Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[mplsjaromir]

Or does LRT now only exist for transit-dependent populations? That's news to me.

Was it? It seems like serving transit-dependent North Minneapolis folks is a major reason to support a 3A alignment.

I completely agree that there are plenty of non-transit dependent people within a 1+ mile radius of the EP stations, and serving commuting trips 5 times a week certainly helps environmental goals. ...if you assume any sort of majority of those people currently driving to downtown (who have a faster, more frequent express bus service today) or to job centers along the line (Golden Triangle, Opus, Hopkins, etc) will continue owning their car to get to the station, transfer, then have to walk 10+ minutes at those jobs.

LRT shouldn't exist for any particular population or demographic. It should be used to connect walkable nodes with high concentrations of jobs, entertainment, and housing surrounding it. The EP stations don't do that, and I'm not even certain there's any sort of social justice angle given the low populations and densities with reasonably high average salaries (higher than average of all the stations on the line).

This back and forth is getting so old. I'm not even sure why I read the transit posts at this point. We all know that the David is devoted to 3A. RailBaron thinks that LRT should only go through dense urban areas and cars should take a hike. That's great, but 3C is not getting built and David's fight for a handful of North Minneapolis residents (One of whom I am. But I'm not a minority, so I don't count.) is a rounding error when it comes to actual ridership for the line.

The real issue at hand right now is that we have a governor who is talking about not funding the state's share in the coming session. I guess the 3C crowd thinks this would be great, but this will set back Bottineau, the line that actually serves quite a few low to middle income, working class suburbs and Minneapolis neighborhoods.

SWLRT needs to get funded and it needs to be tied to Midtown Greenway/Nicollet Streetcar/aBRT funding to make up for collocation. That is the actual best result to come out of this fiasco. Should 3C have been the route? Yes, but the power-that-be aren't looking in that direction.

^Such a good post

[RailBaronYarr]

A 3C route that doesn't ignore Green Line transfers downtown (and thus the highest potential ridership of all alternatives) does the following:

- Pays for 40% of the Midtown Greenway streetcar project (back of napkin calculation)
- Takes advantage of sunk planned costs in completely re-doing Nicollet Mall downtown, whether the line remains underground or simply at-grade down the Mall
- Negates the need for at-grade rail (streetcar, seen as the high-amenity choice to attract transit riders) on Nicollet in S. Minneapolis, freeing up $100m of city/fed/MC money by doing aBRT instead (which can be used to fund other aBRT lines such as Penn and Fremont that much sooner)
- Still serves the rounding error of residents from N Mpls heading SW for jobs with a 9 minute longer total journey vs 3A
- Avoids potentially environmental and litigation nightmares by tunneling through Kenilworth

If those aren't solid reasons enough to get the line funded in the city, state, and fed's eyes, I don't know what are.

Beyond that, I'm only harping on the EP stations to highlight the potential for project savings at minimal cost to ridership and population served. SWS and EPCC only have 3,300 daily boardings. While the attention for much of the line is turned toward the co-location issue and how it relates to overall project costs, no one is even asking the question if the project could shave off hundreds of dollars for opening day by eliminating the last 2 stations. Miles of track, multiple flyovers/new bridges, parking garages, etc to serve a small fraction of the ridership forecast. Again, if getting this thing funded is the goal, why is this not being seriously looked at?

[alleycat]

RailBaronYarr we all know the advantages of 3C at this point. I also agree that a stop could probably be cut in EP.

A similar argument for LRT/Streetcar was made up here during the alignment debates for the North Minneapolis portion of Bottineau. Most, even ardent Penn Avenue supporters, came to the conclusion that a West Broadway streetcar was less likely with an alignment that would've went down Broadway west of Penn. That's probably also the case for Midtown.

These type of decisions are made because LRT unlike streetcar is about maximizing the speed of service from beginning to end. Speed of service without the interruption to business along Nicollet (or the taking of homes in the Bottineau case) was seen as the most politically feasible alternative with the best results based on earlier federal standards.

I'll admit that, as an urbanist, I wasn't particularly happy with these alignments when they were picked. At the same time you cannot ignore the advantages of these faster routes that were picked. You're also going to get a speedy Midtown mini-LRT and some sort of enhanced service on Nicollet. Eventually maybe we'll tunnel under Hennepin or Lyndale, the correct routing for a subway/dedicated row. That just isn't in the cards now.

[RailBaronYarr]

I don't think leaders or project folks from top to bottom really are aware of the potential benefits in coordinating a series of disparate projects/corridors like this, that's my point. Are Minneapolis staff aware of the Nicollet Mall redo potential, is it on their list of possible project timelines and budgets? Has the Met Council ever run the numbers on what 3A+Midtown vs 3C+Midtown cost to understand the benefits? I doubt it.

I guess we have different views on what LRT is supposed to do. It's not about speed of service from one end to the other. It's about using the dedicated ROW, fixed guideway, and high capacity to quickly move people between points of interest (whether residential, job, or commercial). Saving people west of the W Lake station 5.6 minutes in 3A vs 3C should not be the end-all when you consider what it misses. Disruptions to businesses on Nicollet south of 94 could be minimized by running it under 1st with sidewalk entrances mid-block between 1st and Nicollet.

So we picked a politically feasible route that met fed equations that have now been changed, and the project is now more costly. We have a governor and city council willing to take a look at this again. It's a great opportunity to update the numbers, think holistically with other projects in terms of total cost and areas served, and come up with a potential line that is more cost-effective than the previous decision. If we build 3A (with a tunnel)/Nicollet+Midtown streetcar now, what are the odds (be honest) that we build a tunnel under Hennepin or Lyndale (which would also disrupt businesses) in the next 50 years?

[seanrichardryan]

A delightful read- http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=230435011&c=y

[HoratioRincewind]

Nothing quite like entitled white NIMBYs to get you spluttering mad on a Monday morning.

[David Greene]

A delightful read- http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=230435011&c=y

Glad this is finally being told. Some say the politicians' actions on SW LRT aren't influenced by money. We shall see when Dayton decides whether or not to stall Bottineau so that Golden Valley residents can get a "full hearing."

He sure as hell won't delay Bottineau so other routes can be explored through North Minneapolis. If some politicians want to reopen the SW LPA, then the same should be done for Bottineau.

[Nick]

A delightful read- http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=230435011&c=y

Glad this is finally being told. Some say the politicians' actions on SW LRT aren't influenced by money. We shall see when Dayton decides whether or not to stall Bottineau so that Golden Valley residents can get a "full hearing."

He sure as hell won't delay Bottineau so other routes can be explored through North Minneapolis. If some politicians want to reopen the SW LPA, then the same should be done for Bottineau.

Don't wanna get in the way of your whole thing, but I'm pretty sure there's at least one contradiction in these two paragraphs. Someone help me out.

[twincitizen]

I was out doorknocking for Lisa Bender tonight...and the Mayor of Eden Prairie answered the door at her daughter's place in Lowry Hill East. Hilarity ensued.

[David Greene]

A delightful read- http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=230435011&c=y

Glad this is finally being told. Some say the politicians' actions on SW LRT aren't influenced by money. We shall see when Dayton decides whether or not to stall Bottineau so that Golden Valley residents can get a "full hearing."

He sure as hell won't delay Bottineau so other routes can be explored through North Minneapolis. If some politicians want to reopen the SW LPA, then the same should be done for Bottineau.

Don't wanna get in the way of your whole thing, but I'm pretty sure there's at least one contradiction in these two paragraphs. Someone help me out.

Not sure what you're getting at. I don't believe Dayton will give the same consideration to Golden Valley opponents of Bottineau as he is giving to CIDNA/Kenwood opponents of SW LRT. One group has money and the other has somewhat less money.

I don't believe he would ever delay Bottineau over concerns of Northsiders or to look at long-discarded alternative routes as some want to do for Southwest.

It's the whole double-standard thing.

[seanrichardryan]

I was out doorknocking for Lisa Bender tonight...and the Mayor of Eden Prairie answered the door at her daughter's place in Lowry Hill East. Hilarity ensued.

Well? Don't leave us hanging/

[seanrichardryan]

Draft report in January-

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/230849611.html

[Anondson]

Says the options were unveiled. Well. What the bleep are they? Did anyone attend who could inform us because the journalist who wrote that sure didn't.

[sad panda]

The presentation slides can be found at: http://metrocouncil.org/getdoc/d1ff935d ... ation.aspx

The listed options are:

 Modified MN&S;
 Alternative route identified by UTU;
 At-grade Brunswick Central;
 Elevated Brunswick Central;
 Alternative(s) deemed feasible during the review of prior studies;
 Any new alternative(s) that the CONSULTANT may identify as part of the Work;
 At-grade Brunswick West;
 Elevated Brunswick West; and
 Brunswick East.
Evaluations shall include identification of operational cost drivers, identification of
community and other impacts and an assessment of possible operational adjustments,
including the viability of breaking trains into two or more trainsets that may be
required to negotiate alignments.

The presentation slides also show:
Appleton/Benton Far Western Connection
Granite Falls/Willmar Western Connection
Chaska Cut-Off
Hopkins-St. Louis Park Route (Old 169?)
MN&S Southerly Connection via UP
Midtown Greenway

[Anondson]

I'm partial to a Chaska type cut-over to everything else in the choices, are options like that really up for reconsidering again?

[seanrichardryan]

http://finance-commerce.com/2013/11/two ... -lrt-line/

[Ubermoose]

So it still looks to me as though we will have new consultants look at every option through St. Louis Park, even those that are just plain absurd, but for some reason we won't review any other alternatives through Kenilworth. Hmm. Money and connections definitely do the talking. Like I have said before, the Met Council (and now the Governor as well) won't be happy until they have found a consultant who tells them what they want to hear.

[Tcmetro]

Well if we have a westerly freight option, will SW run on the surface in Kenilworth? Will the 21st St Stn. still be cut? Will the NIMBYs make a big stink about LRT even if freight is relocated?

Of course, we've seen that the Met Council really doesn't care if the Kenilworth NIMBYs have a problem with the line, they are simply appeasing the Governor.

I think the next few months will be interesting for this project.

[orangevening]

I was out doorknocking for Lisa Bender tonight...and the Mayor of Eden Prairie answered the door at her daughter's place in Lowry Hill East. Hilarity ensued.

Well? Don't leave us hanging/

Still hanging. Think it safe to tell the story a few weeks post election now.

[David Greene]

http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 44451.html

There's so much that is galling about this. Publicly-subsidized free shoreline property for rich people is just one of those things.

What really gets me about the park board is how they're opposed to LRT in Kenilworth because it will somehow "ruin" the channel experience, but they then say if the freight rail moves, LRT magically becomes ok and won't ruin the channel even though in both scenarios the LRT looks *exactly the same* over the channel.

It's quite clear the park board is shilling for wealthy CIDNA/Kenwood residents, which happen to include a park board member or two.

It's just disgusting.