Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[VAStationDude]

^ This. Great comment

[mattaudio]

Seems like the majority opinion is now that people don't want SWLRT built unless it built somewhere more useful then Kenilworth. In most of my circles, not just progressive urbanists, seems like it's actually a very small group of people that DO want it built, period.

[VAStationDude]

I'll be smugly popping Champaign when shallow tunnel excavation starts

[Chef]

Seems like the majority opinion is now that people don't want SWLRT built unless it built somewhere more useful then Kenilworth. In most of my circles, not just progressive urbanists, seems like it's actually a very small group of people that DO want it built, period.

This is the problem, it is a line without a popular constituency. All the support for this project comes from insider groups - the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. Unlike the previous two lines there is very little advocacy coming from the general population. Among the other mistakes they have made, the route they chose was a massive political blunder. If it did a better job of serving the city, people in the city would support it; in general they are the main constituency of mass transit in the metro. As it is, most people in the city don't care because this line does nothing for them. Compare that to the Central Corridor. People in St Paul would have been up in arms if that had been cancelled (besides a few prominent but self appointed "neighborhood activists").

[MNdible]

There are very few infrastructure or development projects that actually have strong advocates in favor of them, as this forum has documented countless times. It's so easy to be against change, and to bitch and moan, and to point out all of the little (or big things) that you don't like, that you would have done better, etc. It's hard getting stuff built, especially big projects that have lots of negative little impacts on lots of people but serve a broad regional benefit.

[mattaudio]

Not sure about that broad regional benefit.

VTA 3 by Sean_Marshall, on Flickr

[MNdible]

Seriously, Matt. For somebody that self labels as a progressive urbanist, you are shockingly rigid in your thinking.

Let's pretend, for a second, that this project really is the terrible stupid not-nearly-as-good-as-I-would-have-done-it commuter rail line that nobody but one way commuters will use. Let's pretend that nobody uses it to reverse commute, that it doesn't change redevelopment patterns (setting aside the fact that it has already changed redevelopment patterns even before it gets built), and that it doesn't allow places like Hopkins to reinvent themselves.

Even then, this project would provide significant regional benefits by reinforcing downtown Minneapolis as the strong center of the metro area and making it more attractive as a place to work, live, and play. It connects into the existing transit infrastructure, making every single existing line and bus route more valuable. It pulls drivers off of our freeway infrastructure at the very times when they are most congested. Etc. Etc.

OK, you wouldn't have done it this way. Great. This was the project that was deemed to be the best compromise amongst a million competing interests. This is the project that's almost ready to be built and to make a big impact on the west metro and on downtown Minneapolis.

[Tcmetro]

And if were not spending $1.5 billion on LRT, legislators are going to demand a similar investment of road expansion in the area.

SLP and Hopkins have a great opportunity for residential redevelopment, Minnetonka and EP have opportunities for office park redevelopment, Minneapolis has opportunities for development at Royalston and Van White. We should keep in mind that these are some of the most coveted suburbs in the region. Development will happen. If we were building LRT to Fridley it might be a different story, but I think even with the Kenilworth corridor, SWLRT will be successful.

[Archiapolis]

Seems like the majority opinion is now that people don't want SWLRT built unless it built somewhere more useful then Kenilworth. In most of my circles, not just progressive urbanists, seems like it's actually a very small group of people that DO want it built, period.

This is the problem, it is a line without a popular constituency. All the support for this project comes from insider groups - the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. Unlike the previous two lines there is very little advocacy coming from the general population. Among the other mistakes they have made, the route they chose was a massive political blunder. If it did a better job of serving the city, people in the city would support it; in general they are the main constituency of mass transit in the metro. As it is, most people in the city don't care because this line does nothing for them. Compare that to the Central Corridor. People in St Paul would have been up in arms if that had been cancelled (besides a few prominent but self appointed "neighborhood activists").

Excellent, germane analysis.

[Rich]

SLP and Hopkins have a great opportunity for residential redevelopment, Minnetonka and EP have opportunities for office park redevelopment, Minneapolis has opportunities for development at Royalston and Van White. We should keep in mind that these are some of the most coveted suburbs in the region. Development will happen. If we were building LRT to Fridley it might be a different story, but I think even with the Kenilworth corridor, SWLRT will be successful.

This is true. With LRT, the chances of transit-ready development are very good. Without LRT, the chances of nothing but car-friendly development are 100%. And the construction of more lanes and more parking will continue unabated. SWLRT is the bird in the hand. Roads and parking lots are the two in the bush.

[Sara Bergen]

Does anyone have any idea on where McLaughlin stands on this? In the October CMC meeting all members (except Rybak) voted to recommend the shallow tunnel option, including McLaughlin. Recently McLaughlin seems more dismissive of the shallow tunnel option (note the "little cities" comment at the last CMC), and has said he will take the reroute to the STB (surface transportation board) over the objections of TC&W. I am hoping he is just posturing.

I am contacting the CMC members to urge them to reaffirm, or re-authorize, the October resolution to recommend the shallow tunnel option. I guess I am figuring that Dayton allowed Hornstein and Dibble to have their tantrum, and the result is another re-route that TC&W rejects due to safety, and a study that said the shallow tunnel *won't* harm the lakes. I am hoping that these final studies will help Mpls the

I don't know about Hodges, and how her being married to Gary Cunningham (met council member) affects things. Seems like a perfect political marriage, seeing as how it was fairly recent. Perhaps I am watching too much House of Cards.

[Ubermoose]

Does anyone have any idea on where McLaughlin stands on this? In the October CMC meeting all members (except Rybak) voted to recommend the shallow tunnel option, including McLaughlin. Recently McLaughlin seems more dismissive of the shallow tunnel option (note the "little cities" comment at the last CMC), and has said he will take the reroute to the STB (surface transportation board) over the objections of TC&W. I am hoping he is just posturing.

.

I am hoping he is just posturing as well, but I think the "little cities" comment might be more telling of how he really feels.
Found this very informative article today on the TC&W position.http://sailor.mnsun.com/2014/02/24/rail ... -proposal/
I particularly like quote from Wegner about how we don't build aircraft to minimum safety standards, or bridges to minimum weight standards. Why would they opt to accept a less safe route?

[mattaudio]

But how is the shallow tunnel a good option, either? It seems like a nine-figure political expense rather than an engineering expense.

[MNdible]

I particularly like quote from Wegner about how we don't build aircraft to minimum safety standards, or bridges to minimum weight standards. Why would they opt to accept a less safe route?

Well, that's kind of a bogus statement. Minimum safety standards almost always have a significant safety factor already built into them, so yes, it's not uncommon for things to be designed to precisely meet those minimum standards.

[Mdcastle]

But how is the shallow tunnel a good option, either? It seems like a nine-figure political expense rather than an engineering expense.

I have to agree with you that it's stupid. But it looks like the reality of the situation is either build it that way or don't build it, since moving or elevating the bicycle trail or taking the townhouses don't seem to be politically feasible even if they make the most sense from an engineering standpoint.

I really want to see this thing built. As much as I don't like the uptown option that would be acceptable to me too if we have to go back and consider it.

[David Greene]

I was at the CAC meeting last night and listened to the umpteenth argument about freight rail among the Safety in the Park people, the CIDNA people and the bike people. As usual, lots of misstatements, entrenchment and general unwillingness to compromise.

As was inevitable, the CIDNA rep brought up the oil tanker explosion in NoDak. It struck me that if SWLRT gets canned, it's lose-lose for everyone with respect to that. Kenilworth will still host TC&W traffic and SLP will still host traffic on the MN&S.

I know this is all people throwing out every argument they can in support of their side, but do freight opponents really want the status quo in Kenilworth? I've always thought they wanted the freight gone and SWLRT was their opportunity to do it.

There was one bit of interesting information I got last night. Apparently TC&W, CP and the county have a contract stating that if there is a viable reroute, TC&W and CP must vacate Kenilworth. There was a discussion about whether the Met Council could decide on relocation and force the railroads to either vacate or go to court. I'd say that scenario is pretty unlikely but it's a new twist to the conversation.

[phop]

...

There was one bit of interesting information I got last night. Apparently TC&W, CP and the county have a contract stating that if there is a viable reroute, TC&W and CP must vacate Kenilworth. There was a discussion about whether the Met Council could decide on relocation and force the railroads to either vacate or go to court. I'd say that scenario is pretty unlikely but it's a new twist to the conversation.

What would the standards of a viable route be in this case?

[sad panda]

There was one bit of interesting information I got last night. Apparently TC&W, CP and the county have a contract stating that if there is a viable reroute, TC&W and CP must vacate Kenilworth. There was a discussion about whether the Met Council could decide on relocation and force the railroads to either vacate or go to court. I'd say that scenario is pretty unlikely but it's a new twist to the conversation.

I'll find a link to the contract and the exact wording later but from what I recall, it's more along the lines of 'WHEN a connection is constructed, TC&W and CP must vacate within a month'. It doesn't prohibit them from fighting against said connection getting built in the first place.

[seanrichardryan]

Why don't we consolidate freight in Kenilworth and route SWLRT through SLP. Everyone wins!

[sad panda]

The Trackage Rights Agreement can be found here.
On page 10 is the following:

5.3. TCW and Soo will vacate all use of, and permanently terminate all rights to use, the
Rail Corridor no later than thirty (30) days after a new connection between the Soo Hopkins line
(TCW's current operating route) and the former Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern line in St.
Louis Park (MNS connection), and between the MNS and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway (BNSF connection) becomes operational, or at such time as any other feasible alternative
to use of the Rail Corridor satisfactory to TCW becomes available and is operational. The MNS
connection and the BNSF connection are shown on Exhibit D attached to this Agreement.

A couple key words in there that I see: 'becomes operational', 'satisfactory', and ' available and is operational'.