Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
tmart
Landmark Center
Posts: 234
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby tmart » May 31st, 2018, 1:05 pm

EOst wrote:
May 31st, 2018, 11:31 am
394 was included in the highway BRT study a few years ago. 2013 cost was estimated at $47m, which is a bargain compared to the cost of LRT here.
The reason it was estimated so cheaply is because MNDOT views BRT as "any bus with expensive shelters and an abstract route map." The studied plan had $0 for corridor construction and $0 for right-of-way. It was using shoulders at rush hour and mixed-traffic otherwise, all but 3 eastbound and 1 westbound stations were completely offline, and even the "inline" ones were only adjacent to the highway and still involved exiting. This does not satisfy any definition of rapid transit.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7505
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » May 31st, 2018, 1:49 pm

Yeah, I was going to say... Have people even seen the Red Line?

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2170
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby EOst » May 31st, 2018, 2:34 pm

tmart wrote:
May 31st, 2018, 1:05 pm
The reason it was estimated so cheaply is because MNDOT views BRT as "any bus with expensive shelters and an abstract route map." The studied plan had $0 for corridor construction and $0 for right-of-way. It was using shoulders at rush hour and mixed-traffic otherwise, all but 3 eastbound and 1 westbound stations were completely offline, and even the "inline" ones were only adjacent to the highway and still involved exiting. This does not satisfy any definition of rapid transit.
Okay, but increase the cost fivefold for station/corridor improvements and it's still a fraction of what LRT would cost here. The 394 HOT lanes make a natural BRT corridor.

Online
Bakken2016
Landmark Center
Posts: 235
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: Windom South

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Bakken2016 » May 31st, 2018, 3:19 pm

Met Council approved new budget for SWLRT yesterday, and Hennepin County and HCRR just approved the additional money to cover the difference.

tmart
Landmark Center
Posts: 234
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby tmart » May 31st, 2018, 3:27 pm

So now it basically comes down to the track usage hearings/negotiations and the NIMBY appeal?

Online
Bakken2016
Landmark Center
Posts: 235
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: Windom South

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Bakken2016 » May 31st, 2018, 3:32 pm

tmart wrote:
May 31st, 2018, 3:27 pm
So now it basically comes down to the track usage hearings/negotiations and the NIMBY appeal?
Yea, though I have not heard anything about the NIMBY appeal, hopefully they gave up.

Multimodal
Landmark Center
Posts: 233
Joined: March 4th, 2016, 7:55 am
Location: Oh, no, the burbs!

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Multimodal » June 4th, 2018, 9:51 pm

tmart wrote:The median-located BART stations were totally fine when I used to take it. They did a great job on designing the stations to be real enclosed buildings just like any other station. They're not super walkable locations, true, but they're pretty busy even if they are park-and-rides.

It does have its drawbacks, but when our growth and development has happened along these corridors for decades, then sometimes going where the people are involves making those compromises. I think 394 is probably the top candidate where it could actually make sense in MN.
And with the recent propensity for suggesting highway caps, and with all the density added along corridors before ground has even broken along SWLRT (SLP, Hopkins, etc.), highways like 394 & 100 with their built-in ROW make more and more sense every day.

Imagine stations, highway caps, and added density at 394 & Penn/Cedar Lake; at 100 & the West End; at 100 & 50th/Vernon/Grandview; and at 100 & Pentagon Park/Normandale Lakes.

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1221
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby xandrex » June 5th, 2018, 10:14 am

Freeways caps can be great, but I'm a little skeptical it's feasible where you're suggesting.

394 & Penn/Cedar Lake is in a weird spot where the highway is an elevated bridge with Penn above it. Cedar Lake is low density and park land. 394 is basically at grade near West End.

Multimodal
Landmark Center
Posts: 233
Joined: March 4th, 2016, 7:55 am
Location: Oh, no, the burbs!

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Multimodal » June 5th, 2018, 11:04 pm

394 gets elevated east of Penn, right? I’m thinking of the area between Penn & Cedar Lake (so, west of Penn). We reconnect Cedar Lake Rd. on both sides of 394. Bryn Mawr gets reconnected to the lost neighborhood to its south, and the density already along 394 gets built up. If 394 is at-grade here, then use Elon’s magical Boring Company to drive 394 (and trains) underground here.

Same with the West End. Have you ever tried to bike there? Between 394, 100, and the railroad, it’s very hard to get there other than by very circuitous routes. I live southeast of there, and I biked there once and never again. Here again (since we’re fantasizing about rail on highway right of way), we could use the Boring Company to tunnel Hwy 100 (and transit) underground, reconnecting neighborhoods (and another segment of Cedar Lake Road!).

OK, so maybe it’s technically not a cap. But the point is that density is naturally occurring along transportation routes, whether sea, river, rail, or highway. So putting new rail along highway ROW, adding density, and reconnecting neighborhoods makes a lot of sense.

tmart
Landmark Center
Posts: 234
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby tmart » June 6th, 2018, 11:06 am

Yeah, the jist of this I agree with. (I don't know why Elon needs to come into this--we've been able to put rails and roads underground for a century and we simply lack the motivation.)

Like it or not, outside of the cities and the first-tier suburbs, our development happened around these freeways, a lot of which are already slightly below grade. The question then becomes how the goals of transit, efficiency, and environmentalism can adapt to that reality, and I think the combination of highway-running transit and judicious use of caps and infill development to beef up and connect the station-adjacent areas is the best I've heard or come up with.

DanPatchToget
Union Depot
Posts: 373
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby DanPatchToget » June 14th, 2018, 9:19 pm

http://www.startribune.com/southwest-li ... 485623731/

Hopkins O&M facility being scaled back to cut costs. Or they could just, you know, scrap the stupid tunnel in Kenilworth.

Online
Bakken2016
Landmark Center
Posts: 235
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: Windom South

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Bakken2016 » June 14th, 2018, 9:26 pm

DanPatchToget wrote:http://www.startribune.com/southwest-li ... 485623731/

Hopkins O&M facility being scaled back to cut costs. Or they could just, you know, scrap the stupid tunnel in Kenilworth.
This in my opinion is a good idea, we have two O&M’s already, to save $70 mil this was a good cut to the project.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bakken2016 and 4 guests