Re: Southwest Corridor (Green Line Extension)
Posted: February 3rd, 2014, 3:40 pm
But you're ignoring that the problem isn't LRT in Kenilworth, it's freight. Single-tracking does nothing to resolve the current logjam.
Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
Isn't that not really true? I mean, it is for the people who want freight re-routed because it was promised at some point in the past, but I've read/heard just as many people saying that frequent LRT trains coming through will disrupt the peaceful nature of the trail, the backyards, and kayaking.But you're ignoring that the problem isn't LRT in Kenilworth, it's freight. Single-tracking does nothing to resolve the current logjam.
From what I understand, it is no more viable than any of the other plans. They say that TC&W has said it will work, but there is no way to give a real answer until there are more details. There are no detailed maps, drawings, or illustrations for anyone to go by. In fact the measurement that they use for the distance of the tracks near the high school is 50 feet off.If this new freight re-route thing is actually viable, how the hell did we ever arrive at the whole 2-story berms situation? (Which, in turn led to the tunnels through Kenilworth situation)
In retrospect, that is just really embarassing.
The bottom line seems to be that a whole bunch of animosity (and 3-month delay, tunnel studies,etc.) could have been avoided if Met Council had simply tried a little harder to engineer a workable re-route. It all seems a little hard to believe.
Now that's just silly. This study makes their job MORE difficult, not less.IMO the Met Council/Governor paid to get the study that they wanted.
I don't know about "just as many" but you're right, that voice has been increasing in volume. Single track won't help that either.I've read/heard just as many people saying that frequent LRT trains coming through will disrupt the peaceful nature of the trail, the backyards, and kayaking.
From the CAC meeting tonight, it'll be 2'-6' higher than the curret berm it's on (so a little above-grade at the high school, I guess?). The idea is to go all the way back to Blake to regrade so the line doesn't descend as it does now. A new bridge would take it over Hwy 7 north of the current alignment and slip onto the existing MN&S ROW just about at the high school. Four of the six current crossings would be closed. Tangents would be lengthened to remove problems with the S-surves.So I re-listened to the story, and I guess the trains wouldn't be placed on berms, but there was no description of the new alternative. So it's probably at-grade.
How does this make their job more difficult if this is the result that they have been pushing for since the governor stepped in? It's made even easier if they just leave out a few dollar figures to make the TranSystem plan look like the solution to all of the problems.Now that's just silly. This study makes their job MORE difficult, not less.IMO the Met Council/Governor paid to get the study that they wanted.
I expect the cost of the TranSystem plan is going to come in around $125 million. It'll be close enough to shallow tunnels to be a coin toss, budget-wise.
The line is being designed for a minimum headway of 5 minutes.At an average speed of 45 MPH (max speed of 55 plus accel/decel) it would take 2 minutes for a train to get through this stretch. So unless we were planning to have headways of 5 minutes or less, I'm not sure it would matter.
It's more difficult because now there isn't a clear winner. Before, the shallow tunnel was pretty much the only reasonable option and people were coming to accept that. Now they have to make a hard choice. That choice might not go the way *you* like but that doesn't mean that choice is easy.How does this make their job more difficult if this is the result that they have been pushing for since the governor stepped in? It's made even easier if they just leave out a few dollar figures to make the TranSystem plan look like the solution to all of the problems.
I agree, the reactions of Dibble and Hornstein in particular really bother me. It shouldn't surprise me though based on how they were at the Jan. 9 meeting in SLP. They were in the back just to my left and were carrying on a pretty continuous and distracting conversation while people were speaking. I'm amazed Hornstein even heard the 'Sophie's Choice' comment...It's more difficult because now there isn't a clear winner. Before, the shallow tunnel was pretty much the only reasonable option and people were coming to accept that. Now they have to make a hard choice. That choice might not go the way *you* like but that doesn't mean that choice is easy.
Honestly, do you *really* think a Met Council member from suburban Hudson cares at all about some people in CIDNA and Kenwood? Yes, they're appointed by the Governor but the Governor is not going to play petty parochial games. He wanted the studies to quiet people who were saying this or that option wasn't explored. That's perfectly reasonable.
On the other hand, the reactions of Bestsy Hodges, Scott Dibble and Frank Hornstein struck me as over the top and a little bit too giddy. They came off as somewhat spiteful.
You'll get no argument from me. The north tunnel is still being considered because it's seen as the only politically viable option in the corridor. The real world ain't just focused on engineering and cost.As for a clear winner, there still isn't an apples to apples comparison. TranSystems is using a 25% contingency and not including property acquisitions. SWLRT is still on a 30% contingency. Also TranSystems only compared to the shallow tunnels option. Why not compare to removing the north tunnel? Or colo at grade (since there are takings in SLP with their relo plan, why not takings in Minneapolis with a colo plan)?
Hell, why is a north tunnel even still being considered? One could compare the north part of Kenilworth to the Cedar Lake LRT trail that runs through the Blake Corridor and South Oak Hill. I don't see them asking for a tunnel to hide the LRT/preserve the 'nature of the corridor'. And they are the two areas that are co-located no matter what.