Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[Silophant]

Because it's not actually about the bike path at all. It's about the rich influential residents of the corridor not wanting trains near their property. They can't say that, though, so they pretend it's about the bike path.

[mattaudio]

The bike path isn't the issue... it's the Kenilworth folks who wanted 200 LRT trains a day instead of 5-10 freights. And wouldn't accept freight + LRT in the corridor. But now they changed their mind and they want their freight back, with LRT out of sight or underground.

[Nick]

[Silophant]

So. Let's say the Met Council et al decide to proceed with Kenilworth over Mpls denial of municipal consent. Could they then do the at-grade colocation and save $300 million? Seems like a winner of a plan to me.

I like this idea. As the Strib commenters keep telling us, the Met Council is an unelected body, and does not have to care what voters think, expect insofar as it's important to getting Minneapolis's consent. But if they're ignoring Minneapolis's consent anyway, they can surely ignore the Kenilworth dopes as well.

[David Greene]

So. Let's say the Met Council et al decide to proceed with Kenilworth over Mpls denial of municipal consent. Could they then do the at-grade colocation and save $300 million? Seems like a winner of a plan to me.

Sure, they could. Would they? I have no idea. If Minneapolis really entirely refuses consent (which I find highly unlikely to the point of incredulity), I could see CTIB saying, "screw it" and saving the cost of tunnels. On the other hand, by doing so CTIB and the Met Council risk burning bridges with other communities by doing so. Lots of places could then look them in the eye and ask, "why should we trust you?" Yes, the change in plan would have been Minneapolis' "fault" but organizations that want to get things done generally honor offers they've made (in this case, tunnels). There's little reward in retribution.

[Anondson]

"Remind me why we can't move the stupid bike path?"

Someone somewhere said moving the path was a deal breaker. Might have been the Park Board ... So. That was it. Not sure if it was ever really serious.

[talindsay]

There's little reward in retribution.

That's true, but running it at grade wouldn't be retribution so much as it would be saying, 'hey, since these modifications weren't a good idea anyway but we suggested them to make you happy, and you're not playing ball, we'll just revert to the original plan.'

Actually, I guess that's retribution. But it would benefit Minneapolis since the money saved could immediately be invested in the Midtown corridor.

[Silophant]

There's little reward in retribution.

But there's enough saved money to build the Midtown Corridor's reward in not digging superfluous tunnels underneath parks to please cranky NIMBYs.

[David Greene]

There's little reward in retribution.

But there's enough saved money to build the Midtown Corridor's reward in not digging superfluous tunnels underneath parks to please cranky NIMBYs.

I certainly agree that the money could be better spent on the Midtown Corridor. But the reality is that shallow tunnels are probably going to happen.

Given that, I plan to testify that when looking at tunnel options, Minneapolis should consider whether money would be better spent bringing Midtown to life than enhancing the original shallow tunnel option for marginal benefit.

[talindsay]

Random fact, do you know what you're swearing on when you testify? It's good to speak the truth when so much is sworn on.

Kidding aside, while I like that outcome much less than you I think your analysis is probably right. We will be building tunnels in a park, so best to minimize them as much as possible and salvage as much funding as possible for more worthy projects, such as Midtown.

I was running along the cedar lake trail tonight and one frustration is that this isn't even really park land - it's just the prettiest stretch of what's mostly just a big, wide stretch of unattractive industrial leftovers. It's not unpleasant for recreation, but compared to the recreational gems our city has, this area is less worthy of expensive preservation than most - only slightly prettier than the St Anthony parkway through Camden.

[Archiapolis]

There's little reward in retribution.

But there's enough saved money to build the Midtown Corridor's reward in not digging superfluous tunnels underneath parks to please cranky NIMBYs.

I certainly agree that the money could be better spent on the Midtown Corridor. But the reality is that shallow tunnels are probably going to happen.

Given that, I plan to testify that when looking at tunnel options, Minneapolis should consider whether money would be better spent bringing Midtown to life than enhancing the original shallow tunnel option for marginal benefit.

I think that you GREATLY underestimate the sway of the "limousine liberals" (I'm a lefty but I think this description/pejorative is apt) in this area to say that they will not exert significant power on this. We are already starting to see the lawsuits emerge. Next up, is the exertion of massive pressure on the mayor and city council. After that, Minneapolis' refusal to accept anything other than exactly what they want.

Looking ahead, I think it is important to identify those at fault so that we can avoid fatal flaws in the next transit project whether it is Midtown Corridor or Bottineau. We need to pinpoint the exact moment when the fatal flaw in SWLRT 3A should have been flagged, nail down the groups or individuals who made the mistake and fire them/never work with them again. I don't know how we can go forward with the same set of stakeholders on the next project without this. I have ZERO confidence in the current group(s).

[Sara Bergen]

I don't think this has been shared yet...

http://insightnews.com/news/11990-south ... -community

[mister.shoes]

So, because I never leave well enough alone, let's reference my totally unrealistic but fun mental exercise described here.

(direct link to full map)

Here's a detail of the troublesome triangle area.


Click to embiggen

(Small blue boxes are bus platforms. The bus stop from hell is still there, but with a little more breathing room)

I think this would fit without causing too much "suffering" for motorists. In fact, after drawing lanes and LRT ROW to scale, I was surprised at how well everything fit (I did 13' "lanes" for each LRT track). We'd lose a general traffic lane in each direction between Vineland and the 94 ramps, but how much of that through traffic would be on the train instead?

The squirreliest part is the NB left turn lane to Vineland. I don't like that it crosses the tracks how it does, but without doing that, there wouldn't be a single signal phase at the Vineland intersection during which the train could pass. All traffic would have to cease in all directions otherwise. This way, trains can sneak through on the left turn arrow.

Oh, and previously I mentioned that only one bridge would need replacing. If it's at all possible to make the abutments of both those SB Lyndale bridges vertical instead of diagonal, even those wouldn't have to be replaced and both the LRT tracks and the NB Hennepin lanes would split to go around piers. Messy? Hacky? Yes. Cheaper, also [probably] yes. So officially, I've replaced zero existing infrastructure other than pavement (and whatever utilities lie below).

Let's build matt's single track as cheaply as possible through Kenilworth to get the line running and then work on rerouting it through here with the cost savings. Studies and engineering pending, of course.

But anyway, just having fun. Maybe I'll add sidewalks and bike lanes next

[woofner]

Nice visualization. I think that it would be easier, cheaper, and more resilient to place the portal and surface LRT tracks west of the ramp from I-94 to Hennepin. That way you have a straighter alignment and less up-and-down. I'd done a google map of this a week or so ago:

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit? ... MPsoNox8WA

As you can see, it makes more sense to me to bypass the Van White station for now and build it later as part of a 394 line. It looks like there would be space to curve the tracks around the Hawthorne Interchange (the Central Corridor bridge over 35W makes a similar but tighter arc, so I think this is possible despite its awkward appearance), then follow Lyndale and cut through the Farmer's Market area to link up with the current proposal's route along and past Royalston to the Interchange.

[MNdible]

The problem with these tunnel schemes (unless I'm misunderstanding them) is that I don't think there's enough clearance between the existing grade and the top of the I-94 tunnel to do the kind of thing you're talking about. Totally setting aside the question of whether the existing tunnel can accommodate the weird new live loads that rail line would create.

[mister.shoes]

Both of these schemes have the LRT coming to the surface significantly SW of the tunnel itself. But your concern about the loads LRT present...yeah, that's certainly a major thing to consider. Which is why my initial LRT-through-the-Triangle scenario assumed a deep bore for 94 (rhyme!)

[Archiapolis]

Trying not to become enraged...

https://streets.mn/2014/03/27/chart-of-t

[MNdible]

If only those people had access to some sort of a bus that they could take the short distance into downtown.

[ECtransplant]

If only we'd invest in the quality of transit for people who actually use it and live in neighborhoods conducive to it

[MNdible]

(Just to be clear, I lived in these neighborhoods and was one of "those people" for many years, and rode the bus for many years. Further, I'm fully supportive of spending additional money to improve the bus service in these areas -- but I think that aBRT or streetcar serves them better than LRT.)