Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4160
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby David Greene » March 16th, 2017, 1:25 pm

In Bloomington? It would be difficult to interline with the Blue Line. Or are you thinking of a different route? I'm thinking Midtown out to Shady Oak could be decent. If we extended tracks to West End in the future we could add another line or A/B Midtown if there isn't capacity for three full lines over the shared trackage.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


User avatar
Tiller
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 618
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby Tiller » March 16th, 2017, 1:41 pm

I've been under the impression it would require some more money compared to just laying track in the ready-made Greenway (elevating it to meet the blue line, obviously), though would the grading/geometry problems really be that severe?

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5619
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby twincitizen » March 16th, 2017, 2:02 pm

Hennepin County is about to replace the Portland and Cedar bridges, and:
The new bridges, slated to open by Thanksgiving, will mimic the old ones, although the vertical support piers will be aesthetic rather than functional and could be removed if transit is later approved for the corridor.
So no, Midtown rail is not happening anytime soon. If it were, why build the fake piers at all? As much as I agree that it's a slam dunk, no-brainer of a transit investment (especially if <$300MM), it's probably still a generation away. Especially if Hennepin County is going to be possibly be picking up the federal share of Bottineau, etc (see Trump budget killing off the FTA New Starts program). Once/if we've completed the Blue and Green extensions, Orange Line, B, C, D (and E and F, whatever they may be), and ensure that the 0.5% sales tax is enough to fund all of these lines, then we can bring up Midtown rail again. For at least the next decade though, the Lake St aBRT is all we're gonna get in this corridor. Even if in 2020 we return to total DFL control of MN, increase the transit sales tax another .25%; and elect a Democratic President who resurrects New Starts, Small Starts, and TIGER funding at the FTA, rail in the Greenway is probably 10-15 years away at the least.

Let's not derail (heh) the CTIB thread with fantasy routings along rail corridors that won't exist for at least a decade+

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4353
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby FISHMANPET » March 16th, 2017, 2:09 pm

The piers don't necessarily have to be removed for rail service (though it's an option if routing requires obviously). The bigger win is that since they're non structural, they don't have to be reinforced to prevent a structural failure of the bridge if a train were to derail and strike the pier. So even if rail is built tomorrow, the fake piers would stay as long as there's room otherwise for the tracks.
Peter Bajurny
peter@bajurny.us
@FISHMANPET
612-208-6618

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 319
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby Qhaberl » March 16th, 2017, 2:37 pm

I think you guys might be missing something. Even if Trump kills the small starts/new starts/tiger program, we still might get some transit funding through a whole new bill. This might just be me being optimistic though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4160
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby David Greene » March 17th, 2017, 9:43 am

No way we would get transit funding in any bill approved by Republicans.

I'm still doubtful New Starts will get killed completely. Too many cities depend on it and Senators are elected statewide. I have no doubt funding will be reduced.

If New Starts did get killed and SWLRT doesn't make the deadline, would the county really pick up funding for it? If not, would it do Bottineau? Both seem like very heavy lifts.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1424
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby talindsay » March 18th, 2017, 7:52 am

David, while Republicans talk about killing transit, the reality at both the state and national level has been quite different. Transit did okay under W, and Pawlenty wasn't terrible. While Dems are certainly more transit friendly, it's not strictly a party line issue - it's more urban vs rural, and Republicans don't want to abandon the suburbs, mostly.

Regarding Hennepin doing the lifting alone, I think it's likely. The CTIB had already been moving in the direction of planning not to receive federal money for future lines, and Hennepin is the powerhouse of those discussions.

The disappointing thing about SW and Bottineau in that scenario is that without federal requirements both could be built much more cheaply - often rejecting federal money can barely raise local cost because it removes all the long, detailed process that the feds require. But these two have already gone through that, so local funding would kind of mean worst of both worlds.

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 319
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby Qhaberl » March 18th, 2017, 11:59 am

David, while Republicans talk about killing transit, the reality at both the state and national level has been quite different. Transit did okay under W, and Pawlenty wasn't terrible. While Dems are certainly more transit friendly, it's not strictly a party line issue - it's more urban vs rural, and Republicans don't want to abandon the suburbs, mostly.

Regarding Hennepin doing the lifting alone, I think it's likely. The CTIB had already been moving in the direction of planning not to receive federal money for future lines, and Hennepin is the powerhouse of those discussions.

The disappointing thing about SW and Bottineau in that scenario is that without federal requirements both could be built much more cheaply - often rejecting federal money can barely raise local cost because it removes all the long, detailed process that the feds require. But these two have already gone through that, so local funding would kind of mean worst of both worlds.
How exactly would something like that work? What that mean that county and local municipalities would have to increase taxes a good deal? I am personally a huge fan of eliminating the federal government and the state government from these local transit projects. My question is, The federal government seems to kick in a large sum of money. I don't know if we could convince residence Minneapolis. or other cities to increase their taxes that much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests