I think this is heavily overlooked when people talk about how the frequent trains will make biking along Kenilworth dangerous and/or unpleasant. Many, many people use the Hiawatha trail for both leisure and commuting and it's right next to both a de facto freeway and frequent LRT...Anyways, as I mentioned above, I think removing the Bike path is a reasonable alternative is there was a contingency plan, seems like you could throw $20m at some awesome path and come out $100m ahead. I've frequently biked on Hiawatha LRT trail and honestly, the vehicles are quiet and hardly disruptive.
Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT
-
- Capella Tower
- Posts: 2622
- Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4092
- Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
- Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
All the rail was replaced last year with new welded rails.....
Interesting that the rail was from 1920's. Evidently doesn't wear (appreciably
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
The main differences between the Kenilworth corridor and the reroute through St. Louis Park as far as safety is concerned is the curves, changes in elevation, and the fact that the line would be up to 20 feet in the air through St. Louis Park. Kenilworth is at grade and is basically a straight shot. There is also room to put up walls through the corridor when that is not an option through much of SLP and wouldn't do much good given the elevated track. I don't think the concerns are the same.CIDNA taking a cue from SLP safety campaign:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... ing-louder
Interesting that the rail was from 1920's. Evidently doesn't wear (appreciably
That being said, there are always going to be worries about derailment no matter what neighborhod it runs through.
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
Ubermoose, I take it from your previous posts that you're not an impartial observer in this. Do you live close to the SLP rail line?
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
I readily admit that I have a personal stake in this. I am 1/2 block removed from the rail line. I have also been to several meetings from the time they selected the route, so I feel informed enough to comment.
That said, I truly believe that I would feel the same way about the situation even if I didn't live in SLP.
There has been inequity when comparing the different options. They eliminated options in Minneapolis because they would take exsisting structures, but it was okay to do that in SLP even though it would take more houses and businesses. Many of those who argue that SLP isn't taking its fair share by not accepting freight don't understand that we already have freight and the same trains that leave Kenilworth run through SLP. That is an existing corridor, just like Kenilworth, so it makes sense for it to be there. It's okay for SLP to have freight and lrt running next to each other the whole length of the line through the city, but it's not okay for Kenilworth. The pinch point issue had been resolved in the initial engineering and then the Met Council changed the requirements to fit their arguement.
Sorry, rant is over.
That said, I truly believe that I would feel the same way about the situation even if I didn't live in SLP.
There has been inequity when comparing the different options. They eliminated options in Minneapolis because they would take exsisting structures, but it was okay to do that in SLP even though it would take more houses and businesses. Many of those who argue that SLP isn't taking its fair share by not accepting freight don't understand that we already have freight and the same trains that leave Kenilworth run through SLP. That is an existing corridor, just like Kenilworth, so it makes sense for it to be there. It's okay for SLP to have freight and lrt running next to each other the whole length of the line through the city, but it's not okay for Kenilworth. The pinch point issue had been resolved in the initial engineering and then the Met Council changed the requirements to fit their arguement.
Sorry, rant is over.
Last edited by Ubermoose on October 11th, 2013, 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
Quite frankly, while the "children's safety" argument is pretty ridiculous, St. Louis Park has a waaaaay better NIMBY argument than Minneapolis. A two story wall? That should get more press. If that goes through, it'll be the Met Council's own monument to why they shouldn't be allowed to do anything--and I say that as someone who, in theory, thinks a technocratic (er, unelected) regional government is a good idea.
Nick Magrino
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
I had tried to do a unit count for the number of properties affected by each proposal, and they seemed to come up almost even. They consume more land in SLP, though.
One of the meetings I attended made me think the engineers did a great job of presenting an impossible choice, because the benefits and drawbacks of each option seemed to match up way too well.
One of the meetings I attended made me think the engineers did a great job of presenting an impossible choice, because the benefits and drawbacks of each option seemed to match up way too well.
Mike Hicks
https://hizeph400.blogspot.com/
https://hizeph400.blogspot.com/
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4615
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
Minneapolis does not have veto power. They can delay the project, but they can't kill it without help. They'll probably deny municipal consent at first to secure assurances and mitigation and then vote to go forward.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?
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4615
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
What mishandling? Please be specific because as far as I can see this process has been completely open and transparent. I am usually the one complaining about public process but Southwest has been *far* better than Central as far as that goes. If there's any bad actor here it's the railroad, not the Council.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.
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4615
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
I'll bet that's because Penn has been identified as an additional enhanced bus/aBRT line.The Penn Station, surprisingly, didn't have the 19 extended there.
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4615
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
What's your definition of "affected?" The only takings under the two proposals would be in SLP.I had tried to do a unit count for the number of properties affected by each proposal, and they seemed to come up almost even. They consume more land in SLP, though.
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
I was referring to colocation of rails above-ground. The number of units that would need to be taken by shifting the TC&W rails to make way for SWLRT would have been pretty similar between keeping the tracks going through Minneapolis versus doing either of the SLP reroutes. Which is why we're talking about tunnels.
Mike Hicks
https://hizeph400.blogspot.com/
https://hizeph400.blogspot.com/
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
I'll weigh in with a question once again. If anyone can answer this conclusively it would add clarity to the debate and help, I think, provide a solution. If we move or reroute the bike trail, do we still need to reroute the freight train? Or can we run LRT and freight side-by-side thru this corridor.I was referring to colocation of rails above-ground. The number of units that would need to be taken by shifting the TC&W rails to make way for SWLRT would have been pretty similar between keeping the tracks going through Minneapolis versus doing either of the SLP reroutes. Which is why we're talking about tunnels.
And, if we can run LRT side-by-side with freight, then in my judgement the "bad actor" here is the bike lobby (and the mayor for refusing to push on this issue). The bike lobby is holding the line hostage with their instransigence, and raising the costs by (?hundreds of) millions of dollars.
Before the bikers cry foul, I'm a cyclist too. It's a great cycling city. It will still be a great cycling city even if this short stretch of bike trail gets moved.
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
When the SPO released the costs of the 8 co-lo/relo options, they listed that the trail rerouted requires no full acquisitions:
For co-location, cost estimates and primary cost drivers are:
All modes (trail, freight and LRT) at ground level – $50 million to $55 million. Reduces full residential property acquisitions from 55 to 26.
Trail relocated - $35 million to $40 million – New trail route from Midtown Greenway to Cedar Lake Parkway, including trail overpass structures. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
Trail elevated - $50 million to $55 million – New elevated trail, including handicapped accessible connection to Cedar Lake Parkway. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
LRT elevated - $105 million to $110 million – New elevated LRT structure. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
Kenilworth deep LRT tunnel – $320 million to $330 million –Tunnel-boring operations and machinery, reconstruction of West Lake Street Bridge, subway tunnel station at West Lake and eliminates 21st Street Station. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
Kenilworth shallow LRT tunnel – $150 million to $160 million –Cut-and-cover excavation, retains West Lake Street Station and eliminates 21st Street Station. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4615
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
Correct. According to Mark Fuhrman, there would be some takings of strips of land along the pinch point. No structures would be affected.When the SPO released the costs of the 8 co-lo/relo options, they listed that the trail rerouted requires no full acquisitions:
I don't think the bike lobby has had much influence at all, at least as far as I can tell. The CIDNA and Kenwood residents most vocal about this don't talk much about biking _per_se_. They talk about losing a park-like setting, noise, visual impacts and other such things.
Those representing bikers on the CAC at least seem pretty comfortable with the tunnels. I've talked to them and a few folks involved with the Minneapolis Bike Coalition. They all appear to be cautiously optimistic. That would change with a reroute of the bike trail. I don't think a reroute is workable now that a tunnel has been endorsed. I'm ok with that.
I think it's useful to break down the opposition into a few categories:
- Those who think there's been a "bait and switch" since SLP "agreed" to take freight rail. It is a fairness issue to these folks. Complaints about process are at the forefront.
- Those who worry about the park-life characteristic of the trail. Trees, noise and visual impact are very important to them.
- Those who simply want to kill the line no matter what. They throw out all sorts of unworkable "alternatives" but are at heart disingenuous.
That final category is the group of people I have no patience for. I believe it is a small but vocal and wealthy minority. They have had undue influence in this process. They have flat out publicly lied in multiple settings. They are spreading misinformation to public officials.
I can work with people in the first two categories. I've had very productive conversations with them. I believe there can be a meeting of the minds. Those in the third category will never be satisfied by any SW LRT solution. Unfortunately, election politics gives them a huge lever.
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
^^ Well said.
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
I thought that initially one of the main reasons a tunnel option came up was to mitigate the traffic issues at the Cedar Lake Avenue crossing as well as to avoid taking property. It seemed like after it came up, the bike trail people became louder and it seemed to fit with their arguement to keep the trail in the corridor. Or maybe that's just my take on it.I don't think the bike lobby has had much influence at all, at least as far as I can tell. The CIDNA and Kenwood residents most vocal about this don't talk much about biking _per_se_. They talk about losing a park-like setting, noise, visual impacts and other such things.When the SPO released the costs of the 8 co-lo/relo options, they listed that the trail rerouted requires no full acquisitions:
.
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
What mishandling? Please be specific because as far as I can see this process has been completely open and transparent. I am usually the one complaining about public process but Southwest has been *far* better than Central as far as that goes. If there's any bad actor here it's the railroad, not the Council.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.
Nick Magrino
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
bait and switch isnt being transparent. you seem to just think the city being sold one thing and then being told to accept another is no big deal. you can work with that eh?
it's a dog of a project. the city can delay and the feds will move on.
it's a dog of a project. the city can delay and the feds will move on.
-
- Target Field
- Posts: 573
- Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am
Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
I worry that although we get some, very good, information, many times it's combined with tainted comments.
I go back and see all the 'bad actors' referenced; first anyone who is against the project, as they're 'Racist'
The railroad is a bad actor,
I go back and see all the 'bad actors' referenced; first anyone who is against the project, as they're 'Racist'
No. It not only doesn't make sense to spend $300 million to keep black people cut off from jobs, it's immoral.t's not that an Uptown alignment for SW LRT that doesn't make sense, it's the SW alignment that doesn't make sense.
The railroad is a bad actor,
Newspaper, or at least Pat Doyle are/is untrustworthy:I am usually the one complaining about public process but Southwest has been *far* better than Central as far as that goes. If there's any bad actor here it's the railroad, not the Council.
But if we question the project;Don't trust anything Pat Doyle writes. He has completely mischaracterized every meeting I've been to, taken statements out of context, etc.
Yes it would and it would be very insulting to the professional engineers involved in the project.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests