Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[twincitizen]

I’m very supportive of the alignment as proposed but I think the stretch on Broadway up to the Target campus is not worth it—I’d rather it end at the 63rd Ave park and ride. But the section between Target Field and Robbinsdale is going to perform extremely well. I just don’t want those unproductive exurban stations weighing down the otherwise far above average performance of the system in terms of passengers per mile and per revenue hour.

Agreed. I'm very supportive of ending this line at 85th Ave. The outermost two station areas are not deserving of rail service and can easily be served by bus linking to 85th. Broadway & 85th has North Hennepin Community College and a Hennepin County Library branch. Both of those properties have a ton of space for a large park & ride structure. Ending the line at 63rd Avenue would also be fine and would save even more money because the line wouldn't have to cross 694 or to transition to Broadway Ave. If breaking this project into two phases, it would make perfect sense to end Phase 1 at 63rd Avenue.

[Tcmetro]

I think it's reasonable to expect that the Oak Grove station area will be largely developed with apartments. It seems short-sighted to let that area develop and have the rail station 1.5 miles away.

[BikesOnFilm]

Has there been any meaningful (i.e., actually discussed in the project meetings) about breaking the project into phases? Similar to the BNSF issue years ago, I don't think there's any chance the word "phase" comes up unless federal funding falls through. And even then, I think there'd probably be far more pressure to cancel than salvage.

I think it's reasonable to expect that the Oak Grove station area will be largely developed with apartments. It seems short-sighted to let that area develop and have the rail station 1.5 miles away.

Worse - imagine the pressure there'd be to develop all the land into one giant data or fulfillment center the moment it became clear that transit oriented development was either delayed indefinitely or permanently off the table.

[DanPatchToget]

Has there been any meaningful (i.e., actually discussed in the project meetings) about breaking the project into phases? Similar to the BNSF issue years ago, I don't think there's any chance the word "phase" comes up unless federal funding falls through. And even then, I think there'd probably be far more pressure to cancel than salvage.

I think it's reasonable to expect that the Oak Grove station area will be largely developed with apartments. It seems short-sighted to let that area develop and have the rail station 1.5 miles away.

Worse - imagine the pressure there'd be to develop all the land into one giant data or fulfillment center the moment it became clear that transit oriented development was either delayed indefinitely or permanently off the table.

I think people are getting their hopes up that there's going to be a lot of non-park & ride usage at Oak Grove Station with any supposed TOD. Will it be slightly higher walk-up riders than a typical suburban station? Maybe, but I expect the main usage of the Blue Line for residents there would be occasionally going to a sports game in downtown, and most if not all of their other trips would still be by car.

[BikesOnFilm]

I’m not assuming Brooklyn Park is going to build a walkable city center that encourages everyone who lives there to go car free. I don’t think anyone is saying that.

I’m just saying if you offer me the choice between a similar development to SouthWest Station in Eden Prairie or a giant industrial building, I’m going to pick the park and ride with apartments every day of the week.

It would be cool if we had the foresight to plan these projects in smaller phases like Seattle, but we didn’t.

[thespeedmccool]

Pertinent to the current discussion: Brooklyn Park has its plan.

[nils]

Does anyone understand why after all this time to study, plan, etc. why we are still going ahead with a plan that scored as “poor”?

[nils]

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 you're trying to argue that the United States is permanently a car culture and that no rail should ever be built, then in your world, I guess you're right: why bother trying to densify suburbs and transition trips away from the car when there's no hope it will work? In your world, we should trash the Blue Line Extension.

If, on the other hand, you think it's possible to transition away from cars and just think this route in particular is not good enough, you're wrong. There is no more essential rail project in Minnesota that is both feasible and conceivable. Giving up on rail in the Bottineau Corridor means giving up on rail in Minnesota forever.

No, I’m not arguing it’s “permanently a car culture.” I actually think the idea that ever expanding, accelerating sprawl is so inevitable—even important(?)—that we should invest billions in creating trains for people in the suburbs (who almost all need cars to get to the train!) is more an admission of defeat in that respect.

If we really want to promote car free lifestyles, we should be making the multi billion dollar transit investments in our urban centers. I get that I’m new here, but, how is that even remotely a controversial opinion to express on an urbanism forum?

More people live within walking distance of a ~2 mile line from Northeast to Uptown than live within walking distance of the 13 mile BLE. It’s absurd to say that the BLE is an even remotely comparable—much less better—corridor or alignment than that.

To the extent that someone has any desire to live car free, they aren’t choosing to live in the NW suburbs. At best, taking the train will be a fun little novelty “city boy/girl” larp experience for them (which I have nothing against, but it definitely shouldn’t be a policy priority).

[DanPatchToget]

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 you're trying to argue that the United States is permanently a car culture and that no rail should ever be built, then in your world, I guess you're right: why bother trying to densify suburbs and transition trips away from the car when there's no hope it will work? In your world, we should trash the Blue Line Extension.

If, on the other hand, you think it's possible to transition away from cars and just think this route in particular is not good enough, you're wrong. There is no more essential rail project in Minnesota that is both feasible and conceivable. Giving up on rail in the Bottineau Corridor means giving up on rail in Minnesota forever.

No, I’m not arguing it’s “permanently a car culture.” I actually think the idea that ever expanding, accelerating sprawl is so inevitable—even important(?)—that we should invest billions in creating trains for people in the suburbs (who almost all need cars to get to the train!) is more an admission of defeat in that respect.

If we really want to promote car free lifestyles, we should be making the multi billion dollar transit investments in our urban centers. I get that I’m new here, but, how is that even remotely a controversial opinion to express on an urbanism forum?

More people live within walking distance of a ~2 mile line from Northeast to Uptown than live within walking distance of the 13 mile BLE. It’s absurd to say that the BLE is an even remotely comparable—much less better—corridor or alignment than that.

To the extent that someone has any desire to live car free, they aren’t choosing to live in the NW suburbs. At best, taking the train will be a fun little novelty “city boy/girl” larp experience for them (which I have nothing against, but it definitely shouldn’t be a policy priority).

The Twin Cities, like pretty much every American city, is a sprawled out region with a bunch of communities who are all fighting for tax dollars to benefit them. I have no doubt there's urban corridors in Minneapolis and St. Paul where rail service would have much greater ridership than our current and proposed suburban lines, but you'll have a hard time telling the suburbs that their tax dollars should go towards rail that only serves the urban area, no matter how much you may show that these suburbs will still benefit from it.

What you're suggesting would probably be much easier to do in an alternate reality where the jurisdiction of the Twin Cities was just Minneapolis and St. Paul, though maybe there would still be the east vs. west divide.

[MNdible]

The other reality, which played out with the current green and blue line extensions, is that it's actually very hard to run LRT through urban areas. University Avenue has a uniquely wide ROW, which allowed them to squeeze in LRT and still maintain some semblance of a commercial thoroughfare. But anything less than that and LRT will effectively obliterate a commercial corridor. We've seen this when LRT alignments have been considered for Nicollet and Broadway. Unless you're willing to shell out huge dollars for tunneling, you really can't fit LRT on the typical 80' ROWs that are common for Minneapolis commercial streets.

[Mdcastle]

I guess I'm not clear how a light rail line that serves only the urban area benefits taxpayers in the suburbs. Are we thinking of a scenario where a resident of Brooklyn Park drivers their car downtown because there's no light rail with park and ride lots available, and then decides to go take the light rail from downtown to Uptown for some reason?

[Tom H.]

I guess I'm not clear how a light rail line that serves only the urban area benefits taxpayers in the suburbs. Are we thinking of a scenario where a resident of Brooklyn Park drivers their car downtown because there's no light rail with park and ride lots available, and then decides to go take the light rail from downtown to Uptown for some reason?

This is just the "why should senior citizens pay school taxes?" argument all over again. Suburbs exist because of their proximity to urban areas. They are not self sustaining. I say this as a resident of a suburb. We all cross-subsidize things that don't directly benefit us for their net benefit to society. With respect, this is a silly argument.

[Mdcastle]

Senior citizens in Brooklyn Park all went to school and most of them have kids that went to school, so they benefited from school taxes.

It's not at all clear how a resident of Brooklyn Park benefits from rail taxes if they don't have rail service and it's only the residents of Minneapolis that get to ride a train from one area of Minneapolis to the other rather than having to take an ordinary bus.

[StandishGuy]

Honestly,: I’m not on board with the Blue Line Extension either. Like Nils, I think this route is a mess when you look at current and potential land uses, the insane cost, and the low densities along the way.

Putting rail down the middle of a multi-lane highway like Bottineau Boulevard? Terrible idea. It’s not just ugly—it’s unsafe and miserable to force people to wait for a train or cross the road. $3 billion could go a lot further on projects that actually move people: more arterial BRT, a downtown tunnel, or finally getting the Green Line up to speed.

I rely on transit and I’m all for high-dollar improvements, including rail—but a projected ridership of 11–13k? That’s just not enough for this kind of money. Look at the Gold Line BRT: $500+ million and barely over 1,000 riders.

The smartest cities start their high-capacity lines where the density is highest and the destinations are closest—usually downtown—then expand outward. I saw it in Oslo, Copenhagen, and Montreal last year: subways and trams that actually serve walkable, dense neighborhoods. The Blue Line corridor past North Minneapolis? Mostly suburban sprawl, missing sidewalks, surrounded by highways. Not exactly a recipe for heavy ridership.

We’ve got limited transit dollars. Let’s spend them on projects that serve more people, make better connections, and actually improve the system—not just put a train down a highway that no one can safely walk to. I get the argument that we should build transit and then serve it with new TOD, but this corridor has extremely low potential for that, especially along Bottineau. Even the development for Brooklyn Park isn’t that dense and is unlikely to move the needle. Add to that the trip from Brooklyn Park to downtown Minneapolis, downtown St. Paul and the airport will be incredibly slow due to the low speed on the train.

[thespeedmccool]

This whole discussion fundamentally misunderstands how cities develop: cities grow up around transportation, not the other way around.

Sure, highly dense, transit-oriented cities can just plow a new line through any neighborhood on any alignment and generate rides, but that's not the situation we're in. We're an incredibly car-centric city trying to develop transit-ready neighborhoods, and the way you do that is by building transit and watching the city grow around it. Finding developable alignments with few technical barriers (like Bottineau) is essential to building transit in currently car-centric areas.

Look at our "streetcar suburbs:" literally, developers would build speculative streetcars out to cornfields and watch towns pop up along them. This is how railroad suburbs grow in Europe, and how cities once grew here.

So, sure, the Blue Line Extension's alignment is currently surrounded by single-family homes and open fields, but that's actually fine, because density follows cheap transportation, not the other way around.

And just a note on the political point: while I agree that good transit policy shouldn't be geared toward pleasing suburban mayors or whatever, that's the world we live in. We can either build transit to Brooklyn Park, or we don't build transit after the State Legislature castrates the Met Council for focusing too much on the woke liberal cities. Take your pick.

[daveybabymsp]

I am team “it’s good enough”. I think everything up to downtown Robbinsdale is pretty close to the ideal Blue Line extension, everything past there is highly questionable with the current land use and road design. I think you could do better on a fantasy map, but this averages out to be a decent project that is set up to be built immediately after the green line extension.

I think it is fair to say that something like Uptown to NE rail would likely be a better project than this, but you couldn’t start constructing that line 3 years from now. I don’t think that building this project hurts future “better” rail projects. If this doesn’t happen the most recent light rail memory we will have is SWLRT, which leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

[angrysuburbanite]

The section from downtown to Robbinsdale is really similar to the Central Corridor in my opinion, and will be very strong. I’ve already expressed concern with anything north of that (as have others), but those suburban stations are situated to be more accessible than ones on SWLRT. Other than adding a bus to Maple Grove, it fits really well into the existing network of (pretty decent) bus service, too.

Most importantly though, I think that BLRT fills out the final leg in our regional transit skeleton. There would be LRT covering each of the four main corners of the metro. The completion of this project would be a very big milestone in planning for the Twin Cities’ multimodal future. I’m sure we can all agree that there were missteps. But in the political climate we are in, going from 0 to over 50 miles of frequent urban rail service in 30 years is pretty impressive. Even if it is imperfect, the line is worth building.

[BikesOnFilm]

And honestly if we had "dig a tunnel from Uptown, under downtown and the Mississippi River, to an undisclosed location in Northeast" money, we would be better off selectively burying sections of our existing rail to increase capacity and combat some of the "It's too slow" concerns. Once we have the spine of our network, making sure the heart of it is efficient should be our next priority.

A downtown transit tunnel and potentially an elevated station over Snelling Ave come to mind as really obvious ways we can value-add to our existing investments and make them even better. You could even get some buy-in from otherwise transit-hostile voices by including turnstiles as part of the new metro stations downtown.

[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.

[nils]

A few people have mentioned the idea of stopping at around the 63rd avenue station, but does anyone know what the average speed of the line would be if you did that?

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.