Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[BikesOnFilm]

Bridges exist.

I think part of the reason you're running into friction here is because you keep insisting your idea is the best and only way forward without any sort of historical context or understanding for why nobody is going to support this plan.

Case in point - building a new bridge over the Mississippi from St. Paul to the airport was a cost so insurmountable that the Riverview Corridor plan twisted itself into pretzels trying to design a route that could reuse the existing MN-5 bridge, and ultimately died the second that the Metropolitan Airports Council looked at the plans and said "Absolutely not."

And that wasn't ancient history or anything. That played out in the last year. You can also look at how the Midtown Greenway's extension to Saint Paul hinges almost entirely on the abandonment and reuse of the Short Line Bridge, because it was determined the political fight with environmental groups over the construction of the new span would be almost as difficult as obtaining the funding to build a bike bridge over the Mississippi.

And those are just the challenges of a theoretical Mississippi River bridge in general. In specific to surface a subway near Downtown to cross the river on a bridge, what part of the parkland are we going to be building a span over, or replace with a tunnel portal? How's that going to go over with everyone's favorite transit haters, the Minneapolis Park Board? How many millions will be spent on plans that get replanned, that get rejected, that end up getting litigated for years by third party groups that hope if they just throw enough money at the issue and gum it up in the courts for a few decades, it'll die on the vine?

It's one thing to not know the historical background of every transit decision made in the metro, but to be obsessed with the minutia of the average ride speed of one route, and to hand waive away the incredible political and engineering challenges of your preferred route just makes it difficult to take you seriously.

[angrysuburbanite]

If the final 6 miles with only 4 stops and fewer at-grade crossings average something like ~25mph, and the whole BLE averages 16mph, that means the first 7 miles average less than 10mph? Good lord.

It’s just so very obvious that this whole thing is a total unmitigated disaster that will only serve as an argument against future transit investments.

The Central Corridor has an extremely slow average speed and it takes like 50 minutes to get from downtown to downtown, yet got 40-50,000 daily rides pre-covid, and is still one of the most productive LRT corridors in the country based on per-mile boardings. So arguing that the line won't be successful because of the average speed is kind of a weak argument. The most important decider of success is the density around the line, not necessarily the speed.

[nils]

If the final 6 miles with only 4 stops and fewer at-grade crossings average something like ~25mph, and the whole BLE averages 16mph, that means the first 7 miles average less than 10mph? Good lord.

It’s just so very obvious that this whole thing is a total unmitigated disaster that will only serve as an argument against future transit investments.

The Central Corridor has an extremely slow average speed and it takes like 50 minutes to get from downtown to downtown, yet got 40-50,000 daily rides pre-covid, and is still one of the most productive LRT corridors in the country based on per-mile boardings. So arguing that the line won't be successful because of the average speed is kind of a weak argument. The most important decider of success is the density around the line, not necessarily the speed.

Like 1/3 of the Green Line’s ridership is between the U of M’s 3 stations. That’s a 1.2 mile stretch that takes ~4 minutes, which is an average speed of 18mph — double the BLE’s speed for the first 7 miles.

Otherwise, yes, I agree, the green line is way too slow. To the extent that it was intended to provide a single seat ride from MPLS to SP, it has unambiguously failed. The $3 billion would be far better spent making the green line a viable connection between the two downtowns.

[Tom H.]

To the extent that it was intended to provide a single seat ride from MPLS to SP, it has unambiguously failed.

But of course that wasn't what it was intended to provide. It was intended to provide connections along the corridor, including origins and destinations at every point along the corridor. The 94 bus and future Gold Line extension will provide what you're talking about. My guess is that end-to-end rides on the Green Line are almost non-existent, and that's ok.

[BigIdeasGuy]

And honestly if we had "dig a tunnel from Uptown, under downtown and the Mississippi River, to an undisclosed location in Northeast" money,

Bridges exist.

Just so understand the physical challenges of what you are proposing you are going to have to deep bore under the Lowry Hill Tunnel or 94 trench depending on the route, then find a strip of land in DT where you can build a portal that has enough length to come from tunnel depth then get up and over the river all in dedicated ROW. In NE you are going to need a similar strip of land so you can have a portal go back underground. And the those to portals have to be relatively alined all while providing efficient service to the core areas that are going to drive the massive ridership you clearly believe is there.

[nils]

To the extent that it was intended to provide a single seat ride from MPLS to SP, it has unambiguously failed.

But of course that wasn't what it was intended to provide. It was intended to provide connections along the corridor, including origins and destinations at every point along the corridor. The 94 bus and future Gold Line extension will provide what you're talking about. My guess is that end-to-end rides on the Green Line are almost non-existent, and that's ok.

To be clear, I totally agree with this. My point is that end-to-end speed of the green line is not really an important metric for determining whether the green line was / is a success, as that’s not what riders use it for. If it was what riders used it for, then it would be a total failure.

BLE falls more into the “commuter” category, and the speed should be compared to something like SWLRT or the original blue line.

[nils]

I think part of the reason you're running into friction here is because you keep insisting your idea is the best and only way forward without any sort of historical context or understanding for why nobody is going to support this plan.

All of my posts about a tunnel were moved to a different thread by moderators a while ago, I then stopped talking about anything related to an Uptown--NE project. However, when I brought up the Bottineau Corridor LRT v BRT study that found BRT alignments that scored higher than the current LRT alignment in the corridor, I was accused of being "anti-rail," which isn't true. Additionally, the claim was made that "If this alignment shouldn't be rail, then there is no alignment in Minnesota that should be rail," which I also believe is untrue.

With that, it is very obvious why Blue Line Extension supporters do not want the current alignment to be subject to any "BRT v LRT" studies. What remains unclear is how anyone could in good faith support this thing.

If this alignment shouldn't be rail, then there is no alignment in Minnesota that should be rail.

If I don't mention an alternative, then I'm "anti-rail," but if I do mention an alternative, then I'm "insisting my idea is the best and only way forward." Do you see my dilemma?

I'd also add that my point has never been that an uptown--NE line is the "only" way forward -- I'm also not entirely convinced that it's the best way forward. My point has only ever been that the BLE is a wasteful investment, and it should've been abandoned long ago. While I've noted that there are other transit investments worth considering, the BLE is an unmitigated disaster in and of itself.

It's one thing to not know the historical background of every transit decision made in the metro, but to be obsessed with the minutia of the average ride speed of one route, and to hand waive away the incredible political and engineering challenges of your preferred route just makes it difficult to take you seriously.

It's not that I believe there aren't technical or political obstacles with other project ideas. It's that we aren't at that phase of any other projects. All projects begin with some goal or idea, and they all have obstacles to work through. Just stating the very obvious obstacles as though they somehow make a bad idea you support any more viable is silly.

You start with an idea and then work through the issues. If at any point in this process it is determined that the original objective (or something similar) cannot be achieved, we should abandon the project. If, for example, we were to study some Uptown-NE subway and determine it could not connect the two in primarily its own designated RoW, I would suggest abandoning it -- I wouldn't continue advocating for a $3 billion trolly that goes slower than the speed of traffic.

Similarly, when BNSF said "no" to the BLE in their RoW, we were able to pivot to a handful of other potentially viable alternatives, however, when community pushback blocked the most viable of the remaining alternatives, the project ultimately became non-viable -- this is where it should have been abandoned. However, because the powers that be didn't want to swallow their pride and admit defeat, and they didn't want to let down the people that they had been working with along the way, they pressed forward. They pressed forward even though it was clear & obvious that the project could no longer achieve its original goals.

p.s. I've seen the ideas you do take seriously, and, frankly, I'm a bit relieved that mine don't readily fit that description

[twincitizen]

I agree the outer half of BLE does not stand up well to cost-benefit analysis, but I see very little wrong with the Target Field to Robbinsdale section even if it will have a low average speed. North Loop, West Broadway (x2), Broadway & Penn, North Memorial, and downtown Robbinsdale are really solid station areas. Because it would be a bad plan to terminate the line at downtown Robbinsdale (not wanting to put a big park & ride there, etc.), building the line as planned out to 63rd Avenue is a completely defensible use of our regional transit capital funds. The Minneapolis routing up Washington and the appurtenant roadway modifications around Washington & Broadway could still be improved to avoid a stoplight or two, but I wouldn't change much.

That said, I am holding out hope there's appetite for one more mini-study comparing running on Washington as planned vs. running up the side of 94's ROW or along 2nd St or the RR ROW to reach 21st. Washington could honestly be the worst/slowest of those options due to the heavy traffic and freeway exit ramp complications. Running it from 10th Ave straight onto the RR corridor behind the Strib printing plant and up to 21st would speed things up quite a bit by avoiding crossing Plymouth and Broadway at-grade. With the Strib printing plant closing, that option suddenly is more viable. The only other freight rail customer south of Broadway appears to be the scrapyard or whatever that is between 14th & 17th, and that property would seem very likely to redevelop if LRT is coming, meaning the freight line could be removed even further north, freeing up this spur from Strib all the way to 21st where LRT would head west over I-94.

[nils]

I agree the outer half of BLE does not stand up well to cost-benefit analysis, but I see very little wrong with the Target Field to Robbinsdale section even if it will have a low average speed. North Loop, West Broadway (x2), Broadway & Penn, North Memorial, and downtown Robbinsdale are really solid station areas. Because it would be a bad plan to terminate the line at downtown Robbinsdale (not wanting to put a big park & ride there, etc.), building the line as planned out to 63rd Avenue is a completely defensible use of our regional transit capital funds. The Minneapolis routing up Washington and the appurtenant roadway modifications around Washington & Broadway could still be improved to avoid a stoplight or two, but I wouldn't change much.

Why even bother with a train if it’s only going to average like ~8-10mph?

The D line has more riders than the BLE is forecasted to have, gets from Brooklyn Center to DT MPLS over 2x faster than the BLE is forecasted to travel, and it only cost $75 million (3% of the cost of the BLE).

There’s really just no justification for it at this point.

[nils]

And honestly if we had "dig a tunnel from Uptown, under downtown and the Mississippi River, to an undisclosed location in Northeast" money,

Bridges exist.

Just so understand the physical challenges of what you are proposing you are going to have to deep bore under the Lowry Hill Tunnel or 94 trench depending on the route, then find a strip of land in DT where you can build a portal that has enough length to come from tunnel depth then get up and over the river all in dedicated ROW. In NE you are going to need a similar strip of land so you can have a portal go back underground. And the those to portals have to be relatively alined all while providing efficient service to the core areas that are going to drive the massive ridership you clearly believe is there.

Yes, there are obstacles to any project. In my opinion, it’s not a question of “can we build it?” it’s a question of “is it worth building?” BLE has obviously reached a point where, no, as currently defined, it is not worth building.

Fwiw, I think 3rd Ave through downtown would be best at addressing your concerns. Convention center and a couple of municipal owned ramps give you options for crossing 94 if you choose to surface to cross, and the elevated retaining wall on the DT side of the Central Ave bridge gives you a clean portal for crossing the river, as well as the retaining wall on SA Main for going back under.

Regardless, I’ve now said like a dozen times, this isn’t intended to be a “proposal.” My point is not that this should be an “either or.” Rather, my point is that the BLE is an egregious misuse of funding that could be used on literally any other project.

The best the Met Council could come up with after 20 years of planning is a $3 billion, 10mph train to Brooklyn Park that scores as “poor” on every one of their own metrics, but, by all means, keep coming at me for having the audacity to say “I think we can do better.”

[daveybabymsp]

Bridges exist.

Just so understand the physical challenges of what you are proposing you are going to have to deep bore under the Lowry Hill Tunnel or 94 trench depending on the route, then find a strip of land in DT where you can build a portal that has enough length to come from tunnel depth then get up and over the river all in dedicated ROW. In NE you are going to need a similar strip of land so you can have a portal go back underground. And the those to portals have to be relatively alined all while providing efficient service to the core areas that are going to drive the massive ridership you clearly believe is there.

Yes, there are obstacles to any project. In my opinion, it’s not a question of “can we build it?” it’s a question of “is it worth building?” BLE has obviously reached a point where, no, as currently defined, it is not worth building.

Fwiw, I think 3rd Ave through downtown would be best at addressing your concerns. Convention center and a couple of municipal owned ramps give you options for crossing 94 if you choose to surface to cross, and the elevated retaining wall on the DT side of the Central Ave bridge gives you a clean portal for crossing the river, as well as the retaining wall on SA Main for going back under.

Regardless, I’ve now said like a dozen times, this isn’t intended to be a “proposal.” My point is not that this should be an “either or.” Rather, my point is that the BLE is an egregious misuse of funding that could be used on literally any other project.

The best the Met Council could come up with after 20 years of planning is a $3 billion, 10mph train to Brooklyn Park that scores as “poor” on every one of their own metrics, but, by all means, keep coming at me for having the audacity to say “I think we can do better.”

What is your source for that speed? I see you estimated it as the slower part of an average ~15mph route. The only source I’ve found for numbers like that is this old anti blue line site, which says an unnamed “engineering expert” estimated it at between 14-17 mph. https://slr81.org/the-facts

Metro transit doesn’t have full timetables, but they posted this:

https://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Tr ... -2024.aspx?

This says that DT Robbinsdale to terminal 1 will take 45 minutes. It currently takes 26 minutes to go from target field to terminal 1, and I estimate that it is a 5 mile trip from Robbinsdale to target field based on Google maps. That would be 5 miles in 19 minutes, or just under 16mph for the slower part of the trip, or double what you claim. That is compared to a 13 minute drive with no traffic, which does not factor in parking time and cost near target field.

It also includes some other time estimates that I’m not doing the math for, but I’m sure those are also faster than what our anonymous engineering expert has claimed

[daveybabymsp]

I also should have added that the driving estimate I gave was at 11pm with no traffic, at rush hour the comparison would be more favorable for transit with dedicated ROW

[nils]

Just so understand the physical challenges of what you are proposing you are going to have to deep bore under the Lowry Hill Tunnel or 94 trench depending on the route, then find a strip of land in DT where you can build a portal that has enough length to come from tunnel depth then get up and over the river all in dedicated ROW. In NE you are going to need a similar strip of land so you can have a portal go back underground. And the those to portals have to be relatively alined all while providing efficient service to the core areas that are going to drive the massive ridership you clearly believe is there.

Yes, there are obstacles to any project. In my opinion, it’s not a question of “can we build it?” it’s a question of “is it worth building?” BLE has obviously reached a point where, no, as currently defined, it is not worth building.

Fwiw, I think 3rd Ave through downtown would be best at addressing your concerns. Convention center and a couple of municipal owned ramps give you options for crossing 94 if you choose to surface to cross, and the elevated retaining wall on the DT side of the Central Ave bridge gives you a clean portal for crossing the river, as well as the retaining wall on SA Main for going back under.

Regardless, I’ve now said like a dozen times, this isn’t intended to be a “proposal.” My point is not that this should be an “either or.” Rather, my point is that the BLE is an egregious misuse of funding that could be used on literally any other project.

The best the Met Council could come up with after 20 years of planning is a $3 billion, 10mph train to Brooklyn Park that scores as “poor” on every one of their own metrics, but, by all means, keep coming at me for having the audacity to say “I think we can do better.”

What is your source for that speed? I see you estimated it as the slower part of an average ~15mph route. The only source I’ve found for numbers like that is this old anti blue line site, which says an unnamed “engineering expert” estimated it at between 14-17 mph. https://slr81.org/the-facts

Metro transit doesn’t have full timetables, but they posted this:

https://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Tr ... -2024.aspx?

This says that DT Robbinsdale to terminal 1 will take 45 minutes. It currently takes 26 minutes to go from target field to terminal 1, and I estimate that it is a 5 mile trip from Robbinsdale to target field based on Google maps. That would be 5 miles in 19 minutes, or just under 16mph for the slower part of the trip, or double what you claim. That is compared to a 13 minute drive with no traffic, which does not factor in parking time and cost near target field.

It also includes some other time estimates that I’m not doing the math for, but I’m sure those are also faster than what our anonymous engineering expert has claimed

This was the math I posted a few posts back:

“If the final 6 miles with only 4 stops and fewer at-grade crossings average something like ~25mph, and the whole BLE averages 16mph, that means the first 7 miles average less than 10mph?”

I don’t recall where I got the 16mph number from, but it is the number that google gives you if you search “blue line extension speed.” My math assumed that 16mph was the average BLE speed from Oak Grove to Target Field. However, if the 16mph number is for the slow part of the route, as your math suggests, then the average speed is maybe closer to 20? I’m not sure, I can’t find any avg speed number from the Met Council for the current alignment.

[DanPatchToget]

I'd suggest for anyone who hasn't already been in the area to take a field trip out to Bottineau Boulevard where the Bass Lake Road and 63rd Avenue stations are proposed, and do it on foot or bike. Remember, this is a suburban highway, not University Avenue or even American Boulevard. Seems like there's a lot of focus on North Minneapolis and TOD plans in Brooklyn Center while ignoring putting a light rail line in the middle of a car sewer. Granted there would only be 3 stations in the middle of Bottineau, but that's still going to be a crappy experience for anyone who wants to use those stations.

Another thing that seems to be brushed off is the slow speed. Isn't part of the point of light rail to be faster than a bus? Plus with all the grade crossings where trains won't have preemption like a traditional railroad, another important factor is reliability. With all of these unprotected crossings there's going to be plenty of opportunities for people and cars to get in the way of trains, and that means accidents and delays or having to put in bus substitutions.

Going off of nils's idea for underground rail, but shifting it to where the Met Council is currently focusing on a big transit improvement, which is to the northwest, I still believe tunneling under North Minneapolis is the way to go. This has already been talked about before and how it's cost prohibitive and pure fantasy, but if we're serious about providing good and reliable transit then I think that's the only way to really make it so for the BLE. The current proposal would be a streetcar pretending to be light rail. Will it still get plenty of riders? Probably, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it faster and more reliable for those riders. Same goes for the Green Line. Yes it had substantial ridership pre-pandemic, but those riders would be more satisfied with the service and there would be more people riding it if it was faster and more reliable. I drove the Green Line trains for four months, and once in a rare while it worked like a well-oiled machine, but most times it was bogged down waiting for signals and getting into conflicts with pedestrian and vehicle traffic. For a transit spine serving our two downtowns, it should've been built better, and it wouldn't need to involve removing stations along University or building it entirely underground.

Since the Met Council has already shown they're not interested in grade separation through North Minneapolis, along with the other issues I mentioned, I don't see the point in continuing with this project until such a time that funding can be achieved to make it much better than what's being proposed now. Or do something like this instead:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit? ... sp=sharing

I made this in 2019 back when BNSF came out in opposition to BLE. With the regional rail aspect it of course relies on BNSF approving such a plan, and I don't know if the infrastructure upgrades involved for their tracks would be enough for them to approve. If they approved it though, with a good consistent schedule (basically the opposite of Northstar) it would be a nice alternative to driving on I-94, and in theory win over suburban and exurban communities. I know it's all wishful thinking, but in my opinion so is believing BLE as currently proposed will work out well.

[twincitizen]

As an example of how much worse it could be, LA Metro is currently building a 6.7-mile LRT line in the San Fernando Valley, entirely at-grade. The cost? $3.6 Billion. Pre-construction work began in 2023, FFGA issued in 2024, and somehow it won't open until 2031 (if everything goes well).

The projected cost for the first 6.7 miles of BLE (roughly to Bass Lake Rd) would likely be around half the cost of LA's project. As a reminder, current projections show a base cost for constructing the full BLE project at $2.2 billion. "To account for potential costs associated with unknown risks and conditions at this early design phase, the federal government requires projects to add contingency costs between 35% and 45%, leading to a preliminary total cost range between $2.9 billion and $3.2 billion." Southwest has been a shitshow, but we shouldn't automatically assume BLE will cost $3B.

[StandishGuy]

The BLE isn't worth the cost even if it were $2.2 billion for 11k daily riders. The current and future potential land uses are abismal and the speed of the train is just too slow. Would anyone here predict the cost of the line is going to come in $700 million - $1 billion below budget? Look at Denver's Fast Tracks build out as a reference... They constructed several LRT and Commuter lines out to unwalkable, car-oriented places like the BLE and have had poor ridership. At the same time, the Denver region basically neglected the inner City with transit instead focusing on routes that avoided dense, walkable places. The MSP region should and could do better funding projects that serve destinations rather than a suburban death highway surrounded by industrial uses and single family homes. The communities of Crystal and Brooklyn Park deserve high quality transit, but rail is just the wrong mode to serve sprawl.

[COLSLAW5]

Honestly if we were only using local dollars to build this line I do think there are better uses for our money. But as a state the sends more money to the feds than we receive we should find ways to bring as much of that money back as possible preferably not through road expansion. These light rail projects have thousands of workers to the cities between the actual construction of the system and the projects surrounding it. Nothing is set in stone, just because an area is unwalkable today does not mean they will be 30 years from now. These projects should not be designed for today as much as they are a forward looking investment that will provide the outcomes we want in 30-50 years.

[StandishGuy]

So, people are predicting that the BLE corridor is going to be a dense, walkable area in 30 years? They recently reconstructed Botineau Boulevard, so that isn't likely to change in 50+ years. On one side of that Stroad is a rail line and the other side is low density housing. Is there any plan being discussed or on the books proposing anything even slightly different than those land uses? I understand that Brooklyn Park has a vision for the vacant site at the end of the line, but it's just more lower-density sprawl. Geez. Look at the existing Blue Line corridor which also runs along a Stroad called Hiawatha Avenue. That line was built more than 20 years ago and the Station areas remain bleak and mostly undeveloped- even in the heart of transit dependent and dense Minneapolis. Look at the Franklin, Lake and 38th Street Stations as an example of how hard it is to get real transit-orietnted development along a highway... It seems only the 46th St. Station has generated significant development, but Hiawatha continues to be lined with car-oriented strip malls and the Stroad remains wide and a noisy barrier for pedestrians. I love rail transit. I am transit dependent. The BLE is just a terrible project based on the quality of transit it will provide (too slow) and the extreme cost. As Nils has pointed out, this shouldn't be a controversial statement on an urbanist blog.

[daveybabymsp]

I think most would agree that the project north of Robbinsdale is not great. The terminus station at oak grove could get some good TOD but that’s about it. I think people (rightly or wrongly) think it nets out to be worth it because of the first half of the route being solid.

IMO part of that is that it is less shit than any of the other ideas of the last 10 years - riverview streetcar without dedicated space, purple line, gold line, arguably the orange line, arguably SWLRT.

People on this forum like cool new transit projects so it’s fair to say we might be biased towards building a train rather than performing an unbiased cost benefit analysis, especially when the alternative is going back to square 1 and waiting a lot longer to build a potentially better train, or just building no trains. And if federal funding is in play you are leaving money on the table when you don’t have a better backup plan available. I personally would not support this without federal funds unless it was shortened to finish at 63rd Ave and re use the existing park and ride

[BikesOnFilm]

Has actually anyone gone and looked at the zoning and TOD plans for Brooklyn Park? They're fairly robust, and unlike the Crystal/Robbinsdale stations, aren't located in the median of Bottineau Blvd. They're far closer to the stations along University that have seen significant development over the last decade.

Even Crystal, with the Bass Lake Rd. Station that I think is probably the weakest of the whole line, has outlined pretty much all the shopping centers to the west of the station for mixed use redevelopment.

Up until the funding came through in 2018, there was a lot of hand wringing about the stations south of Downtown Hopkins on the Green Line Extension too. Once the funding was secured for the train, developers started getting loans secured for apartment projects. Of course, the construction was delayed so significantly that so many projects that were financed based off of confirmation that the line finished before the train, so now it seems like the train is serving denser areas and a better investment. If everything had gone according to plan originally, day one rides on the SWLRT would have gone past a lot of empty parking lots in Opus, and maybe a few pioneering apartments under construction.

It seems clear to me that, as long as we're not deep in recession by 2028-29, the day one rides of the Blue Line Extension would see a lot of in-progress development at sites that are today considered not worth investing in.