Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
SamHartmen

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby SamHartmen » March 29th, 2016, 12:27 pm

Quick question, I know the last station was removed but do the final designs allow for a potential extension if funds came available? Yes, I'm sure it's doubtful, so I'm not wanting to debate that please. The last station looks to have a rather tight turn if an extension were ever to happen, does that mean it's too tight of a turn making any potential extension downright unrealistic given the station would have to be moved?

MobJob
Block E
Posts: 20
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 12:07 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby MobJob » March 29th, 2016, 1:01 pm

froggie wrote:MobJob: these are probably what you're looking for.
Those are helpful--thank you!

User avatar
Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4046
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Anondson » April 3rd, 2016, 9:44 pm

Nice examination of the affordable housing picture along the panned line and its future.

http://www.startribune.com/affordable-h ... 374434431/

Not sure why Edina was even asked about this, surprised this rent increases at Meadowbrook didn't make it in.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4290
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby grant1simons2 » April 4th, 2016, 12:09 pm


User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 716
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby VacantLuxuries » April 18th, 2016, 8:42 am

http://www.startribune.com/franken-urge ... 376000141/

Comes with the usual fact-free discussion of transit in the comments, free of charge.

Is it time to start worrying for the SWLRT?

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4760
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 18th, 2016, 9:37 am

VacantLuxuries wrote:Is it time to start worrying for the SWLRT?
Man, I don't know. We've had CAC meetings cancelled since we got the new car so I don't have any updates for the past six months or so.

Will the Met Council or the county come through and patch the hole until we get a more favorable situation in the legislature? Who knows...

User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 716
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby VacantLuxuries » April 18th, 2016, 9:48 am

That's what I was wondering, if the county or the CTIB would step in to prevent it all being for nothing. Especially since CTIB is willing to spend 80% of the cost of the Riverview line, so it's not like the 30% portion is a hard line for them. Split the 10% between the county, CTIB, and Met Council and it's not insurmountable.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4290
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby grant1simons2 » April 18th, 2016, 9:52 am

The woman I'm working for just finished reviewing the 90% architectural with me about a month and a half ago. There's so much money already spent that it'd be stupid for them to drop it now.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5813
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby MNdible » April 18th, 2016, 9:53 am

Even though Dayton has been (in some ways) the worst friend this line could have, I do think that he's fully committed to getting this funded, and I just don't see this session coming to its denouement without some sort of a solution. At this point, I don't think a comprehensive transportation bill is likely, so it maybe ends up in the bonding bill or perhaps just straight cash, homey, from the surplus. The DFL may have to give up more than they'd like in exchange for it, but Franken's right -- even though this line has some flaws, it's too good to walk away from and get nothing.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3821
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Silophant » April 18th, 2016, 9:55 am

grant1simons2 wrote:The woman I'm working for just finished reviewing the 90% architectural with me about a month and a half ago. There's so much money already spent that it'd be stupid for them to drop it now.
Well, yes, but it's not like the Legislature is above doing stupid things for minor political gain.

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1563
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby HiawathaGuy » April 18th, 2016, 10:01 am

I really hope the GOP loses their asses in this fall's election. This obstruction on a comprehensive transportation bill is total BS and Daudt will hopefully feel the repercussions of his stance. I just cannot understand how other far more conservative legislatures in other states can pass comprehensive bills, but here - it's like people lose their shit. It's just plain dumb.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby RailBaronYarr » April 18th, 2016, 10:03 am

grant1simons2 wrote:The woman I'm working for just finished reviewing the 90% architectural with me about a month and a half ago. There's so much money already spent that it'd be stupid for them to drop it now.
Just going to disagree in general here. Sunk costs are sunk. It's always a good strategy to evaluate whether spending the next $XXXm dollars is the right move. Obviously, if the thing is half-built it might make sense to pay attention to sunk costs, but even then... Would we have liked that argument for I-335 after all those homes in NE were bought and cleared?

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7936
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » April 18th, 2016, 10:21 am

In more modern times, the Sunk Cost Fallacy has haunted us too. The St. Croix Bridge, the bluff-to-bluff freeway version under construction, was popularized in part because plans had been in place for decades. People pushed it as "let's finally get this done" rather than "maybe there's a reason we were fine without this since it was first pitched in the 1960s."

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Tiller » April 18th, 2016, 10:33 am

I dunno about you guys, but I'm perfectly fine pushing the sunk-cost fallacy if it helps get this built. Transit needs all the help it can get here.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby RailBaronYarr » April 18th, 2016, 11:29 am

Then say that for SWLRT, not "we've spent $150m (or whatever we've spent so far) on design and outreach WE CAN'T TURN BACK NOW." Like I said, it'd be a different thing if we actually had 50% of the track laid and LRVs purchased to say let's abandon this infrastructure (which could have liability and maintenance costs of its own) but all of a sudden the tunnel costs jump another $500m. If anything, I would argue that the $150m (or whatever we've spent so far) spent on studies and DEIS and FEIS and everything else we've done so far but don't have a single foot of track laid is maybe a big problem with how we plan and build transit in this country.

Anyway, I'd be all for the county/Met Council/CTIB upping their share in exchange for not having outstate legislators use is as an example of state waste to hang over the DFL's head for the next ?20? years.

ProspectPete
Union Depot
Posts: 307
Joined: August 6th, 2013, 12:49 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby ProspectPete » April 18th, 2016, 1:04 pm

I hope this thing finally dies. Or some one takes it out back and shoots it. Can we just call it a loss and stop throwing good money after bad?

The logic that we must stay the course reminds me of that *awesome* $400 billion F-35 fighter jet that can barely fly.... but now we are stuck with.

User avatar
VacantLuxuries
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 716
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby VacantLuxuries » April 18th, 2016, 1:12 pm

Despite the lost opportunities in the planning stages, SWLRT would still serve an important purpose in our regional transit system.

Unlike the defense department, the Met Council actually has consequences if they royally screw up - namely never getting funding for future projects. There's a graveyard of commuter rail lines that are the direct result of Northstar's shortcomings.

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1378
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby acs » April 18th, 2016, 1:28 pm

^like what? Red Rock is going forward as a bus line with an option to be converted to rail later. Dan Patch was gag-ordered long before Northstar. Rush line and Gateway were larger studies incorporating many options besides just Commuter rail, options which eventually were deemed better. The regional rail proposals were never the domain of the Met Council, MNDOT's rail division has been keeping them alive on their own but they have never gained traction.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3821
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Silophant » April 29th, 2016, 7:48 am

Seven DFL senators will refuse to vote for a bonding bill that doesn't include funding for SWLRT.

Nice to see that the group mostly represents areas not served by SWLRT, and even includes an outstate senator.

Qhaberl
Foshay Tower
Posts: 805
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Qhaberl » April 29th, 2016, 11:08 am

Thats so awsome!!! It shows that people are starting to really notice the inpact that transit will have on local, regional, and state economy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests