urbanMSP

The funny thing about this park & ride brou-ha-ha is that the Community Works tentacle of the SWLRT project commissioned a report last year that found that park & rides were not cost-effective anywhere on the line except Eden Prairie. Apparently that part of the project is merely PR, but still I think it might be useful to throw that in their face as part of a concentrated effort on the part of advocates to get them to drop park & rides from the Hopkins and SLP segments. If anyone agrees I'll dig that report up when I'm in a place with faster internet.

I'd like to see that report, because I agree that a park and ride in Hopkins is pretty ridiculous, and, of course, using funds for aBRT on it absolutely means that actual important transit isn't being built because of this SWLRT fiasco.

Also David, your CEI comment is incorrect - many cities have taken alternative methods to get the feds to pay for lines that would fail by CEI but that have alternative funding sources, community involvement, a program of projects, or multiple phases. At the specific moment the Bush administration was approving Central it really was as stringent as you describe (though even then a program of projects approach could win some leeway, as Denver demonstrated), but it wasn't like that either before or after - large local donations would certainly make CEI a non-issue as it would demonstrate strong local commitment.

Also David, your CEI comment is incorrect - many cities have taken alternative methods to get the feds to pay for lines that would fail by CEI but that have alternative funding sources, community involvement, a program of projects, or multiple phases. At the specific moment the Bush administration was approving Central it really was as stringent as you describe (though even then a program of projects approach could win some leeway, as Denver demonstrated), but it wasn't like that either before or after - large local donations would certainly make CEI a non-issue as it would demonstrate strong local commitment.

It could be that it was more stringent during Bush II. That's when Central went through the process so it's what I'm familiar with. I specifically asked questions about alternative funding and was told it wouldn't affect the CEI. This was when we were working to get the missing stations and everyone working on the project agreed they were necessary. We explored foudnation money, etc. but it was a no-go because of the CEI rules.

Did those other places still receive some federal money for the projects? I know some cities have financed entire lines and then used the cost of those lines as the local match on another project (which seems really dubious to me). That's not quite the same thing as financing a single line from multiple sources.

Apparently some of the planned Minneapolis stations have very low ridership projections. Had you guys heard that? But also great prospects for re-development.

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/269446811.html

You know, having LRT serve the impound lot wouldn't be a terrible idea. Everyone needs an easy way to get there, right?

Holy crap has anything new been said in this debate for the past year?

Have they thought about routing it through uptown?

Uptown has a greater residential density in comparison to the selected route.

It's ridiculous to route the line through a park instead of through Uptown.

This won't serve the north side.

"But Ryan Companies has a development agreement to build offices and residential properties on a massive city-owned parcel there known as Linden Yards West. The city is also planning to reduce the footprint of its impound lot to make room for development, and residents hope that new bus routing will bring riders from West Broadway."

Unless the economy takes another dive into the deep end (unlikely) . I have every reason to feel TOD will soon follow or be built around the same time as the SWLRT. I am not sure if many of you reading about the green line extension are noticing how many projects along this line are waiting to pull the trigger. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of development have been collecting dust waiting for answers. Will many of these projects still be built without lrt? Not to the same scale or be as walkable.

Eden Prairie isn't dense enough

OMG Park and Rides?!

3C3C3C3C!!!

I have every reason to feel TOD will soon follow or be built around the same time as the SWLRT. I am not sure if many of you reading about the green line extension are noticing how many projects along this line are waiting to pull the trigger.

So the purpose of transit is to accommodate hypothetical development by land speculators? Why can't we serve real transit-oriented land uses rather than plan to serve hypothetical ones? We can serve real transit-dependent populations that exist today, rather than hypothetical ones in the future.

So the purpose of transit is to accommodate hypothetical development by land speculators? Why can't we serve real transit-oriented land uses rather than plan to serve hypothetical ones? We can serve real transit-dependent populations that exist today, rather than hypothetical ones in the future.

That's a false choice. We can do both.

But we're not doing both.

I do believe a bus just drove past my window.

What if this were a freeway? I think we should wait and study that.

one of the big selling points to putting the now green line down university rather than 94 was redevlopment. so yes, these lines are all about doing both moving people and priming development.