Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[Ubermoose]

I was able to get to the meeting, but had to leave before anything of significance was even addressed. I was disappointed with the stutter start to the procedings. Doing introductions and then giving the crowd 20 minutes to talk amongst ourselves to pool our thoughts and ideas. I'm pretty sure most of the group had thoughts and ideas prepared.
Basically all I got out of it was speaking with a member of the Southwest Corridor Management Committee and I left a comment card.
I think the Stribs crowd size estimate might have been a little low at 250. I would have to say 350 or more. The room was completly packed and there were people milling around downstairs.
A couple of the Met Council members looked uncomfortable, like they really didn't want to be there.The mayor of St. Louis Park was pretty fired up. He is still trying to figure out how many studies have been done by how many firms, and the fact that they keep coming up with the same conclusions. I overheard him saying, "how many times do we need to bang our heads against the wall before we accept the data from the studies and look at the facts?"

[Anondson]

My cynical take: Seems like there wasn't a reason to be there other than to complain about the Met Council being "unelected" or to take photos of hundreds of people crammed into a room.

Any others there for the whole time get something from it?

[Archiapolis]

Sorry but I tuned this out a while back when it seemed that the route had been decided through Kenilworth. I've only now gotten interested again with the controversy. It seems that "3C" is considered DOA. Can anyone point me to a statement or link from Met Council or other that says why "3C" is definitely dead? Also, if "3C" WAS considered dead once Kenilworth was decided upon, how is it not "new information" that the Kenilworth alignment is fraught with MASSIVE and/or costly problems? How is it not appropriate to say, "The NEW reality of Kenilworth is a deep tunnel at a cost of xx, a shallow tunnel at a cost of x (both unpopular with residents and users), or a massive berm that is hated by the residents that it affects AND the freight rail companies? I want to see the statement that says, "Despite massive costs of tunneling that are unpopular and other costs and difficulties with a berm that is massively undesirable, we are not going to look at "3C." Where can I find this so I can write a letter...it is BEYOND idiotic to say, "3C doesn't have the ridership numbers (scoff) but we are going to spend $20+ million on an option that the affected residents hate." Maybe I'm the idiot (probably) but has anyone said, "Can we just put that $20 million into 3C instead and make that line better, faster, interline/transfer, etc?" If 3C was rejected because of tunneling at Nicollet, couldn't we just, you know, use the $20M to tunnel under Nicollet instead of through desirable parkland/bike paths?! I've just read a bit more about the "data" being used by these engineers to justify the rejection of 3C. Some of the densest parts of the city (and getting denser every day) somehow aren't going to generate ridership numbers because, "buses." Are you F-ING kidding me? I know I'm late to the outrage but I lived in Chicago, I would walk several blocks to get to the "El" go diagonally, into downtown (away from my destination in Wrigleyville), transfer at "the Loop" and go back north and STILL beat any possible bus routes, every time, without fail. Any engineer that says, "buses" when undermining ridership numbers for rail are LYING. PERIOD. Rail is the choice over buses that stop every couple hundred feet, hands down, full stop. Is there an organized outrage machine/organization? I want to join. Please link.

[mplsjaromir]

You may have a point. The cost difference is much more than twenty million.

[Ubermoose]

One of the many fliers handed out last night briefly went over the reasons 3C was not considered.
In brief, it states greater construction impacts in Uptown and downtown, higher construction costs ($111 million-$180 million more than Kenilworth with the tunnel), significantly more property acquisitions (over 2/3 of which are in low income areas), and more historical and cultural impacts.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Your outrage is justified. And as Nick has pointed out, if you look holistically at the $200M being spent on the Nicollet Streetcar (w/ virtually no mobility improvement), the Nicollet Mall rebuild, and Midtown Streetcar, we're set to make a mistake that could take a century to live down.

Some will say- no use to run in circles with the same conversation -but I don't think we should give up until it's a done deal. Seriously, the decisions we're left with only make sense in the context of the flawed information, studies, and process that got us to this point. As is, this line is likely to tar rail transit in our metro as a failure, and bring future rail development to a stop.

As much as it blows, we need to reopen the alignment selection process - for SW and Bottineau.

[David Greene]

SI know I'm late to the outrage but I lived in Chicago, I would walk several blocks to get to the "El" go diagonally, into downtown (away from my destination in Wrigleyville), transfer at "the Loop" and go back north and STILL beat any possible bus routes, every time, without fail.

Calm down. Just take the Midtown streetcar/rail to West Lake and hop the SW LRT into downtown. It's basically the same tradeoff you were willing to make in Chicago.

[David Greene]

Your outrage is justified. And as Nick has pointed out, if you look holistically at the $200M being spent on the Nicollet Streetcar (w/ virtually no mobility improvement), the Nicollet Mall rebuild, and Midtown Streetcar, we're set to make a mistake that could take a century to live down.

The Midtown streetcar is going to serve populations that 3C would not. Those populations are disproportionately transit-reliant. It's a good thing we're bringing rail transit their way.

I honestly don't understand the complaint. With 3A we serve two distinct transit-reliant populations in Minneapolis with less cost, less disruption and fewer takings of properties from low-income people.. With 3C we *maybe* serve a much smaller transit-reliant population in parts of Whittier. It seems an easy choice to me.

[Viktor Vaughn]

I completely support lightrail in the Greenway from Hiawatha to SW.

I'm not saying we should automatically revert to 3c. We just need to take an open-minded relook at the options, such as a Hennepin Ave tunnel, among others.

[woofner]

The route down 11th/12th was a city councilmember's pipe dream.

Do you remember whose pipe dream it was? I seem to remember this being another Rybak scheme to placate Art Higinbotham.

In brief, it states greater construction impacts in Uptown and downtown, higher construction costs ($111 million-$180 million more than Kenilworth with the tunnel), significantly more property acquisitions (over 2/3 of which are in low income areas), and more historical and cultural impacts.

I have conceptual engineering plans for 3C. The only acquisition would have been the car wash on Nicollet at the Greenway. They are lying.

But I'd like to ask 3C supporters what they hope to accomplish by reopening that question. To reconsider it, both the AA and the DEIS would have to be revised, adding at least a year to the planning stage and possibly more. If that happens and 3C is chosen, you now have a line that serves Stevens Square and the south end of Nicollet Mall, but potentially no upgraded transit service in the Lake St corridor east of Nicollet (I know and you know that SWLRT in the greenway doesn't preclude a streetcar, but the powers that be have decided that it does and it would be a whole other battle to convince them). Is that victory worth it, despite the delayed delivery date and potential loss of most of the greenway service? Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to accept that 3A will happen and work on future improvements for transit in Stevens/Loring?

[VAStationDude]

The idea 3A will somehow flop registers much higher on my bullshit meter than 3A serving the north side.

A Hennepin tunnel is about as likely as a highway 100 to bnsf alignment.


Also what woofner said.

[mister.shoes]

But what if a Hennepin Ave LRT tunnel was combined with a billion or two dollars worth of new deep-bore I-94 highway tunnel to placate the auto lobby? The LRT would look cheap in comparison and we [urbanists] all know that the end result would be better public transportation and better land use in and around the Virginia Triangle. Hmmm.

::puts down pipe::

[Archiapolis]

@mplsjaromir: "The cost difference is much more than twenty million." Conceded and I'm being a *bit* obtuse to make the point. I understand it's "more" but I'm looking at it holistically as Nick and @Viktor Vaughn point out - I'd rather look long term and spend "more" on a GREAT alignment, than "less" on a BAD alignment.

@David Greene: So, you honestly believe that 3A is going to be a great service to the north side then? I strongly disagree with that position. That route is a direct shot as it barrels its way from EP to the Interchange, period. The fact that is grazes the north side is politically expedient lip service for this alignment and nothing more - great for a few people that live down that way but any "transit" that doesn't serve Broadway and areas more north doesn't "serve" the north side. I agree that the north side needs better transit service but this isn't it.

@woofner: I would hope to accomplish a GOOD alignment and accept that it would take longer. It sucks but this is where we are and we should be complaining long and loud that the Kenilworth alignment design is a failure that should have been foreseen. Reject Kenilworth/3A and put all efforts into 3C. Open up the discussion about LRT in the greenway - I'd rather reopen that debate than make millions of dollars of compromises on the proven failure that Kenilworth/3A represents.

@VaStationDude: Not sure what you are asserting. The way I'm reading it is that you think the idea that 3A will flop is BS and that 3A "serving the north side" is not BS and thus you think it is valid - the north side will be served. Maybe I'm not reading you right but I disagree as I said above.

Lastly @Viktor Vaughn:
"I completely support lightrail in the Greenway from Hiawatha to SW.

I'm not saying we should automatically revert to 3c. We just need to take an open-minded relook at the options..."

Where do I sign up for this group?

My preferred design: Short term, build 3C in the Greenway (maybe tunnel at Nicollet, maybe not). Later, extend this line out to the Blue Line at Lake Street in infrastructure that largely already exists thus serving the
transit reliant groups that @David Greene is rightly concerned about. I would rather scrap 3A, spend more time on 3C, run it through the trench, and spend more to potentially bury it downtown.

I can't be the only one here that sees what this alignment would do for the intersection of Nicollet and Lake, with a demolished Kmart and completed Nicollet. While this line is being built, plan for the extension to the Blue line.

Submitted with respect to all (even if I disagree) and thanks for reading.

[David Greene]

I completely support lightrail in the Greenway from Hiawatha to SW.

I'm not saying we should automatically revert to 3c. We just need to take an open-minded relook at the options, such as a Hennepin Ave tunnel, among others.

If it hits Penn, Van White and Royalston, I'd be fine with a Hennepin Ave. tunnel.

But in reality it ain't gonna happen because we aren't going to start over in the federal process. We did that with Bottineau and though people are happy that's now LRT, many are not happy about the chosen alignment. There is absolutely no guarantee that starting over would result in a different outcome. Given the new FTA rules that count transit-reliant riders double, it might very well reinforce 3A as the best option.

[David Greene]

The route down 11th/12th was a city councilmember's pipe dream.

Do you remember whose pipe dream it was? I seem to remember this being another Rybak scheme to placate Art Higinbotham.

Ralph Remington. I don't know if it was at the behest of Art but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

In brief, it states greater construction impacts in Uptown and downtown, higher construction costs ($111 million-$180 million more than Kenilworth with the tunnel), significantly more property acquisitions (over 2/3 of which are in low income areas), and more historical and cultural impacts.

I have conceptual engineering plans for 3C. The only acquisition would have been the car wash on Nicollet at the Greenway. They are lying.

Is there I link somewhere? I'd love to look at these. I'm not trying to counter your point. I actually haven't seen such reports so I don't know who to believe. :-/ Maybe those plans were fleshed out more and engineers founded they needed more space. It wouldn't be the first time.

3C would certainly eliminate all parking on Nicollet, which would hurt the many immigrant businesses there.

[David Greene]

But what if a Hennepin Ave LRT tunnel was combined with a billion or two dollars worth of new deep-bore I-94 highway tunnel to placate the auto lobby? The LRT would look cheap in comparison

Hell, even just getting a price tag for the Lowry tunnel expansion would probably do the same!

[David Greene]

@David Greene: So, you honestly believe that 3A is going to be a great service to the north side then? I strongly disagree with that position. That route is a direct shot as it barrels its way from EP to the Interchange, period. The fact that is grazes the north side is politically expedient lip service for this alignment and nothing more - great for a few people that live down that way but any "transit" that doesn't serve Broadway and areas more north doesn't "serve" the north side. I agree that the north side needs better transit service but this isn't it.

I've said all this before but there are several reasons I believe it will be good for the north side (in no particular order).

- It will spur development at Van White.

- Royalston, today, is a huge bus transfer point for the northside. Add service to the southwest suburbs here would give access to lots and lots of people.

- TOD at Royalston could provide great housing options.

- The Penn station would be a huge timesaver for those traveling from the western part of North to the southwest suburbs. Penn Ave. aBRT will integrate nicely with SWLRT.

- We have buses! People aren't only going to walk and bike to SWLRT from North. Certainly people from the Broadway area know how to take a bus and transfer to LRT.

- We know people in Near North have job skills that match up very well with jobs in the southwest suburbs. Harrison did a job skills inventory that demonstrates this clearly.

- We know people already travel from Near North to the southwest suburbs, though generally not by transit, though some DO take long bus rides to get there!. Harrison did a travelshed study that shows this. Many more people would be able to make these trips if reasonable transit were available.

I understand if others have a different view. But this is mine and so far I haven't seen anything to convince me it's wrong.

My preferred design: Short term, build 3C in the Greenway (maybe tunnel at Nicollet, maybe not). Later, extend this line out to the Blue Line at Lake Street in infrastructure that largely already exists thus serving the
transit reliant groups that @David Greene is rightly concerned about. I would rather scrap 3A, spend more time on 3C, run it through the trench, and spend more to potentially bury it downtown.

I can't be the only one here that sees what this alignment would do for the intersection of Nicollet and Lake, with a demolished Kmart and completed Nicollet. While this line is being built, plan for the extension to the Blue line.

How would an extension to the Blue Line work? A transfer or A/B trains? I very much question the practicality of this over the current Midtown rail option. Why is the Midtown rail option + Nicollet streetcar not just as good?

And what do you propose to do for Near North?

I'm asking these questions honestly and with complete respect. I'm certainly open to ideas!

I know Betsy Hodges has talked about a Hennepin tunnel for SWLRT plus a streetcar in Kenilworth to meet SWLRT at West Lake. I could support that idea but only if the two projects were tied together. Minneapolis doesn't have enough money to do a Kenilworth streetcar so I'm pretty skeptical that it would actually happen. Plus it would be at least a five year delay and possibly much longer than that.

[mplsjaromir]

This was the first thing I ever posted to Minnescraper more than five and half years ago.



NOTE: This was the CINDA Transit Committee's deisred route.

[VAStationDude]

Arch - My point is that 3A, while certainly flawed, is a good route and, if built, will be very well received and attract heavy ridership. Yeah, it might suck for people living near to Cedar Lake channel and, yeah, a few people on this board will still be bitter about 3C in 2050. It's still a good route and worthy route, imo.

What I don't like is people dismissing legitimate points as bullshit. There is no doubt 3A will provide faster access to jobs in the SW burbs for Northsiders than 3C. How much that should matter is up for debate but it is a fact.

[Archiapolis]

I've said all this before... *Thanks for humoring me and repeating.

- It will spur development at Van White.
*Wow. Is there a study that backs this up? There is VERY little over here other than the Farmer's Market, a small trade school, and almost no established residential density other than maybe Int'l Market Square. Since this is a philosophical discussion, let me use some colorful language - I would describe this entire area ranging from the edge of the sculpture garden to Target Field as pedestrian hell. You must be taking a VERY long view of development/urbanism to assert that a station here is a good thing. You are asking a LOT of an LRT station to be so attractive as to spur development at the intersection of gigantic elevated highways. Care to make an argument?

- Royalston, today, is a huge bus transfer point for the northside. Add service to the southwest suburbs here would give access to lots and lots of people.
*Same to be said for Royalston. No residential density (some is coming but...). It isn't all about residential density obviously as this area has office coming online and some potential but again, to say that this area is attractive (especially to the south and west) is a VERY long view. Is transporting labor from North to the SW suburbs REALLY the point of SWLRT? I'm happy for more people to be employed but creating this line is ALREADY a massive nod to the SW suburbs, shouldn't we be encouraging an alignment that focuses on the core rather than moving people FROM the core to the suburbs?

- TOD at Royalston could provide great housing options.
*See above comments describing this area as pedestrian hell. We are talking additional LARGE investments in pedestrian infrastructure. All of this infrastructure already exists at 3C!

- The Penn station would be a huge timesaver for those traveling from the western part of North to the southwest suburbs. Penn Ave. aBRT will integrate nicely with SWLRT.
*See below...

- We have buses! People aren't only going to walk and bike to SWLRT from North. Certainly people from the Broadway area know how to take a bus and transfer to LRT.
*Opinion: Buses suck. There I said it. I illustrated it in my earlier post regarding my experience in Chicago. Any system that stops every couple hundred feet is GARBAGE. I TRIED to make the #5 (Hi-Frequency) route work it still took forever to get from A to B. Unfortunately, I have to drive down 35W every day where there is a dedicated bus lane and my observation is that this is MASSIVELY underutilized. It's anecdotal which is always dangerous but the promise of BRT and buses just doesn't pass muster for me. Something is broken there if there isn't a constant flow of buses on DEDICATED infrastructure. If dedicated infrastructure isn't working, then promising it'll work on an arterial just isn't realistic. If you are interested, I can enumerate my attempts to make bus transport work from the perimeter of Mpls.

- We know people in Near North have job skills that match up very well with jobs in the southwest suburbs. Harrison did a job skills inventory that demonstrates this clearly.
*See earlier comment regarding the focus on moving people from the city to the suburbs being the reverse of what this line should focus on (emphasis on "FOCUS ON.")

- We know people already travel from Near North to the southwest suburbs, though generally not by transit, though some DO take long bus rides to get there!. Harrison did a travelshed study that shows this. Many more people would be able to make these trips if reasonable transit were available.

I understand if others have a different view. But this is mine and so far I haven't seen anything to convince me it's wrong.
*Appreciated. I'll keep trying. =^]


How would an extension to the Blue Line work? A transfer or A/B trains? I very much question the practicality of this over the current Midtown rail option. Why is the Midtown rail option + Nicollet streetcar not just as good?
*I'm not sure that I understand the question. I am assuming a transfer. Let's say, "Phase 1" of this extension gets to the Lake St. Blue line stop and maybe Phase 2 goes from there to points east. The train needn't follow the greenway as it loops all around at this intersection, this area would be reconfigured so that the train line would want to go as "straight" as possible beneath Hiawatha and reconnect on the other side to the Greenway in Phase 2 - there isn't much back there to prohibit that and the main intersecting road is already elevated. Are you concerned about transferring? Weren't you just talking about how "easy" it is for people to travel in a bus from Broadway, down Penn and then transfer to SWLRT? We are talking about a station/infrastructure where people would walk about a block from this line to the Blue line. This is already a major station and an opportune node - expand the station and infrastructure to reflect that.
Confession: I am uninformed about the "Midtown Rail option." What I am suggesting is true light rail that is in the trench, Phase 1 from EP to Nicollet (and downtown), Phase 2 from Nicollet to Lake, Phase 3 from Lake -->east.

And what do you propose to do for Near North?
*I already proposed it - a line that would run from the Intermodal station in a northwest fashion with the objective of linking to Broadway.

I'm asking these questions honestly and with complete respect. I'm certainly open to ideas!
*Thank you and same goes for me. None of my ideas are perfect/cheap/flawless obviously. Thanks for engaging.