urbanMSP

Hiawatha Guy - thanks for the response. Actually, Johnson supports the Senate's version of medical marijuana so he actually beats Dayton on the issue. Dayton was completely opposed to it until he saw some political fallout from the protesters outside the Governor's Mansion.

I am voting for IP candidate Hannah Nicollet since she supports outright legalization. Overall I agree with her policy points the most.

She may or may not be the best Transit Advocate but I think she matches my ideals in the most areas overall. Per her website on Transportation:
Logo
Menu
TRANSPORTATION

Free to move

Transportation is a core responsibility of government. Yet our state highways and city and county roads are crumbling, and our truckers and commuters are needlessly stuck in traffic.

The Twin Cities-area is projected to only have $52 million available annually for highway congestion relief from 2014 to 2022, but yet it spent $957 million on a light rail train that takes nearly one hour to travel the 11-mile route between Minneapolis and St. Paul – a price-tag greater than our entire bonding bill for the whole state and a route already well-served by express buses. That isn’t to say that one mode of transportation is inherently superior to another. Rather than a knee-jerk response, we need a cost-benefit analysis to be the prerequisite for our transportation expenditures.

The bottom line is that in an era of limited resources and aging infrastructure, we can’t afford unwise investments.
------_----------
Now that may not sound too supportive of the Green Line I agree in the sense for what it does Metro Transit could have used a modern Street Car and achieved the same end results at less than half of the cost.

I bet it wouldn't have been half the cost. People always forget, or ignore, that building the Green Line didn't involve just laying down greenfield tracks. It involved tearing up nine miles of six-lane urban arterial, including the sidewalks, moving the utilities around, and rebuilding the whole thing from the ground up. Those costs all would have been approximately the same if it was a modern streetcar. And as far as "the same end results" goes, two of the end results are the ability to extend the line and provide a one-seat ride from DT St. Paul to Eden Prairie, and the operational flexibility that comes from having compatible vehicles with the Blue Line. Those were important, worthwhile goals, and they weren't compatible with a modern streetcar.

------_----------
Now that may not sound too supportive of the Green Line I agree in the sense for what it does Metro Transit could have used a modern Street Car and achieved the same end results at less than half of the cost.

There is no way a 'modern streetcar' would have cost than half the Green Line, unless you have a source that says otherwise. University was going to be completely rebuilt anyway a la Lake Street. If one factors in the savings from shared rolling stock, and the fact that the line is planned to run to Eden Prairie, choosing LRT is a no-brainer.

Nicollet's blurb on transportation is indicative of fetishism of looking at total miles traveled over utility. I'm not surprised she went after the Green Line and not something that will actually be boondoggle, namely the new St. Croix River crossing.

Completely agree that the St Croix Bridge crossing is pretty much a waste.

Here are some links to opinions I read that influenced my statement on a streetcar vs LRT.
https://streets.mn/2014/07/07/strangulat ... reen-line/
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/str ... rence.html

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-02a.htm

Lower LRT capital cost

The Rapid Streetcar concept appears to hold serious potential for very significant reductions in the implementational capital costs of LRT projects. As of early 2003, the capital cost of the Portland Streetcar – including rolling stock and maintenance and operational facilities as well as trackage, power system, and traffic control/signal system, totalled $56.9 million for a 2.4-mile (3.9-km) bidirectional route. (informational packet distributed by Portland Streetcar Project at "Portland Poster Session", 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference, Experience, Economics & Evolution – From Starter Lines To Growing Systems, Portland, Oregon, 16-18 November 2003.) in 2004 dollars, that calculates to approximately $24.5 million per mile, or $15.1 million per km – an astoundingly low cost for a rail system installed entirely in city streets (usually by far the most expensive form of surface construction). Certainly, this cost will vary from area to area and among different route configurations and levels of scale, but the Portland data suggest that some of the procedures suggested in this discussion could bring down LRT costs dramatically.

That Streets.mn article is a mess on several levels.

Since you took the time to read that monster of a streets.mn post, I suggest you also take the time to read through the comments, where various people show in detail that, while the author doesn't actually make his facts up out of whole cloth, he does exaggerate almost every number he uses to prove his point that the Green Line is an abject failure despite massively outperforming expectations.

This article doesn't appear dated but it appears the Broadway corridor is under study for possible Streetcar development to connect with downtown Minneapolis. The future connection to the Bottineau line is also being considered. The article states this would be under $250m for consideration under the Small Starts transit initiative.

http://finance-commerce.com/transit/201 ... car-study/

This would be great! I think we should be rebuilding our streetcar network in small segments.

As for the date, it looks like 9/19/2014 according to the URL.

There's some discussion of the Broadway streetcar here: https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2706

I just read an article about TOD on the Green Line from MinnPost. I left a comment on there about how it seems like the community is told one thing about preserving neighborhood character and helping the affordability of home ownership, but that the plans for TOD seem to be about the complete opposite; buying up single family homes and developing them into multi-unit dwellings. The double-speak seems evident right in the article. I've been seeing the same thing at the Bottineau station planning meetings that I've attended. The biggest focus is on making developers comfortable. More so a part of station area planning than even my cynical mind thought.

To make my position clear in general, I live near what would be the Golden Valley Road station. I have plenty of concerns about the project, and do not want to see this line built. However, if it is built I want it to be as great as it possibly can be for residents, which is why I'm staying engaged. But it seems like the Blue Line extension is being built for future choice residents, who pay high rent but do not own property. Does it bother anyone else that it seems like the community is being told about two conflicting goals for the station areas?

I think the goal is to improve the area with better transportation. Better transportation will lead to more interest in commercial spaces along the corridor. Better commercial amenities and easier commuting/improved mobility hopefully will lead to housing being more desirable.

I think the trick is to add enough new housing in underutilized areas. If enough new housing is added, upward pressure on existing housing prices will be minimized.

What do you mean by "future choice residents"?? Choice riders? Renters?

I think it's disingenuous for planners to imply that SFH will all be preserved. Of course a new transit line will spur demand for housing adjacent to that line, even when we build awful lines such as this one. But "preserving neighborhood character" means a lot more than the presence or absence of SFHs. What if the neighborhood character is the "traditional development pattern" on principal streets in the neighborhood? Or refusing strip development and large parking lots? "Preserving neighborhood character" is a BS slogan coming from anyone if it is not adequately defined.

sean, as someone involved in the project (unlike most of us on this forum who don't live in the area), I really hope you do push planners to include stations at both Plymouth Ave and Golden Valley Rd. I can't figure why they seem stuck on an either/or scenario. With the long walking distances to these remote stations, it really seems like you need both to adequately serve the adjacent neighborhoods.

Additionally, why hasn't there been any discussion whatsoever with this project of including a station at 36th Ave N? There absolutely needs to be something in the vicinity of North Memorial Hospital. It was well served directly by the D2 alignments, but not at all by the D1 alignment...that just doesn't make any sense.

Nothing significant, as this project is a long ways off, but there were some Hennepin County engineers out collecting soil samples in the median of Olson near Van White this morning.

Just nice to see physical evidence that engineering is moving along, I guess.

Open house set for Jan. 29: http://www.hennepin.us/bottineau

Where: University of Minnesota Urban Research and Outreach-Engagement Center, 2001 Plymouth Avenue North, Minneapolis

Public comments from the Nov. 12 open house are being compiled and will be available in early December. These comments will be important to informing the next step of the station area plans. Revised materials will be available for review at the next open house on Jan. 29, 2015. More details will be available as the open house date approaches.

Unless the website is giving me false hopes, it seems they are no longer presenting Plymouth Ave Station & Golden Valley Rd Station as an either/or choice, but are including both in the plan going forward. Including both stations was the obvious right move all along, and I really hope that decision sticks. The walksheds basically don't overlap: http://www.hennepin.us/~/media/hennepin ... -areas.pdf While a more urban alignment would have been better, I still maintain the position that Bottineau's routing is less of a travesty than Southwest skipping Uptown. At least the Bottineau stations in the woods have a walkshed that still serves half the population they would've on Penn.

Once that is settled and made final, hopefully people start demanding a station in the vicinity of 34th-36th Ave N, to serve the retail area and hospital workers there. Without a station nearby, North Memorial Hospital will essentially not be served at all by this line, which is completely absurd. While Hennepin County's thickheadedness will never surprise me, I'm more troubled that Robbinsdale leaders aren't screaming for a station there...

Too bad we don't have tunnelin' money.

We do! But only for parks.

I'll entertain suggestions for cutting off the above conversation, or moving it to an existing thread if there is one (or Mulad can do it).

In Blue Line specific news, the project office opened, and we have our very first issue of "Tracking the Blue Line Extension": http://www.metrocouncil.org/METC/files/ ... 1b5c5b.pdf

I know that nearly none of us are thrilled with the routing, but we REALLY need to stay on top of this and make sure they include the stations at Plymouth AND Golden Valley Road. This is critical for North Minneapolis.

I still don't understand how there is no station at 34th/36th Ave N to serve North Memorial hospital. It's never even been thrown on a map as a "maybe let's talk about it?" even though it was directly served by a station on the Broadway alignment (D2). I.just.don't.get.it.

Somewhat less importantly, it says the line will end "near the Target North Campus". The critical question is "How near?"
It it's more than 1/4-mile and there isn't some kind of covered walkway (provided by Target maybe?), then why even bother crossing 610? No other current or future development in that area will have the job density of Target North. If you're going to spend an assload of money to get close, you need to be as close to their doors as possible. Anything more than 1/4-mile is a failure for attracting reverse commuters (who would live downtown, northside, Robbinsdale, etc.)

Somewhat less importantly, it says the line will end "near the Target North Campus". The critical question is "How near?"
It it's more than 1/4-mile and there isn't some kind of covered walkway (provided by Target maybe?), then why even bother crossing 610? No other current or future development in that area will have the job density of Target North. If you're going to spend an assload of money to get close, you need to be as close to their doors as possible. Anything more than 1/4-mile is a failure for attracting reverse commuters (who would live downtown, northside, Robbinsdale, etc.)

Given that their strategic choice to place the southern terminus of the Blue Line close to, but not close enough to the Mall of America resulted in said major business shelling out tens of millions to get the station properly within the Mall, my guess is that they're hoping for lightning to strike twice - position the station tantalizingly close to the Target campus but then get Target to shell out the cash to do it right, thereby avoiding claims that the line is a public subsidy to Target. It's actually probably the only decent public/private partnership we've seen on our transit system, the mediocre design of MOA's transit center notwithstanding.

Remember that the MOA took a strong stand that they did not want direct LRT service, and it was only at the very end that they had a change of heart.