Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby VAStationDude » December 13th, 2016, 4:22 pm

100% true

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3801
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Silophant » December 13th, 2016, 4:23 pm

It would miss out on the ridership from 21st St, so...

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby FISHMANPET » December 13th, 2016, 4:38 pm

VAStationDude wrote:It's funny how people didn't want blocks long open rail cuts as permanent defining neighborhood features.

The goofy half baked Nicollet alignment will live forever in the hearts of people who wouldn't have had to fund, build or operate it.
By the way this is wrong, cut and cover doesn't leave the cuts open, it by definition covers them. I don't believe there was every a plan to leave an open rail trench down Nicollet. Unless by permanent you're referring to the number of years that Nicollet would be torn up during construction.

User avatar
LRV Op Dude
Union Depot
Posts: 324
Joined: July 7th, 2012, 10:30 am
Contact:

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby LRV Op Dude » December 13th, 2016, 4:41 pm

Uploaded METRO Green Line Extension (Southwest LRT)

Blog: Old-Twin Cities Transit New-Twin Cities Transit

You Tube: Old, New

AKA: Bus Driver Dude

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7923
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » December 13th, 2016, 4:47 pm

Wow, that's a lot of grade separation west of Shady Oak/OMF for not a lot of stations and transit-compatible land uses. If only we spent that much money doing grade separated transit where there are actual transit riders.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby VAStationDude » December 13th, 2016, 5:04 pm

The station platforms were to be below grade with open roofs at the ends of the Nicollet tunnel south of 28th and north of Franklin. That's at two blocks of open cuts, assuming cost escalation wouldn't have resulted in leaving other sections open. If open cuts weren't lousy enough the center of eat street would have endured years of construction only to end up with Nicollet cut off at the north end and at least another generation long closure at the south. Half baked.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby VAStationDude » December 13th, 2016, 5:07 pm

mattaudio wrote:Wow, that's a lot of grade separation west of Shady Oak/OMF for not a lot of stations and transit-compatible land uses. If only we spent that much money doing grade separated transit where there are actual transit riders.
I've jumped into this 3C argument against my better judgement but at least I'm not banging the same drum day after day.

https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f ... 20#p125633

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2290
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby EOst » December 14th, 2016, 7:52 am

3C would also have blocked the Greenway at Nicollet; cyclists would have been forced to take ramps over the tunnel entrance and then cross Nicollet at grade. That alone should have been enough to doom it.

User avatar
Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4021
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Anondson » December 14th, 2016, 9:14 am

Met Council negotiating to buy ramp across from future SWLRT station under Doran's apartments in Hopkins.

http://finance-commerce.com/2016/12/met ... kins-ramp/

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3801
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Silophant » December 14th, 2016, 9:55 am

Oh good now it can stay free forever instead of Doran experimenting to find out what market rate actually is for a park and ride.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7923
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby mattaudio » December 14th, 2016, 10:01 am

Anondson wrote:Met Council negotiating to buy ramp across from future SWLRT station under Doran's apartments in Hopkins.
So that's the second station-area fail in Hopkins in the name of parking, right? Didn't we lose out on TOD at Blake Road due to their desire to buy fake ridership with "free" parking?

And St. Louis Park is suffering from parking-for-ridership syndrome too: https://streets.mn/2014/07/28/swlrtbeltline/

I thought the whole pitch of bringing "color line" transit to the burbs is that it will create transit-oriented instead of car-oriented land uses at station areas? That's tough when your station area is parking.

User avatar
Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4021
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Anondson » December 14th, 2016, 10:12 am

My recollection was there was to be structured parking at Shady Oak, that was scratched in order to put structured parking nearest to Mainstreet instead. The city/Met Council negotiated with Doran to have the parking under the luxury apartments be split between the residents and public general use. I forget how Doran was to be compensated for providing public parking, this could just be the next stage of what was planned from the beginning.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1748
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby amiller92 » December 14th, 2016, 10:15 am

LRV Op Dude wrote:Uploaded METRO Green Line Extension (Southwest LRT)

I still do not understand deferring the Eden Prairie Town Center station - near where people live and work - but keeping the Golden Triangle and City West stations that aren't remotely walkable.

BoredAgain
Landmark Center
Posts: 250
Joined: July 3rd, 2014, 1:38 pm
Location: Lyndale Neighborhood

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby BoredAgain » December 14th, 2016, 10:50 am

amiller92 wrote:
I still do not understand deferring the Eden Prairie Town Center station - near where people live and work - but keeping the Golden Triangle and City West stations that aren't remotely walkable.
My cynical answer is that there is a reason to still do the Town Center station in the future even if it doesn't happen now. If they skip the golden triangle and City West stations, there are no constituents (aside from "completists") who would see a reason to spend money and build it later.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4759
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » December 14th, 2016, 11:04 am

FISHMANPET wrote:By the way this is wrong, cut and cover doesn't leave the cuts open, it by definition covers them. I don't believe there was every a plan to leave an open rail trench down Nicollet. Unless by permanent you're referring to the number of years that Nicollet would be torn up during construction.
The portals were pretty big.

fehler
Rice Park
Posts: 443
Joined: July 30th, 2012, 8:33 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby fehler » December 14th, 2016, 11:17 am

Future things happen, like increasing 2-car stations to 3-car, and building the American Blvd station.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby RailBaronYarr » December 14th, 2016, 12:26 pm

Okay just a couple of maybe non-helpful thoughts:
VAStationDude wrote:It's funny how people didn't want blocks long open rail cuts as permanent defining neighborhood features.
We have exactly that in the Greenway. If rail in the Greenway will be okay, I don't know why a few open roofs in the center of the street If my memory serves correct) would be so awful to tolerate. In fact, it'd likely be have been far less of a gap than the Greenway.
EOst wrote:3C would also have blocked the Greenway at Nicollet; cyclists would have been forced to take ramps over the tunnel entrance and then cross Nicollet at grade. That alone should have been enough to doom it.
I am sure there are ways this could have been avoided. I'm not saying Eat Street/Whittier/Midtown Greenway Coalition have the clout of wealthy Kenilworth landowners... But if they could swing a several-hundred million dollar tunnel under a trail, I'm sure we could have dropped the rails down another 15' before turning north under what would have been a straight shot bike/ped path. If 3C had been chosen, I also bet we could have coordinated the K-Mart redevelopment to allow a bit more breathing room to the south to bend SWLRT tracks out first while keeping ROW for future Greenway transit to continue heading east. And, worst case, another option would have been to keep the 29th-Lake block of Nicollet car-free and yeah the bikers have to go back up to street level and drop back down. We built an expensive bridge over Hiawatha (and, I should add, a train) with a much larger/longer climb that adds an extra 1,000 feet of biking distance and people seem to enjoy it and everything.

It's all done and whatever we're doing it differently. I just don't buy that it would have been super awful on Nicollet or super difficult to accommodate bikes on the Greenway.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2290
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby EOst » December 14th, 2016, 1:12 pm

RailBaronYarr wrote:We have exactly that in the Greenway. If rail in the Greenway will be okay, I don't know why a few open roofs in the center of the street If my memory serves correct) would be so awful to tolerate. In fact, it'd likely be have been far less of a gap than the Greenway.
DEIS wrote:The open-air, below-grade station platforms in Segment A would consume the full width of each street right-of-way between 29th Street and 28th Street and between 22nd Street and Franklin Avenue. This configuration would require the closure of the street to vehicle traffic within that block.
Little more than an open roof in the center of the street.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby VAStationDude » December 14th, 2016, 1:31 pm

Excellent 29th street Nicollet analogy.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby RailBaronYarr » December 14th, 2016, 1:38 pm

I mean, I guess that doesn't square with these three drawings (plus color code chart) taken from Appendix F of the DEIS. They clearly show that the roadway would cantilever over the platforms to allow a sidewalk and roadway to continue on where the stations were. The same was true for the 3C alternates where N/S-bound trains ran under either Blaisdell or 1st Ave.

And, there's this from the DEIS Chapter 6: Transportation Effects (p6-24):
In Segment C-1, the alignment travels under Nicollet Avenue in a tunnel and features two open-air stations. At station locations along Nicollet Avenue, one travel lane in each direction will be cantilevered over the open-air stations below. This will call for the removal of the center-turn lanes along Nicollet Avenue, as well as modifying the appearance of the roadway. The cantilevered roadway sections and open air tunnels extend from 250 feet south of 27th Street to 29th Street as well as from 200 feet north of 22nd Street to 200 feet north of Franklin Avenue.
So I'm not sure where that other description comes from. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that multiple other documents show the opposite. In any case, I always thought it was weird that we'd build a cut-cover tunnel but then leave the station open air rather than just closing it off. I'd imagine folks would have pushed to just close it to have a wider sidewalk and/or keep the center turn lanes or whatever.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest