urbanMSP

^^^Agreed

It really seems like they don't see how out of touch they look.

Second, I think this gives attention to something most people didn't know, that is, these homes lake shore is public property. Not sure it is worth $26K in taxes to keep that out of the public. Would love that back.

Second, I think this gives attention to something most people didn't know, that is, these homes lake shore is public property. Not sure it is worth $26K in taxes to keep that out of the public. Would love that back.

I've known that for a while and have been meaning to take a walk around Cedar Lake. The whole lake.

It is still public property, though there's no official path.

I think there are two possibilities:

a) This small group of people is so well connected politically that it magnifies their importance beyond what it would otherwise be.

b) They are being encouraged or given attention because the powers that be in Minneapolis want to kill this version of the line but don't want to come out and say it publicly, so they are using them as a tool towards that end.

Because on the face of it this is ridiculous.

A thought occurred today:
Minneapolis has two streetcar lines in planning, both of which (from my understanding) the Met Council is not really on board with. The city needs the Met Council to sign off on them in order to secure federal funding, as the Council is the primary transit planning entity for the region. Similarly, The Met Council needs the city to sign off on the Southwest Corridor routing in order to begin construction. Does anybody else think that Minneapolis is planning to use the LRT as a bargaining chip? As in, "If you add our streetcar lines to the comprehensive transit plan, we'll sign off on your terrible light rail routing."

A thought occurred today:
Minneapolis has two streetcar lines in planning, both of which (from my understanding) the Met Council is not really on board with.

Which two are you thinking of? Nicollet and...?

Just want to make sure I understand your post.

The city needs the Met Council to sign off on them in order to secure federal funding, as the Council is the primary transit planning entity for the region. Similarly, The Met Council needs the city to sign off on the Southwest Corridor routing in order to begin construction. Does anybody else think that Minneapolis is planning to use the LRT as a bargaining chip?

The thought's crossed my mind but generally horsetrading like that really doesn't happen. Government agencies don't like to start tying projects to each other in this way as it reduces flexibility. I think it much more likely that Minneapolis will try to extract something more in compensation, perhaps money for site cleanup and/or development at Van White. There are lots of pots of money the Met Council could draw on for something like that.

I would think the other would be midtown corridor in the greenway.

Interesting that these all could be wrapped up into one project instead of three...

I would think the other would be midtown corridor in the greenway.

Interesting that these all could be wrapped up into one project instead of three...

I thought maybe Midtown, except Midtown is a Metro Transit project, not Minneapolis.

Isn't there a streetcar planned for West Broadway after Nicollet-Central is complete?

I'm guessing lordmoke was indeed referring to Nicollet-Central and West Broadway since both are city projects at this point.
a. Isn't the Met Council now the lead agency for the Midtown corridor?
b. I've heard Mpls wants to get West Broadway underway simultaneously or immediately after the Nic-Central starter, possibly in conjunction with Bottineau
c. Again, it seems ridiculous that we're planning three slow streetcars that will go as slow or slower than buses, when two LRT lines (including Southwest, for the thread tie-in) are bypassing these very three corridors between the burbs and downtown. Shameful.

Isn't there a streetcar planned for West Broadway after Nicollet-Central is complete?

Yup, it's even included in MNDOT's fixed guideway report that was posted last week. Some interesting details are on pages 67-68. The most interesting note is that the study is being funded by Minneapolis, Hennepin County and the Met Council with Metro Transit leading the study. That's a departure from the Nic-Central AA.

Edit: I think this argument of slow streetcar vs fast lrt is unfounded. Sure the streetcar is going to be slower, but each form of transit serves its function ie local commute versus long haul ride. I know this the SLWRT thread, but let's say I'm going to airport in 2021. Since I live near Penn and Broadway I'll likely walk or bike over to the Theo Wirth/Golden Valley Road stop and take the blue line all the way there. On the other hand I want to get downtown or the North Loop for dinner I'm ok with taking the slower Broadway/Washington streetcar. It's slower, but it's a more direct route and requires less walking. If all this comes to fruition in a few years I'll have the choice between biking, local bus, aBRT on Penn and Fremont/Emerson, streetcar on Broadway and LRT to points farther south.

The same exact network effect will happen with the current SWLRT alignment, Nic-Central, Midtown, Hennepin aBRT combo.

To clarify:
-Yes, I was referring to W. Broadway as the other line.
-I wasn't trying to say that the projects would be bundled together. I meant that I kind of expect to see some backroom deal between the two bodies, where Minneapolis whispers, "If you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours." And then suddenly, POOF! Both the SWLRT and Nic-Central are now moving forward unstoppably into the sunset with full approval.

How do you deal with the backlash from angry, rich, dflers who vehemently object to seeing light rail trains on their neighborhood rail corridor?

Hire more consultants!

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/236663781.html

Funny; the ad that appeared at the top of the story was 3 early signs of dimentia. It almost looked like a part of the story.
In case anyone hasn't heard about the upcoming meetings, they are near the bottom of the story.
Meetings will be held Jan. 7 and Jan. 9 in Minneapolis and St. Louis Park, respectively, to discuss the scope of the studies. Two meetings later in January will reveal drafts of their reports.

Cool for London, but elevated bike trails above rail in Minneapolis is horrible blight?

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... tes-london

Too bad this was nixed from design options in the corridor. These designs kind of show how an elevated trail could still look good.

Cool for London, but elevated bike trails above rail in Minneapolis is horrible blight?

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... tes-london

Too bad this was nixed from design options in the corridor. These designs kind of show how an elevated trail could still look good.

Apples and oranges. Elevated bike lanes maybe work over roads/streets/CBA, over parkland that access to has been taken away is a different thing.

Forgive my ignorance (I've never been on the trail), but is it really "parkland?" I thought this was just a trail. Anywhere it would be elevated would be so because it's too narrow, right? So anywhere it's elevated there wouldn't be "parkland" anyways.

And the article was talking about elevated bikeways over rail, not roads. So it's actually almost the exact same situation…

Who says it would be cool for London? Over-puffed architect Norman Foster? Oh, then it must be a good idea... Lord knows he's never designed anything monstrous or out of scale with the surrounding urban form.

Agree with MNdible here. I think the Market Urbanism guy's take here pretty much sums it up http://nextcity.org/theworks/entry/norm ... for-london

I actually think that a single elevated bike trail that only has a couple access points above the LRT is a bit more reasonable than a giant network 3 stories above grade. That doesn't make it a perfect solution for Kenilworth, but at least worth discussing in the context of a bad trail re-route, expensive tunnel, taking of homes, or re-routing freight.

I think y'all are missing the real problem with Kenilworth: the freight rail. The real power brokers here don't really care about bikes. They want the freight rail out of the corridor. The tunnels are not so much to appease bicyclists as they are to hide the LRT so that the corriodr continues to look kind of like it has for the past decade. That's the only reason we're even considering the north tunnel. It's a mitigation strategy for keeping the freight rail in the corridor.