Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1508
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby talindsay » April 22nd, 2014, 6:05 pm

The Met Council aren't doing much to help themselves there, eh?

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4726
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 22nd, 2014, 6:31 pm

It's just completely inexcusable. This kind of mistake should never, ever happen, especially with all of the political fire around this project.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3080
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby min-chi-cbus » April 23rd, 2014, 8:04 am

I don't think it was a "mistake", but rather some odd tactical angle they played.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6191
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby twincitizen » April 23rd, 2014, 8:20 am

A conspiracy theorist might say these weren't the "wrong" plans per se, just that Minneapolis wasn't supposed to see them yet.

It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination that the "bermed" north tunnel would be cheaper and less disruptive to the water table. It actually sounds like a pretty reasonable idea, it just isn't what the Met Council agreed to or promised.

(Note: I personally oppose the north tunnel entirely as it is a waste of money and eliminates the 21st St Station. There is no pinch point north of the channel. The southern tunnel is necessary, the northern tunnel is wasteful NIMBY-mollification)

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7709
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » April 23rd, 2014, 8:35 am

Does Mpls have any leverage to suggest removing this north tunnel, but ensure any CTIB/local funds which would have been used for it are instead guaranteed to other Mpls fixed guideway transit?

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

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby sad panda » April 23rd, 2014, 8:57 am

twincitizen wrote:It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination that the "bermed" north tunnel would be cheaper and less disruptive to the water table. It actually sounds like a pretty reasonable idea, it just isn't what the Met Council agreed to or promised.

(Note: I personally oppose the north tunnel entirely as it is a waste of money and eliminates the 21st St Station. There is no pinch point north of the channel. The southern tunnel is necessary, the northern tunnel is wasteful NIMBY-mollification)
This is exactly what I think as well. Not to mention the bermed tunnel would help hide the freight rail some.

User avatar
Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4147
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Anondson » April 23rd, 2014, 9:25 am

Does Minneapolis NOT want the north tunnel?

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1508
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby talindsay » April 23rd, 2014, 9:32 am

mattaudio wrote:Does Mpls have any leverage to suggest removing this north tunnel, but ensure any CTIB/local funds which would have been used for it are instead guaranteed to other Mpls fixed guideway transit?
I'm thinking the same kind of leverage they had in (allegedly) getting a promise from SLP many years ago to take the freight rail from Kenilworth.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4726
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 23rd, 2014, 9:36 am

mattaudio wrote:Does Mpls have any leverage to suggest removing this north tunnel, but ensure any CTIB/local funds which would have been used for it are instead guaranteed to other Mpls fixed guideway transit?
Sure, they can ask for anything at this point. They have a lot of leverage. I would love to see them get that money dedicated to something else. Not necessarily fixed-guideway only.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4726
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 23rd, 2014, 9:37 am

Anondson wrote:Does Minneapolis NOT want the north tunnel?
I think it is very much up in the air. When asked about it at the CMC, Hodges refused to answer.

dingo
Metrodome
Posts: 91
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 1:56 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby dingo » April 23rd, 2014, 10:10 am

twincitizen wrote:The Royalston plan (for new streets and blocks) is pretty much exactly what I pictured in my brain, and it is perfect. RIP stupid frontage road.

If there's one Minneapolis station to get really excited about, it's this one. The City/County should be working hard on finding new homes for the current industrial tenants. It would be great to retain them within Minneapolis (or at least a 1st ring suburb). Some of them could even stay in the neighborhood, just not in their current buildings. Under current conditions, I think the location for the Farmer's Market is really terrible , but perhaps it would be a critical asset to developing this area. It's unlikely anything else would be built right up against the freeway viaducts, certainly not residential.

Image

The location of the Royalston station seems strange to me. Is there a reason that the station cant go between the trench and Holden St? this would space out the stops a bit more between Interchange and Royalston plus pushing the location a bit south (even if two blocks) would help serve Redevlopment possibilites on the Southside of Glenwood as well.

Viktor Vaughn
Target Field
Posts: 597
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Viktor Vaughn » April 23rd, 2014, 10:39 am

twincitizen wrote:A conspiracy theorist might say these weren't the "wrong" plans per se, just that Minneapolis wasn't supposed to see them yet.)
Call it what you will, but to me it sounds like a bait-&-switch nobody is willing to take responsibility for. Blaming this on a "mistake" has the ring of an unfortunate excuse. Expect more uncertainty and delays.
twincitizen wrote:It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination that the "bermed" north tunnel would be cheaper and less disruptive to the water table. It actually sounds like a pretty reasonable idea, it just isn't what the Met Council agreed to or promised.
Is it really reasonable to put a shallow tunnel in the water table like this? I think construction and maintenance costs can only go up.
twincitizen wrote:(Note: I personally oppose the north tunnel entirely as it is a waste of money and eliminates the 21st St Station. There is no pinch point north of the channel. The southern tunnel is necessary, the northern tunnel is wasteful NIMBY-mollification)
It's truly astounding we'd even consider building a light rail tunnel solely to prevent a handful of lake-of-the-isles-liberals from hearing and seeing trains on their neighborhood rail corridor.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4726
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 23rd, 2014, 9:09 pm

Interesting piece by John DeWitt and Bob Corrick:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 44531.html

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 739
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby ECtransplant » April 23rd, 2014, 9:55 pm

Still citing the obviously false numbers saying 3A and 3C would have essentially the same ridership, I see

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4726
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 23rd, 2014, 9:58 pm

ECtransplant wrote:Still citing the obviously false numbers saying 3A and 3C would have essentially the same ridership, I see
You have others?

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 739
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby ECtransplant » April 23rd, 2014, 10:02 pm

When something doesn't pass the laugh/smell test, saying riders will take local buses instead of the train is not enough to rebut common sense. Especially in a city with a heavy rail bias.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4726
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » April 23rd, 2014, 10:04 pm

So, no then.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4355
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby FISHMANPET » April 23rd, 2014, 10:19 pm

So we're gonna build Southwest and Midtown at the same time then?

User avatar
Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4147
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby Anondson » April 26th, 2014, 10:11 pm

Minneapolis is deeply divided on SWLRT.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... y#continue

anders
City Center
Posts: 30
Joined: December 30th, 2013, 3:33 am

Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)

Postby anders » April 27th, 2014, 11:33 am

David Greene wrote:So, no then.
As far as I know, legitimate questions about ridership forecasting methodologies were never answered by project staff or the consultants, at least not substantively. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're presumably not actually suggesting the only legitimate way to critique these fishy numbers is to hire our own consultants to conduct their own study. So can we please dispense with this kind of argumentation?

It's unfortunate that everyone's so burnt out on this process. It's been a bizarre and opaque journey. We've fattened plenty of consulting firms and may not even get a project at the end. Surely there are better ways to invest in transit infrastructure?


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests