe at most once a day to another line already established.

To be fair, that freight traffic is going to increase over the next couple of decades as gasoline costs skyrocket. The issue with relocating freight to SLP is the length of the trains. The resulting momentum means that safety pretty much requires a rebuild of the current shunt line in SLP, which was never design for mainline freight traffic.

[orangevening]

^ thanks I know that was a ignorant question.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Thanks for asking Orangevening. It's asinine to build a tunnel here because that negates the reason for selecting the Kenilworth alignment in the first place.

That alignment made some sense because the reserved right-of-way would be cheap and fast. I still wasn't convinced that made it worth skipping some of the densest populated areas in the city in order spend way less to route the line much cheaper through low-density neighborhoods with almost no TOD opportunities. Yet, as long as the right-of-way was reserved, at least Kenilworth would be fast and cheap, but now we know there actually wasn't a right-of-way saved suitable for LRT.

So, now the only arguments for Kenilworth come down to politics and process. We're rolling with it because the CEI was flawed. (Nevermind, that the FTA changed it right after 3a was selected and cited Southwest as an example of how the Bush-era CEI was producing results that prioritized fast & long commutes from the suburbs over urban transit). We're rolling with Kenilworth because we don't want to lose our spot in line for federal funding. By building a tunnel through here, we're doubling down on our mistake rather than making it right.

With some periodic upgrades this alignment could be in place for a hundred years or more, do we really want live with this blunder because of a flawed process and fucked-up politics? Let's build a tunnel for Southwest, but tunnel under Hennepin, where the people, commerce and destinations are. Sure, it sucks it will take longer and cost more, but that's not as bad as making a billion-and-half-dollar mistake because of flawed assumptions about freight traffic.

Also, someone should look deeper into the right-of-way specs of Bottineau, our next parkland express route.

[Mdcastle]

When and why were those townhouses built in the first place?

[Nick]

https://streets.mn/2013/07/21/we-need-t ... -corridor/

[mulad]

When and why were those townhouses built in the first place?

I'm not exactly sure, but that area was developed after an old rail yard was pulled up.

[min-chi-cbus]

I read the article, Nick. Although I share your passion, I don't want to see anything go away simply because we chose a bad alignment. That being said, OH MY GOD is 3A a terrible choice now that it costs north of $1.5B!!! If we have the option to go back to the drawing board and choose among the existing choices (3A, 3B and 3C), I hope to God Almighty that we go back and do the right thing and select 3C and accept the (imminent) cost escalation that will come with it......meaning we're going to spend close to $2.0B to get a train to run from downtown through Uptown to Eden Prairie -- but it'll be perfect this time and with minimal disruptions (I'm talking about subways now). How CAN'T we do this at this juncture? I hope we do!

[orangevening]

Thanks for asking Orangevening. It's asinine to build a tunnel here because that negates the reason for selecting the Kenilworth alignment in the first place.

That alignment made some sense because the reserved right-of-way would be cheap and fast. I still wasn't convinced that made it worth skipping some of the densest populated areas in the city in order spend way less to route the line much cheaper through low-density neighborhoods with almost no TOD opportunities. Yet, as long as the right-of-way was reserved, at least Kenilworth would be fast and cheap, but now we know there actually wasn't a right-of-way saved suitable for LRT.

So, now the only arguments for Kenilworth come down to politics and process. We're rolling with it because the CEI was flawed. (Nevermind, that the FTA changed it right after 3a was selected and cited Southwest as an example of how the Bush-era CEI was producing results that prioritized fast & long commutes from the suburbs over urban transit). We're rolling with Kenilworth because we don't want to lose our spot in line for federal funding. By building a tunnel through here, we're doubling down on our mistake rather than making it right.

With some periodic upgrades this alignment could be in place for a hundred years or more, do we really want live with this blunder because of a flawed process and fucked-up politics? Let's build a tunnel for Southwest, but tunnel under Hennepin, where the people, commerce and destinations are. Sure, it sucks it will take longer and cost more, but that's not as bad as making a billion-and-half-dollar mistake because of flawed assumptions about freight traffic.

Also, someone should look deeper into the right-of-way specs of Bottineau, our next parkland express route.

Fair enough. I was looking at it as the-route-is-mistake-but-what-is-the-best-solution-to-fix-this-mistake/ small scale perspective. What I'm taking from you,Viktor Vaughn, is that 2 wrongs don't make a right/ big picture perspective. I see what your saying, thanks...

[orangevening]

https://streets.mn/2013/07/21/we-need-t ... -corridor/

I wonder why tunneling under Nicollet was *a* choice and not tunneling under Hennepin was not considered a option.

[UptownSport]

Limit choices and make them as absurd as possible; current alignment had been decided long before that 'option' had been put on the table, IMHO.

Note:There is a freeway underground North of Franklin ...

[David Greene]

https://streets.mn/2013/07/21/we-need-t ... -corridor/

And my comment:

3C would present major disruptions to the Midtown Greenway. Do folks really think people would just let that go? And it would still be more expensive and slower than 3A. Complain all you want, but FTA cares about ride time.

Who would use a 3C alignment? Certainly not anyone south of about 34th – they’d just stay on their bus into downtown. Certainly not people from the SW suburbs – they’ll already just get off at West Lake and take a bus into Uptown. They don’t have any other option. Certainly not people from Uptown heading to Eden Prairie. Same West Lake argument. The *only* people who would use a 3C line are _maybe_ people living in Uptown who want to get downtown and choose rail over the coming enhanced bus service on Lyndale and Hennepin. That seems like a very small slice of people, those living within perhaps 1/4 mile of a station who want to go somewhere on Nicollet Mall or points east of there.

The studies show definitively that the marginal ridership increase for 3C does not justify the cost. All these 3C proponents keep complaining about the study but no one has *ever* proven a flaw, certainly not one fatal enough to stop the project. Furthermore, no one has ever said exactly who would use a 3C alignment. Maybe my analysis is wrong. Tell me, then.

[David Greene]

Limit choices and make them as absurd as possible; current alignment had been decided long before that 'option' had been put on the table, IMHO.

The Hennepin tunnel was considered as far back as 1972. http://wedgenewsmpls.files.wordpress.co ... 13-web.pdf

It's not like this corridor hasn't already been studied to death. The current plan is not perfect but it's good enough and FAR better than the only alternative of doing nothing for another two decades.

[mplsjaromir]

I'm reposting my comment from Streets.mn

I do not agree with this analysis.

I have a hard time believing that the 3C (either option 1 or 2) is materially better than the 3A alignment.

I do think that the “Uptown” stations are placed well. Although much of the area would not see any stations with in a half mile. Is this worth the extra $600 million and likely decades of delay? I say no. The stations on Nicollet seem to be poorly placed for what is there now. Skipping over the most popular nodes on Eat Street. NIMBYs will be out in full force over the destruction of the Greenway at the point it turns north. It will make the current fracas look tame. The alignment would be more popular than the Kenliworth alignment, but I believe if we wait something even better could be built.

The way 3C proposed lines will interact with downtown is laughable.

3C-1 would basically mean you have a train on a island. No way any sane transit operator would want a train that cannot link with its other operations. You might as well pull a BART and buy rolling stock with 1,676mm Indian gauge. It would hit the heart of the CBD, which is sort of the point of this line in the first place.

3C-2 would cross over I-94 up Nicollet toward all the tall buildings and the rider’s destinations, then jog west eight blocks into low intensity industrial land and then through the Warehouse district back to the CBD. Not really a fast and efficient way to commute.

My point is that the 3Cs are flawed, maybe even more flawed than 3A. Bringing high amenity rail transit to the residents of Uptown/Whitter/Stevens Square is a worthy goal. Undoubtedly they would be thrilled to have it and would enthusiastically patronize the system. Trying to muscle that into what is basically a commuter train for the Southwest metro is a compromise as well.

In order for transit to flourish in this area we need powerful backers. New York, Boston, Chicago and the Bay Area have the benefit of geography and history to ensure transit and urbanism is on minds of the region’s elite. ‘Round here we have lost at least two generations of elites who have never had any compelling reason to ride transit. After the trolley lines were ripped up and the highway department put the pedal to the metal, few with influence had anything personal to do with transit. So it has languished. SW LRT will force some to become more personable with transit. Even the most ardent Tea-Partier in Wayzata will not be able to be avoid a regular transit user. I think it could be analogous to gay marriage. Once people know someone in their lives who rides a train/bus it becomes more difficult to be an opponent. I know its a crude comparison, I do not mean to offend. The southwest suburbs may be the largest concentration of benign and genial wealthy people on the planet. Making them champions of high quality transit would help the region tremendously, imo.

[mattaudio]

Keep in mind, 3C/3C-2 was about as good of an urban transit alignment as the Minnehaha sidepath option is a good urban cycletrack.

[FISHMANPET]

I have to agree with mplsjaromir, and he's done a much better job of making an anti-3C argument than I ever could. The basic thing is that 3C doesn't really do a very good job of connecting Uptown and Downtown.

One more thing I'll state is that I have a gut feeling that a 3C alignment would make improved transit in Uptown more difficult. I'm sure someone would make the argument "Why pay for enhanced bus surface on Lyndale and Hennepin when Uptown already has rail transit?"