Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[EOst]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this giant park & ride is actually considered (by the actual plans) to be TOD.

Yeah, because that's clearly what he was saying.

I understand the potential of those neighborhoods but I think it's important to serve your current tax base before serving a none existing potential one. if you were sitting at a restaurant and your server brought you Kraft Mac and cheese when you've been coming there for years but brings lobster Mac to an empty table to try to lure new customers doesn't that seem disingenuous?

Cities and states have to play that dual role; if a city is only ever catering to its existing residents, it never gets anywhere.

Sure, I think everyone here would love to have a train to Uptown opening yesterday, but every day we spend without a train that incentivizes transit-oriented building is a day where more sprawl is built out on the outer edges of the city. Of course this line doesn't stop more sprawl from being built--no one here has the political will to do that, and no one will for a long time--but lines like this have the potential to significantly reduce the demand for it, while encouraging the people already out there in the suburbs and exurbs to make their daily commute in a more efficient and sustainable way. Driving five miles from your SFH to the park-and-ride to take a train is a lot more environmentally conscious than driving 25 miles from your SFH to downtown on a crowded Interstate.

[Minneapolisite]

I don't think everyone here appreciates the character of the suburbs this line is running through. Hopkins and St. Louis Park are at least as dense as most of South Minneapolis and they are increasing their density. Furthermore, they have a lot of light industrial within walking distance of their stations. Minnetonka and Eden Prairie are certainly less dense but they have the job concentration and are actively supporting plans to increase density along the line.

People are going to be taking this line to/from stations all along the corridor. It's not simply shuttling people from Eden Prairie to downtown Minneapolis. Moreover, if the county and city of Minneapolis would get out of the way, we'd have some really nice development at West Lake, Penn, Van White and Royalston.

I feel like people misunderstand this line even worse than they did Central Corridor.

I did mention Hopkins as an example of being LRT-worthy and yes, there are dense areas of St Louis Park. Since Hopkins and some parts of St Louis Park are the only suburban areas built to support LRT with higher densities, then why even bother with Eden Prairie? You've essentially made the case against EP by not listing it as being comparable to the density of urban neighborhoods on Mpls' outskirts.

It's not like residents in EP would be blocked by a forcefield at the city limits when trying to drive to a park & ride t the end of a shorter SWLRT line ending in Hopkins. People like my friend in suburban VA are willing to drive a half hour away to reach a park and ride near the end of a suburban metro line: a problem created by extending LRT into sprawling suburbs. All extending the line out to the burbs did was encourage that exact kind of sprawl to explode further since people there only have to put up with 30a total of minutes of driving to the park and ride and then just hop on the metro straight into to DC since their stressful traffic filled commute was cut down in half by the suburban LRT extension. LRT in sprawling suburbs = induced sprawl: looking at other cities you see the same thing happening elsewhere. Unless EP has adopted smart growth zoning city-, err, "suburb-wide", which they haven't from what I'm finding, then there's no reason whatsoever to expect anything different with SWLRT. If people like him instead didn't have the option to drive 30 minutes to a suburban park and ride they'd be less likely to want to live that far out: they'd probably live closer in to DC.

And for Mpls to EP: what exactly are us cityfolk going to EP for? I'm not going to suddenly start spending my free time in EP just because an LRT line goes there. I was only a being a bit tongue-in-cheek about the UrbanMSP HH at a chain, but really those are literally the "destinations" we're being offered, unless EP residents are going to chauffeur us to any decent off-the-beaten-path locales. Not only that, but this is a disservice and embarrassment to tourists (yes, we get tourists) who instead of being able to enjoy a whole slew of new places (to them) which are currently well out of reach of present-day mass transit options are going to instead be given additional access to what they can already get in any suburb in any American city? Is this the image we want to give visitors?

What's not addressed with even with well-placed stations like those in Hopkins is the problem with Mpls' SWLRT stations being located in remote areas with very low ridership potential: just because land is available for redevelopment doesn't mean development will occur as evidenced by numerous sites around the cities which have sat empty with none taking place several years later (see: numerous Blue Line LRT adjacent parking lots). That aside, a SWLRT line ending in Hopkins would be much more palatable.

As far as job concentration: they don't have it in EP, hence why EP even residents of themselves need to drive to get around their own burb and still will after LRT is built. A brief glance at google maps around proposed station showing what little there is that's walkable makes my case. We can't even serve all the strip malls and office parks in EP or other suburbs with buses even though they can actually reach every corner of each respective burb: what makes you think four LRT stations will result in all those businesses magically being accessible within a 1/4 mile walk from stations in the SE corner of EP? And they have not built anything around their proposed stations to prove they support walkable, urban high-density environments: we need to see actions, not words, especially since we're expected to help foot the bill to a tune of $1.7 billion. And then there's the Streets.MN article on those huge park and ride lots next to these stations proving my point even further.

[David Greene]

You obviously haven't read the SWLRT planning documents and the jobs studies.

"Us" cityfolk might not want to go to EP but I guarantee you that the non-wealthy-white-elitist crowd wants to go there.

Your myopia is simply stunning. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but...I just can't anymore.

[Minneapolisite]

You know what would develop if we didn't make the SWLRT? The same number of people, just less dense. You're proposing we cut off our nose to spite our face.

That's a false dilemma. Such rail lines into suburbia have time and time again proven they only exacerbate sprawl: since EP residents and those in surrounding further-out exurbs will soon have a short drive to a park and ride that gives the incentive for more sprawling development to occur in that region: just as it as along other lines around the country where LRT is blindly plopped in suburbia with no meaningful urban zoning requirements to be adopted by outer-lying sprawling communities who can now boast on their developments, "LRT access - just a short 10/20/30 minute drive away! Park it and forget it!" Keep these urban amenities in urban areas and, surprise, dense urban development that is highly accessible to city and suburban residents will occur there instead where it actually makes sense.

[EOst]

That's a false dilemma. Such rail lines into suburbia have time and time again proven they only exacerbate sprawl: since EP residents and those in surrounding further-out exurbs will soon have a short drive to a park and ride that gives the incentive for more sprawling development to occur in that region: just as it as along other lines around the country where LRT is blindly plopped in suburbia with no meaningful urban zoning requirements to be adopted by outer-lying sprawling communities who can now boast on their developments, "LRT access - just a short 10/20/30 minute drive away! Park it and forget it!" Keep these urban amenities in urban areas and, surprise, dense urban development that is highly accessible to city and suburban residents will occur there instead where it actually makes sense.

If it's a false dilemma, show me one Minnesota state legislator pushing for the things you're pushing for. Now show me even half of a majority.

The people who live in Eden Prairie right now aren't going to move to Loring Park, and I suspect you'd complain if they did. They're going to keep moving to EP whether we build this or not; they'll just make the freeways more congested, which'll eventually just lead to more freeways and, yep, more sprawl. You can talk pipe dreams about banning freeways and green belts all you want, but that doesn't make them any closer to happening. This LRT can and is going to happen.

Honestly, I'd much rather have sprawl developing around a train station than around a highway. At least a train station has the potential for walkable development and marginally sustainable living.

[Minneapolisite]

You obviously haven't read the SWLRT planning documents and the jobs studies.

"Us" cityfolk might not want to go to EP but I guarantee you that the non-wealthy-white-elitist crowd wants to go there.

Your myopia is simply stunning. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but...I just can't anymore.

Why not get those people to employers that exist in urban areas by offering reliable mass transit where none exists now ()20/30 minute intervals is not reliable) and attract more employers in that setting instead of giving them yet more incentives to locate out in the burbs several miles outside of city limits? Nothing you have said changes the fact that few jobs are within walking distance of EP LRT stations and that encouraging more office parks to sprawl further away outside of a 1/4 mile walk of these stations is essentially punishing people for relying on this transportation line: EP residents aren't expected to walk over 1/2 mile to work in sub zero temps, yet we expect people of low-income to just suck it up and build more jobs requiring the same of them out there: this just goes to prove the callous indifference of the upper-class elites for whom this very real scenario doesn't even occur to them. There are plenty of employers in the cities where if reliable transit were built these people would not be forced to suffer the same fate and would be able to have dignified access to employers.

[David Greene]

People need access to jobs now, not access to some job that might appear nearer to them in a decade.

We have noted the lack of light industrial jobs in the city. Those aren't coming back.

[mattaudio]

People need access to a lengthy walk across desolate stroads and parking lots, with jobs behind them.

[Minneapolisite]

If it's a false dilemma, show me one Minnesota state legislator pushing for the things you're pushing for. Now show me even half of a majority.

The people who live in Eden Prairie right now aren't going to move to Loring Park, and I suspect you'd complain if they did. They're going to keep moving to EP whether we build this or not; they'll just make the freeways more congested, which'll eventually just lead to more freeways and, yep, more sprawl. You can talk pipe dreams about banning freeways and green belts all you want, but that doesn't make them any closer to happening. This LRT can and is going to happen.

Honestly, I'd much rather have sprawl developing around a train station than around a highway. At least a train station has the potential for walkable development and marginally sustainable living.

I don't have to show you any number of MN state legislators because most don't even have a tenuous grasp on urbanism and transportation: just look at our current transportation slanted towards cars and sprawling land use if you have any doubts. People will still move to EP, yes, but building SWLRT is only going to exacerbate sprawl because now those EP stations serve to anchor sprawl much further out than what would have been built without it. You essentially want to reward bad decision making and expect good decisions to be made afterwards: that's a totally illogical line of thinking.

We've already seen that when you increase the number of urban amenities in an urban area it attracts more residents: if you don't offer them you won't. This is being built at the expense of serving existing walkable developments and existing residents in sustainable areas that are underserved by mass transit who, with all due respect, could give a fuck about "potential for walkable development and marginally sustainable living" out in a far-flung suburb when our only options for getting around some parts of the cities for a good chunk of the year is to wait 20-30 minutes in -0 weather. Fuck these potential non-existent people who haven't had to put up with that, because I have been caught out in snow storms during morning/evening commutes and sure as shit no one there was caring about about high-frequency LRT to the burbs when we're stuck waiting for a low-frequency bus that's a half hour late in the dead of winter.

[Minneapolisite]

People need access to jobs now, not access to some job that might appear nearer to them in a decade.

We have noted the lack of light industrial jobs in the city. Those aren't coming back.

Tell that to the people commuting to and from work in the cities who waited in brutal sub zero temps this past winter along low-frequency bus lines in the cities. Amazing how just because you said they don't exist doesn't change the fact they were freezing their asses off and your answer is: they need to work in the suburbs instead and we shouldn't increase the number of jobs with station built here. What a joke: you obviously haven't had to walk from a bus shelter with no sidewalk to a suburban job. Hint: they plow snow all up around the shelter meaning you have to walk in the road to access the shelter to leave work and in the road to get to your job away from the shelter: and that would be considered "walkable" since it was within a 1/4 mile of the shelter. This is what people like you want to put people through by funneling more jobs out to far out suburbs like EP: 4 LRT stations isn't going to undo all the high un-walkability and obstacles inherent in these areas.

[EOst]

I don't have to show you any number of MN state legislators because most don't even have a tenuous grasp on urbanism and transportation: just look at our current transportation slanted towards cars and sprawling land use if you have any doubts. People will still move to EP, yes, but building SWLRT is only going to exacerbate sprawl because now those EP stations serve to anchor sprawl much further out than what would have been built without it. You essentially want to reward bad decision making and expect good decisions to be made afterwards: that's a totally illogical line of thinking.

We've already seen that when you increase the number of urban amenities in an urban area it attracts more residents: if you don't offer them you won't. This is being built at the expense of serving existing walkable developments and existing residents in sustainable areas that are underserved by mass transit who, with all due respect, could give a fuck about "potential for walkable development and marginally sustainable living" out in a far-flung suburb when our only options for getting around some parts of the cities for a good chunk of the year is to wait 20-30 minutes in -0 weather. Fuck these potential non-existent people who haven't had to put up with that, because I have been caught out in snow storms during morning/evening commutes and sure as shit no one there was caring about about high-frequency LRT to the burbs when we're stuck waiting for a low-frequency bus that's a half hour late in the dead of winter.

So basically, you'd rather complain and wish for the perfect world than try to work toward a better one we can actually make. Okay, have fun in dream world.

[mullen]

the sw corridor is perefectly suitable for light rail. we have to think regionally. this line is no different than lrt built in the denver or salt lake metros. go look at you tube video of lines in these other cities. lots of suburban routes in lower density areas with the prospect of redevelopment. i think mpls did the best it could given the circumstances and we have station areas with lots of potentional.

[Realstreets]

the sw corridor is perefectly suitable for light rail. we have to think regionally. this line is no different than lrt built in the denver or salt lake metros. go look at you tube video of lines in these other cities. lots of suburban routes in lower density areas with the prospect of redevelopment. i think mpls did the best it could given the circumstances and we have station areas with lots of potentional.

True about Denver's. Although it hasn't stopped them expanding their freeways (http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/07/18/o ... ot-denver/) Anyone have data on Denver's LRT ridership?

I too have a hard time supporting the project given the loss in transit to other, more urban areas, as Minneapolisite has pointed out. To be fair to Eden Prairie, the city is developing a TOD plan for around the stations...take it for what it's worth.

[David Greene]

I too have a hard time supporting the project given the loss in transit to other, more urban areas

What loss? As far as I know, SWLRT doesn't propose cutting any other transit service.

No, it doesn't go directly to Uptown but high-frequency buses will surely serve the West Lake station. And yes, Midtown is in the works though it will obviously be some years before that's up and running. I'm still convinced Midtown is going to happen, but maybe not through the federal process. That might actually speed it up.

[mattaudio]

What loss? As far as I know, SWLRT doesn't propose cutting any other transit service.

Chicago Ave aBRT money (for 2016) is being redirected towards a parking ramp in Hopkins. I'm sure there's more, but that's the painful one right now.

[David Greene]

What loss? As far as I know, SWLRT doesn't propose cutting any other transit service.

Chicago Ave aBRT money (for 2016) is being redirected towards a parking ramp in Hopkins. I'm sure there's more, but that's the painful one right now.

That's not a loss. An opportunity cost, yes. I agree that it's a terrible use of those funds and don't really understand why it's not coming from the SWLRT budget. Is it being built before SWLRT? If not, FTA doesn't care what pots of money are used. If it's part of the project it gets included in the CEI calculation. People could literally donate hundreds of millions of dollars to the project and it wouldn't change the CEI one bit.

[FISHMANPET]

What loss? As far as I know, SWLRT doesn't propose cutting any other transit service.

Chicago Ave aBRT money (for 2016) is being redirected towards a parking ramp in Hopkins. I'm sure there's more, but that's the painful one right now.

That's not a loss. An opportunity cost, yes. I agree that it's a terrible use of those funds and don't really understand why it's not coming from the SWLRT budget. Is it being built before SWLRT? If not, FTA doesn't care what pots of money are used. If it's part of the project it gets included in the CEI calculation. People could literally donate hundreds of millions of dollars to the project and it wouldn't change the CEI one bit.

That's some crazy spin doctor shit there you know. We had money for the Chicago ave BRT, and instead it's being spent on Chicago Ave BRT, it's being spent on a Park & Ride in Hopkins for the LRT. Whether or not it's in the SWLRT project, it's clearly being built for LRT, at the expense of improving transit on Chicago Ave.

[mattaudio]

You'd think transit advocates that care about equity would be livid...

Giving up aBRT on a massively-popular bus route that connects South Minneapolis' poorest neighborhoods to the Mall of America and Downtown Minneapolis...

In exchange for a parking ramp for people who have cars and could choose to drive to one of any number of existing parking ramps, both today AND in the future when SWLRT adds thousands of P&R spaces.

[David Greene]

You'd think transit advocates that care about equity would be livid...

Did you read the part where I said it was a terrible use of funds?

No transit service is being cut by SWLRT. Some really important transit improvements aren't happening as fast due to a misallocation of funds. That is bad, we agree 100% on that.

[FISHMANPET]

As long as literally tens of people can take the train from the North side to Eden Prairie, David will be happy.