Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[Silophant]

When in doubt, go back to talking to a reroute through Uptown.

No, good point, I'm done with this hijack.

[mulad]

I'm confused if this story means anyone has really decided on anything. I didn't think anything was happening until today (Wednesday) or tomorrow (Thursday): http://www.startribune.com/local/south/226059391.html

I just can''t abide the idea of the north tunnel...

I've been annoyed at how closely this process has been tied to the rail corridor, especially considering the rerouting happening out on the west end in Eden Prairie. I know some folks on this board have suggested removing or at least reconfiguring Hennepin County Road 25 (what folks think of as MN-7 east of highway 100). Could we avoid many of the current problems by using that corridor instead?



Alternately, I've had some thoughts on running via West 32nd Street and then either turning up Excelsior Boulevard for a bit or running on/next to West Calhoun Parkway and Dean Parkway, but again you either need to take a few homes or build a tunnel to get through the water channel and beyond.



I suppose there could be clearance issues with some of the narrower streets I've looked at using, but the distances are pretty short, I don't think the traffic volumes are all that high, and there seems to be decent amounts of room for alternatives to on-street parking.

[UptownSport]

If you route this on [any given North South Street] to make it reach uptown before heading into SLP then your going to have to deal with what happened on University all over again!

Because we can only build tunnels in the woods?

[min-chi-cbus]

I haven't seen anything specifically stating otherwise, but I'll be DAMNED if ANY of the stations along this corridor serve the Kennilworth Corridor and its residents! Hey, you complain about the noise, request a subway for your convenience, huff and puff about the rising cost AND want to ride the train -- hell no! That's what I'd do at least (which is probably why I'm not in charge of things this important).

[woofner]

Despite Goodman's huffing, I would bet on a majority of the current council approving the shallow tunnel option. Hodges' quote was more critical of the planning process than the line itself, and I can see her holding her nose and voting for it. Goodman of course is going to bitch about this because Kenwood and CIDNA are not only her largest source of bribes, er, campaign donations (with the possible exception of Grant Park) but the only parts of her ward she need to worry about since she has the Loring Park NA in her pocket. Don Samuels and Meg Tuthill will be very much in favor of Kenilworth, as will probably Robert Lilligren and any other councilmember who wants to earn an LRT merit badge. Should the vote occur after Nov 5th, any new councilmembers will probably fall into this last category.

Not that the tunnel is OK. The tunnel is a complete joke and should be a symbol of the classism in this region for years to come. I for one will never fail to remind any Minneapolis policymaker that they fought for a tunnel through parkland in the richest part of the city and allowed transit to bypass the poorest part of the city without the slightest whisper of a tunnel.

[David Greene]

I for one will never fail to remind any Minneapolis policymaker that they fought for a tunnel through parkland in the richest part of the city and allowed transit to bypass the poorest part of the city without the slightest whisper of a tunnel.

I'm holding my nose and supporting the tunnel because it gets the project built, but this is very, very well said.

[twincitizen]

Frankly, I'd rather see the municipal consent vote pushed to January anyways. I don't like the idea of a bunch of outgoing Councilmembers voting on something and walking away into the sunset, not dealing with the consequences (*cough* MN Legislature vote on football stadium subsidy *cough*). This is a vote that should be taken by the folks who will be representing the City for the next 4 years (i.e. during the heavy construction of the line). I just don't want anyone in office who can say "don't bitch at me, I didn't get to vote for it!"

[BigIdeasGuy]

Has anyone come up with a good reason why we shouldn't just relocated/elevate/whatever the bike trail and save $100 million?

[trkaiser]

That's what I can't figure out. I feel like it's too easy, but I haven't been able to find out why...

[FISHMANPET]

Holy Moly, Peter Wagenius lays it all out:
http://themayorblog.wordpress.com/2013/ ... r-t-rybak/

[Nick]

http://v.qwikcast.tv/view.aspx?q=O1TG6

His testimony starts about 59:00.

"There are folks who are extraordinarily invested in validating the process that has brought us to this point."

Can I get that on a T-shirt or something??

[orangevening]

Has anyone come up with a good reason why we shouldn't just relocated/elevate/whatever the bike trail and save $100 million?

Because it's a horrible idea. Have you ever ridden a bike on a elevated trail above BOTH freight rail (cough, cough) and LRT (very frequent and pretty fast)? It really doesn't sound pleasant AT ALL. That trail is one of best in the city and probably in turn one of the best urban trails in the country. There is a reason people are fighting for it (and it's not just NIMBY either)

[VAStationDude]

The bike lobby (hehe) is being used as a pawn by wealthy people and their political allies to push for relocation or shallow tunnel. I find biking over Hiawatha on the Sabo Bridge quite nice. In all the times hundreds of times I've biked down Kenilworth, I've maybe seen a freight train six times.

[orangevening]

The bike lobby (hehe) is being used as a pawn by wealthy people and their political allies to push for relocation or shallow tunnel. I find biking over Hiawatha on the Sabo Bridge quite nice. In all the times hundreds of times I've biked down Kenilworth, I've maybe seen a freight train six times.

A bike bridge to get over a 5 lane highway to continue the Midtown Greenway is a lot different from what a elevated trail would be in Kenilworth. Your comparing apples to oranges

[VAStationDude]

Yeah it is much louder and unpleasant than an elevated swlrt trail. I'm really saying the elevation change is no biggie and I would actually love an elevated trail. The narrow "park" south of the channel isn't worth $100 million. Nor is the visual and noise impacts to the affected homeowners. Count me as confounded by the bike activists.

[Anondson]

Has anyone come up with a good reason why we shouldn't just relocated/elevate/whatever the bike trail and save $100 million?

Because it's a horrible idea. Have you ever ridden a bike on a elevated trail above BOTH freight rail (cough, cough) and LRT (very frequent and pretty fast)? It really doesn't sound pleasant AT ALL.

*boggle*

But we are going to have a bike trail right next to freight and LRT for an immense portion of the route out a bit west? What makes that horribly different? :/ Will it be a horrible enough idea to run (frequent and pretty fast) street cars in the same trench as the Midtown trail next to bikes that we nix considering street cars?

I'm not sure that's a convincing reason.

I think the only convincing reason is that adjacent homes might find an elevated trail excessively ugly to look out at, ruining land values.

[orangevening]

Has anyone come up with a good reason why we shouldn't just relocated/elevate/whatever the bike trail and save $100 million?

Because it's a horrible idea. Have you ever ridden a bike on a elevated trail above BOTH freight rail (cough, cough) and LRT (very frequent and pretty fast)? It really doesn't sound pleasant AT ALL.

*boggle*

But we are going to have a bike trail right next to freight and LRT for an immense portion of the route out a bit west? What makes that horribly different? :/ Will it be a horrible enough idea to run (frequent and pretty fast) street cars in the same trench as the Midtown trail next to bikes that we nix considering street cars?

I'm not sure that's a convincing reason.

I think the only convincing reason is that adjacent homes might find an elevated trail excessively ugly to look out at, ruining land values.

Has anyone come up with a good reason why we shouldn't just relocated/elevate/whatever the bike trail and save $100 million?

Because it's a horrible idea. Have you ever ridden a bike on a elevated trail above BOTH freight rail (cough, cough) and LRT (very frequent and pretty fast)? It really doesn't sound pleasant AT ALL.

*boggle*

But we are going to have a bike trail right next to freight and LRT for an immense portion of the route out a bit west? What makes that horribly different? :/ Will it be a horrible enough idea to run (frequent and pretty fast) street cars in the same trench as the Midtown trail next to bikes that we nix considering street cars?

I'm not sure that's a convincing reason.

Now your changing the comparison and still not comparing apples to apples (apples to pears now?). Riding next a train (like Hiawatha)is different than riding right above it. Especially when you got basically kicked out from what was a beautiful, extremely useful trail in the woods between two nice lakes.

I think the only convincing reason is that adjacent homes might find an elevated trail excessively ugly to look out at, ruining land values.

And that too. If its ugly to look at it's probably ugly to ride on.

[Anondson]

I think the only convincing reason is that adjacent homes might find an elevated trail excessively ugly to look out at, ruining land values.

And that too. If its ugly to look at it's probably ugly to ride on.

The High Line is arguably attractive. I don't know anyone who would say it is a blight on neighbors today, though many advocated it be torn down before it was turned into an urban elevated trail. There is no reason an elevated trail must be unattractive.

There were many who thought a trail in a rail trench through a high crime area would be a rarely used ugly eye sore, there are enough using it now we can say it is a success.

[Chauncey87]

This now seems to be moving pretty fast not to jinx it. (knocks on wood)

"Southwest LRT committee considers Kenilworth tunnels"

MINNEAPOLIS (KMSP) -

"It was a packed house Wednesday morning as the Southwest Light Rail Corridor management committee gathered to discuss plans for two shallow tunnels under the Kenilworth neighborhood of Minneapolis.

A key committee of the Metropolitan Council did not vote on the new plan to bury a portion of the line underground after the city of Minneapolis criticized the plan, and members say they want more feedback from the community."

Read more: Southwest LRT committee considers Kenilworth tunnels - KMSP-TV http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/23 ... z2gcQTUaG1

As for putting the bike trail above the tracks I am all for that idea also. I would consider it convenient to be able to fly at high speed above all the at grade crossings. It would have the same effect as the midtown greenway. I also feel there would be a way to make it look attractive to everybody who has to look at it everyday.

As a side note I only brought up the Henn alignment when I read Lisa wanted this project to start over from scratch. Loose our place in the FTA funding list and take another handful of years to regain our place in line for getting half this line funded by the feds.

[BigIdeasGuy]

Has anyone come up with a good reason why we shouldn't just relocated/elevate/whatever the bike trail and save $100 million?

Because it's a horrible idea. Have you ever ridden a bike on a elevated trail above BOTH freight rail (cough, cough) and LRT (very frequent and pretty fast)? It really doesn't sound pleasant AT ALL. That trail is one of best in the city and probably in turn one of the best urban trails in the country. There is a reason people are fighting for it (and it's not just NIMBY either)

I'm sorry, I can't imagine a single bike trail that's isn't worth rerouting in order to save 100 million dollars.

While I am not a biker, I am a taxpayer who believes in mass transit and because of that I am concerned about the overall cost of the line. Working to save the taxpayer money now, will pay off in longterm benefits to a better mass transit system. There are many other transit lines that need to built around this metro that will serve many more people than just this Southwest line. To require the public to spend an extra $100 million to please rich neighbors on something that is easily be labeled a boondoggle from the beginning is a fast way to erode that public support. Basically what I'm saying is the last thing we, as transit believers, need to do is give more fodder to the people who oppose mass transit.