Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[Viktor Vaughn]

Because dense areas are the MOST deserving of rapid transit. The Nicollet Streetcar won't even improve transit times after spending a few hundred million dollars. Connecting these dense nodes to downtown, the UofM, and the suburbs on the SW line with rapid transit will ensure this line is used enough to be worth the investment. If we just build a suburban commuter line the ridership will be much less outside of rush hours.

[UptownSport]

As long as there was (cavalier) talk of tunneling, why not both?
For a billion and a half we could get a nice, all weather DC metro style 'starter' running North and South.
This would be a true win-win, for all but the lobbyists.

[MNdible]

Based on what we've seen, there's no way that 3C comes in under $2b, and that was for a ratty half-underground half-trench botch job along Nicollet.

For something approaching DC metro, hold on to your hat.

[MumfordMoses]

3C would address a thriving, booming section of Mpls, which at the end of the day could finally become a better example of sustainable, walkable, high density living.

Isn't a streetcar, that makes 3 times as many stops as light rail, a better means of serving dense areas like this? Why do we still want 3C when there's a very good chance we'll get streetcars in Midtown Corridor and along Nicollet?

I'm not so sure. The streetcar plan has its issues & it also has a price tag that's far from settled & the tax capture scheme needs to be fleshed out. Do we need a streetcar that stops every two blocks? I mean I'm one who believes a 4-6 block walk is typical to catch any form of mass transit. The neighborhoods & residents between Lake & Franklin (North-South) & Hennepin and Nicollet (East-West), as well as parts of ECCO, Lyndale, Lowry Hill as well as others would, my opinion, truly utilize a 3C option and 4-6 block walks would be typical. 28th and Nicollet to Franklin & Nicollet is not the massive stretch some may believe, so a streetcar that stops every two blocks seems like overkill - though I'm not firm in this opinion.

I think it's a great idea to continue planning for a Midtown streetcar that primarily serves Phillips and maybe parts of Seward which would also ensure easy connection to Hiawatha, the Minnehaha bus (forgot the line #) and maybe 3c. I think a streetcar down Chicago could provide a better array of benefits to areas of South Mpls (depending on its length) where various income scales, esp the working class, are served. There is obvious density from Phillips-Powderhorn-Nokomomis (smaller neighborhoods included): important hospitals, underused tourist attractions, Powderhorn Park, etc. These areas could be well served by a streetcar & cover more residential and commercial density than a Nicollet streetcar.

As for 3a, I'll continue to wonder how a mere 4 stops in Mpls, mainly more exclusive areas where residents are not as financially challenged to own a car is better than 3c. Sure, the West Lake stop covers more density than say the 21st or Penn Stations, but West Lake would be included in a 3c option as well. I continue to support the proposed stations throughout SLP, Hopkins, EP, etc.

I the end, 3a seems like a major gamble to me that has produced some absurd arguments and various alternatives that continue to produce unexpected results. Sure I'd prefer 3a over nothing, but the idea of 3c shouldn't be shelved at this point. A reset could ultimately produce better long-term results and be more inclusive towards other plans (Midtwowns streetcar, a possible Chicago streetcar line vs Nicollet, reconfiguring the Nicollet-Kmart block, a better planned Bottineu corridor, Basset Creek and of course various TOD in the burbs).

I'm a tad bit behind on how this debate has reached this point, but I'm getting there

[MumfordMoses]

Based on what we've seen, there's no way that 3C comes in under $2b, and that was for a ratty half-underground half-trench botch job along Nicollet.

For something approaching DC metro, hold on to your hat.

Yes, but then what are the final costs of a Nicollet Streetcar line & doesn't Mpls strictly pay for such a line? The SWC has Federal and County funding. My first question is genuine - I've not truly absorbed the plan yet, perhaps you know.

I just know Mpls has already committed to other mass projects, such as the stadium & I hate to be frank here, but Mpls schools, for example, have been in deep shVt for quite a while. I've also seen a genuine decline in Mpls parks the past couple years. Lastly, I walk through Whittier, even Lowry Hill and ECCO and still see uprooted sidewalks from the June's storm.

[min-chi-cbus]

As somebody who is far and away a rabid supporter of the 3C alignment, I DO understand why it is not being discussed as much. Without speaking on everyone's behalf, I at least am constantly exoposed to ideas in my workplace that can and will get squashed if we do not at least discuss a "greater-than-hurdle-rate" ROI (i.e. greater than the typical ROI the company earns on the average capital expenditure). ROI = redevelopment/development opportunities here, more than it means ridership income, since nobody who is in charge of making these dicisions has the delusion that we are going to make enough on ridership alone to offset the cost of this thing. In lieu of that, it HAS to be economic opportunities in the form of urbanized redevelopment and transit-oriented development (TOD).

So understanding that we have to make this a worth-while investment SOMEHOW, and ridership is generally not the ticket (pun intended), then I can see why the 3A alignment is still front and center. The days when rail was built to serve the highest percentage of CURRENT riders are long gone, I'm afraid. The cost of labor and materials today makes it cost-prohibitive most of the time. Hopefully though, redevelopment/development along the route will cause station-area densities to meet or exceed those that already exist in the urban area today.

[David Greene]

if I hear further cries that it will serve North Mpls, all two stops at the edge of Bryn Marr (which is so unlike the rest of North Mpls) no thanks. A better designed Bottineu option can best serve Near North and better trigger the Basset Master Plan, which will also help the Northside.

How does Bottineau help the BCV master plan more than 3A when 3A runs right through the area and Bottineau does not? 3A serves North very well, whether you believe it or not. I'll keep repeating it: Bottineau does not get people to the southwest conveniently.

The current Green Line mess, as stated, is nothing more than a suburban line (which will get riders), yet only limited ridership from the well to do of Minneapolis.

Given that 3A connects Near North and Uptown via existing and to-be-upgraded transit infrastructure, connectes downtown as well as those nasty rich people in CIDNA and Kenwood *and* is the keystone for developing acres and acres of blighted land, I don't know how anyone informed about the project can say it doesn't serve Minneapolis and maintain a straight face.

Unbelievable how shortsighted the planning for this line has been and continues to be - I fear the compromise will be lame and completely squash any revived hope for 3c.

3C is dead. There is no chance of reviving it. CTIB will not fund it.

I'm just getting so damn sick and tired of the cars and buses on Lyndale, Nicollet, Lake and Hennepin, esp, which has become awful - side streets as well. I don't know how some bikers deal with it - courage and patience I suppose.

Most cyclists use Bryant and the Wedge bike bridge.

3C wouldn't improve traffic significantly. I don't think a lot of that traffic is Uptowners heading to/from downtown (speculation on my part). Possibly a portion is people coming to/from the southwest suburbs (also speculation) but some of that would be relieved with 3A + a streetcar. The marginal increase in benefit for those folks with 3C is, well, marginal.

A Midtown + Nicollet streetcar system would serve the same purpose as 3C and would reach more people. I'm not convinced a Nicollet streetcar is worth it. A Midtown streetcar seems worth it given the time savings.

[min-chi-cbus]

To me it's clear that taking cars off the road is not the #1 objective of this project, for if it were 3C would get much more consideration than it has gotten. The objective probably includes removing cars from roads, but it's probably not the highest priority and/or is only one of several priorities that carries a small relative weight. If I had to guess, the priorities for this route would be (in order, with estd. %importance):

1. 50% - cost efficiency/revenue generation
2. 25% - maintaining competitive advantages in transportation infrastructure with rival metros (e.g. Seattle, Denver, Portland, St. Louis, etc.) for economic purposes
3. 15% - reducing traffic and the cost of maintaining roads
4. 5% - reduce carbon emissions
5. <5% - political agenda (i.e. "because Obama would approve", etc.) or other reasons


So even though this project and others like it are unlikely to ever generate much of a realized profit, cost and/or revenue generation is still a huge selling point and driver. Without a fair return (objectively or subjectively measured) these projects don't stand a chance, so at the onset the goal seems to usually be to demonstrate efficiencies, cost or otherwise, but particularly cost.

[UptownSport]

A Midtown + Nicollet streetcar system would serve the same purpose as 3C and would reach more people.

This

Have Nicollet (or another North / South of you choice turn onto Greenway / midtown, nix SW, extend Blue / Green line a stop, and we just saved a billion+ dollars

[MumfordMoses]

if I hear further cries that it will serve North Mpls, all two stops at the edge of Bryn Marr (which is so unlike the rest of North Mpls) no thanks. A better designed Bottineu option can best serve Near North and better trigger the Basset Master Plan, which will also help the Northside.

How does Bottineau help the BCV master plan more than 3A when 3A runs right through the area and Bottineau does not? 3A serves North very well, whether you believe it or not. I'll keep repeating it: Bottineau does not get people to the southwest conveniently. (DG-3)

The current Green Line mess, as stated, is nothing more than a suburban line (which will get riders), yet only limited ridership from the well to do of Minneapolis.

Given that 3A connects Near North and Uptown via existing and to-be-upgraded transit infrastructure, connectes downtown as well as those nasty rich people in CIDNA and Kenwood *and* is the keystone for developing acres and acres of blighted land, I don't know how anyone informed about the project can say it doesn't serve Minneapolis and maintain a straight face. (DG-2)

Unbelievable how shortsighted the planning for this line has been and continues to be - I fear the compromise will be lame and completely squash any revived hope for 3c.

3C is dead. There is no chance of reviving it. CTIB will not fund it.

I'm just getting so damn sick and tired of the cars and buses on Lyndale, Nicollet, Lake and Hennepin, esp, which has become awful - side streets as well. I don't know how some bikers deal with it - courage and patience I suppose.

Most cyclists use Bryant and the Wedge bike bridge.

3C wouldn't improve traffic significantly. I don't think a lot of that traffic is Uptowners heading to/from downtown (speculation on my part). Possibly a portion is people coming to/from the southwest suburbs (also speculation) but some of that would be relieved with 3A + a streetcar. The marginal increase in benefit for those folks with 3C is, well, marginal.

A Midtown + Nicollet streetcar system would serve the same purpose as 3C and would reach more people. I'm not convinced a Nicollet streetcar is worth it. A Midtown streetcar seems worth it given the time savings.

(DG1)

David, I live 1 block from the Bryant bikeway - I'm a long term Wedge resident. You may or may not live in this area as well. I firmly disagree with your counterarguments (DG-1) for multiple reasons due to actually living and using this area daily. I also canvass for a person currently running in this ward & have engaged 100's of residents face-to-face or at larger meetings. the past 3 months. Throughout Ward 10, it's becoming clearer that many residents, esp Millennials, would love options outside of car ownership or even biking. My daughter is now a young adult, she doesn't drive, but she has increasingly become discontent with number of vehicles in our neighborhood & sees a new class of residents coming in who can afford personal vehicles. There are literally days where I cannot find parking on my block - a big change from say 2 years ago. Btw, Ward 10 has a distinct advantage of becoming a supersized walkable community if 3c becomes a serious option again.

I don't even want to entertain your overstatements - if you're suggesting some sort of classism on my part - I apologize. I simply wish to see ridership that's more inclusive than 3a, esp the Mpls section - please don't argue that North Mpls is being effectively served by 3a - when in fact those stations better serve the higher economic levels of N. Mpls. I'd also argue that the more immediate blight along 3c might as well get finished off (DG-2). The blight you speak of along 3a is going to be a tall task, albeit necessary, to address.

As for your Bottineu (probably misspelled) - BCMP counterargument (DG-3) - pay closer attention to what I said. Bottineu is not sufficiently planned and BCMP has a lot of work to do & is certainly not on pace with what has presently manifested along the Midtown greenway of Lyn-Lake and Uptown - not even close. I'm not even sure the BCMP will truly benefit the more economically challenged neighborhoods of N. Mpls, long term. The BCMP could be dense & diversified enough to better rely on itself for walkability and sustanability - improved bus lines and residents who live in work within the area. But, I don't want to necessarily naysay on any potential long-term benefits BC could bring much of N. Mpls.

But I do agree with you, 3c is likely dead & for mostly bad reasons, albeit high costs will generally win over ephemeral types.

[MumfordMoses]

A Midtown + Nicollet streetcar system would serve the same purpose as 3C and would reach more people.

This

Have Nicollet (or another North / South of you choice turn onto Greenway / midtown, nix SW, extend Blue / Green line a stop, and we just saved a billion+ dollars

I'm not even remotely sold on your argument, but I'm all ears. Providing links would be nice, but then again when are these official proposals ever right? 3A has clearly gone over budget.

[MumfordMoses]

To me it's clear that taking cars off the road is not the #1 objective of this project, for if it were 3C would get much more consideration than it has gotten. The objective probably includes removing cars from roads, but it's probably not the highest priority and/or is only one of several priorities that carries a small relative weight. If I had to guess, the priorities for this route would be (in order, with estd. %importance):

1. 50% - cost efficiency/revenue generation
2. 25% - maintaining competitive advantages in transportation infrastructure with rival metros (e.g. Seattle, Denver, Portland, St. Louis, etc.) for economic purposes
3. 15% - reducing traffic and the cost of maintaining roads
4. 5% - reduce carbon emissions
5. <5% - political agenda (i.e. "because Obama would approve", etc.) or other reasons


So even though this project and others like it are unlikely to ever generate much of a realized profit, cost and/or revenue generation is still a huge selling point and driver. Without a fair return (objectively or subjectively measured) these projects don't stand a chance, so at the onset the goal seems to usually be to demonstrate efficiencies, cost or otherwise, but particularly cost.

Really like the first sentence of your post and fully agree.

[David Greene]

Throughout Ward 10, it's becoming clearer that many residents, esp Millennials, would love options outside of car ownership or even biking. My daughter is now a young adult, she doesn't drive, but she has increasingly become discontent with number of vehicles in our neighborhood & sees a new class of residents coming in who can afford personal vehicles. There are literally days where I cannot find parking on my block - a big change from say 2 years ago.

I'll be brief since this has been hashed over on this thread many times before but you make some good points that deserve answers. [Well, not so brief as it turns out. ]

I've lived in the Wedge nearly a decade now so I'm very familiar with the area. I frankly don't have a lot of sympathy for people who complain about not finding parking near their front door. Either build private parking or walk a bit. To me it is a "problem" with very simple solutions. We don't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to "fix" it. Given how car-dependent our metro area is, I doubt 3C would even make a dent in car ownership in the area. It's already quite possible to live car-free in Uptown if you work on a decent transit line and do most of your shopping in the city.

I don't think you're being "classist" or anything. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the BCV master plan and how Near North would use SW LRT. Harrison has been working very hard on the BCV master plan and getting SW LRT routed through it. It's one of the most poverty-stricken neighborhoods in the city as well as one of the most diverse (ethnicity, race and income). Most people are not going to walk to Penn, Van White and Royalston. They'll take a bus or bike, just as many people do to the Blue Line today and just as people in Uptown will do to the West Lake station. There will be a lot of walking-distance housing developed in the valley but it will take some time.

The BCV master plan, to me, is the single most important development on the table for the city. The location is unbeatable in its proximity to downtown and if you start thinking about daylighting the creek and other such things it starts to look like Near North's version of Minnehaha Parkway, except it will be more accessible to people of all means.

The northern half of Bryn Mawr is quite different than the southern half. While it is better off than a neighborhood like Harrison, it is nowhere near the level of wealth that exists around Cedar Lake. I think it is significant that Bryn Mawr and Harrison have been working together closely on the BCV master plan for over a decade. Why would Harrison work so hard on it if residents did not expect a large benefit? Among other things, they rightly see it is a catalyst to development moving further north to Glenwood and beyond. It also brings jobs into the area that are easily accessible to residents.

[MumfordMoses]

Throughout Ward 10, it's becoming clearer that many residents, esp Millennials, would love options outside of car ownership or even biking. My daughter is now a young adult, she doesn't drive, but she has increasingly become discontent with number of vehicles in our neighborhood & sees a new class of residents coming in who can afford personal vehicles. There are literally days where I cannot find parking on my block - a big change from say 2 years ago.

I'll be brief since this has been hashed over on this thread many times before but you make some good points that deserve answers. [Well, not so brief as it turns out. ]

I've lived in the Wedge nearly a decade now so I'm very familiar with the area. I frankly don't have a lot of sympathy for people who complain about not finding parking near their front door. Either build private parking or walk a bit. To me it is a "problem" with very simple solutions. We don't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to "fix" it. Given how car-dependent our metro area is, I doubt 3C would even make a dent in car ownership in the area. It's already quite possible to live car-free in Uptown if you work on a decent transit line and do most of your shopping in the city.

I don't think you're being "classist" or anything. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the BCV master plan and how Near North would use SW LRT. Harrison has been working very hard on the BCV master plan and getting SW LRT routed through it. It's one of the most poverty-stricken neighborhoods in the city as well as one of the most diverse (ethnicity, race and income). Most people are not going to walk to Penn, Van White and Royalston. They'll take a bus or bike, just as many people do to the Blue Line today and just as people in Uptown will do to the West Lake station. There will be a lot of walking-distance housing developed in the valley but it will take some time.

The BCV master plan, to me, is the single most important development on the table for the city. The location is unbeatable in its proximity to downtown and if you start thinking about daylighting the creek and other such things it starts to look like Near North's version of Minnehaha Parkway, except it will be more accessible to people of all means.

The northern half of Bryn Mawr is quite different than the southern half. While it is better off than a neighborhood like Harrison, it is nowhere near the level of wealth that exists around Cedar Lake. I think it is significant that Bryn Mawr and Harrison have been working together closely on the BCV master plan for over a decade. Why would Harrison work so hard on it if residents did not expect a large benefit? Among other things, they rightly see it is a catalyst to development moving further north to Glenwood and beyond. It also brings jobs into the area that are easily accessible to residents.

Thanks for your reply. I should refine some here, I'd like to see less cars period wherein parking is rarely an issue because residents don't see a need to own a vehicle. I have observed an increased traffic and car ownership throughout the Wedge the past couple of years, and do think 3c would genuinely surprise you in due time, car ownership would noticeably decrease, esp under public awareness campaigns if 3c was coming.

[David Greene]

I'm not even remotely sold on your argument, but I'm all ears. Providing links would be nice, but then again when are these official proposals ever right? 3A has clearly gone over budget.

This needs clarification too. 3A has gone "over budget" in the same way that Hiawatha went "over budget" when it was extended into the Mall. The cost increase on 3A is caused by two different things:

- The need to put freight relocation into the LRT budget, which was unexpected.
- Various improvements to the design throughout the corridor, but particularly a better alignment in Eden Prairie.

Freight was always seen as a separate project that just happened to coincide with development of the LRT. Now, you can argue that planners were a bit naive to expect the costs to be outside the LRT project but there is a certain logic to their expectation. The LRT did not *really* cause the problem. Mn/DOT did when they rebuilt Hiawatha. According to some Minneapolis residents, the freight was going to have to be addressed whether or not LRT came through the corridor.

In hindsight, yeah, it looks like bad planning to not include that cost from the get-go but remember that budgets were established years ago.

Furthermore, the project did not expect to have to completely rebuild the freight alignment through SLP in a relocate scenario. That was a complete surprise caused by TC&W not engaging in the process until the 11th hour.

The tunnel option through Kenilworth is a project improvement in the sense that it's not strictly necessary to build a functioning line. It was not included in the original budget. It's being explored as a mitigation strategy for some Minneapolis neighborhoods. Due to timing it has to be included in the budget. Other such things would be covered by contingency in later stages of the project.

The other improvements to the line are real benefits, in the same way extending Hiawatha into the Mall was. They are common-sense things to do. The project is better because of them.

All of these additional costs also inflate the contingency component of the budget, so it's a double-whammy.

At the CAC meeting where the revised budget was presented, Jim Alexander noted that the engineers recalculated the cost of the LPA given all of the information gathered since then but not including freight and improvement costs. The resulting budget was nearly dead-on to the original projections. That is very excellent planning and budgeting.

Now of course people will disagree with which of these are important to implement. I'm just trying to explain where the cost increase is coming from.

[mattaudio]

We could put it back on budget by terminating the initial line at Shady Oak. No reason for this to go past Hopkins. When Eden Prairie develops in a way that makes sense for LRT, it can be extended and the engineering work will already be done.

[MNdible]

You've made it very clear that you don't want the line to extend past Hopkins.

Setting aside the political benefits of seriously engaging the SW suburbs in a metro-wide transit system, the fact that the Golden Triangle is probably the 4th largest concentration of jobs in the metro (and the top three will already be connected by the Green Line), the fact that it provides significant incentives to increase the density and accessibility of the fastest growing part of the metro area over the last decades... setting aside all of this, I completely agree with you.

I don't live there, that's not my lifestyle, those aren't my people. Therefore, no LRT for them.

[VAStationDude]

Some people on this board remind me of my grumpy neighbors who continue to complain about LRT noise and commuter parking nine years after the line opened. At some point those who feel they got short end of a political decision need to move on. With my neighbors, smugness and stubbornness leads them to yell at strangers who legally park their cars in the neighborhood and call 311 several times a week for various bs reasons. Clearly posting the same 3C fantasies over and over again isn't psychopathic and pathetic like my neighbors' behavior but both groups should move on.

[Rich]

When Eden Prairie develops in a way that makes sense for LRT...

How do you see this happening? Would profit-minded developers really want to build transit-friendly residential or office space if there's no transit? Isn't it better to build the LRT first and give developers something with which to work?

[talindsay]

We could put it back on budget by terminating the initial line at Shady Oak. No reason for this to go past Hopkins. When Eden Prairie develops in a way that makes sense for LRT, it can be extended and the engineering work will already be done.

Hear hear!