Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
sean
Block E
Posts: 21
Joined: December 5th, 2012, 4:06 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby sean » July 9th, 2014, 3:23 pm

What people now view as 'parkland' is really just overgrown industrial wastelands filled with weeds.
You can create a park out of land that was once not a park. Check out Fresh Kills Park in New York, that is sitting on top of a landfill.

Maybe grass and trees don't excite you much, but many of us feel they are an important part of our environment. The Kenilworth corridor is a valuable example of rehabilitated parkland. But I get that it is a matter of how the region values the corridor when weighed against the convenience of the estimated 30k riders.

Imagine we were discussing putting in a new BRT transit-way that goes from the West Lake station area to 394 via the corridor. That would sound crazy, and it would be crazy. But because this is a train it gets some kind of magic bonus points in people's minds.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby talindsay » July 9th, 2014, 3:34 pm

But because this is a train it gets some kind of magic bonus points in people's minds.
Well, I get your point but it's not really "magic bonus points" - light rail produces no emissions at the vehicle, has a much narrower ROW than bus, requires less invasive maintenance, doesn't require snowplows, and can't possibly be opened up to other uses besides its initial planned use. The Greenway Coalition decided years ago to stand and fight any attempt to build the busway that was being proposed for the Greenway at that time, but decided that a streetcar could be compatible with the Greenway - not because of "magic bonus points" but because of the specific issues I highlight above.

Online
mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2753
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mulad » July 9th, 2014, 4:40 pm

Hmm. I'll have to do some measurements when I get home (I hear the feature has been brought back in the new Google Maps), but it doesn't seem like we've built LRT in a way that minimizes the ROW. It could take up less space, but there tends to be extra refuge space for peds (I guess?) and poles for overhead wires. In tight streets, wires can probably be suspended from mounts attached to buildings, but we haven't done that.

Minneapolisite

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Minneapolisite » July 9th, 2014, 5:29 pm

Good meeting? They obviously want as little public opinion as possible. There was no way I could stay til #67 was up: it was getting dark out since it was after 9 and I had to get up early this morning (7PM was a late start), so I had to bike back. I found it ironic that at a meeting for quality LRT in the burbs that the #9 bus was my only other (very lackluster) option: not sure if I missed it, but wasn't going to wait 30+ minutes for the next one if I did. I left around speaker #47 unsatisfied with the fundamental misunderstandings of some the speakers, the mayor,city council, and met council. The fact that so many people don't acknowledge that high density mass transit only makes sense in high density areas is not surprising.

With so many speakers they should have held another meeting, but it clearly sounds like the city officials of Mpls no longer want those additional 100,000 residents since they're going to help build an LRT line to give them yet another incentive to move to the burbs: it'll be better mass transit than many Mpls-StP residents will have since those new EP residents won't have to wait 30 minutes or so for a bus to show up at a blank MT stick in the ground. They'll be able to drive to their nearest station and park for free (courtesy of carless city residents like myself) and maybe have to wait 10-15 minutes max. On the upside many speakers were opposed to make clear that Minneapolis is far from a fan of the SWLRT.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 9th, 2014, 8:04 pm

Im sure if I had stayed it would have gotten better. I had a headache and had to bike back to Eden Prairie (which would have been easier if there was you know.. a light rail) I'm pretty sure I was sitting behind you.
Aw, you should have tapped me on the shoulder! :)

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 9th, 2014, 8:07 pm

Finally, a bit more detailed history of the corridor that I only knew through files of old photos-

http://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-min ... -long-time

What people now view as 'parkland' is really just overgrown industrial wastelands filled with weeds.
Moreover, the 21st St. station area used to have a passenger rail station back about the 1870's or so. There's information in the AIA guide to Minneapolis on the station and the associated hotel, both long since vanished.

We're actually restoring a passenger rail service that existed in the corridor over a century ago. I think that's kind of fascinating from a history perspective.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2424
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby EOst » July 9th, 2014, 8:44 pm

The fact that so many people don't acknowledge that high density mass transit only makes sense in high density areas is not surprising.
Thank god that you understand all the issues behind urban transit planning way better than mayors and people with degrees in planning these things.

uptowncarag

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby uptowncarag » July 9th, 2014, 8:50 pm

Good meeting? They obviously want as little public opinion as possible. There was no way I could stay til #67 was up: it was getting dark out since it was after 9 and I had to get up early this morning (7PM was a late start), so I had to bike back. I found it ironic that at a meeting for quality LRT in the burbs that the #9 bus was my only other (very lackluster) option: not sure if I missed it, but wasn't going to wait 30+ minutes for the next one if I did. I left around speaker #47 unsatisfied with the fundamental misunderstandings of some the speakers, the mayor,city council, and met council. The fact that so many people don't acknowledge that high density mass transit only makes sense in high density areas is not surprising.

With so many speakers they should have held another meeting, but it clearly sounds like the city officials of Mpls no longer want those additional 100,000 residents since they're going to help build an LRT line to give them yet another incentive to move to the burbs: it'll be better mass transit than many Mpls-StP residents will have since those new EP residents won't have to wait 30 minutes or so for a bus to show up at a blank MT stick in the ground. They'll be able to drive to their nearest station and park for free (courtesy of carless city residents like myself) and maybe have to wait 10-15 minutes max. On the upside many speakers were opposed to make clear that Minneapolis is far from a fan of the SWLRT.
So in other words you are not a fan of light rail.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4470
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Silophant » July 9th, 2014, 9:03 pm

Not if it doesn't stop in Loring Park.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 9th, 2014, 9:09 pm

Good meeting? They obviously want as little public opinion as possible. There was no way I could stay til #67 was up: it was getting dark out since it was after 9 and I had to get up early this morning (7PM was a late start), so I had to bike back...The fact that so many people don't acknowledge that high density mass transit only makes sense in high density areas is not surprising.

With so many speakers they should have held another meeting
A public hearing is not for people to exclusively express opinions you agree with. When I say it was a good meeting, I mean that I heard almost every opinion I've ever heard on SWLRT in many, many, many private conversations. To have all of that, publicly, in one place and conversation is an amazing thing. It has not happened before on this project. It rarely happens at any public meeting.

A real conversation occurred last night. A formal conversation, certainly, but it was a great example of democray in action. It not only matters that the electeds heard it. It matters that everyone in attendance heard it and maybe got some new perspective on the project. It may not change minds but it hopefully spurs some thought.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4470
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Silophant » July 9th, 2014, 9:16 pm

Also, a 7pm start time is infinitely preferable to the many other public hearings and meetings that happen during normal business hours, thereby ensuring that the majority of voices heard are retirees or unemployed people that can actually go without burning vacation time. Not that such opinions aren't important, but they're by no means representative of the general public.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » July 10th, 2014, 8:18 am

There are clearly lots of misconceptions about this line, this agreement, etc. One I've seen pop up a few times this week:
People hear co-location and think oil trains will hold up transit similar to Northstar. Some people don't realize they aren't sharing tracks.

Online
mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2753
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mulad » July 10th, 2014, 8:40 am

I may as well clear up something I said -- I'm pretty sure the "guardrails" they talked about for the freight tracks are just extra pieces of rail or metal placed between the rails, to try to catch wheels in the event of a derailment, and reduce the severity of those situations. They're usually (always?) in place on bridges and near switches, and show up in other places where the risk of derailment is higher or the consequences of a derailment are especially severe.

Tom H.
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 605
Joined: September 4th, 2012, 5:23 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Tom H. » July 10th, 2014, 8:49 am

I've seen those guardrails in certain places along the Green Line (Washington Ave Bridge, for example, and also along some tight curves) and always wondered what they were for. Thanks for the information.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby MNdible » July 10th, 2014, 9:46 am

Hearing St. Louis Park complaining about the new agreement is pretty galling.

Some officials of suburbs along the route questioned that spending, noting that their communities were told they couldn’t get guarantees for desired features and must rely on the discretion of the Met Council to approve contingency funds.

St. Louis Park Council Member Jake Spano said his community also agreed to trim some costs from the line, but when they asked the Met Council if they could use the savings elsewhere, “We were informed, no, you can’t, that money goes back in the hopper and everybody gets to compete for it.”


I'm sure that Minneapolis would be happy to trade the $30m to make the freight go away, thanks for offering, SLP! Meanwhile, I still haven't seen the funds paid back that purchased and cleaned up that property for the freight relocation.

mullen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 961
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 7:02 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mullen » July 10th, 2014, 10:55 am

oh just sour grapes. they'll have contingency money for things as the project gets flushed out. and these suburbs don't seem to include the millions spent on park and rides in their communities.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 10th, 2014, 10:56 am

Hearing St. Louis Park complaining about the new agreement is pretty galling.
Pat Doyle is a terrible reporter. He has repeatedly and predictably blown throw-away comments into "controversies" on this project.

Brauer had a tweet on this.
Strb has really played up suburb gripes v Mpls on #SWLRT: http://t.co/cQvlPdS4rE Compare to more neutral MPR take: http://t.co/fzdAK6berC
The MPR story is much more balanced.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby MNdible » July 10th, 2014, 11:04 am

Aside from the tone (and I wasn't there, so I'm really not sure which is more accurate), the two stories seem factually identical to me.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » July 10th, 2014, 11:08 am

Aside from the tone (and I wasn't there, so I'm really not sure which is more accurate), the two stories seem factually identical to me.
It's *all* about the tone of the articles. In other stories Doyle has just fain got the facts wrong too. His articles are written to drive readership, not accurately present what happened (include the mood/general feeling).

For example, his story on the Minneapolis hearing completely left out mention of racial equity, a major theme from many people who testified. And by "many" I mean at least 1/3 of the speakers.

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/266237311.html

mullen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 961
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 7:02 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mullen » July 10th, 2014, 12:06 pm

yes this is a common theme on these transporation stories. i remember laurie blake doing the same thing back when hiawatha was in the planning. it's always about outstate vs metro, then suburb vs city, then city vs city. it appeals to our parochial nature.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests