Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4760
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » February 3rd, 2014, 3:40 pm

But you're ignoring that the problem isn't LRT in Kenilworth, it's freight. Single-tracking does nothing to resolve the current logjam.

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

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » February 3rd, 2014, 3:45 pm

It would make colo more tolerable and it would have less property impacts. And also less money wasted on 21st St station.

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

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby RailBaronYarr » February 3rd, 2014, 4:16 pm

David Greene wrote:But you're ignoring that the problem isn't LRT in Kenilworth, it's freight. Single-tracking does nothing to resolve the current logjam.
Isn't that not really true? I mean, it is for the people who want freight re-routed because it was promised at some point in the past, but I've read/heard just as many people saying that frequent LRT trains coming through will disrupt the peaceful nature of the trail, the backyards, and kayaking.

Ubermoose
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 168
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:24 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Ubermoose » February 3rd, 2014, 4:33 pm

twincitizen wrote:If this new freight re-route thing is actually viable, how the hell did we ever arrive at the whole 2-story berms situation? (Which, in turn led to the tunnels through Kenilworth situation)

In retrospect, that is just really embarassing.

The bottom line seems to be that a whole bunch of animosity (and 3-month delay, tunnel studies,etc.) could have been avoided if Met Council had simply tried a little harder to engineer a workable re-route. It all seems a little hard to believe.
From what I understand, it is no more viable than any of the other plans. They say that TC&W has said it will work, but there is no way to give a real answer until there are more details. There are no detailed maps, drawings, or illustrations for anyone to go by. In fact the measurement that they use for the distance of the tracks near the high school is 50 feet off.
The numbers don't include aquisition of property or businesses either. That number has grown since they would have to tear down the business center that Marco is in for their ramp to meet the bridge over hwy 7.
IMO the Met Council/Governor paid to get the study that they wanted.

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1353
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Tcmetro » February 3rd, 2014, 5:38 pm

I heard on the MPR story last week that the new plan was to put freight in a trench in SLP instead of a berm. Supposedly this would alleviate the concerns about a train derailing and falling onto homes and causing an explosion.

I think single track between West Lake and the Cedar Lake channel crossing could work, and would be an acceptable solution over tunneling. As for the 21st St Station, I would rather see it kept if the tunnel idea is rescinded.

As for what is politically palatable, nothing is going to make everyone happy. Just have to bite a bullet on this one and get the project done.

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

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » February 3rd, 2014, 5:46 pm

My famed Brunswick Ave alternative?

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1353
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Tcmetro » February 3rd, 2014, 5:53 pm

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/01/30 ... rail-route

Maybe I misunderstood the story. I thought that they had mentioned putting the freight in a trench.

Sounds like a good idea to me anyways.

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

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Anondson » February 3rd, 2014, 5:56 pm

A trench through SLP? Huh I though it had to be bermed because going up and over TH7 in a way that doesn't stress the train car connections with too many up and down side-to-side serpentining required the two story berm. Does this SLP trench option carry TH7 over the freight rather than under?

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1353
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Tcmetro » February 3rd, 2014, 6:03 pm

So I re-listened to the story, and I guess the trains wouldn't be placed on berms, but there was no description of the new alternative. So it's probably at-grade.

nordeast homer
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 696
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 11:11 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby nordeast homer » February 3rd, 2014, 6:29 pm

^^^Could it be that they don't have a viable plan and they are just trying to push this through only to deal out the consequences after the fact? This thing has been a disaster since day one. I would rather they scrap it and move on to the next line.

Ubermoose
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 168
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:24 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Ubermoose » February 3rd, 2014, 10:01 pm

Here is a little perspective from TC&W. It sheds light to the "promises" supposedly made by SLP. http://www.southwestjournal.com/voices/ ... -on-sw-lrt

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

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » February 3rd, 2014, 10:50 pm

Ubermoose wrote:IMO the Met Council/Governor paid to get the study that they wanted.
Now that's just silly. This study makes their job MORE difficult, not less.

I expect the cost of the TranSystem plan is going to come in around $125 million. It'll be close enough to shallow tunnels to be a coin toss, budget-wise.

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

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » February 3rd, 2014, 10:51 pm

RailBaronYarr wrote:I've read/heard just as many people saying that frequent LRT trains coming through will disrupt the peaceful nature of the trail, the backyards, and kayaking.
I don't know about "just as many" but you're right, that voice has been increasing in volume. Single track won't help that either.

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

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » February 3rd, 2014, 11:02 pm

Tcmetro wrote:So I re-listened to the story, and I guess the trains wouldn't be placed on berms, but there was no description of the new alternative. So it's probably at-grade.
From the CAC meeting tonight, it'll be 2'-6' higher than the curret berm it's on (so a little above-grade at the high school, I guess?). The idea is to go all the way back to Blake to regrade so the line doesn't descend as it does now. A new bridge would take it over Hwy 7 north of the current alignment and slip onto the existing MN&S ROW just about at the high school. Four of the six current crossings would be closed. Tangents would be lengthened to remove problems with the S-surves.

Met Council is going to put up maps and diagrams tomorrow.

All the trackage would be re-done to use 130 lb. CWR.

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3938
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby seanrichardryan » February 3rd, 2014, 11:18 pm

I hope either Walker or Lake can stay open.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

Ubermoose
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 168
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:24 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Ubermoose » February 4th, 2014, 6:42 am

David Greene wrote:
Ubermoose wrote:IMO the Met Council/Governor paid to get the study that they wanted.
Now that's just silly. This study makes their job MORE difficult, not less.

I expect the cost of the TranSystem plan is going to come in around $125 million. It'll be close enough to shallow tunnels to be a coin toss, budget-wise.
How does this make their job more difficult if this is the result that they have been pushing for since the governor stepped in? It's made even easier if they just leave out a few dollar figures to make the TranSystem plan look like the solution to all of the problems.

HuskyGrad
Landmark Center
Posts: 260
Joined: May 13th, 2013, 8:11 pm

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby HuskyGrad » February 4th, 2014, 8:49 am

mattaudio wrote:At an average speed of 45 MPH (max speed of 55 plus accel/decel) it would take 2 minutes for a train to get through this stretch. So unless we were planning to have headways of 5 minutes or less, I'm not sure it would matter.
The line is being designed for a minimum headway of 5 minutes.

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

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » February 4th, 2014, 10:44 am

Ubermoose wrote:How does this make their job more difficult if this is the result that they have been pushing for since the governor stepped in? It's made even easier if they just leave out a few dollar figures to make the TranSystem plan look like the solution to all of the problems.
It's more difficult because now there isn't a clear winner. Before, the shallow tunnel was pretty much the only reasonable option and people were coming to accept that. Now they have to make a hard choice. That choice might not go the way *you* like but that doesn't mean that choice is easy.

Honestly, do you *really* think a Met Council member from suburban Hudson cares at all about some people in CIDNA and Kenwood? Yes, they're appointed by the Governor but the Governor is not going to play petty parochial games. He wanted the studies to quiet people who were saying this or that option wasn't explored. That's perfectly reasonable.

On the other hand, the reactions of Bestsy Hodges, Scott Dibble and Frank Hornstein struck me as over the top and a little bit too giddy. They came off as somewhat spiteful.

sad panda
Metrodome
Posts: 75
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 10:31 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby sad panda » February 4th, 2014, 11:11 am

David Greene wrote:It's more difficult because now there isn't a clear winner. Before, the shallow tunnel was pretty much the only reasonable option and people were coming to accept that. Now they have to make a hard choice. That choice might not go the way *you* like but that doesn't mean that choice is easy.

Honestly, do you *really* think a Met Council member from suburban Hudson cares at all about some people in CIDNA and Kenwood? Yes, they're appointed by the Governor but the Governor is not going to play petty parochial games. He wanted the studies to quiet people who were saying this or that option wasn't explored. That's perfectly reasonable.

On the other hand, the reactions of Bestsy Hodges, Scott Dibble and Frank Hornstein struck me as over the top and a little bit too giddy. They came off as somewhat spiteful.
I agree, the reactions of Dibble and Hornstein in particular really bother me. It shouldn't surprise me though based on how they were at the Jan. 9 meeting in SLP. They were in the back just to my left and were carrying on a pretty continuous and distracting conversation while people were speaking. I'm amazed Hornstein even heard the 'Sophie's Choice' comment...

As for a clear winner, there still isn't an apples to apples comparison. TranSystems is using a 25% contingency and not including property acquisitions. SWLRT is still on a 30% contingency. Also TranSystems only compared to the shallow tunnels option. Why not compare to removing the north tunnel? Or colo at grade (since there are takings in SLP with their relo plan, why not takings in Minneapolis with a colo plan)?

Hell, why is a north tunnel even still being considered? One could compare the north part of Kenilworth to the Cedar Lake LRT trail that runs through the Blake Corridor and South Oak Hill. I don't see them asking for a tunnel to hide the LRT/preserve the 'nature of the corridor'. And they are the two areas that are co-located no matter what.

On a slightly different note, SLP has some of the TranSystems maps up on their website.

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

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » February 4th, 2014, 11:14 am

sad panda wrote:As for a clear winner, there still isn't an apples to apples comparison. TranSystems is using a 25% contingency and not including property acquisitions. SWLRT is still on a 30% contingency. Also TranSystems only compared to the shallow tunnels option. Why not compare to removing the north tunnel? Or colo at grade (since there are takings in SLP with their relo plan, why not takings in Minneapolis with a colo plan)?

Hell, why is a north tunnel even still being considered? One could compare the north part of Kenilworth to the Cedar Lake LRT trail that runs through the Blake Corridor and South Oak Hill. I don't see them asking for a tunnel to hide the LRT/preserve the 'nature of the corridor'. And they are the two areas that are co-located no matter what.
You'll get no argument from me. The north tunnel is still being considered because it's seen as the only politically viable option in the corridor. The real world ain't just focused on engineering and cost.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: HiawathaGuy and 3 guests