Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
sad panda
Metrodome
Posts: 75
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 10:31 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby sad panda » July 8th, 2014, 7:18 am

http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts ... ins/c19675

Met Council/Minneapolis tentative agreement.

Online
David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4748
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 8th, 2014, 7:33 am

sad panda wrote:http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts ... ins/c19675

Met Council/Minneapolis tentative agreement.
Disappointing. I was hoping some of the Northsiders' desires would have been met: better connecting bus routes, development at Van White. lower fares, etc.

It would have been a simple thing for the Met Council to, for example, assure connection of the Penn Ave. aBRT to the Penn SWLRT station in an MOU. They could have easily agreed to put some of the tunnel money into cleaning up the Van White station area rather than lavishing it on further mitigation in Kenilworth.

mullen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 986
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 7:02 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mullen » July 8th, 2014, 7:46 am

the design statement mentions better connections to penn ave. or maybe im reading that wrong.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7897
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » July 8th, 2014, 8:24 am

Anything being paid with a FTA capital match can't include operating expenses. That's why things like better buses to the north side or lower fares weren't a part of the MOU.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6186
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby twincitizen » July 8th, 2014, 8:39 am

Here's the MOU for design, detailing the station area improvements at each Minneapolis station: http://www.metrocouncil.org/News-Events ... esign.aspx

There's a lot to like here. Most of it may seem like common sense, but sadly it wasn't included in the previous municipal consent plans, hence why it is specifically noted here. Dropping the north tunnel and getting 21st St Station back was exactly what needed to happen here. If this agreement doesn't thrill you, please remember that last fall (before Gov. Dayton's delay) the municipal consent plans didn't include the north tunnel either, but also lacked any of these noted enhancements. At the municipal consent vote this August, Minneapolis will have a much stronger plan to approve than they did one year ago. While the public perception of these closed-door meetings and Minneapolis' delays didn't go over so well, the outcome here looks pretty good (short term damage to Betsy Hodges public image aside). I can't wait to hear Lisa Goodman's reaction to the deal. She could very well be the lone "no" vote on the city council, but she was going to be regardless. I expect the rest of the council to fall in line, with CM Reich and Glidden leading the charge. This thing passes 12-1 or 11-2 at worst. It's time to move forward.

It's not like we were going to get streetcar money out of the deal, because that's not how federal funding works. Met Council will probably announce separately that they are more willing to look at streetcars. They previously hinted at this anyways. Minneapolis doesn't need Met/CTIB money for the Nic-Central streetcar anyways, with the TIF district set up to pay for the local portion, and feds picking up the rest. Met Council will, however, need to specifically add the Nic-Central streetcar line to the regional transit plan for it to be eligible for federal funding. That could be the unspoken agreement here. I do wish there was more concrete language regarding the Midtown Corridor. It does note building West Lake Station to be "Midtown-ready", but that's not quite strong enough for me. There has been a surprising lack of enthusiasm for the Midtown line from any public officials whatsoever. Metro Transit completed the alternatives analysis but no one is really putting the line on their back and saying "we really need to build this".

Online
David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4748
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 8th, 2014, 9:21 am

mattaudio wrote:Anything being paid with a FTA capital match can't include operating expenses. That's why things like better buses to the north side or lower fares weren't a part of the MOU.
Yep, I know that. That's why I listed the community's needs separately from specific recommendations for SWLRT.

Even so, none of the things the community needs has to be budgeted out of SWLRT. There is nothing in state law that prevents the Met Council and the city from writing another MOU about bus service, fares and station area development. In fact they can write such an MOU any time they want, they don't need to do it under municipal consent. Municipal consent gives the city leverage and I'm disappointed that they're using it to get more trees and bushes in a rail corridor rather than something that actually benefits transit riders who have real needs.

Online
David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4748
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 8th, 2014, 9:33 am

twincitizen wrote:Here's the MOU for design, detailing the station area improvements at each Minneapolis station: http://www.metrocouncil.org/News-Events ... esign.aspx
Hopefully someone can help with this technical stuff.

Why is embedded track an upgrade at Royalston? What's the advantage? I assume ballasted track was the previous POR.

I wonder if part of maintaining the "park-like setting" of the Kenilworth corridor will include turf track.

Catenary poles? Really,. we're spending money on that?

The pedestrian and bike improvements all sound great, particularly the ADA work on Penn.

Still not much in terms of actual equity, though. Not a single thing called out by Northside residents was included.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3773
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Silophant » July 8th, 2014, 10:03 am

David Greene wrote: Catenary poles? Really,. we're spending money on that?
I'm curious what this means as well. What was the previous plan to hold up the cable for this section, if painted tube steel is considered an upgrade.

HuskyGrad
Landmark Center
Posts: 259
Joined: May 13th, 2013, 8:11 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby HuskyGrad » July 8th, 2014, 10:08 am

David Greene wrote:
twincitizen wrote:Here's the MOU for design, detailing the station area improvements at each Minneapolis station: http://www.metrocouncil.org/News-Events ... esign.aspx
Hopefully someone can help with this technical stuff.

Why is embedded track an upgrade at Royalston? What's the advantage? I assume ballasted track was the previous POR.

I wonder if part of maintaining the "park-like setting" of the Kenilworth corridor will include turf track.

Catenary poles? Really,. we're spending money on that?

The pedestrian and bike improvements all sound great, particularly the ADA work on Penn.

Still not much in terms of actual equity, though. Not a single thing called out by Northside residents was included.
Embedded track is mostly aesthetic in this case. Sounds like the city wants the changes to make it more pleasing for future developments. I don't expect turf track to be in the equation. The freight rail is already ballasted and it's not turf there today. Turf track is yet to be proven in these elements and the maintenance costs are likely higher than embedded due to retained moisture. St. Paul added decorative OCS poles for the Central Corridor so it's not unheard of.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1536
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby talindsay » July 8th, 2014, 10:13 am

Silophant wrote:
David Greene wrote:
twincitizen wrote: Catenary poles? Really,. we're spending money on that?
I'm curious what this means as well. What was the previous plan to hold up the cable for this section, if painted tube steel is considered an upgrade.
Most likely it was raw I-beam like what's used at various places on the existing system where improvement wasn't deemed necessary. I'm pretty sure it's all raw I-beam along the Transitway on the Green Line, for example.

Online
David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4748
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 8th, 2014, 10:13 am

HuskyGrad wrote:St. Paul added decorative OCS poles for the Central Corridor so it's not unheard of.
Yeah, but why just around Royalston? It's money that could be better used elsewhere.

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mulad » July 8th, 2014, 10:32 am

The Royalston area presents the best redevelopment opportunities of any of the Minneapolis stations.

Online
David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4748
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 8th, 2014, 2:08 pm

Anyone else going to the hearing tonight? It'd be nice to see you there. :)

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7897
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » July 8th, 2014, 2:16 pm

Is it too late to speak up for 3C?

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6186
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby twincitizen » July 8th, 2014, 2:18 pm

I kinda want to go and hammer people (planners, electeds) about Midtown Corridor.

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 751
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby ECtransplant » July 8th, 2014, 2:39 pm

mattaudio wrote:Is it too late to speak up for 3C?
I'm pretty sure there are those of us who will still be bringing up 3C after SWLRT is open and operating

Suburban Outcast
Landmark Center
Posts: 239
Joined: June 10th, 2012, 8:33 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Suburban Outcast » July 8th, 2014, 2:41 pm

There needs to be a "Midtown Corridor by 2018" movement (I wish)

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6186
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby twincitizen » July 8th, 2014, 3:06 pm

Here's a PDF presentation of what will be shown at tonight's meeting (at Anwatin Middle School in Bryn Mawr, 7pm)
http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 127902.pdf

Online
David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4748
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 8th, 2014, 3:40 pm

twincitizen wrote:I kinda want to go and hammer people (planners, electeds) about Midtown Corridor.
Do it! I think tnis is a really important message to get across. SWLRT is so much better for Minneapolis with the Midtown corridor in place. They hit two separate regions of the city. South Minneapolis does need transit upgrades and Midtown is the keystone of that effort

I'm totally serious. Show up and testify!

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7897
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » July 8th, 2014, 3:47 pm

I disagree; now's the time when this thing is pretty much sealed up. David Brauer was joking on Twitter this morning - what's the point of even having a public comment/review when all the parties released a buttoned-up little agreement this morning? Seems rather pro forma to me.

Mod Note: I put the Shakopee specific posts into the Shakopee Rail thread.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest