The reason it was estimated so cheaply is because MNDOT views BRT as "any bus with expensive shelters and an abstract route map." The studied plan had $0 for corridor construction and $0 for right-of-way. It was using shoulders at rush hour and mixed-traffic otherwise, all but 3 eastbound and 1 westbound stations were completely offline, and even the "inline" ones were only adjacent to the highway and still involved exiting. This does not satisfy any definition of rapid transit.394 was included in the highway BRT study a few years ago. 2013 cost was estimated at $47m, which is a bargain compared to the cost of LRT here.
Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7760
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
Yeah, I was going to say... Have people even seen the Red Line?
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
Okay, but increase the cost fivefold for station/corridor improvements and it's still a fraction of what LRT would cost here. The 394 HOT lanes make a natural BRT corridor.The reason it was estimated so cheaply is because MNDOT views BRT as "any bus with expensive shelters and an abstract route map." The studied plan had $0 for corridor construction and $0 for right-of-way. It was using shoulders at rush hour and mixed-traffic otherwise, all but 3 eastbound and 1 westbound stations were completely offline, and even the "inline" ones were only adjacent to the highway and still involved exiting. This does not satisfy any definition of rapid transit.
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
- Location: North Loop
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
Met Council approved new budget for SWLRT yesterday, and Hennepin County and HCRR just approved the additional money to cover the difference.
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
So now it basically comes down to the track usage hearings/negotiations and the NIMBY appeal?
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
- Location: North Loop
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
Yea, though I have not heard anything about the NIMBY appeal, hopefully they gave up.So now it basically comes down to the track usage hearings/negotiations and the NIMBY appeal?
-
- US Bank Plaza
- Posts: 731
- Joined: March 4th, 2016, 7:55 am
- Location: Oh, no, the burbs!
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
And with the recent propensity for suggesting highway caps, and with all the density added along corridors before ground has even broken along SWLRT (SLP, Hopkins, etc.), highways like 394 & 100 with their built-in ROW make more and more sense every day.The median-located BART stations were totally fine when I used to take it. They did a great job on designing the stations to be real enclosed buildings just like any other station. They're not super walkable locations, true, but they're pretty busy even if they are park-and-rides.
It does have its drawbacks, but when our growth and development has happened along these corridors for decades, then sometimes going where the people are involves making those compromises. I think 394 is probably the top candidate where it could actually make sense in MN.
Imagine stations, highway caps, and added density at 394 & Penn/Cedar Lake; at 100 & the West End; at 100 & 50th/Vernon/Grandview; and at 100 & Pentagon Park/Normandale Lakes.
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
Freeways caps can be great, but I'm a little skeptical it's feasible where you're suggesting.
394 & Penn/Cedar Lake is in a weird spot where the highway is an elevated bridge with Penn above it. Cedar Lake is low density and park land. 394 is basically at grade near West End.
394 & Penn/Cedar Lake is in a weird spot where the highway is an elevated bridge with Penn above it. Cedar Lake is low density and park land. 394 is basically at grade near West End.
-
- US Bank Plaza
- Posts: 731
- Joined: March 4th, 2016, 7:55 am
- Location: Oh, no, the burbs!
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
394 gets elevated east of Penn, right? I’m thinking of the area between Penn & Cedar Lake (so, west of Penn). We reconnect Cedar Lake Rd. on both sides of 394. Bryn Mawr gets reconnected to the lost neighborhood to its south, and the density already along 394 gets built up. If 394 is at-grade here, then use Elon’s magical Boring Company to drive 394 (and trains) underground here.
Same with the West End. Have you ever tried to bike there? Between 394, 100, and the railroad, it’s very hard to get there other than by very circuitous routes. I live southeast of there, and I biked there once and never again. Here again (since we’re fantasizing about rail on highway right of way), we could use the Boring Company to tunnel Hwy 100 (and transit) underground, reconnecting neighborhoods (and another segment of Cedar Lake Road!).
OK, so maybe it’s technically not a cap. But the point is that density is naturally occurring along transportation routes, whether sea, river, rail, or highway. So putting new rail along highway ROW, adding density, and reconnecting neighborhoods makes a lot of sense.
Same with the West End. Have you ever tried to bike there? Between 394, 100, and the railroad, it’s very hard to get there other than by very circuitous routes. I live southeast of there, and I biked there once and never again. Here again (since we’re fantasizing about rail on highway right of way), we could use the Boring Company to tunnel Hwy 100 (and transit) underground, reconnecting neighborhoods (and another segment of Cedar Lake Road!).
OK, so maybe it’s technically not a cap. But the point is that density is naturally occurring along transportation routes, whether sea, river, rail, or highway. So putting new rail along highway ROW, adding density, and reconnecting neighborhoods makes a lot of sense.
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
Yeah, the jist of this I agree with. (I don't know why Elon needs to come into this--we've been able to put rails and roads underground for a century and we simply lack the motivation.)
Like it or not, outside of the cities and the first-tier suburbs, our development happened around these freeways, a lot of which are already slightly below grade. The question then becomes how the goals of transit, efficiency, and environmentalism can adapt to that reality, and I think the combination of highway-running transit and judicious use of caps and infill development to beef up and connect the station-adjacent areas is the best I've heard or come up with.
Like it or not, outside of the cities and the first-tier suburbs, our development happened around these freeways, a lot of which are already slightly below grade. The question then becomes how the goals of transit, efficiency, and environmentalism can adapt to that reality, and I think the combination of highway-running transit and judicious use of caps and infill development to beef up and connect the station-adjacent areas is the best I've heard or come up with.
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1661
- Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
http://www.startribune.com/southwest-li ... 485623731/
Hopkins O&M facility being scaled back to cut costs. Or they could just, you know, scrap the stupid tunnel in Kenilworth.
Hopkins O&M facility being scaled back to cut costs. Or they could just, you know, scrap the stupid tunnel in Kenilworth.
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
- Location: North Loop
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
This in my opinion is a good idea, we have two O&M’s already, to save $70 mil this was a good cut to the project.http://www.startribune.com/southwest-li ... 485623731/
Hopkins O&M facility being scaled back to cut costs. Or they could just, you know, scrap the stupid tunnel in Kenilworth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
- Location: North Loop
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
[IMG]//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201807 ... 179922.png[/IMG]
Looks like TCWR and Met Council have come to an agreement?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks like TCWR and Met Council have come to an agreement?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
So if they have settled, when will shovels hit the ground? Did we secure the Federal matching funds? I know that there was a second round of bids. Were any of those bids selected?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
- Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
I poked around on the Met Council procurement page. The award is still pending. There were two bidders:
- Lunda/CS McCrossan - $799.5 Million
- Ames Kraemer - $812.13 Million
According to the Strib, the first try attracted four bidders, with ranges from $797-1080 M.
http://www.startribune.com/new-bids-for ... 481688121/
http://www.startribune.com/met-council- ... 446218353/
I don't think we will hear anything for another month at least. The July Corridor Management Committee meeting was canceled.
- Lunda/CS McCrossan - $799.5 Million
- Ames Kraemer - $812.13 Million
According to the Strib, the first try attracted four bidders, with ranges from $797-1080 M.
http://www.startribune.com/new-bids-for ... 481688121/
http://www.startribune.com/met-council- ... 446218353/
I don't think we will hear anything for another month at least. The July Corridor Management Committee meeting was canceled.
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1661
- Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
http://www.startribune.com/key-southwes ... 488298531/
The good news: Agreement with TC&W
The bad news: A 2 month delay (not that that's surprising anymore)
The worse news: The Star Tribune sucks at editing and fact checking
The good news: Agreement with TC&W
The bad news: A 2 month delay (not that that's surprising anymore)
The worse news: The Star Tribune sucks at editing and fact checking
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
- Location: North Loop
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
I'm just like "I wish it was still opening in 2021."http://www.startribune.com/key-southwes ... 488298531/
The good news: Agreement with TC&W
The bad news: A 2 month delay (not that that's surprising anymore)
The worse news: The Star Tribune sucks at editing and fact checking
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
That last sentence... "The $2 billion, 14.5-million line will run from downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie beginning service in 2021."http://www.startribune.com/key-southwes ... 488298531/
The good news: Agreement with TC&W
The bad news: A 2 month delay (not that that's surprising anymore)
The worse news: The Star Tribune sucks at editing and fact checking
omg.
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm
Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
Pretty good info about the agreement here. Council to pay $18.5M to remove their existing siding track over 5 years. Then the council will own the corridors and be responsible for maintenance and liabilities, however TCWR will pay council fees for maintenance (undisclosed amount). In terms of liability, Met Council will be responsible for any LRT claims, and TCWR will be responsible for any rail ONLY claims. Ie. if there's a derailment that involves LRT, sounds like the council would be paying claims...
https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetin ... 80718.aspx
https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetin ... 80718.aspx
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 202 guests