Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

The suburb I grew up in voted down a light rail line to connect it and so it went from #2 on the priority list to being removed from the plans. If suburbanites choose to sit in traffic, let them. Let's develop the core.

Umm...Eden Prairie is very enthusiastic about SW LRT. This is not the same at all. The line will get plenty of ridership. As I keep repeating (but no one seems to hear), the studies show it. If the studies are so wrong, show me where.

[woofner]

I was always under the impression that CEI gave a huge benefit to new riders at the expense of improving conditions for existing riders. But you've been more involved in this process then I have so you probably have a more correct view of what's going on.

I remember reading a description of the CEI in which the travel time savings of new riders was weighted greater than the travel time savings of existing riders, but this may have changed with the new administration.

I don't see SouthWest improving access to anything because there's nothing there but parking lots.

This is not true. There are more retail jobs along SWLRT than along Hiawatha. There are 80,000 jobs along SWLRT outside of downtown. Quite simply this is by far the cheapest transitway improvement for the greatest impact that the region can make at this point. Bottineau is cheaper but also reaches far fewer jobs and households. A Nicollet-Central subway would reach far more households (probably not more jobs though) but would be more expensive. Also, if you think this line has been tough politically, just imagine if they were proposing to run it down Nicollet or Central Ave - those business owners would fight it tooth and nail. Anyone who supports a substantial change in metro mode share should support SWLRT, as this is an essential step on the only viable path towards increased transit use in the suburbs.

One thing I want to get clear is whether rerouting the bike trail and running LRT + freight at grade would still require removing homes.

Based on my interpretation of the documents that have been released so far, all of the colocation alternatives require removing townhomes for the West Lake station. But I admit to having some trouble interpreting those documents. I posted this 13 pages ago:

It appears to show that it is the need for a platform and track for Midtown that would require at least 15 townhomes to be removed in the vicinity of the station. It's hard to tell for sure but it looks like the trail would share a narrow segment with station access paths, like the LRT trail at Franklin or Cedar Riverside. There are 5 separate structures containing 40 or 50 units (!!!) fronting (backing?) to the freight rail there, and the plan above shows only 3 of those structures gone, which seems weird to me. But apparently the 26 townhomes north of Lake are sacred or something.

What's important is that it's someone's home!?
wow.

I think the real evidence for how ridiculous this SWLRT process has become is that the Mayor of Minneapolis seems to agree with UptownSport.

[FISHMANPET]

Yes there are jobs in the area but the office parks are laid out to be so car friendly that they're openly hostile to any other form of transportation. Unless someone can show me a station area that's going to have more than a handful of jobs in in a 1/4 or 1/2 mile, I'm not going to buy the claim that there are any transit accessible jobs along this route past Hopkins.

[RailBaronYarr]

One can't change the rules of the game after the fact simply because one doesn't like the result.

Actually, that's exactly what we should be doing. We're making a $1.5-1.8 billion dollar investment to provide benefits in the short-term instead of focusing that money on investments that would have much more significant positive impacts in the longer term. We should all be fighting, challenging, even rejecting outright the rules of the system. A heavy-handed, formulaic, broad-brushed tool/metric to get funding for projects like this ensures our transit looks like our freeways - unproductive for both mobility and access and favoring those in the suburbs over those who live close in. It is absolutely bogus that someone choosing to live at Lake and Hennepin or Lyndale and work downtown (or anywhere in N or NE Minneapolis for that matter) has to endure a 20-22 minute minimum bus ride (far worse with vehicle traffic at peak commute hours) to get downtown while someone hopping on a LRT in EP could get downtown in 28. They pay roughly the same fare, with the suburbanite requiring infrastructure cost per mile many times what his urban counterpart would do. The urban counterpart doesn't park a vehicle in a subsidized park & ride, and more than likely pays much more per acre and lot-fronting foot in property taxes than someone in EP (both in Hennepin County), only to see (overly wide, unsafe, and less pleasant) roads and freeways that would also access downtown be highly congested as a result of people driving in from the suburbs. If that same person did want to hop on the SWLRT, they'd be less likely to be guaranteed space than the person who happened to get on in the suburbs first - certainly all seats will be taken (does he pay less to stand?)

We need to question this logic and approach.

The Golden Triangle is a huge jobs center. It's not just parking lots. Eden Prairie Center has jobs. Town Center has jobs.

How many jobs are within walking distance? Will circulator bus (like the one my company is running from the Chanhassen city station to our front door, subsidized by Southwest Transit) costs be included in the yearly operating budget? How many jobs will they get people to? How much time will it take to wait for it to come, then be dropped off at the specific job-site (or walk from a more central stop)? I never saw this level of detail in any of the station-level documents... At what point is it not an equitable solution for the people making the reverse commute?

If you cut this line off at Hopkins you lose the westernmost anchor, meaning you lose commuters from EP, reverse commuters and trips between stops along this shorter line and the alignment west of Hopkins. If it was a good idea to do that, we'd have done it already, during AA.

I thought Hopkins and SLP had jobs? Will the Town Center stop have a giant parking ramp built adjacent to it? If not, will there be any significant riders using that station to come in? Even if the stations in EP might draw additional riders (reverse commuters), more proportionally than the ones further in, that doesn't mean that we absolutely have to build it, now at least. As has been stated, make it a requirement that EP change its rules/regulations and shows signs of dense, walkable environments around the station ROW. There is plenty of room at those suburban style offices and plants to densify. Do it and it can be built.

We're the only country in the world (well, maybe parts of Australia and Canada) that has the built-form we do. Assuming our equations and AAs are bullet-proof and lead to the best possible infrastructure and mobility result is a little bold, IMO.

[RailBaronYarr]

Umm...Eden Prairie is very enthusiastic about SW LRT. This is not the same at all. The line will get plenty of ridership. As I keep repeating (but no one seems to hear), the studies show it. If the studies are so wrong, show me where.

The burden of proof should be on the people asking to spend millions of dollars on the stations, vehicles, and track infrastructure, not the other way around. I have a very hard time believing the numbers given gaffes that still show 1,000 boardings in Kenwood. Projections, on cost, ridership, etc, in large projects like this are inherently untrustworthy and should carry a degree of accuracy many times less than what studies typically put forward. And once they're set, they're rarely re-evaluated.

[QuietBlue]

Anyone who supports a substantial change in metro mode share should support SWLRT, as this is an essential step on the only viable path towards increased transit use in the suburbs.

Precisely. People are missing the larger strategic goal here; SWLRT is one step in a larger process.

[RailBaronYarr]

Precisely. People are missing the larger strategic goal here; SWLRT is one step in a larger process.

I'm not doubting that it is.. but even with it being a relatively low-hanging fruit transit-project, politically (existing ROW for most of the line) and technically (very few if any tunnels or major engineering hurdles), it seems to be a huge slap in the face to the 670k and growing people in residing in Minneapolis and St Paul proper who have just as difficult mobility problems getting to jobs and amenities. If this is a line for a future great network of transit for the whole region, I don't doubt getting out to EP (and other corridors that include Brooklyn Park, Woodbury, Apple Valley, Lakeville, Burnsville, etc) are important in the long-run. But why not stop the line at Hopkins, (and Robbinsdale for Blue Line extension), let the suburbs actually develop transit-oriented design, and in the meantime we serve places that are already transit-supportive to help make our core cities easier to get around (and thus desirable)?

[alleycat]

Precisely. People are missing the larger strategic goal here; SWLRT is one step in a larger process.

I'm not doubting that it is.. but even with it being a relatively low-hanging fruit transit-project, politically (existing ROW for most of the line) and technically (very few if any tunnels or major engineering hurdles), it seems to be a huge slap in the face to the 670k and growing people in residing in Minneapolis and St Paul proper who have just as difficult mobility problems getting to jobs and amenities.

While 2.7 million people live in the suburbs or exurbs. If we're going to increase the sustainability and possibly density of these cities we should offer great alternatives to driving cars. I'm all about tipping the scales back in favor of Minneapolis and St Paul, but even if each city respectively doubled their population you'd only be up 1.6 million the cities proper. Where are the other 1.8 million going to go or are we planning to abandon our suburban infrastructure?

[Anondson]

We need to question this logic and approach.

Other than waiting until suburbs create the transit density you expect BEFORE they get transit options, what are your answers? Because I'm just thinking it is going to be something you would end up railing against even more, "Building density where there aren't transit lines! How wasteful! Now I expect they will be demanding we build rail out there and have us living in the city center pay for it!"

[Nick]

Anyone who supports a substantial change in metro mode share should support SWLRT, as this is an essential step on the only viable path towards increased transit use in the suburbs.

Precisely. People are missing the larger strategic goal here; SWLRT is one step in a larger process.

I think the thing here is that, obviously, the "whatever, let's just build what we can" crowd has a monopoly on plausibility, but that said, if there wasn't another crowd pointing out loudly that "er, what? This is a bad plan" we'd have a metro full of Northstar Lines and People Movers.

I just typed a bunch of stuff about imaginationless people who go to grad school and end up doing shoddy studies, but deleted it because it got rambly. The point is, if people like us don't demand that things are done not-terribly, they will be done terribly.

[Rich]

While 2.7 million people live in the suburbs or exurbs. If we're going to increase the sustainability and possibly density of these cities we should offer great alternatives to driving cars. I'm all about tipping the scales back in favor of Minneapolis and St Paul, but even if each city respectively doubled their population you'd only be up 1.6 million the cities proper. Where are the other 1.8 million going to go or are we planning to abandon our suburban infrastructure?

Speaking of population, from 2010-12 the core cities added 13,632 people and the suburbs added over 45,000. So at a time when demand to own homes was flagging, the 'burbs still added 3 times more people (mainly because the suburbs are home to most of the jobs).

http://www.minnpost.com/political-agend ... 29-million

In other words, the suburbs aren't going away. And as long as they're underserved by transit, suburbanites will have to rely on their cars. And developers and city leaders will persist in their fight to accomodate drivers with free-flowing freeways and ample parking. Rinse and repeat.

In this environment, why would we not prioritize rail transit in the 'burbs? If we want to ween ourselves from driving, shouldn't we begin in the most car-dependent communities? Conversely, if the best option we give people is a car, do we have the right to complain when people decide to drive a car?

[alleycat]

Looks like Hodges is bringing 3c back also. Interestingly she says the feds shouldn't have an issue with more study including the alternative alignments. Now we have three mayoral candidates questioning the Kenilworth alignment.

http://www.minnpost.com/two-cities/2013 ... t-lrt-plan

P.S. I'm really sorry if this gets that debate raging again.

[FISHMANPET]

While 2.7 million people live in the suburbs or exurbs. If we're going to increase the sustainability and possibly density of these cities we should offer great alternatives to driving cars. I'm all about tipping the scales back in favor of Minneapolis and St Paul, but even if each city respectively doubled their population you'd only be up 1.6 million the cities proper. Where are the other 1.8 million going to go or are we planning to abandon our suburban infrastructure?

Speaking of population, from 2010-12 the core cities added 13,632 people and the suburbs added over 45,000. So at a time when demand to own homes was flagging, the 'burbs still added 3 times more people (mainly because the suburbs are home to most of the jobs).

http://www.minnpost.com/political-agend ... 29-million

In other words, the suburbs aren't going away. And as long as they're underserved by transit, suburbanites will have to rely on their cars. And developers and city leaders will persist in their fight to accomodate drivers with free-flowing freeways and ample parking. Rinse and repeat.

In this environment, why would we not prioritize rail transit in the 'burbs? If we want to ween ourselves from driving, shouldn't we begin in the most car-dependent communities? Conversely, if the best option we give people is a car, do we have the right to complain when people decide to drive a car?

I'm not sure what area they're defining in those statistics but I'm quite sure that the area that added 45000 people is much much larger area than the 13632 that the core cities added. So I can look at those numbers and say that the the core cities have more intense growth than the suburbs.

Also if all 58000 wanted to move into the core cities, they couldn't, there's not enough supply. But the rental vacancy rates in the core cities are very very low, which indicates that there are probably people that would move to the city if there was more supply.

[RailBaronYarr]

Where are the other 1.8 million going to go or are we planning to abandon our suburban infrastructure?

I would say that, yes, a good chunk of suburban and exurban infrastructure will need to be left abandoned. If not for financial reasons, then for environmental ones. So, the other 1.8 million people, in my mind would not go in to Minneapolis or St Paul, they would shift living patterns within places like EP, Minnetonka, Lakeville, Woodbury, etc.

Other than waiting...

Actually, I would applaud it. In the meantime, cities like EP, Lakeville, etc start building denser places where families with 2 earners can realistically live with a single vehicle (now) and possibly (if they choose to) no vehicles in 60+ years. They can do so because places like second jobs, daycares, grocery stores, restaurants, and basic shops are within walking distance. The cities themselves become dense (and productive) enough that anything out of reach by foot could be reasonably reached by a local transit service. My favorite example is a mid-sized town in Germany called Aschaffenburg, a wonderful place outside Frankfurt: http://goo.gl/maps/FpM6x See all that industry NE and SW of the city's core? It's all served by http://www.stwab.de/html/Verkehr__Parke ... 1_2012.pdf . People can walk, bike, or drive around if they want. They can take their car or train to many regional destinations, including frequent commuter train options to get in to Frankfurt. People living on the outskirts of town can drive in but no one subsidizes their parking for them. Wonderful!

I would say that any location that can do this even remotely well (!= EP transit station) would be justified in receiving an extension of rail transit like the SW LRT. I would say that extensions to EP (or others) as they exist now are more heavily subsidized than if we waited until they were dense enough to justify running rail to them. I would complain less (if at all) in that situation.

[RailBaronYarr]

Speaking of population....

The jobs are there because municipalities subsidize them to in order to attract more housing to pay for their services they can't afford. See: Shakopee. Do you think people would be choosing to live in the suburbs (in the form they exist today) in the numbers they do without the subsidization they receive to do so (too many to enumerate).

I never said the suburbs are going away. Suburb simply means an urban areas near major urban cores. I'm not hoping they go away. Why we wouldn't prioritize rail for 'burbs? As long as the majority of the land use and population is car-dependent, city ordinances and infrastructure development continues to limit density and be auto-oriented, how will having a rail line with park and rides that serves only to improve suburbanites' commute to and from work encourage a car-free lifestyle? The beginning and end of their commute will be by car. Their daily needs will still be by car. There is no incentive for them to change other than commute to work time, which, if we paved 12 lanes of freeway in addition to building a LRT, they would surely choose their car.

How about this as a compromise. SW LRT gets built all the way out to EP in exchange for them removing parking minimums, a couple residential zoning restrictions (lot minimums, height maximums, etc), a split-rate property tax focusing on land-value, and a commitment to zero traffic fatalities. Would that be a fair way to ensure we don't just end up with a park & ride and a few auto-oriented apartments surrounding each station?

[mplsjaromir]

Minneapolis and St. Paul equal about 115 square miles, the rest of the metro is about 6240 square miles. The fact the 1.8% of the land and added 30.8% of population should put things into perspective. People should realize that land value is a good general metric of desirability.

I agree with the idea that 3A should be built if we want to see more rail transit. I do not believe its the best use of funds. If anything the best use of transit funds would be to run buses at much greater frequency in dense areas with a large user base of transit users. We do not live a world of where the best decisions are made. The feds are not going to buy more buses and pay for more bus operator operating hours for Metro Transit. They will help build a rapid transit line that does improve mobility, albeit for a subsection of people who will not likely use its full potential day one or ever. Getting relatively politically powerful people to become regular Metro Transit users would make the whole system less susceptible to "us v. them" type arguments.

Should everyone question the norms of policy decisions? Absolutely. I just do not see derailing (no pun intended) a rail project, exacerbating the notion that improving transit is fool's errand, will reverse the course of thousands of years of human society where politically powerful people get better treatment than those who are not.

My take may be too Realpolitik or Machiavellian, but I do not think rerouting this line to include some fashionable neighborhoods is going to absolve the flawed ways we allocate our resources.

[mullen]

http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 10171.html

[Anondson]

Here is an alternate alignment suggestion. Consider that TH 100 is getting a remake from 36th to Cedar Lake Road in SLP especially to widen it. Why not piggy back this epically delayed traffic project to route the SWLRT along.

After the Wooddale station, the line would follow the west side of TH 100 up to the Cedar Lake Trail, place a station where the VW dealership is with access to West End, then turn the line down the Cedar Lake Trail ROW and pick up again at the Penn Ave Station. Eliminates the West Lake, Kenwood, and Belt Line stations but adds one at West End. Surely cheaper than tunneling and won't run perilously close to schools. It would displace two businesses though. The VW dealership and Novartis plant. Some of these costs would be shared with the TH 100 project.

Just putting a new alternative on the board.

[seanrichardryan]

Gail Dorfman chimes in-

http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=218598751&c=y

[seanrichardryan]

http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 10171.html

Important note:

" One potential problem with the shallow tunnel under consideration is that it would end north of the planned West Lake Street LRT station, preventing a rail connection to a future streetcar line for the Midtown Greenway."