Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[BigIdeasGuy]

I think the only convincing reason is that adjacent homes might find an elevated trail excessively ugly to look out at, ruining land values.

And that too. If its ugly to look at it's probably ugly to ride on.

Heck we can even build you a pretty bridge for you to ride on and still same some money compared to a tunnel.

[FISHMANPET]

Isn't the Kenilworth Corridor bike trail more of a bike highway than it is a recreational trail? If it's a commuter route then as long as it still gets the rider from point a to point b then I'd call it a success.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 4

[Silophant]

Looks like that tunnel might not be such a sure thing after all.

[Anondson]

Proposal, build the elevated bike trail option then devote the theoretical "savings" against the tunnel option towards jump starting the Nicollet/Central street car route. More bang for the transit buck...

[Tcmetro]

Here's the presentation from tonight's meeting: http://metrocouncil.org/getdoc/96d96ba7 ... ation.aspx

Looks like they are also recommending the truncation of the line to Southwest Station to save an additional $80 million. I really hope that they consider removing the north Kenilworth tunnel at the minimum, as that will allow a savings of about $60 million, and also allow the 21st Street Station to be built.

On another note, I really hope that the Eden Prairie stations get name changes. Golden Triangle is decent name, Eden Prairie Town Center could lose the 'Town' part of the name, and Southwest Station is honestly horrible and non descriptive. Can't think of a good alternative at the moment, but honestly nearly anything would be better.

[Tom H.]

I don't think they're going to change the SouthWest Station name anytime soon. It's been there for almost 10 years, and is well known by that name in the area.

[orangevening]

I think the only convincing reason is that adjacent homes might find an elevated trail excessively ugly to look out at, ruining land values.

And that too. If its ugly to look at it's probably ugly to ride on.

Heck we can even build you a pretty bridge for you to ride on and still same some money compared to a tunnel.

One, the neighbors won't want a bridge and why would they? So people from EP can get to DT quicker? Two, that's not the point. Kenilworth trail is great because it's a recreational trail AND a commuter trail. I've taken out of town visitors on bike tours through Kenilworth and the reaction I get is "are we still in the city because it doesn't feel like it". And that's what Minneapolis great-we had city planners that realized the value of parkland. Yeah, yeah Kenilworth is a rail corridor, but I've seen maybe 2 trains riding on that trail and Kenilworth feels different than other rail corridors/ bike trails like Hiawatha or even the Greenway. Plus nobody has even mentioned people WALK that trail all the time-why? Cause they like being in nature. You completely lose that if do a elevated trail. Losing parkland is not worth any cost because it's nearly impossible to get back once you lose it. And if you don't think Kenilworth is parkland then you havn't been there.

[RailBaronYarr]

Yes, it is park-like for the sections north of the channel. But the reality is that the southern portion (where it might make sense, maybe, possibly) to put a tunnel is where the trail is already the skinniest, has the least amount of trees, the closes development of townhouses, apartments, etc, and crosses Cedar Lake Ave - all things that take away from its "park" feel and leaves it feeling more of a nice trail that's good for bike commuting.

It's a little frustrating that there's no give here. An elevated trail may not be ideal to those looking for a park-like bicycle/walking experience for that 3,000' stretch. But it can also be made to feel very nice (as other have pointed out: High Line). Please stop portraying this as 'biking over trains whizzing by' as if it's anywhere near the same experience as biking over a 6 lanes of 50 mph car traffic and 2 LRT lines. An elevated trail would pass over a LRT every 3-5 minutes, and a freight train extremely rarely. I'm not saying it's the perfect solution, but it certainly co-locates the needs at a much lower cost without buying townhomes or building 2-story berms that kill SLP children.

Criticizing this option because it gets people from EP to DT quicker is pointless - any choice we're making regarding freight/co-location are all under the umbrella of so many things that already deemed suburban travel time of importance. A tunnel vs moving freight vs an elevated trail vs buying out the townhomes all have the same travel time for LRT.

[RailBaronYarr]

As an aside, completely agree with woofner re: the fact that not one but two expensive tunnel options were explored for this line while N Mpls didn't see consideration whatsoever on the Blue Line extension...

[Tom H.]

I think the way a lot of us feel is summed up like this:

Even if the Kenilworth trail is an awesome bike facility;
Even if its recreational qualities would be negatively impacted by elevating or relocating it;
Even if many of the neighbors would object on aesthetic and property-value grounds;

We don't feel that all of these concerns, taken together or separately, outweigh the potential to save $100M on a project of regional significance.

It's not that we don't think that the concerns above have merit; it's that they don't meet any reasonable definition of cost-effectiveness within the framework of the project.

(Or I could be totally wrong about how other people feel, in which case, these statements reflect my personal beliefs only.)

[Silophant]

I, at least, agree with it. I've never used the trail, I'll admit, and I'm sure it is very nice. But no bike trail is nice enough to be worth spending $100,000,000 to save that short of a section.

[mullen]

the project doesnt serve mpls really, i've felt this way since a route through heart of uptown was nixed as too expensive. mpls agreed to have the line bypass the heart of uptown. so i totally can see the mayor's and councilmember's points. st louis park went back on their stated agreement. now mpls is being asked to just accept this change because st louis park had this change of heart. and now tunnels are the rallying point. expensive tunnels through low density for a line that doesn't directly serve uptown. it's all such a reach in order to keep the federal funding on track. this rail line will serve suburban commuters and developers interest to create faux "transit oriented developement" around large surface parking lots or multi-story parking structures. once again we will spend over a billion dollars and not serve some of the densest parts of the metro.

end of rant.

[RailBaronYarr]

Also, can anyone explain the value of the 21st St Station? The population within walking distance is so minimal (and their transit use overblown by the study..). I've seen a couple people comment on it being valuable in being a transfer point for Franklin Ave buses.. to me this seems very odd. Where would they be coming from that a Hennepin, Lyndale, or Nicollet bus(/future streetcar) wouldn't make sense to transfer to? This seems like an excellent cost-saver.

Unless... the city and MC plan on supporting a massive up-zoning around the station to encourage development to give access to the Hidden Beach.

[Tcmetro]

The Franklin Ave bus is very busy nowadays, running every 15 minutes, and is recommended to become a 10-minute service line in the RSIP. It would connect Green Line riders to destinations along Franklin, as well as Riverside Hospital. There are a mix of origins and destinations, and considering it is a crosstown route, having connections to a light rail line can provide a significant anchor and stream of ridership.

I don't understand how buses on Lyndale, Hennepin, and Nicollet are going to help SW Corridor riders reach Franklin Avenue.

Here is the press release from the Met Council: http://www.metrocouncil.org/Transportat ... -cost.aspx

Looks like we have a slightly more specific estimation of the opening of the line; late 2018.

[RailBaronYarr]

My point was that a Franklin Ave bus won't be bringing anyone to the Green Line @ 21st St that Hennepin/Lyndale/Nicollet buses couldn't do by bringing them downtown (where they can transfer to Green or Blue lines). I'm not discounting that Franklin has a good number of destinations along it, but the question is how many people will transfer from a LRT to a bus with 10 minute headways and local (slow) service. The trip itself would take 15 minutes. If you told me they were making Franklin an enahnced/aBRT line, with anchors at both Blue and Green Lines, fine. I just don't see that happening, nor will many people be making said transfer.

[Tcmetro]

People transfer from local buses to train lines all the time across the world. Considering it is a local bus, it will provide local access to residents of the Franklin Ave corridor to the southwest metro. In any case, all of our light rail and BRT lines should be focused on making good bus connections. Keep in mind that the Toronto subway system attracts 1.1 million riders per day on 2 main lines and 2 feeder lines, and that's because the planners there always prioritized bus connections. To attract a New York-level ridership without bus connections would never be possible in comparatively low-density and unwalkable Toronto.

I don't see the big problem with a 21st Street Station. It's a fraction of the cost of the north tunnel, so it might as well be built. There would be a large cost-savings anyways, and we should be thinking to the future. Additionally, no one is going to want to take the bus to downtown during rush hour so they can backtrack on the LRT. That is just going to make residents who work in the southwest buy cars and leave the transit option to those who can't afford to drive. And you'll still be stuck with the parking problems in the Wedge and Whittier, and the traffic jams on Hennepin, Lake, Excelsior, and Highway 7. Not to say the 2 bus will fix these problems, but it definitely has potential to ease them.

[MNdible]

As an aside, completely agree with woofner re: the fact that not one but two expensive tunnel options were explored for this line while N Mpls didn't see consideration whatsoever on the Blue Line extension...

It may also, though, demonstrate that tunneling is more expensive than had been assumed. By my math, we're looking at $160m for a mile of tunnel. This is just the cost for the tunnel, since the cost for the track, catenary, etc. was already in the baseline. Not only does this number not include any below grade stations or ventilation (which are expensive), it also includes a credit for deducting an existing at grade station. It's cutting through a corridor that has very minimal utilities in it, no buildings to be impacted or protected, and you're replacing ballasted freight track above, rather than, for example, a major arterial road in a typical cut-and-cover scenario.

In many ways, this tunnel should be the cheapest one that can realistically be built.

I know Woofner was actually proposing a deep bore tunnel, and while I actually very much appreciate and agree with the arguments that he's made in favor of it, I do remain very skeptical of his budget numbers.

[mulad]

I'm not a fan of elevating the bike trail. It makes some sense to build a bridge right at the Cedar Lake Parkway intersection, though to get everything to fit, it would have to be elevated for a distance similar to the tunnels (around a mile). You'd still need to build access ramps periodically (including at Cedar Lake Parkway), which eats up much of the space that is saved by elevating the trail in the first place, and may even end up requiring more space. That problem might be mitigated by being creative about how the ramps are arranged, but it'd be a bit tricky.

Any elevated option (whether it's the bike trail, the LRT, or the freight rail) would run into some sort of interference at Lake Street, which currently bridges the tracks and trail -- that's probably a big reason why the tunnels have been considered here.

I kind of like the 21st Street station -- the current population and level of accessibility seems better than Penn or Van White to me -- of course Van White is a new connection which we'll have to watch (any plans for buses over it?), but I don't know whether Penn will ever cross the tracks/trail or not. I agree that 21st Street doesn't have much value in bringing people downtown, but it would probably work for some reverse commutes or for people trying to get to places along Franklin (if the 2 or some other bus was extended to the station). Also, the area is fairly constrained in the number of ways you can get out, currently -- get close to the lake, and you have to go south along the one-way Lake of the Isles Parkway. The population isn't huge, but it's relatively isolated and the train would be a good way to get out.

[mulad]

I know Woofner was actually proposing a deep bore tunnel, and while I actually very much appreciate and agree with the arguments that he's made in favor of it, I do remain very skeptical of his budget numbers.

I'm not sure the numbers from the SWLRT folks were any more robust -- they seemed to base it off of Hiawatha's construction costs rather than going through a whole engineering process of their own.

[BigIdeasGuy]

I, at least, agree with it. I've never used the trail, I'll admit, and I'm sure it is very nice. But no bike trail is nice enough to be worth spending $100,000,000 to save that short of a section.

Thank you, you have stated it better than I could.