urbanMSP

Seattle built a downtown transit tunnel two decades before their downtown saw LRT. They used it for buses.

I think it's also important to remember that Seattle is very, very space constrained, due to geography.

Minneapolis, not so much.

Seattle built a downtown transit tunnel two decades before their downtown saw LRT. They used it for buses.

They also immediately ran into problems with that arrangement, because the way it was designed proved insufficient for what they ultimately needed.

Seattle built a downtown transit tunnel two decades before their downtown saw LRT. They used it for buses.

That's a case study in both (1) how to plan for future needs; and (2) how *not* to plan for future needs. The good part: they built the tunnel, which they were able to reuse. The bad part: they wasted huge amounts of money by trying to future-proof it by installing light rail tracks at the time it was built. But it turns out they didn't bother to actually 100% engineer what a light rail system would actually need to run through the tunnel, so when they finally built the light rail they had to tear out the existing tracks (and with it, the substrate of the tunnel, forcing extended tunnel closures) to lay new tracks that actually met the demands of their new system. The shared nature of their tunnel also means the trains run substantially more slowly through it than they would in a dedicated tunnel.

Yeah I remember visiting Downtown Seattle when the tunnel was closed for reconstruction. Not ideal. But still, at least they had vision. Heck it's even fortuitous for Cincinnati that they have a century old tunnel which could be reused.

I'm hoping that by the time we need a true east-west transit tunnel, we can really do it right. Not only LRT, but a Philly-styleheavy rail connection from Downtown East / NP #9 bridge to North Loop / BNSF bridge. This would allow current and future heavy rail trains of all types, including Northstar and the Empire Builder, to through-route between Downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul Union Depot. I'd also like us to consider a separate ROW for buses (they could left-hand drive the entire distance, allowing for center platforms) though I don't think we need E-W bus capacity nearly as much as we need N-S bus capacity.

Olsen Hwy won't be getting any lane reductions or major redesign, and city leaders are pissed off (minus blong yang).

http://www.startribune.com/olson-hwy-de ... 367397131/

MNDOT will only let them reduce the speed limit to 35, but they insist on keeping 7 lanes and frontage roads. For all the outrage from everyone from Wagenius to Bender to Hodges to Cam Gordon, they nonetheless didn't have the backbone to not sign off on the design. Somehow this "needs to be a roadway that continues to be a trunk highway", yeah... bullshit.

Time to turn back Hwy 55 east of 100 (or even 169) to the crosstown

Where are they getting the 30,000 number from? MNDot's website says 23,400 for the eastern-most section in 2010. Seven lanes of traffic for that kind of volume is absurd.

And 16,000 west of Penn. This is silly.

It's probably a made up 'projection' with their fantasyland models.

The worst part is, Blong Yang seems to have a "meh" to "ok" attitude towards this. Quote: “My only regret is that this line didn’t cut through more of North Minneapolis,”. I think his attitude towards this is keeping road as is=less room for redevelopment=less opportunity for gentrification, at least that's what I gather from reading through the lines of the journal article. It's sad, because it's such an absolutist view of things.

Edit: Forgot the link
http://www.journalmpls.com/news-feed/ne ... n-for-blue

I think Blong is simply not willing to take on Mn/DOT. Time to Samuels him.

Neither the Council nor the Mayor will fight either, I guess.

Now think about this for a second. Minneapolis went to mediation and made a very real threat to SWLRT to get rich white liberals something. But when it comes to Black folk in Near North, capitulation is the order of the day.

Ok, MNDOT is powerful, yes, but the other CM's on this committee were willing to take them to task before ultimately caving.

I'll use the SWLRT card in my letters to the city, but it's going to be hard to get over the fact that the CM from this area essentially gave this travesty a pass without putting up any fight.

Blong wanted the lane reduction. He fought for it behind the scenes. I know this because I actually talked to him about it. He doesn't believe MNDOT can be swayed.

I don't agree with rolling over at your best opportunity to get what you want, but the rest of TPW had the opportunity to not recommend consent. They didn't. They complained and then caved.

Blong's just not a fire breather. Not every politician should be. How effective was Samuels before him?Just because he's not as visible publicly doesn't mean he's not getting things done for the ward.

You sway them by denying municipal consent and let the parties fight it out. At the very very least Yang should have voted no and explained why.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

I guess I'm confused why they wouldn't even threaten to deny municipal consent. It's not like Hennepin County or Met Council are just going to throw up their hands and cancel the whole project. What exactly does the City of Minneapolis have to lose by denying municipal consent here?

Agreed, but it's just not in his character. He's much more likely to work with city staff or an outside agency, build consensus with constituents and then publicly support something. That's what he's done with housing inspections, the vacant home recycling program and the rebuild of 26th Ave N that includes an off street trail. The later languished under Samuels.

The City Council can't hold Bottineau as a hostage here because it isn't a credible threat; the party being threatened has to care if the hostage is shot, and the hostage-taker has to be willing to shoot. Does MnDOT really care about this light rail line more than the road? I doubt it. And as this has demonstrated, the City clearly cares more about making sure the line goes forward than shrinking Olson. I don't see much leverage there.

What exactly does the City of Minneapolis have to lose by denying municipal consent here?

This is the more pertinent question instead of blaming Yang. I'll repeat what I said on Twitter last night.

The county, Met Council and MNDOT are compounding a bad alignment and not fixing the one redeeming aspect of said alignment: stitching Harrison back into the Northside. But we all have to admit this alignment is about making commuting via Light Rail or car painless for suburbanites. That's not what is in the city's best interest.

All the council has to do is grow a spine and withhold consent unless their demands along Olson are met. The plan should leave the trees, take center lanes for lrt and reduce speed to 30 mph.

Well phrased, alleycat. The council will not grow a spine, however, unless they have cover from advocates. This is the most disappointing aspect of the whole thing to me: the advocacy community doesn't seem to be engaged on this, even though it is probably the worst urban planning decision of the last three decades. Where is the MBC protesting against this huge barrier to cycling on the Northside? Where is ISAIAH? Transit for Livable Communities, I hate to say, are showing how out of touch they are advocating in favor of consent, even though a 6 lane Olson hurts the Northside more than Bottineau will help it. Disappointing and implies that urban Minnesota will continue to be a killing ground for the pleasure of suburbanites for the foreseeable future.

A 6 lane Olson hurts the Northside more than Bottineau will help it

That is an excellent talking point. Let's go with that.