urbanMSP

This language basically guarantees that BRT will be found to be the wrong mode for the corridor. What a wasteful and useless idea.

angrysuburbanite wrote:This language basically guarantees that BRT will be found to be the wrong mode for the corridor. What a wasteful and useless idea.

Assuming this is true, then we at least have documentation on record showing why we sometimes should invest in rail instead of buses, at a time where some argue that everything should be a bus.

Still probably a waste of time though.

Must perform an analysis

Must use existing resources

"Would you look at that! We found that one of our existing project resources was a completed alternatives analysis between LRT and BRT that found that LRT was the correct mode for the corridor."

My thought had been that the text just says the report has to be in before next summer, there's no reason they can't just punch something out real fast in the next month and continue as they were, but, yeah, just submitting the existing alternatives analysis would be even better.

Do the young kids on here remember that Bottineau was originally planned as LRT, then switched to a multi-year planning effort for BRT, before some major political capital was spent (Mike Opat?) to move it back to LRT?

HuskyGrad wrote: June 6th, 2025, 8:20 am

kdo5581 wrote:

twincitizen wrote: June 5th, 2025, 10:14 am

Quoting myself from 18 months ago. It seems odd shortening the route hasn't even come up once, as far as the public is aware. I understand that the maintenance facility would need to be deferred as well and I'm not sure how feasible that is given capacity at the other. But it just seems like a slam dunk to remove almost 2 miles of track including a long bridge over a freeway to get the initial cost of this line down. Why this line needs to go so far into Brooklyn Park is a mystery to me (ok it's not a mystery, it's Target's influence). Both the Hiawatha and SW lines barely extend beyond the 494 loop, so why extend this one nearly 4 miles beyond 694? It doesn't make any sense. Ending this at 85th Ave N is entirely reasonable. Shortening the line and reducing the cost is a shrewd political move as well.

If there's not support for shortening the line, then it should be broken into two phases with Phase 1 extending to the existing park & ride at 63rd Ave N. That at least gets it to Brooklyn Park and makes use of a park & ride that is already built, conveniently located right off a 694 exit. Let's get this damn thing under construction this decade.

Really like this idea and it's one I've thought about myself in the past.

One of the challenges is they need the Maintenance Facility in Brooklyn Park for the expanded fleet as St. Paul and Franklin are at capacity. One potential solution would be to construct a facility where it was intended on the SWLRT alignment.

Hadn't considered this, but obviously a very important point. I wonder how many additional trains they would actually need for a shorter line, but I don't know how to evaluate that.

I definitely do not think a Hopkins OMF facility is feasible. There would have to be a pretty major change in the attitude of city leadership to return to the abandoned plan. If indeed fewer trains are necessary, I wonder if you could create some more space for outdoor train storage in St. Paul by moving Willius street further east. It appears Met Council already owns that land.

mattaudio wrote: June 13th, 2025, 8:28 pm Do the young kids on here remember that Bottineau was originally planned as LRT, then switched to a multi-year planning effort for BRT, before some major political capital was spent (Mike Opat?) to move it back to LRT?

Wait, really? I guess I don't...

Edit: I did not exist when this happened.

Silophant wrote: June 12th, 2025, 8:29 pm

My thought had been that the text just says the report has to be in before next summer, there's no reason they can't just punch something out real fast in the next month and continue as they were, but, yeah, just submitting the existing alternatives analysis would be even better.

The existing alternatives analysis is based on trains with average speeds of ~30mph (2x faster than current estimates) and LRT ridership of 26k weekday riders (2x more than current estimates). The conclusion of the analysis was that these "travel time savings" would more than offset the substantial incremental costs of LRT when compared to BRT. Even still, the closest alternative to the currently proposed BLE alignment scored worse than some BRT alternatives!

LRT in this corridor only really made sense when it used the BNSF RoW, which made the project less disruptive, less expensive to build, and the resulting transit much, much faster. However, at present day, a good faith analysis of the proposed alignment would unambiguously show that BRT is the better option.

It's genuinely frustrating to see so many pro-transit advocates advocating for such a terribly wasteful transit project.

nils wrote:

Silophant wrote: June 12th, 2025, 8:29 pm

My thought had been that the text just says the report has to be in before next summer, there's no reason they can't just punch something out real fast in the next month and continue as they were, but, yeah, just submitting the existing alternatives analysis would be even better.

The existing alternatives analysis is based on trains with average speeds of ~30mph (2x faster than current estimates) and LRT ridership of 26k weekday riders (2x more than current estimates). The conclusion of the analysis was that these "travel time savings" would more than offset the substantial incremental costs of LRT when compared to BRT. Even still, the closest alternative to the currently proposed BLE alignment scored worse than some BRT alternatives!

LRT in this corridor only really made sense when it used the BNSF RoW, which made the project less disruptive, less expensive to build, and the resulting transit much, much faster. However, at present day, a good faith analysis of the proposed alignment would unambiguously show that BRT is the better option.

It's genuinely frustrating to see so many pro-transit advocates advocating for such a terribly wasteful transit project.

I’m curious since you seem to be the main voice against this on the forum: do you believe that the twin cities should not be building any new street running LRT/trams, and that all projects should either be buses or grade separated rail?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's important to remember that building transportation networks isn't really about serving the trips people are taking today, but about shaping how people take trips in the future.

In twenty years, do you want our public system to remain a safety net for only low-income people, or do you want 100,000 people riding LRT daily because they chose to live along the route?

If your only goal is servicing existing riders, sure, BRT is great bang-for-your-buck. But if you have any instinct that we actually need to mode shift people away from driving and build a more urban city, there's no question that it's gotta be a train.

mattaudio wrote: June 13th, 2025, 8:28 pm Do the young kids on here remember that Bottineau was originally planned as LRT, then switched to a multi-year planning effort for BRT, before some major political capital was spent (Mike Opat?) to move it back to LRT?

The Blue Line was such a resounding success that continued investment in rail made sense. Success begets success!

SWLRT has been such a poorly managed debacle that it has made investment in rail an open question again. If given the opportunity to build another rail project in the Twin Cities, it must be a success. Supporting a project like the BLE is signing the death warrant for future rail investment in Minnesota.

If we are going to go out, might as well go out with a big swing at something ambitious -- but a post-covid commuter train that averages 16mph? What a terrible waste.

The Blue Line currently only averages about 18 mph, and the Green Line is 14.5 mph. Neither is a failure.

Focusing on the average speed of a rail project is missing the point. I doubt a bus would go much faster either.

It's genuinely frustrating to see so many pro-transit advocates advocating for such a terribly wasteful transit project.

I don't want to make broad assumptions but I don't know how long you could possibly have been following pro-transit advocacy, especially locally, without realizing that it takes as much political capital to build transit projects as it takes financial capital.

You're right, the SWLRT did burn through a lot of that capital. But it has also generated a lot of development near its station areas, and there will be more to come as the market for multifamily improves and the line finally opens. This is the development that turns the LRT from a suburban commuter into a transit oriented development generator, and is making suburbs who would otherwise be reluctant to retrofit density into their comp plans more excited to do so.

The cities along the BLE route also want this kind of development action, and they also have political capital. They're using that capital right now to keep this project going.

Now let's imagine a project that exists only within Minneapolis' borders. There is no coalition of cities working together to lobby for its construction. Hennepin County probably looks at it as too expensive to justify investing in because the commissioners represent far more people than just Minneapolis residents. And maybe the Met Council refuses to put the project into their regional comp plan, freezing the project out from being able to even apply for federal funding. The project lives as long as Minneapolis can find a way to fund it (perhaps through a value capture district) and dies as soon as the people championing it are no longer in office and that pool of money becomes attractive for something else.

You don't need to imagine it! This is what happened with the planned Minneapolis streetcar that was intended to run from Uptown to Northeast.

It's not just how much a Minneapolis subway from Uptown to Northeast would cost. It's the fact that it would only serve Minneapolis. That's reason enough for plenty of otherwise engaged partners for transit development in our region to turn their backs on it, and why it wouldn't even make it to the study phase to find out how much it would actually cost before the idea was rejected.

Minneapolis is a very small city by geographic area, and because of that there are far more elected officials in our metro who don't represent the city than do. And if you need to get a lot of them to agree that a project is a good use of their constituents' dollars, it's extremely hard if those constituents don't see a benefit. It's bad enough that Greater MN is nearly a united front on considering any investment in the cities as a waste, but if you don't have the backing of the people who do agree that transit is a good investment, the project isn't going anywhere.

Urbanist advocacy isn't about shouting for the biggest train project you can imagine and jeering at anyone who doesn't agree. At least not successful urbanist advocacy. It's about making the reality we have today into a better one tomorrow with the tools we have. We have a project that we can build that will help make the Northwest quadrant of our metro into a far better urban environment. I'm going to advocate for that instead of for something that will never exist in my lifetime.

At this point I'm neutral over the Blue Line Extension. In its currently proposed form it will be an absolute slog getting through North Minneapolis, and from there to Brooklyn Center running in the middle of a suburban stroad with no grade crossing protection is not how to run a rail service that's supposed to be reliable and faster than a bus. From my perspective as a former train operator, it'll have the worst characteristics of the existing Green Line and Blue Line.

As for TOD potential, I'm not holding my breath on something substantial, and if the TOD does get built then the question is how often are the people in those buildings taking transit? One light rail line is okay, but for car-light or car-free living you need more than that. Same question applies to the TOD around Southwest LRT's stations. Better than no TOD, but if the vast majority of people in those buildings are doing most of their travels by car then that doesn't seem like TOD.

If the Blue Line Extension gets built, then I hope someday they'll fix its inevitable issues. If it doesn't get built, then oh well. Maybe a better world will eventually come along where politicians actually give a damn about making a multi-billion dollar transit service good, and propose a Blue Line Extension that's far better than the current plan.

I think there is some subtext to this discussion - I believe BOF is undoubtedly correct that the management of political capital is an incredibly important and tricky aspect of transit projects, and nils is rightly frustrated that shouldn't have to be that way. Highway and street projects are rarely held to such high scrutiny, and the political hurdles often lead to worse outcomes than a truly meritocratic process would.

It's the old idealism vs pragmatism debate. The Overton window needs to continue to shift before rail / transit is on an equal footing with automobility in this country. For now, we must engage in the art of the possible.

(P.S. my son is named Nils and I've never met another one )