Page 201 of 264

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 1st, 2017, 3:15 pm
by RailBaronYarr
I'll just note that in my experience reading papers and blogs, the Transit Cost Penalty in America vs other nations is much higher than the road cost penalty. There are some things that are shared/similar (e.g. other nations who are better at tunneling, which is rarer for roads). But the requirements of transit projects (including the vehicles themselves) are more onerous, and the experience/breadth of firms with the technical expertise in performing work and building vehicles here is far less comparable to our road industry vs other countries'.

I am not interested in re-litigating 3C, but I am interested in building a completely different rail line that uses a 3C-ish alignment to Uptown.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 2nd, 2017, 8:17 am
by Bakken2016
I'll just note that in my experience reading papers and blogs, the Transit Cost Penalty in America vs other nations is much higher than the road cost penalty. There are some things that are shared/similar (e.g. other nations who are better at tunneling, which is rarer for roads). But the requirements of transit projects (including the vehicles themselves) are more onerous, and the experience/breadth of firms with the technical expertise in performing work and building vehicles here is far less comparable to our road industry vs other countries'.

I am not interested in re-litigating 3C, but I am interested in building a completely different rail line that uses a 3C-ish alignment to Uptown.
I feel like this might never happen, since they are pushing the Midtown Lightrail.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 2nd, 2017, 9:40 am
by RailBaronYarr
"Pushing." But yes, something like that line is not on any long-long-range plans with the Met Council. I actually think a SWLRT + Midtown makes an additional link like that more valuable (especially if it continued north into NE Mpls and beyond, a woefully under-served area on our regional transit plans) due to network effects. But it's not germane to SWLRT or this thread so I promise I'll stop there.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 11:11 am
by Bakken2016
http://www.startribune.com/wall-between ... 456207063/

Feds have weighed in on the wall, looks like a mitigation plan will be put in affect to prevent disturbing the area as much as they can.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 11:26 am
by David Greene
This is why people hate government.

Look, I love old retaining walls, foundations and historic artifacts. But we built a freaking FREEWAY over this area. It lost its historic value a long, long time ago.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 11:45 am
by Bakken2016
This is why people hate government.

Look, I love old retaining walls, foundations and historic artifacts. But we built a freaking FREEWAY over this area. It lost its historic value a long, long time ago.
I 100% agree!

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 12:05 pm
by tmart
The idea that the freight rail corridor by the impound lot can have historic protection is like something out of the Onion.

Some of this project's struggle has been self-imposed, but a lot more has just been all kinds of weird or unnecessary external circumstances and red tape. I feel for the folks who have poured so much time and energy into this project only to run into all this misdirected anger and all these bizarre setbacks.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 1:03 pm
by Multimodal
This document explains the historical significance. I don’t have time to read the whole thing, but the old photos & maps seem to paint an interesting picture. One person’s “government waste” is another person’s “history”.

https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... spx#page22

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 1:31 pm
by amiller92
This document explains the historical significance. I don’t have time to read the whole thing, but the old photos & maps seem to paint an interesting picture. One person’s “government waste” is another person’s “history”.

https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... spx#page22
Really? What's in the old photos that's still there to be preserved other than open space? Even the few photos of old retaining walls that are falling down aren't at all impressive.

I've been through there on the Cedar Lake trail a hundred times. There's nothing to preserve.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 1:40 pm
by Multimodal
Often, something historically significant is pretty, beautiful, or scenic.

But not always.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 1:50 pm
by tmart
The maps themselves have immense cultural significance, but what they're protecting just doesn't. It's infrastructure, and not a particularly noteworthy example of it. Any cultural context about historic railroad usage is rather laughable, because the modern usage and surroundings don't even remotely reflect what we see in those maps. It runs under an interstate, by a baseball stadium, and between chain link fences! Even the nicest examples of retaining walls they show are completely overrun and barely visible through the weeds and vegetation.

I support historical preservation, when the thing being protected is of real cultural value. Architectural gems like Foshay Tower? Totally. Truly transformative infrastructure like the historic locks and dams? Sure, preserve them for as long as they're safe and functional. But there has to be a limit where we say that preserving something serves no civic purpose.

Re: RE: Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 2:15 pm
by David Greene
Often, something historically significant is pretty, beautiful, or scenic.

But not always.
But it has to *be something.* I'm probably one of the most biased to preserving old stuff as anyone on here but there's just no there there.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 2:42 pm
by DanPatchToget
One of the bridge abutments the document refers to was for a railroad trestle for the Dan Patch Line (later MN&S) and Electric Short Line. The bridge was for their downtown terminal used by passengers until the late 1940s and freight until the 1980s. While its cool to see part of it still existing, it won't be the end of the world if it has to be taken down. There's plenty of photos of it both before and after the bridge was torn down.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 9th, 2017, 5:28 pm
by MNdible
Doesn't sound like the project team is particularly concerned about this. There will be some mitigation measures, but probably no significant impacts to the design or budget. Right?

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 14th, 2017, 4:56 pm
by Anondson
USBank move seems to show a shift in office market to SWLRT.

http://finance-commerce.com/2017/11/how ... o-hopkins/

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We’ll see.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 14th, 2017, 4:59 pm
by HiawathaGuy
Doesn't sound like the project team is particularly concerned about this. There will be some mitigation measures, but probably no significant impacts to the design or budget. Right?
Good information about this and rebid items in the new Extending Tracks Newsletter.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 11:09 am
by thatchio
As an aside, the adverse impact finding could have ramifications for how, if ever, the Midtown LRT project advances since it is an historic district and would modify the embankments and likely remove or modify numerous old and likely contributing features, such as former retaining walls.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 11:48 am
by Anondson
Huh. Good point.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 5:17 pm
by Silophant
I remember reading something once about how the historic designation of the Greenway was was carefully specified such that it's the grade separation itself that's protected, not any specific features. So, it can't be filled in, but they can make whatever modifications they need to for the rail line when they get around to putting it in.

There could and probably will be conflicts with the various bridges and adjacent buildings that are separately protected, though.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: November 18th, 2017, 5:44 pm
by tmart
I know zilch about historic railway preservation, but it seems from what's happened with SWLRT that it's less a ban on construction/renovation/redevelopment/conversions/etc, and more an obligation to work through a process of minimizing certain aesthetic disruptions where feasible. Is that about right, or is it a more serious impediment to SWLRT (and someday Midtown) than is coming out in the talk from Metro Transit?