Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

it is a really nice park space and bike corridor. this line just shows how difficult it is to jerryrig transportation into established neighborhoods.

The thing I don't get is - the purpose of the shallow tunnel is to avoid impacting the park space & bike corridor, right? But that's specific to the segment that would be tunnelized, that is, roughly the half mile between Lake St and about a block north of Cedar Lake Rd. But that's the segment of Kenilworth where the park space is nonexistent, and the bike trail is already skinny and squished up next to the rail line. So wouldn't it be better to spend $50m less to take one row of the townhomes, which would provide enough space to actually create a bit of parkland there? In other words, why would anyone whose top priority is the open space and/or nonmotorized transportation value of Kenilworth prefer the shallow tunnel option to the all modes at grade option?

That's a very interesting question. I think Met Council wants to avoid property takings. I believe it would cost more than $50 million. The $50 million is the base cost for all the options. Each option has costs above that, so I would guess that taking the townhomes would be on top of the $50 million. I will ask about this at Thursday's CAC meeting. I'll also get the cost of the tunnel clarified. My reading has the marginal cost of a shallow tunnel at ~$70 million ($120 - $50) but I could be interpreting things incorrectly.

Property takings invite lawsuits which will add further cost to that option. It begins to make the shallow tunnel look like the more cost-effective solution. Relocating the bike trail also invites lawsuits. Minneapolis has stated they would withhold municipal consent for any non-tunnel colocation option. This is speculation on my part but I suspect this is the calculation Met Council staff are making. Fighting or settling the lawsuits and delays imposed by lack of municipal consent will cost enough to make the tunnel option cheaper. Peter Wagenius pretty much stated this as Minneapolis' goal. I fully acknowledge that this stance is unhelpful at best and batsh*t crazy at worst. But it is political reality and the project has to deal with it.

[sad panda]

From the Met Council's press release:

In addition to the cost estimates below that are specific to each option, all options require the accommodation of common improvements which are estimated to add $85 million to $90 million to each option.

For co-location, cost estimates and primary cost drivers are:
All modes (trail, freight and LRT) at ground level – $50 million to $55 million. Reduces full residential property acquisitions from 55 to 26.
Trail relocated - $35 million to $40 million – New trail route from Midtown Greenway to Cedar Lake Parkway, including trail overpass structures. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
Trail elevated - $50 million to $55 million – New elevated trail, including handicapped accessible connection to Cedar Lake Parkway. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
LRT elevated - $105 million to $110 million – New elevated LRT structure. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
Kenilworth deep LRT tunnel – $320 million to $330 million –Tunnel-boring operations and machinery, reconstruction of West Lake Street Bridge, subway tunnel station at West Lake and eliminates 21st Street Station. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.
Kenilworth shallow LRT tunnel – $150 million to $160 million –Cut-and-cover excavation, retains West Lake Street Station and eliminates 21st Street Station. Avoids full residential property acquisitions.

For relocation, cost estimates and primary cost drivers are:
Brunswick West alignment (through St. Louis Park High School football field) – $200 million to $210 million – Full or partial acquisition of 46 homes, businesses or public properties; construction of freight rail bridge structures, lowering of frontage road at Highway 7; and reconfiguration of local roads.
Brunswick Central alignment (avoids St. Louis Park High School football field) – $190 million to $200 million – Full or partial acquisition of 32 homes, businesses and public properties; construction of overhead freight bridge; lowering of Highway 7 and frontage road; and, reconfiguration of local roads.

From the two open houses, I recall them saying that if they did the shallow tunnel only until the channel it would cost ~80 million. So you're looking at a ~30 million difference to avoid taking 26 properties and all the delays associated. I don't see this 'cheaper' shallow tunnel option flying with Kenwood though as it seems most of them don't want to ever hear the lrt thus the need for the full length.

[David Greene]

From the Met Council's press release:

Thanks for that. Somehow I had averaged the cost of a full shallow tunnel and a shorter one. :-/

I still think $80 million is reasonable to avoid lawsuits and delays.

It should be an interesting CAC meeting. I'd like to have a robust discussion around the shorter tunnel as it seems like that will be the next decision to be made.

[woofner]

I have a hard time believing the cost of takings is not included in the estimates. Transportation is pretty widely accepted rationale for eminent domain, by the courts at least. MnDot uses it all the time, so I have a hard time believing they'd get an injunction. The biggest risk is that the courts will find they were undervalued in their compensation, but it would be amazing if 26 townhomes were undervalued enough to get more than $100m payout in order for the all modes at grade alternative to end up costing more than the shallow tunnel alternative. And if I'm wrong, at least if the courts found mass transit an impermissible rationale for eminent domain, urbanists could all give up on Minnesota, move away and be much happier.

[orangevening]

The only advantage of the 21st street station would be to make it easier to get to Hidden Beach for people who don't have cars. If you have ever tried to get there by transit you know what I mean.

Hidden beach doesn't need more people and it's easier to bike there then to drive and find a spot on the to park

[sad panda]

Just to clarify, MetCouncil is saying acquisition costs are included. The ~15 million price difference between all at-grade co-located and the co-located with rerouted trail is partially the acquisition/demolition cost.

Didn't they also mention that relocate and shallow tunnel co-locate lead to complicated scheduling of construction with likely delay in opening day? I'd be curious to see the very latest IMPS revisions for the different freight options.

[David Greene]

Thanks for the clarification panda. redesciple, the cost is not just in the actual takings. The legal fees are extraordinary.

I haven't heard anything about delays in the project, at least not at the open houses.

[woofner]

They would need to hire Robert Shapiro, Johnny Cochran, and F Lee Bailey to drag the case on for years in order for the legal fees to hit the $100m mark. I'm guessing the Met Council has a decent-sized legal department that could accommodate a maximum of 26 resulting cases, and actually my understanding is that most eminent domain cases end in settlements, so fees don't really enter in. On top of that, not saying I would put any other numerical shenanigans past this project, but there should be a legal contingency line in the budget, and alternatives with more takings should have a larger number in this line than alternatives with fewer takings. So this should be reflected in the estimated costs of the alternatives. Should.

[David Greene]

but there should be a legal contingency line in the budget, and alternatives with more takings should have a larger number in this line than alternatives with fewer takings. So this should be reflected in the estimated costs of the alternatives. Should.

This is another question to ask at the CAC. The project already has a generous contingency budget. Do these increases fall under that?

[gobezlij]

Cost now potentially up to $1.82 billion, with park & rides and bridges estimated to need $150 million.

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/217052201.html

[kirby96]

Yowza. Now nearly 50% over original estimates. Im a big proponent of transit, but at what point has the math changed so much that the basic viability is re-evaluated? As a taxpayer I'm thinking its getting close to that point (or should be...). I thought the "we must stop the Southwest Corridor" blog post was a bit over the top earlier this week. I'm starting to rethink that...

[David Greene]

Note "as high as" and "potentially." That number is based on stuff that isn't going to happen, like a deep bore tunnel and the most expensive options for parking and bridges. We are not even 30% into design. This budget will keep getting adjusted, things will be dropped, etc. A more accurate *current* number is $1.5-$1.6 billion but that will change over time. The feds care about cost effectiveness and we aren't going to be able to build a project that has unreasonable costs.

And it's not like the costs are going up with no benefits. These are good changes to the project, such as locating the Louisiana station further south, a better alignment through Eden Prairie and so on.

The additional cost for Park & Rides is due to the fact that the ridership forecast is up. So we're paying a bit more to capture more ridership. Seems like a good tradeoff to me.

This is really poor reporting. Pat Doyle is presenting less than half the story, which borders on outright dishonesty.

[David Greene]

The project is carrying multiple options forward to do a proper engineering analysis. This is how the process works. We probably aren't going to pick the most expensive option for everything. The budget range reflects the range of choices we have going forward.

[mulad]

News organizations always spin costs like that. Always.

[papazim]

I don't believe the south Louisiana station option is included in these numbers. That would be an additional $15 million above the estimates here. I find it hard to believe they will be able to cut enough from the project to then add in some of the improvements that have been talked about.

[David Greene]

A southern Louisiana station is included. The extra $15 million you refer to is to move the station even further south, which requires more ROW acquisition.

Remember that 20% of the budget is contingency. That gets reduced over time or can be used to pay for some of the improvements. It's a significant pot of money.

If the budget doesn't support all of the improvements, some of the improvements will be dropped. That's how the process worked. It's no different than how Central proceeded.

[papazim]

I guess that depends on your definition of "south". The revised LPA alignment (or whatever they are calling it) keeps the Louisiana station north of Oxford but does bring it down off of the current embankment and tucks it into the hillside. The option that moves it even further south (partially using the existing wye tracks) would bring it almost to the northern edge of Methodist. There are plenty of land aquisition costs involved for this option, but it eliminates the need for a new bridge over Louisiana so the difference is "only" $15 million.

I think the second option is the better one, but if the project is already $150 million over, plus the $85-90 million base for dealing with freight, plus the cost of whatever freight scenario they settle on (minimum $35 million, probably more like $80 to $150 million if they go with the shallow tunnel) there's no way they'll be looking to spend more at the stations.

I wish I had a feel for how much they will eventually need to cut -- i.e., what is the maximum amount they feel comfortable going with as a final number (assuming it will be over the initial cost estimates).

[twincitizen]

Hopefully park & rides are the first thing on the chopping block. It would be a shame to have more at-grade crossings on the line so that P&Rs could be spared. P&Rs can be built later, and do not have to be included in the budget of this project. Stations, bridges, underpasses, etc. should not be cut.

[David Greene]

I tend to agree about cutting park and rides. There are a few strategically placed ones that should probably remain.

The trick is balancing ridership. Engineers are assuming 1/3 of ridership comes from people driving to park & rides. If you reduce the amount of parking, you have to adjust the ridership projections downward.

[twincitizen]

It seems the genesis of the problem is that we're trying to do too big of a project all at once. I don't see what's so wrong about building the line out to Shady Oak Station (Hopkins/Mtka border) now and continue out to EP in the future. I like this project (failure to serve Uptown aside) but I don't understand why we're trying to build all 15 miles at once. Other metro areas have build shorter lines and extend them as needed. I understand that there are immense reverse commute opportunities when you bring Opus, Golden Triangle and EP into the picture, and I do think the full line should be built eventually. It just seems that this is too large a project and cutting it in half now might be the only way to save it. And I hope no one draws a parallel to Northstar, because it is NOT the same thing. Also, running Northstar to St. Cloud would not make it a better project. That was the one piece of Nick's Streets.MN piece I do not agree with.