Do you want some cheese with that whine? An “abomination”? Really? For such a pedestrian looking bridge (pun intended), that's a little strong don't you think?
Good burn. Added points for implying mental illness is at work with the “dissociation” diagnosis and attributing it to those who don’t agree with you. I don’t know if I can produce such burns but I’ll see if I can meet your level of contempt…
An abomination is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. I’m disgusted by the fact that this project used one penny of public money and thus, I hate it - seems like an apt usage of the word to me.
The DTE development is an immediate consequence of U.S. Bank Stadium being built. When planning could have been done - long before the planning of the stadium - you were looking at an island of surface parking lots and run down (and soon to be abandoned) buildings - (StarTribune / the Metrodome?). On a good day in the City planning offices, the future of DTE was grim. People then could not be held to account for what was not known that was not on the planning horizon (until the Wilf’s decided to build on the Metrodome - a decision which initiated the DTE boom). [The clinical term associated with those who refuse to attribute the revitalization of DTE to the Wilf's decision is "dissociation".] Those responsible for transportation today had to work with what they had - a site with severe engineering constraints owing to the necessity of doing everything on a parking ramp roof.
Sorry to ruin your narrative but let me just address something right off of the bat: I support/ed the building of the stadium.
I am aware that this is an unpopular position on this thread but it’s been stated somewhere above and I’ll own up to this fact. As all of this is well-trod territory, I’m not going to fully retread it. However, circa 2010 when the stadium was being debated my profession (architecture) was still in deep trouble and I actively advocated for the stadium as I supported ANYTHING that might spur design/construction in this city. Credit to the Wilf’s for recognizing their leverage position with the government agencies and using the sputtering economy to their advantage. We can (and should) question the financing and the public money used for the stadium especially in terms of equity/social justice. Putting aside the terms of the deal and the resultant design (and the design of other recent construction), it can’t be argued that DTE hasn’t seen a massive surge in design/construction work in this city. Sorry to create cognitive dissonance for you but it IS possible to support things in principle and not love EVERY single aspect of that thing. I supported the design/construction of the stadium. I opposed the design/construction of the bridge to nowhere and I adamantly opposed using Met Council money to construct it.
As has been well-established, I’m an idealist and I advocate for BEST outcomes; I’m not so far gone that I can’t *understand* pragmatism (even if I don’t agree with it) . In this case, I’m very frustrated that more comprehensive design thinking was not applied to this station. While the stadium was being proposed, a lot of development plans for DTE were being discussed and proposed concurrently. It didn’t take extraordinary understanding to see that this station should have been rethought given the possible (likely) outcomes.
As soon as stadium design and development plans started to emerge in downtown east, Met Council should have done preliminary design/cost estimating etc to put the train in a tunnel or to put people in a tunnel. I understand the Wilf’s had the city/county/state over a barrel on the financing but the public entities should have been looking for ANY negotiating points and this station/line was a missed opportunity. Imagine if every Wilf penny put into the bridge had been applied to alterations to this line/station and Met Council money had been used (sparingly if needed) to augment it?
As FISHMANPET has pointed out, everything that has happened at this station as a result of poor planning solidifies the status quo which only locks this “design” in further.
As for the existing building, your assertion that designers had to “do everything on a parking ramp roof” is patented false. Are you an engineer? Are you an architect? Have you seen the drawings of the existing building? I worked on a proposal for the parking ramp site back when the public was being led to believe the stadium was being pursued in Arden Hills. I had preliminary drawings for the downtown Vikings stadium in my hand/on our server as well as existing drawings for the parking ramp while the Vikings were still “negotiating”. I modeled a proposed building on this site, including plaza work etc that accounted for the train station so I’m very aware of what is there. I understand what it would take to alter the existing building (which I mentioned way up thread) - it would have been expensive/not easy but given the outcome that we currently have, I would rather have spent more money to tunnel the train or tunnel the humans and I would have preferred that the Vikings would have paid for the alterations required to do so, or that the government agencies would have negotiated a deal befitting an investment in the city/region, not just the Vikings.
Unless it ends up being too small, the pedestrian bridge is appropriate for its intended use and properly scaled for its known purpose. And the Vikings paid for the pedestrian bridge (the whiney narrative on waisted taxpayer dollars has become such a Pavlovian conditioned response that people can’t help but say otherwise - even when its not true).
Your funding assessment is false, as has been proven so please save the “whiney” accusations. If you want to insult people then at LEAST try to use facts to support your position.
The decision to built the pedestrian bridge was based on projected usage patterns when the US Bank transit station is pegged to serve as (a hoped for and planned) central release/pick-up point for up to 40% of those attending Viking games (or other large-scaled planned events) through the LR system. That's up to 20,000 people in a constricted location in a reasonably tight period of time. In that scenario, the large movement of people alongside the ongoing movement of LR trains running in both directions at 90 second intervals would cause a substantial disruption in the ability to move both people and trains - all at a time when there will be high volumes of road traffic running in all directions - with large parking ramps emptying out into traffic in the immediate vicinity.
Sounds like you are describing a location with complexity in usage, programs, and development potential that would require comprehensive transit design - too bad that didn’t happen.
And folks here feign not recognizing the need of such a bridge to take pressure off an easily recognizable choke point? Really? I’m happy for you that forums like this exist where you can pretend that such considerations are confabulations of the mind to at least some who are willing to entertain that view. But to keep from not being laughed out of a room, don’t attend any forums where traffic flow professionals - both government and private sector - attend. (I’m looking out for you)
Please stop “looking out for [me].” Suffice to say that often engineering “solutions” exist that are purely utilitarian in nature that represent no creativity, comprehensive thinking or best outcomes. Exhibit A: This bridge.
Not accounting for such a recognized choke point would undermine the timely movement and flow of people, trains and road traffic. This in turn would undermine the desirability of using the LRT for game purposes.
Again, it sounds like you are making an argument for a comprehensive approach that should have occurred concurrently with the stadium design and DTE development potential - too bad that didn’t happen and we are instead left with this “accounting” solution.
In situations where you expect to have large volumes of people alongside 90 second to 2 minute intervals wrt to trains, central platforms can cause substantial congestion. [/b]The bridge is not for those days when there is average, distributed and dispersed usage, but for those times when there will be a crush of people alongside a coordinated transit plan to move large volumes of people to and from the game where issues of transferring trains will not be an issue at that node at that time.
Sounds like you are coming around to why this bridge is almost completely unnecessary and only useful for the Vikings. The Vikings should listen to your argument and write the Met Council a check to reimburse their contribution.
The decision to build the pedestrian bridge was based on the findings of transportation studies undertaken in conjunction with traffic flow studies leading to the building of the stadium along with known flow patterns where transportation nodes are effectively co-located with sports facilities. The MTC endorsed those findings. Having said that, the findings are also a “duh” and one suspects the hyper reactive hostility is simply yet another outlet for those who hate the stadium and the Wilf’s - and want yet another place to vent. What type of cheese with that whine?
I’ve already addressed the fact that the narrative that you are choosing regarding the source of my “hostility” is misguided. It sounds like you have special knowledge regarding the timeline of this bridge design though. I’d love to see support for your claim that “…transportation studies [were] undertaken in conjunction with traffic flow studies leading to the building of the stadium…” If you can show evidence that there was indeed comprehensive thought regarding interaction between the LRT and everything else that was proposed in this area and, most importantly, that such thought/study/design led to this “solution” then that would actually counter my arguments that it *appears* that no thought was put into the LRT and that the bridge is an expensive after thought.
If you are able to produce support that is specific to the timeline of the design/consideration for this bridge then I’d be happy to direct my ire at Met Council/transportation planning for this failure. If you just want to insult people without basis then I guess go ahead because freedom but unless you actually support your position with evidence, then you open your argument up to ridicule.
As pedestrian walkways go, it’s mildly above average. As far as it relevance in the scheme of the plan, it is completely defensible.
Wrong. See above.