Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[mattaudio]

Man, I would hate to live in a building with an elevated rail line running right down my alley.

Affordable housing?

[EOst]

Man, I would hate to live in a building with an elevated rail line running right down my alley.

Affordable housing?

Stack and pack and deafen.

[mattaudio]

I don't think modern elevated rail lines would need to be nearly as noisy as older trains such as the Chicago El. In the past 5-10 years, we've seen the introduction of pivoting bogies under low-floor tram designs. Pivoting bogies don't deliver that awful screech on tight curves.

[FISHMANPET]

I wish we'd consider elevated rail a bit more. There are places in Chicago where it fits above alleyways, like this part of the Pink Line.

The blue line also gets so close to some apartments I swear you could reach your hand out the window and touch them as you go by.

But also these are 100+ year old metal viaducts. I've spent plenty of time around the Lake St viaduct without noticing any great train noise. In fact there are apartments that have been built 10 or 20 feet away from the rail line. Especially when it's not turning, our trains are very quiet. And I think there are ways to make the turns quieter as well. We have solid welded rail so you don't have that stereotypical "clack clack clack" of the train wheels going over a joint every 10 yards. I also don't think our modern concrete viaducts are visually intrusive the way some of the Els are (I would argue they're part of the visual charm of the city but to each their own) and the way we can construct them with a single pylon in the middle rather than supports on both edges make them less physically intrusive on the ground as well. It's certainly cheaper than tunneling. So I'm also curious why it's not considered as much. Are there problems with the viaduct we currently have that make us want to not replicate that, or is this just a case of local planners not having enough imagination?

Not saying it would or wouldn't work here, but just, i don't know, in general.

[EOst]

I don't think modern elevated rail lines would need to be nearly as noisy as older trains such as the Chicago El. In the past 5-10 years, we've seen the introduction of pivoting bogies under low-floor tram designs. Pivoting bogies don't deliver that awful screech on tight curves.

That's certainly fair. I wouldn't call the elevated stretch of the Blue Line quiet by any means (pace FISHMANPET), but it's nothing compared to the El or the elevated trains in NYC.

Even if elevated is less expensive than tunneling, however, it's certainly not cheap. HART in Honolulu (all elevated) is running upwards of $500 million per mile. They're doing a lot of fancy things we wouldn't do, like completely automated trains, and obviously construction in Hawaii might be pricier than here, but that number is pretty daunting.

[amiller92]

Especially when it's not turning, our trains are very quiet.

The noisiest part of them is the bell (speaking of which, what's that ringing I hear?).

[trigonalmayhem]

Man, I would hate to live in a building with an elevated rail line running right down my alley.

Well I would love it. Different strokes &etc

[trigonalmayhem]

I don't think modern elevated rail lines would need to be nearly as noisy as older trains such as the Chicago El. In the past 5-10 years, we've seen the introduction of pivoting bogies under low-floor tram designs. Pivoting bogies don't deliver that awful screech on tight curves.

Not to be a broken record, but we build sound walls for highways, why not for elevated rail?

[HiawathaGuy]

Even if elevated is less expensive than tunneling, however, it's certainly not cheap. HART in Honolulu (all elevated) is running upwards of $500 million per mile. They're doing a lot of fancy things we wouldn't do, like completely automated trains, and obviously construction in Hawaii might be pricier than here, but that number is pretty daunting.

It's also very telling that the one place where elevated rail is most common, Vancouver. That they opted to do cut-and-cover for the last major expansion of their rail to the airport. So elevated vs. below grade must have been pretty equal in terms of dollars, for them to decide do that.

[mattaudio]

One thing that's awesome about modern grade-separated systems like Vancouver and Honolulu-- they can be fully automated. This lowers operating costs and allows for high-frequency, 24-hour service.

[Archiapolis]

Blue Line doesn't think so. https://goo.gl/maps/8ppQ3xDK4eR2

Apples and oranges. West Broadway is a major street. Minnehaha is so insignficant now that they don't even bother with traffic counts anymore.

Putting Penn Ave aside, what were the complaints from the businesses? When you say "further down" are saying towards the burbs or towards the city?

Towards the city...basically between Humboldt and Lyndale. The usual complaints..."construction disruption", "loss of street parking", etc etc. They were loud enough to where it was a contributing factor in getting that stretch dropped from further consideration.

This discussion just makes me wish that grade separation were a politically viable option. Even a short section through this area of tight ROW would be expensive enough that our planning structure would eliminate the option.

Agreed. Would also neatly solve the Southwest routing issue. But unfortunately, given construction/labor costs in this country, let alone construction and post-construction impacts, it's not to be.

It may be that there are real and significant challenges to routing LRT down Broadway (whether it utilized Penn Avenue or Washington). It seems like a streetcar is probably the best transit mode for this corridor. I will stipulate this apparent fact. However, the naysayers need to recognize that a streetcar is 20 years away (minimum) and that offering that up as a palliative is ridiculous.

If a streetcar here were imminent (3 yearsish?) I’d shut up.

Also, this route comes on the heals of decision-making that routes LRT through low density and green space…again. As in my earlier post, I’m resigned to the fact that LRT in this region is primarily meant to address the needs of the suburbs (with the exception of the Green Line). I’d be alright with this fact IF we had more concrete and imminent plans for streetcar lines which is not the case.

Knowing that a streetcar is so far away and that we are planning a big transit investment in this area it is disheartening to see such an investment miss a retail corridor and density that could REALLY benefit. Looking at all of that street-facing parking and thinking of the possibilities for widening ROW…

My greatest frustration with transit planning as it relates to LRT is that it is ALWAYS the path of least resistance. I understand the costs of takings, expanding ROW, etc but $1B versus $1.3B is negligible in terms of a major long-term investment. Of course, civil engineers, spineless elected officials and those who support the path of least resistance would disagree.

In my earlier post I asked about the prospect of taking properties to create a great transit amenity that would be a major boon to a neighborhood that needs it and nobody replied to my line of questioning.

In my original rant, I stated that if someone would give me market value for my home and work with me to secure a nearby location (so that I could benefit from said new amenity), I’d bounce in a heartbeat. There have been books written about “takings” (which I referenced heavily in my M Arch thesis) and I recognize that “clear-cutting” neighborhoods for freeways is awful (again, please reference my original post RE: Rondo, etc) but this isn’t a freeway.

I’m probably more inclined to alter the city to try and create an excellent transit system than elected officials but I want to understand why said officials are SO conservative in this respect. Does their reticence reflect public outcry? I want to be respectful of landowners decrying “takings” but I also think it’s important to understand the dynamics of their opposition; just because I am amenable to it, doesn’t mean everyone is.

Last point, sometimes it is necessary for “the city” to do something for the greater good. I know all about “unintended consequences” but sometimes it is necessary to do things that are difficult. Business owners along the Central Corridor were screaming bloody murder 3 years ago and they did suffer but now that we are on the other side of it, it would be very difficult to argue that what exists now has not created MORE value than existed before. Elected officials make decisions that are hard by definition and this is a case where it will be necessary to argue for the greater good despite short term pain.

[EOst]

Not to be a broken record, but we build sound walls for highways, why not for elevated rail?

People loathe sound walls for highways. Marcy-Holmes spent a lot of time and effort blocking new soundwalls for 35W a few years ago.

Also, this route comes on the heals of decision-making that routes LRT through low density and green space…again.

If you count up the populations of every census tract adjacent to a Washington/Broadway route north of Plymouth (for the nerds: 1023, 22, 1029, 1021, 1028, 102, and 1013), it totals out to 12,850.

A similar calculation on the path of Bottineau (tracts 1034, 1041, 33, 32, 27) yields 12,409. If you include tract 102 (much of which is within the walkshed of the Golden Valley station location), that's 14638. This leaves out the entirety of tract 217 (Golden Valley), which would mostly be bus transfers if anything.

Would stations on Broadway be more accessible than stations on Olson or the Wirth RR tracks? Yeah, for sure. But these really aren't as night and day as everyone seems to believe.

[HiawathaGuy]

One thing that's awesome about modern grade-separated systems like Vancouver and Honolulu-- they can be fully automated. This lowers operating costs and allows for high-frequency, 24-hour service.

Just want to point out that the rail service in Vancouver ends just before or at midnight, every day! Much like Montreal's system. Obviously that's not fully automated. But Vancouver certainly doesn't use the reduced operating costs to offer 24-hour service.

[RailBaronYarr]

Re: elevated lines, I'll trow my weight behind them. The Evergreen Line in Vancouver is mostly elevated (but yes, partially underground), with 6 new stations over 6.8 miles (plus renovating 2 other stations, basically 1 new station per mile). Cost is $1.4bn, or $200m per mile (and the Canada line, which was about half tunnel and 40% elevated, cost just under $200m/mile about a decade ago). For entirely grade-separated transit that, as mattaudio points out, can run automated for much cheaper (better headways and operating hours). Vancouver's SkyTrains operate between 22 and 30 mph given all their stops. Bottineau is estimated at $1bn over 13 miles and 11 stations, $76m/mile. SWLRT is double that at $140m/mile. Our 2 light rail lines operate between 14 and 19 mph (the slower definitely bogged down by the many, useful, stations along University). No, speed isn't everything (and we do frequency better than most of the US rail investments), but SkyTrain gets us in that area as well.

Sure, noise is a problem, moreso than at-grade due to the acoustics. Comparing the effects per person moved, including local pollution, to highways (viaducts or sunk freeways), I'd definitely give the nod to viaduct rail by a good margin. Plus, what comes off at each station are human beings on foot, not cars on local streets. Yes, they're an eyesore. So are freeways and exit ramps and the cars driving on them and parking on our right of way. Buses aren't really that great to look at, IMO. Neither are urban holding ponds. I don't get aroused looking at grade-level train stations or parking ramps, either. Yeah, some neighborhoods successfully fought highway sound barriers, but we still have tons and tons around (including those awesome ones near Prospect Park and the giant new ones along the 35W through south Mpls).

I'm not stupid, there'd be a hell of a lot of community opposition to elevated rail. I just don't understand why we do it to ourselves. We may not be dense enough to justify elevated rail costs. I don't really know. Was DC dense enough to justify the Metro system back in the 60s/70s? Doubt it. Elevated rail would be a massive upgrade to transit accessibility in this region and be a much better catalyst (IMO) for dense development at stations than anything we've done or are planning. I'm surprised folks here dismiss them so quickly.

[RailBaronYarr]

One thing that's awesome about modern grade-separated systems like Vancouver and Honolulu-- they can be fully automated. This lowers operating costs and allows for high-frequency, 24-hour service.

Just want to point out that the rail service in Vancouver ends just before or at midnight, every day! Much like Montreal's system. Obviously that's not fully automated. But Vancouver certainly doesn't use the reduced operating costs to offer 24-hour service.

Their online schedule says they run until right around 1 am for almost all sections of their rail lines http://tripplanning.translink.ca/hiwire ... neAbbr=999

Again, MSP is one of the better transit providers in the country (especially given mode share and development patterns) when it comes to operating hours and frequency. But SkyTrain does pretty well.

[MNdible]

I think they're ugly as sin -- the only thing worse being elevated freeway viaducts, which we honestly don't do much of around here. But that doesn't mean I'd rule them out in the right circumstances.

Regarding Vancouver, though, my recollection of their system is that most of the time the elevated lines were running in very wide ROW's, some of which appeared to be (wait for it) old freight rail corridors. I recall very few instances of it running down anything as narrow as Broadway's ROW.

[EOst]

Regarding Vancouver, though, my recollection of their system is that most of the time the elevated lines were running in very wide ROW's, some of which appeared to be (wait for it) old freight rail corridors. I recall very few instances of it running down anything as narrow as Broadway's ROW.

That's right. The Expo line runs in a rail corridor; the Millennium Line runs next to a highway; and the shared section runs in the middle of a pretty wide road and along a freeway.

[VAStationDude]

Yes. The Broadway station on the Canada Line is in a massively dense area. Many stations don't exactly hit busy bustling areas directly - Commercial and Chinatown are two examples of stations that skirt major dense areas in favor of rail corridors.

[RailBaronYarr]

So we're all agreed. Regional rail lines that use rail right of ways sometimes and other times use tunneling or elevation to get at the heart of mixed-use centers offer a great balance of reasonable construction cost vs utility and dedicated right of way that allows for automation & frequent service.

Re: Bottineau, maybe it would have made sense to go elevated along the wider section of Broadway south of Robbinsdale, use the rail ROW past Robbinsdale, and actually tunnel under the heart of N Mpls before coming out and maybe going elevated across 94 and 55 before meeting up with Target Field Station.

[FISHMANPET]

I'm not sure what area would be classified as the "community" but surely 321 has to be less than 1% of that. Let's not pretend that less than 1% of the people speak for the community. And let's not pull out some bullshit about how if they wanted to be heard they should have shown up etc etc. Not everyone has the time to sit through these open houses, especially those that may work multiple jobs or odd shifts (aka poor people). I'm not sure exactly how community outreach should be done for something like that, but requiring people to show up to endless meetings to have a voice is insane.

So, good for you for participating, but let's not even begin to pretend that this is what "the community" wants when only 321 people, most likely technocrats or busybodies with nothing better to do, even showed up. That's not community input.

To add to this, I follow the Rush Line Corridor on Facebook, and they're doing A TON of public outreach. Yes they're holding standard meetings. But they're also going out to actively seek feedback. They're at farmers markets and grocery stores and community events. If you truly want to get the feeling of the community you have to GO OUT to the community and ASK THEM what they think. The minimum bar for civic participation has to be far lower than devoting an entire evening on a week night to a stodgy boring meeting.