Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[talindsay]

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

[David Greene]

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]

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

[twincitizen]

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]

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]

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.

[Anondson]

Does Minneapolis NOT want the north tunnel?

[talindsay]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

(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]

Interesting piece by John DeWitt and Bob Corrick:

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

[ECtransplant]

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

[David Greene]

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

You have others?

[ECtransplant]

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]

So, no then.

[FISHMANPET]

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

[Anondson]

Minneapolis is deeply divided on SWLRT.

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

[anders]

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?