Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[garfield]

If you truly believe in "equity opportunity," then this money should be spent elsewhere. North High's graduation rate is less than 50%. There are vacant buildings on almost every block in North, and some blocks have several. We all know the crime situation, whether perceived or factual.

To choose a route for a $1.5 billion dollars train so that a few people from North can get to their jobs in Eden Prairie (after transferring from a different bus) doesn't make anything equal. If there was a station planned for 29th and Dupont, you might have an argument. But a station that is barely in the vicinity of the real North Minneapolis doesn't provide equity, nor does it provide opportunity for those in North that truly need and deserve it.

David, did you ever consider that it might even cause those people from North that might utilize the Green Line Extension to leave North for good, and move into a development that is actually along the line? If you lived in North Minneapolis, and rode a shiny new train to a decent job in the SW metro, would you continue to deal with the problems that plague North Minneapolis, or move into an affordable development that is elsewhere along the line? The last thing North Minneapolis needs is for employed people to pack up and move.

[alleycat]

Let's stop making vast overgeneralizatons about the northside. North High is one of two high schools in north. Patrick Henry is rated rather highly and North has been completely restructured.

Yes vacant and boardeds are a huge issue, but there are healthy neighborhoods like Shingle Creek and Victory. Willard-Hay and Webber are also quite nice. Crime is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. I live in Jordan and bike through near north regularly. I just want more businesses to open.

"Real North Minneapolis" is everything from Glenwood all the way to the city border. I know many professionals who live here because of an affordable housing stock that is in better shape than much of NE and south. Income levels are quite comparable to ne counterparts. These people up here who do have good jobs are choosing to buy a home less than $130k. They aren't suddenly going to move to the SW suburbs...well maybe Hopkins.

Sure 3A will mostly only serve the southern neighbourhoods, but it will serve "real northsiders." While Penn aBRT will not interline at this time according to the info I have, I have a feeling some buses will travel to those stations.

I prefer 3c, but I know 3A is coming. We'll likely get the Nic-Midtown combo and have the best of both worlds. Development will occur in the Van White Bridge area and that will catalyze growth on Glenwood. I think more energy should be used to fight for dedicated row on Nic-Central and Broadway streetcars or getting Bottineau built right in north.

[RailBaronYarr]

http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2014/ ... -positions

[mulad]

I really hate the idea of buying out the TC&W. I don't believe the railroad's value is merely it's revenue or number of employees -- it's relatively cheap by that measure since it doesn't take many people to move a train (I imagine an average one of theirs would be the equivalent of 50 to 100 semi trucks). We've lost half or more of the rail lines in the state / country. It's cheap to tear them out, but billions upon billions to replace them. It's 150 miles of its own track, plus the Minnesota Prairie Line which branches off -- and that's actually owned by the Minnesota Valley Railorad Authority, composed of counties along the route, which contracts TC&W/MPL to operate the line.

[MNdible]

There are basically two intractable positions. On one side is Minneapolis, which insists that it will tolerate the LRT line running along a shallow tunnel through the scenic corridor between Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles only if the freight line that now operates there moves to St. Louis Park.

A major error in just the second paragraph of the MinnPost article. This is not Minneapolis's position. Poor form, Marlys.

[MNdible]

Regarding the TC&W:

Wegner has no particular preference. As long as the route is safe, and as long as it wouldn't require a hike in rates to his customers, it would be acceptable.

It does seem like they could use a less than optimal freight route (for example, one that would require very slow speeds and thus, presumably, increase costs) and, with the significant capital savings for the Met Council such a routing would entail, subisdize the TC&W's rates in perpetuity and still come out miles ahead.

[Archiapolis]

Thank you to all, including those I don't agree with. I vigorously disagree with David Greene about almost every point (more on this in a moment).

To get right to the heart of the issue, I reject the ridership numbers for Uptown. I've seen various comments to this effect but a simple application of common sense and looking at a Google Earth image of Uptown/Greenway/Nicollet versus Dunwoody/Van White, Farmer's Market and the 3A stops in North is just inarguable. Look at those two Google Earth images side by side and look at the density along the former - I REJECT any argument that 3C wouldn't see a MUCH higher ridership than the engineering studies and the 3A proponents allege. I'm so sorry that I'm late to the party on this but I should have added to the voices challenging any engineering study/political argument to the contrary. From a density/development standpoint you cannot sell me on the promise of future development beneath an elevated highway, a light manufacturing wasteland and low density/single family in North turning into higher density/multi-family and offices within a generation. Point to a precedent in the US for this scale of development/improvement that took less than 20-30 years. To build a rail line to "serve" such a place "because it will happen in the future" is an AWFUL idea and a MASSIVE waste of money. I think building a deeply flawed line, with the promise of a much slower streetcar "soon" and then "solving" all of the other transit issues in Uptown with buses is a HUGE mistake compared with 3C and the potential of tunneling at or near Nicollet. The idea that we should accept a deeply flawed $1.5B line because "perception" of light rail/transit will suffer is just teeth-gratingly frustrating. $1.5 billion dollars and a nervous chuckle, "Heh, hope we can get it right next time!" Does anyone REALLY think that the anti-transit crowd is just going to go, "SWLRT had it's problems but look at it now! Glad we spent that 1.5B!" They are going to EVISCERATE the next proposal for light rail, streetcar or any other transit based on what has ALREADY happened with SWLRT! If the anti-transit crowd is going to oppose anything (no matter what it is), let's use $1.5B intelligently, use common sense and build a line along EXISTING density.
/end rant
With all of that said, I think David Greene's "heart" is in the right place but perhaps I'm reading too much into his comments and extrapolating, etc. My reading is that he really wants the North side to be served no matter how poorly it is done, and he is willing to accept a 1.5B mistake to do so. I just think this is a bad idea. Sign me up for any movement to scrap SWLRT in it's current form (3A with tunnels/berms) and instead get Bottineau done right with the caveat being that SWLRT get resurrected as 3C afterward. Submitted respectfully, my $.02, etc.

[PhilmerPhil]

Does anyone agree with David Greene? It seems like this thread is just everyone trying to prove him wrong, even though we all know he won't change his mind.

[MNdible]

I agree that we should build 3A with all due haste, but my reasoning isn't the same as David's.

[HiawathaGuy]

I agree with nearly everything David says. He certainly knows his stuff and has facts to back him up. Others do for their points of view too, but usually not to the depth of his. Just my 2 cents.

[Silophant]

There's other people who think 3A should be built ASAP, rather than delaying it by 5+ years, (including me, if the stupid tunnel(s) get scrapped) but I think David is the only person who's actually argued that 3A is actually a better routing than 3C, disregarding external constraints.

[mattaudio]

I'm fine with 3A under three conditions...
No expensive/risky tunnel
No 21st St station
LRT spec full double track from West Lake to Nicollet when the Greenway line is built.

That would be some major cost savings and it would allow us to eventually modify routing, adding a tail from Penn to West End and beyond, and then a new routing from West Lake to Downtown via Uptown. Worst case, the 3A trackage between West Lake and Penn eventually becomes a track for peak hour express service from the burbs to downtown, and also a connector between the two operating districts that would cross downtown near 5th/Nicollet... so LRVs could move to meet demand or visit all of the shops in the system.

[ECtransplant]

Midtown + Nicollet streetcar might actually be faster than the current 17 for those headed to the Mall. 3C would be faster too. Almost anything would be faster.

I guess I don't see the case for spending another $150 million and seriously disrupting the Greenway and businesses on Nicollet Ave. to make those taking the 17 a little bit happier than they might be with a Nicollet streetcar

Taking the 6 or 12, and walking over from Hennepin is faster than the 17 most times. As people have been saying, the quality of transit between downtown and uptown is very poor given what it should be

[Minneapolisite]

Can the SWLRT line just die already? It's so obviously bad on so many levels: pulling investment out of the cities to far-flung burbs where many jobs from the planned stations are unwalkable and where only rush hour bus service exists if at all to take you to another side of these suburbs. Unless there's a car share program so people can ride the line to work in the burbs and then drive to work and back. This is fitting a square peg in a round hole: we're talking about placing urban transit in places built specifically to be anti-mass transit, this is "suburban renewal" which will prove about as successful as urban renewal. In fact, just look at how little development occurred within the city of Mpls outside of Downtown on the Blue Line and from there you can predict how it will work in ultra low-density sprawl.

The reality is this will serve a minority of suburbanites who already have cars with high-frequency transit to other burbs and the cities, but city residents like myself can't have high frequency service from, say, Loring Park just across the river to 13th Ave's business district since the 11 comes and goes every 12-30 minutes rush hour, 30-60 otherwise. Or how about access to all those new spots popping up on 38th St? 20-30 minutes in this weather only serves to dissuade and reduce the number of customers to these businesses (like myself, who doesn't go as often as I would if it were high-frequency). And then there's not any direct line between businesses on 13th Ave and Central Ave at all even though they are just blocks apart, but let's give excellent mass transit to people who chose to live several miles away out in suburban sprawl and refuse to give it to people who chose to live in the city and in some cases are carless (like me) who already use mass transit and don't need a fancy LRT line to convince them to use it. We can't even get around to some parts of our own city easily: what kind of sense does the SWLRT make in light of this?

As far as North goes much less could be spent to renovate and occupy already dense clusters of commercial buildings to bring some jobs to North. Hell, people in North don't even have good service just to go next door to NE along with jobs in the suburbs of Robbinsdale and Roseville (which has a mall at that end) along the 32. Service is every 30 minutes and stops after 7PM and has no weekend service. Let's get more high-frequency bus routes going to serve residents who need it and forget this suburban commuter line.

[Anondson]

Does anyone agree with David Greene?

I do.

[Tcmetro]

I think that this project has a lot of merit, even if the (IMO, worse) option of 3A goes forward. SWLRT will serve the low-to-moderate income neighborhoods in St. Louis Park and Hopkins, as well as the job centers in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. It will additionally serve the large shopping district in Eden Prairie, which is home to a large number of low-wage, entry-level jobs. I don't agree with David about how the line will serve the low-income residents in North Minneapolis. It isn't really within walking distance of a significant number of neighborhoods, and the connecting buses could just as well connect at Nicollet and 7th or West Lake Station as opposed to Royalston, Van White, and Penn. Additionally, Hennepin County shot down the idea of light-rail on the Bottineau corridor through North Mpls, nor did the residents fight for a better line (i.e. a W Broadway tunnel), which really suggests that the residents in North Minneapolis aren't very interested in actually having improved transit options. Routing the SW line on 3C also doesn't have the support of the county, but I'm sure the city would back it up. The main problem with the SW Line on Nicollet would be the construction of the .8 mile tunnel, and the slow speeds the train would have on the Nicollet Mall. I do feel that the Nicollet Streetcar project is in it's entirety quite useless, as it doesn't improve transit speeds significantly (and therefore mobility), and it doesn't provide a significant increase in capacity. I feel that constructing tunnels for LRT on W Broadway and on Nicollet Ave would provide the best transit service to the most disadvantaged on both sides of the city, rather than the options for Southwest and Bottineau that use the rail corridor and fail to provide a transit option to those who need it most by requiring a minimum of one bus ride to LRT to access the suburban (and for that matter, urban) job centers.

The biggest loser of a rail line that doesn't use the Kenilworth corridor, is the planned Bassett Creek development. I think that a streetcar line along Hennepin and Dunwoody would do far more for Downtown and the Bassett Creek development than a Nicollet Streetcar would. A streetcar line serving Bassett Creek and Heritage Park would spur residential development on the vast empty lots that exist today, and would provide the local access that urban residents want, rather than a light-rail station.

[David Greene]

The reality is this will serve a minority of suburbanites who already have cars with high-frequency transit to other burbs and the cities

Do some reading about the suburban demographics on this line. This corridor has been a center for immigrants for decades. And yes, many of them rely on transit.

[David Greene]

Additionally, Hennepin County shot down the idea of light-rail on the Bottineau corridor through North Mpls, nor did the residents fight for a better line (i.e. a W Broadway tunnel), which really suggests that the residents in North Minneapolis aren't very interested in actually having improved transit options.

Er...wow. Did you attend any of the NTN meetings in North? People very much want better transit. But, surprise! They don't always agree on what that looks like. People up there have very good reasons to want a Broadway/Penn alignment for Bottineau and very good reasons to want a Wirth alignment. And they're smart enough to know a tunnel is so far beyond the realm of possibility that they're not going to waste their power fighting for it.

It's the height of hubris to presume to speak for people you've never talked to.

[David Greene]

I agree with nearly everything David says. He certainly knows his stuff and has facts to back him up. Others do for their points of view too, but usually not to the depth of his. Just my 2 cents.

I appreciate the sentiment but I'm not the only one with well-researched facts. There is in fact a case to be made for 3C. I happen to think the case for 3A is stronger but people are coming at this from different angles and with different goals. It's not wrong, it's just different.

[Tcmetro]

I'll admit that I did misspeak, but I do believe that nothing groundbreaking is happening to provide real changes to the transit network in the city. Arterial BRT and Streetcars are minor improvements along existing transit corridors, and aren't going to provide a lot of new options. Penn and Emerson arterial BRT are going to bring riders to same places that the 5 and the 19 do at slightly faster travel times. Same with streetcars on Broadway and Nicollet. An LRT tunnel on West Broadway would bring residents of the central neighborhoods of the northside directly to the jobs at the Airport and Mall of America and a quick transfer to the University (and its Hospital), the Midway, and the Capitol. A tunnel under Nicollet would bring residents to the southwest suburbs. Inner-city neighborhoods like those on the north and south sides attract riders at all times of day. Workers, shoppers, people going to medical facilities, visiting friends, going out, etc. This is where transit should be invested, in lines that will be heavily utilized at all times of day. Lines like the current plans for Southwest and Bottineau will primarily attract riders in the peak periods. So it's a question of what kind of transit system do we want. One that resembles BART and the Washington Metro, or one that models after the Los Angeles Metro, the Montreal Metro, or the Chicago L.

If we think big, and those plans get reduced in scope, something better than arterial BRT and streetcars will happen. If we dream of arterial BRT and streetcars, then we will likely little in return.

==

All this being said, I believe that the ship has sailed on the options for Southwest and Bottineau. We are going to get what has been planned out, and all this argument is doing is hashing out the semantics of transportation planning and community development.