Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[RailBaronYarr]

Anyways, as I mentioned above, I think removing the Bike path is a reasonable alternative is there was a contingency plan, seems like you could throw $20m at some awesome path and come out $100m ahead. I've frequently biked on Hiawatha LRT trail and honestly, the vehicles are quiet and hardly disruptive.

I think this is heavily overlooked when people talk about how the frequent trains will make biking along Kenilworth dangerous and/or unpleasant. Many, many people use the Hiawatha trail for both leisure and commuting and it's right next to both a de facto freeway and frequent LRT...

[seanrichardryan]

....

Interesting that the rail was from 1920's. Evidently doesn't wear (appreciably

All the rail was replaced last year with new welded rails.

[Ubermoose]

CIDNA taking a cue from SLP safety campaign:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... ing-louder

Interesting that the rail was from 1920's. Evidently doesn't wear (appreciably

The main differences between the Kenilworth corridor and the reroute through St. Louis Park as far as safety is concerned is the curves, changes in elevation, and the fact that the line would be up to 20 feet in the air through St. Louis Park. Kenilworth is at grade and is basically a straight shot. There is also room to put up walls through the corridor when that is not an option through much of SLP and wouldn't do much good given the elevated track. I don't think the concerns are the same.
That being said, there are always going to be worries about derailment no matter what neighborhod it runs through.

[MNdible]

Ubermoose, I take it from your previous posts that you're not an impartial observer in this. Do you live close to the SLP rail line?

[Ubermoose]

I readily admit that I have a personal stake in this. I am 1/2 block removed from the rail line. I have also been to several meetings from the time they selected the route, so I feel informed enough to comment.
That said, I truly believe that I would feel the same way about the situation even if I didn't live in SLP.
There has been inequity when comparing the different options. They eliminated options in Minneapolis because they would take exsisting structures, but it was okay to do that in SLP even though it would take more houses and businesses. Many of those who argue that SLP isn't taking its fair share by not accepting freight don't understand that we already have freight and the same trains that leave Kenilworth run through SLP. That is an existing corridor, just like Kenilworth, so it makes sense for it to be there. It's okay for SLP to have freight and lrt running next to each other the whole length of the line through the city, but it's not okay for Kenilworth. The pinch point issue had been resolved in the initial engineering and then the Met Council changed the requirements to fit their arguement.
Sorry, rant is over.

[Nick]

Quite frankly, while the "children's safety" argument is pretty ridiculous, St. Louis Park has a waaaaay better NIMBY argument than Minneapolis. A two story wall? That should get more press. If that goes through, it'll be the Met Council's own monument to why they shouldn't be allowed to do anything--and I say that as someone who, in theory, thinks a technocratic (er, unelected) regional government is a good idea.

[mulad]

I had tried to do a unit count for the number of properties affected by each proposal, and they seemed to come up almost even. They consume more land in SLP, though.

One of the meetings I attended made me think the engineers did a great job of presenting an impossible choice, because the benefits and drawbacks of each option seemed to match up way too well.

[David Greene]

Two council members are saying 'NO'
http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=226981971&c=y

Mpls has veto power, why not force a line that works for the city instead of bypassing us?

Minneapolis does not have veto power. They can delay the project, but they can't kill it without help. They'll probably deny municipal consent at first to secure assurances and mitigation and then vote to go forward.

[David Greene]

The resulting delays will be tough to swallow, but given the recent revelations regarding the mishandeling of the freight issue, it's the right thing to do.

What mishandling? Please be specific because as far as I can see this process has been completely open and transparent. I am usually the one complaining about public process but Southwest has been *far* better than Central as far as that goes. If there's any bad actor here it's the railroad, not the Council.

[David Greene]

The Penn Station, surprisingly, didn't have the 19 extended there.

I'll bet that's because Penn has been identified as an additional enhanced bus/aBRT line.

[David Greene]

I had tried to do a unit count for the number of properties affected by each proposal, and they seemed to come up almost even. They consume more land in SLP, though.

What's your definition of "affected?" The only takings under the two proposals would be in SLP.

[mulad]

I was referring to colocation of rails above-ground. The number of units that would need to be taken by shifting the TC&W rails to make way for SWLRT would have been pretty similar between keeping the tracks going through Minneapolis versus doing either of the SLP reroutes. Which is why we're talking about tunnels.

[the kid]

I was referring to colocation of rails above-ground. The number of units that would need to be taken by shifting the TC&W rails to make way for SWLRT would have been pretty similar between keeping the tracks going through Minneapolis versus doing either of the SLP reroutes. Which is why we're talking about tunnels.

I'll weigh in with a question once again. If anyone can answer this conclusively it would add clarity to the debate and help, I think, provide a solution. If we move or reroute the bike trail, do we still need to reroute the freight train? Or can we run LRT and freight side-by-side thru this corridor.

And, if we can run LRT side-by-side with freight, then in my judgement the "bad actor" here is the bike lobby (and the mayor for refusing to push on this issue). The bike lobby is holding the line hostage with their instransigence, and raising the costs by (?hundreds of) millions of dollars.

Before the bikers cry foul, I'm a cyclist too. It's a great cycling city. It will still be a great cycling city even if this short stretch of bike trail gets moved.

[sad panda]

When the SPO released the costs of the 8 co-lo/relo options, they listed that the trail rerouted requires no full acquisitions:

For co-location, cost estimates and primary cost drivers are:

All modes (trail, freight and LRT) at ground level – $50 million to $55 million. Reduces full residential property acquisitions from 55 to 26.
Trail relocated - $35 million to $40 million – New trail route from Midtown Greenway to Cedar Lake Parkway, including trail overpass structures. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
Trail elevated - $50 million to $55 million – New elevated trail, including handicapped accessible connection to Cedar Lake Parkway. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
LRT elevated - $105 million to $110 million – New elevated LRT structure. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
Kenilworth deep LRT tunnel – $320 million to $330 million –Tunnel-boring operations and machinery, reconstruction of West Lake Street Bridge, subway tunnel station at West Lake and eliminates 21st Street Station. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
Kenilworth shallow LRT tunnel – $150 million to $160 million –Cut-and-cover excavation, retains West Lake Street Station and eliminates 21st Street Station. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.

[David Greene]

When the SPO released the costs of the 8 co-lo/relo options, they listed that the trail rerouted requires no full acquisitions:

Correct. According to Mark Fuhrman, there would be some takings of strips of land along the pinch point. No structures would be affected.

I don't think the bike lobby has had much influence at all, at least as far as I can tell. The CIDNA and Kenwood residents most vocal about this don't talk much about biking _per_se_. They talk about losing a park-like setting, noise, visual impacts and other such things.

Those representing bikers on the CAC at least seem pretty comfortable with the tunnels. I've talked to them and a few folks involved with the Minneapolis Bike Coalition. They all appear to be cautiously optimistic. That would change with a reroute of the bike trail. I don't think a reroute is workable now that a tunnel has been endorsed. I'm ok with that.

I think it's useful to break down the opposition into a few categories:

- Those who think there's been a "bait and switch" since SLP "agreed" to take freight rail. It is a fairness issue to these folks. Complaints about process are at the forefront.

- Those who worry about the park-life characteristic of the trail. Trees, noise and visual impact are very important to them.

- Those who simply want to kill the line no matter what. They throw out all sorts of unworkable "alternatives" but are at heart disingenuous.

That final category is the group of people I have no patience for. I believe it is a small but vocal and wealthy minority. They have had undue influence in this process. They have flat out publicly lied in multiple settings. They are spreading misinformation to public officials.

I can work with people in the first two categories. I've had very productive conversations with them. I believe there can be a meeting of the minds. Those in the third category will never be satisfied by any SW LRT solution. Unfortunately, election politics gives them a huge lever.

[papazim]

^^ Well said.

[Ubermoose]

When the SPO released the costs of the 8 co-lo/relo options, they listed that the trail rerouted requires no full acquisitions:

I don't think the bike lobby has had much influence at all, at least as far as I can tell. The CIDNA and Kenwood residents most vocal about this don't talk much about biking _per_se_. They talk about losing a park-like setting, noise, visual impacts and other such things.

.

I thought that initially one of the main reasons a tunnel option came up was to mitigate the traffic issues at the Cedar Lake Avenue crossing as well as to avoid taking property. It seemed like after it came up, the bike trail people became louder and it seemed to fit with their arguement to keep the trail in the corridor. Or maybe that's just my take on it.

[Nick]

The resulting delays will be tough to swallow, but given the recent revelations regarding the mishandeling of the freight issue, it's the right thing to do.

What mishandling? Please be specific because as far as I can see this process has been completely open and transparent. I am usually the one complaining about public process but Southwest has been *far* better than Central as far as that goes. If there's any bad actor here it's the railroad, not the Council.

[mullen]

bait and switch isnt being transparent. you seem to just think the city being sold one thing and then being told to accept another is no big deal. you can work with that eh?

it's a dog of a project. the city can delay and the feds will move on.

[UptownSport]

I worry that although we get some, very good, information, many times it's combined with tainted comments.
I go back and see all the 'bad actors' referenced; first anyone who is against the project, as they're 'Racist'

t's not that an Uptown alignment for SW LRT that doesn't make sense, it's the SW alignment that doesn't make sense.

No. It not only doesn't make sense to spend $300 million to keep black people cut off from jobs, it's immoral.

The railroad is a bad actor,

I am usually the one complaining about public process but Southwest has been *far* better than Central as far as that goes. If there's any bad actor here it's the railroad, not the Council.

Newspaper, or at least Pat Doyle are/is untrustworthy:

Don't trust anything Pat Doyle writes. He has completely mischaracterized every meeting I've been to, taken statements out of context, etc.

But if we question the project;

Yes it would and it would be very insulting to the professional engineers involved in the project.