Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[MNdible]

I was reading a bit about Hyman Rickover this evening. When I read these quotes from him (about the design and development of nuclear reactors), it somehow made me think of this thread.

An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.

On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.

The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of "mere technical details." The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solution requires manpower, time and money.

[mattaudio]

But at the end of the day, you'd have a nuclear reactor. To extend the analogy to SWLRT, it seems as though we're going to build a delayed/expensive/large/problematic/complicated nuclear reactor that in the end will function as a belching coal plant.

[HiawathaGuy]

But at the end of the day, you'd have a nuclear reactor. To extend the analogy to SWLRT, it seems as though we're going to build a delayed/expensive/large/problematic/complicated nuclear reactor that in the end will function as a belching coal plant.

You're quite right! Removing 30,000+ people/day from their cars, clogging 494, 62, 35W, 169, 100, 94 & 394 will be absolutely horrid. God... it's really quite entertaining to see the same old arguments (with inflammatory rhetoric) used on this site. Seriously, do you actually believe the things you type?

[mattaudio]

How's that Red Line working out for you, mister?

[HiawathaGuy]

How's that Red Line working out for you, mister?

Apples/Oranges, mister. Comparing them, like a nuclear reactor & a coal power plant, only makes you look the crabby fool.

[mattaudio]

Same transit-hostile land use, same results. Call the amber lamps.

[Mdcastle]

Red line is a bus that doesn't go downtown, as opposed to rail that will.

[David Greene]

My guess is that the deferment is very short term -- that by the time the line opens up, that station will already have been built out using contingency funds released once major civil work is finished.

Contingency no longer works that way. Any money not used must be returned to the feds.

Unfortunately, I suspect we're looking at something closer to the American Blvd. timeframe than the Victoria St. timeframe. Remember, we're going to pay at least double to build the station later rather than now.

Tcmetro is exactly right about the negative impact on environmental justice communities. It's a terrible decision all around.

[MNdible]

Contingency no longer works that way. Any money not used must be returned to the feds.

That was my impression also, David, but I've spoken with a couple of people who should know better than me, and they both believed that this is how things would play out.

[David Greene]

The project office has explicitly said multiple times that contingency can't be used for buybacks. This has been addressed several times in CAC meetings. I'm curious who you talked to. Are they in any sort of official capacity with the project?

[Tiller]

Must the contingency funds explicitly be federal funds, and/or be given to the feds if not used, regardless of origin? If neither, or not one of the two, then I could imagine contingency funds being used to add some stations back in.

[David Greene]

That's a good question. I'll ask at the next CAC meeting.

[papazim]

Up on Finance & Commerce, though behind pay wall:


Judge denies summary judgment in Southwest LRT case

By: Cali Owings August 5, 2015 10:02 am

A federal judge has ruled that the Metropolitan Council was within its rights to seek municipal approvals for the future Southwest Light Rail Transit line before updated environmental reviews were made available. But the decision does not end the case.

In an order Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim denied the Lakes and Parks Alliance’s request to stop the project and revoke the municipal approvals until a final environmental study was completed on the 14.5-mile line between Minneapolis and Eden Prairie. Even so, the judge noted that the case is still evolving.

While he ruled that a group of Minneapolis residents concerned about the Kenilworth Corridor could not prove their request for summary judgment at this point, Tunheim raised concerns that the Met Council’s practices may prejudice the final environmental review.

“The Met Council has come dangerously close to impermissibly prejudicing the ongoing environmental review process,” he wrote.

[FISHMANPET]

Roper posted a picture of part of the judgement on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/StribRoper/status/6 ... 3119507457

[HiawathaGuy]

Judge denies quick ruling in SWLRT lawsuit
http://www.journalmpls.com/news/sw-lrt- ... rt-lawsuit

Another great article from The Journal, bravo.
Now I'm left wondering what this means though... will they appeal? Can they?

[min-chi-cbus]

At this point I just want to see this line get built.....I'm way past optimal alignments.

[David Greene]

I don't really understand this. I thought the question concerned whether Met Council obtained municipal consent before environmental review was complete. I don't see how a "drumbeat," no matter how loud, results in limiting whether cities can vote yes or no on a project. It's not like the cities direct Met Council to plan a different route. It's an up-or-down vote.

The suit against the FTA was dismissed, so apparently the judge feels the environmental review process itself has been conducted properly. It's that environmental review that directs route choice, not municipal consent.

In practical terms I don't think this really changes anything. Even if the judge were to rule that Met Council went to municipal consent too early, the fact that they're going back and doing it all over again should rectify any such issues.

But of course, IANAL.

EDIT: I suppose the judge could rule that FTA conducted itself properly during environmental review but Met Council did not. Though FTA approves the review done by Met Council so it seems like a logical contradiction to make such a ruling.

[acs]

At this point I just want to see this line get built.....I'm way past optimal alignments.

-1. Start digging and move on to advancing new corridors not within the plan yet (midtown, riverview, Rush Line ect...).

[David Greene]

At this point I just want to see this line get built.....I'm way past optimal alignments.

-1. Start digging and move on to advancing new corridors not within the plan yet (midtown, riverview, Rush Line ect...).

Lakes & Parks Alliance does not care one bit about those lines or transit in general. They're well-funded. They're going to fight this as long as possible.

[acs]

The Met Council absolutely must use this close call as a learning experience and make sure to never repeat the same mistakes going forward with other lines. If they do, I swear to God I'll vote republican across the board just to see them dismantle the council's transit planning authority.