Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[RailBaronYarr]

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.

In no way am I disagreeing with you on this. I think running wire, track, etc (and any required substations, etc that may be needed) underground is probably more expensive than at-grade equivalents. Additionally, the 2-tunnel proposal has double the portals which makes things trickier/more costly than a single tunnel. But no doubt those are minimal compared to the cost of multiple underground stations, replacing a street vs RR track and bike trail, etc. However, the fact that you're missing all those things with the Kenilworth tunnel is proof of how little there "is" there - no utilities, buildings, streets, etc and you can justify the (admittedly low for a tunnel) fixed costs, but we can't when it means it directly serves larger population bases?

[mulad]

I have no idea whether track, catenary, etc. costs more or less in a tunnel than above-ground. The lack of exposure to the elements means significantly reduced maintenance, though.

[MNdible]

...you can justify the (admittedly low for a tunnel) fixed costs, but we can't when it means it directly serves larger population bases?

To be clear, I'm not trying to justify this tunnel. I don't like it, but short of finding a heretofore undiscovered freight reroute scenario out in rural Hennepin County, I don't have any better achievable alternatives to offer.

Like some others, if this tunnel is what it takes to get this line built, I will support it (I know that everybody has been dying for me to throw my support behind it). Primarily, because I think this line (perhaps more than even the all around rock-star Central Corridor) will strongly reinforce downtown Minneapolis as the center of our metro region, and strengthen it as a great place to live and work. If you're living in Uptown or North Minneapolis, you benefit from this even if you never ride SW LRT, because you already have good transit access to downtown. The issue is that downtown doesn't capture as high of a proportion of jobs as it should, so now you're forced to figure out how to get to your job in Plymouth, where you don't have good transit access to.

[woofner]

I am also skeptical of my budget numbers, which is why I'd like an expert to study it and publish the results with transparent detailing of their assumptions. A big reason that the deep bore tunnel in Kenilworth could have been estimated so high (roughly $270m/mile, although that is certainly too high because the $320-330m included reconstruction of the Lake St bridge) is because of the unstable and unpredictable soils of the area, which was a glacial route of the Mississippi (bedrock is a few hundred feet deep here). This is not uncommon in the region, but typically you'd want to avoid a deep bore tunnel in these areas (other lobes are roughly along Lexington, along 35E, and following the Vento trail through the East Side). One big cost driver for the cut-and-cover tunnel is the proximity to the lakes, with likely more substantial membrane requirements and certainly more extensive pumping systems. Also all those portals will require a heating system to prevent the water from building up ice in the winter; this was a problem with Hiawatha initially that required staff to go in and chip and melt ice manually until they could install the heating system.

I have a hard time imagining what an elevated bike trail would look like, but I'd agree that it is a better solution than a shallow tunnel. I could be wrong, but I think the issue with this option is that it requires takings of the townhomes anyway. I gather this by looking at the schematic section on slide 24 of this presentation, which seems to show the track ballast only a few feet from the townhome. Can you really imagine a future in which this doesn't dramatically impact the desirability of these townhomes? Then why not tear them down and create a quality environment for all modes as well as better separation from them for the neighbors? Anyway, it doesn't matter if I agree that the elevated trail would be a better option, because certainly the neighbors still fighting this tunnel would fight that twice as hard and get the neighbors who don't want LRT at grade to join them.

Which brings us to Mayor Rybak. I guess it's good that he's speaking up now, but I can't help wonder where he was 5 years ago. Maybe my experience was colored by personally having to try to counter CM Lilligren's lies at neighborhood meetings, but it just seems like that is typical of Rybak's mayoralty - he's happy to take credit for things that go his way, but he doesn't seem to lift a finger to fight for the things he claims to believe in. If Rybak really was fighting for the Uptown option, why did the Council vote to reject it 12-1? It seems like he was more influential than that in 2009.

[TroyGBiv]

I live in Whittier - I was for the option that ran through this neighborhood. At the different meetings held at Whittier Community Center it appeared the majority of residents (at least those who attended) were against it running at street level on any of the street options. They were open to it tunneled under Nicollet... That option was deemed too expensive based on the formulas developed by the Fed Transit Board - too much $ for the population density and ridership models. I would bet that if they returned to review this the Whittier tunnel option would fare much much better. I am afraid it is too late...

[seanrichardryan]

...I would bet that if they returned to review this the Whittier tunnel option would fare much much better. I am afraid it is too late...

Since everyone here is a transit expert, I'm sure that can be done.

[Nick]

...I would bet that if they returned to review this the Whittier tunnel option would fare much much better. I am afraid it is too late...

Since everyone here is a transit expert, I'm sure that can be done.

There are obviously a few different levels of conversation here, but I just wanted to pop in and remind everyone that this situation is insane.

[David Greene]

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.

They went through the engineering process. Ther comparison to Hiawatha was in response to a CAC member who complained about Hiawath'a deep bore tunnel being built for ~$150 million 10 years ago and why can't we do that in Kenilworth.. Their point was that if you factor in today's costs, the Hiawatha tunnel is much more expensive than the proposed shallow tunnels.

[BigIdeasGuy]

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.

They went through the engineering process. Ther comparison to Hiawatha was in response to a CAC member who complained about Hiawath'a deep bore tunnel being built for ~$150 million 10 years ago and why can't we do that in Kenilworth.. Their point was that if you factor in today's costs, the Hiawatha tunnel is much more expensive than the proposed shallow tunnels.

I think the key difference between the airport tunnel and the Kenilworth tunnel is that at the airport they literally had no other option on how to route the line and still get to both terminals effectively and efficiently. Obviously you couldn't have the LRT tracks running across run ways at ground level and building a bridge going over the runways is equally bad idea.

At Kenilworth there are still serviceable options compared to digging a tunnel.

[FISHMANPET]

Also the airport paid for the tunnel. The alternative was to go around Lindbergh Terminal, and if the airport hadn't ponied up that's what would have happened.

[Tcmetro]

Open house about the Kenilworth tunnels on Oct 10th

5:30 - 7:30 p.m., Thursday, October 10
Kenwood Community Center
2101 West Franklin Avenue, Minneapolis

http://www.metrocouncil.org/News-Events ... se-on.aspx

[Chauncey87]

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.

I would like add that I remember reading years ago that part of the reason the tunnels under MSP cost so much was that they had to be blast proof. Something made mandatory since the tunnel was going to be running under two very active runways, parts of terminal 1, and a couple of large parking garages. Since this tunnel is simple cut and cover. With as pointed out minimal utilities. No way could this cut n cover tunnel cost as much as deep bore blast proof miles long airport tunnel. Cut and cover is not that hard they have been doing this construction practice for hundreds of years.

[bubzki2]

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/226999081.html

What are the odds this moves forward with the cut-and-cover option? I'm not even sure what I want to happen anymore.

[UptownSport]

Two council members are saying 'NO'
http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=226981971&c=y

Mpls has veto power, why not force a line that works for the city instead of bypassing us?

[Rich]

why not force a line that works for the city instead of bypassing us?

Do you suppose the council has decided that a Midtown Corridor streetcar is a good alternative?

[bubzki2]

I wasn't under the impression that the Midtown Streetcar was mutually exclusive, but rather synergistic with the LRT options?

[mulad]

I should say this to be clear: Despite our chatter in this thread, I haven't seen any serious talk of the 3C routing versus 3A at the moment. The current logjam only has to do with how to either cram everything into the Kenilworth corridor or possibly reroute the freight line (there's some chatter about cost-cutting too, but that's partly because costs associated with Kenilworth and freight plans have gone up).

[eazydp]

This feels a lot like the CCLRT back when they were trying to figure out what to do on Washington Ave. I think they actually came up with a pretty darn good alternative, which was making Washington a transit mall.

I'd hope that cooler heads can prevail in this case as well. It certainly seems unreasonable that Minneapolis totally take it in the shorts. The cut and cover is certainly financially unreasonable compared to removing the bike path. As a semi-regular user of the path, I think the bike system could reasonably handle the loss of the trail. However, I do not like the precedent that action would set. It seems reasonable to remove Kenilworth bike trail but as a result throw a few million into funding a replacement trail and maybe some above/beyond money to build some bridging and other improve infrastructure while still coming out hundreds of millions ahead on the cut/cover option.

Whatever decision is made, lawsuits will come next.

[Chef]

I should say this to be clear: Despite our chatter in this thread, I haven't seen any serious talk of the 3C routing versus 3A at the moment. The current logjam only has to do with how to either cram everything into the Kenilworth corridor or possibly reroute the freight line (there's some chatter about cost-cutting too, but that's partly because costs associated with Kenilworth and freight plans have gone up).

This is the problem. All of the support for this project comes from the institutional players, but if you talk to regular people almost everybody thinks that the idea of not routing this line through Uptown is crazy because that is one of the places they want to go. I don't sense any advocacy for this line from the rank and file populace of the metro. It is like the BNSF/Pierce Butler route for the Central Corridor that was proposed in the '80s, which didn't serve people and made no sense to anyone outside of the planning process. Thank god they never built that thing or we would have been stuck with a terrible transit line. I hope they don't build this either because it is the same deal.

[Viktor Vaughn]

I should say this to be clear: Despite our chatter in this thread, I haven't seen any serious talk of the 3C routing versus 3A at the moment. The current logjam only has to do with how to either cram everything into the Kenilworth corridor or possibly reroute the freight line (there's some chatter about cost-cutting too, but that's partly because costs associated with Kenilworth and freight plans have gone up).

That's mostly true. Although City Councilor members Johnson and Lillegren ask the following in their Strib oped linked above.

"Now that the price tag exceeds $1.5 billion, should we revisit earlier alignments that were rejected due to cost?

Or here's Peter Wagenuis in his excellent, "This project Flunks the Fairness Test" mayoral blog rant.

Which bring us to the representations that were made to the City when it agreed to drop further consideration of Uptown alignments, and support Kenilworth, again with conditions that are now being violated.

If someone had told Mayor Rybak in 2009 that there really wasn’t a real plan for how to handle freight, and that the can was just being kicked down the road, he never would have agreed to support Kenilworth.

And his statement on continuing down this path just because it's the road we're on.

There are folks who are extraordinarily invested in validating the process that has brought us to this point.

I am extremely frustrated by the glacial pace of our region's transit buildout. Yet, it would be malpractice to tunnel in Kenilworth without first re-evaluating Uptown alignments. The resulting delays will be tough to swallow, but given the recent revelations regarding the mishandeling of the freight issue, it's the right thing to do.