urbanMSP

We should investigate a bit to find out why it was discarded. If it was discarded for good technical reasons, then by all means, stop investigating.

I was just having a little fun . I realized I got a little edgy the past couple days (mostly cuz work and MBA have been getting me down) and I wanted to be a little more light-hearted.

Good info, mister.shoes, and I think this is a great option for freight re-location.

Looks like Hodges is bringing 3c back also.

Where do you get that from? All I read is her opposing at-grade through Kenilworth. No mention of 3C or Uptown at all.

From the article "Some of the options dropped early in the process because of cost need to be re-examined, she said. Hodges, a City council member, cited as an example the option of moving the freight line farther west than the current option in St. Louis Park."

Maybe you read that differently than I do...maybe she's just talking the 169 alignment?

Maybe the freight line could be put in the median of 100? Especially if 100 is going to be reconstructed...

Maybe the freight line could be put in the median of 100? Especially if 100 is going to be reconstructed...

That would come back to the same issues with freight in the Brunswick options through SLP, that is that the elevation changes for freight rail would be too great. Freight elevation changes greater than about 1% is too much for freight, LRT can take 4% grade changes quite easily as well as taking sharp turns on an elevation change. Doing sharp turn on a steep elevation change with freight rail is just undoable.

If LRT work could piggyback the imminent TH 100 rebuild, here is sketch of the broader area of a TH 100 concept. Red line is the Brunswick relocation option. Orange line is colocation option. Yellow is a TH 100 LRT option, with Blue line is an alternate line that replaces the frontage road.

1- Wooddale
2- Minnetonka/Lake Street station
3- West End station

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/ ... page=1&c=y

Questions stall decisions on Southwest light-rail line

Article by: PAT DOYLE , Star Tribune Updated: August 7, 2013 - 8:18 PM

Bowing to demands from Minneapolis and southwest suburbs for more details on the cost and construction of a future light-rail line, the head of the agency overseeing the project agreed Wednesday to delay critical decisions until she can find answers.

“I understand there is a sentiment to take a little more time,” said Metropolitan Council Chair Susan Haigh, calling that message “loud and clear.”

[...]

You go, Peter McLaughlin:

McLaughlin said some metro officials bristle at the possibility of building a tunnel for the LRT in the Kenilworth corridor of Minneapolis that could increase costs by $420 million, considering it “a distortion of regional priorities.”

“Something will have to be postponed or fall off the chart if the cost of this goes up as dramatically as projected,” he said.

Right on, Peter is a smart man and he's passionate about *good* transit - not about building things for the sake of building things. I wanted him to be mayor - I worked for him to be mayor - but in a lot of ways I think we may be better off with him on the CTIB. He's right, of course.

"distortion of regional priorites"

That sums it up!

Right on, Peter is a smart man and he's passionate about *good* transit - not about building things for the sake of building things.

To be fair, the ridiculously overbuilt 35W Access project was also his baby.

A post from The Overhead Wire about SWLRT:

http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/201 ... s-and.html

The post includes these interesting maps. The author says that the map data comes from the Census's On the Map tool, which I have not seen or used before...

Billion dollar transit lines should connect actual walkable and usable nodes.

I thought the lesson of SWLRT was they're supposed to connect parkland and ignore usable nodes

Maybe the freight line could be put in the median of 100? Especially if 100 is going to be reconstructed...

I'm fairly certain that's illegal, since all freight lines need ROW that we simply wouldn't have on Hwy. 100. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, though.

The Overhead Wire's post and those maps are so right on I think I'm going to be sick.

The Overhead Wire's post and those maps are so right on I think I'm going to be sick.

No doubt! I wonder if anyone on the Met Council or the other governing bodies in other municipalities along the route have seen those maps. It's crystal clear that is where the demand (and Ridership) will be for a line like this. Unfortunately, the red line really limits the level of TOD and hence, ROI, from transit-related redevelopment projects. And I know how important it seems to be to be able to tie development to the existance of transit corridors.

You go, Peter McLaughlin:

McLaughlin said some metro officials bristle at the possibility of building a tunnel for the LRT in the Kenilworth corridor of Minneapolis that could increase costs by $420 million, considering it “a distortion of regional priorities.”

“Something will have to be postponed or fall off the chart if the cost of this goes up as dramatically as projected,” he said.

Don't get your hopes up too high. Peter wants this line to be built. This is about putting pressure on Minneapolis to drop the deep bore option. Hence the high cost figure.

"Something will have to be postponed..."

I wonder what Peter McLaughlin was alluding to with that one. You can't exactly postpone a bridge or tunnel on the line and put it in later. Why not postpone all park & rides, except for the one at the end? The SLP and Hopkins stations will develop just fine (arguably better) without Park & Rides.

Postponing the furthest couple miles of the line however, makes a lot of sense if that's what it takes to get it built. Buses from Eden Prairie (and beyond) could still feed the line if it ended somewhere between Shady Oak Station and EP. LRT extensions are a pretty common thing. I'm not sure why we try to build 15-mile lines all at once in this region, when it inevitably requires so many compromises and cuts due to the enormous price tag. Why not build out two $750MM segments in separate phases? It would be a political win now ("hey look we cut the budget down to $800MM" or whatever) and the project would still get built. The political will to extend the project to EP would not go away. As David has stated repeatedly, a lot of folks out in EP, especially elected officials and business interests, want this to get built.

The idea of only building the line southwest of the Kenilworth/Greenway junction has occurred to me. It's not a good idea, but it's an idea...

Highways have been built in that fashion all the time.

"Something will have to be postponed..."

I wonder what Peter McLaughlin was alluding to with that one. You can't exactly postpone a bridge or tunnel on the line and put it in later. Why not postpone all park & rides, except for the one at the end? The SLP and Hopkins stations will develop just fine (arguably better) without Park & Rides.

I'm pretty sure he means that some CTIB priority below the SWLRT line will have to be postponed because SWLRT will take all the money. Peter is looking at, and talking about, the whole long list of transit-funding priorities in front of the CTIB and indicating that as SWLRT swells, it's pushing out other projects. My guess is that he's really referring to Bottineau here.

Personally I'm beginning to think Bottineau should get to jump ahead of SWLRT in the queue - it's cheaper and not riddled with as many serious issues as SWLRT. We can take this one back for reevaluation while Bottineau goes forward. And of course that would serve the North side better than SWLRT anyway so maybe once the north side actually had service people would stop trying to pretend SW needs to "serve" the northside.

This is just my evolving opinion, I didn't think that a week ago and I may not think that next week; but up to now I've been of the opinion that "3C lost and we need to move on" right up until they started talking about tunnels in a park. Once we're talking about substantial tunneling *ANYWHERE* it seems to me that Nicollet should be back on the table. Let Bottineau get built now, delay SW a few years and see if we can't make an Uptown alignment work.

So SW LRT will be another dud, like northstar?

"Something will have to be postponed..."

I wonder what Peter McLaughlin was alluding to with that one. You can't exactly postpone a bridge or tunnel on the line and put it in later. Why not postpone all park & rides, except for the one at the end? The SLP and Hopkins stations will develop just fine (arguably better) without Park & Rides.

I'm pretty sure he means that some CTIB priority below the SWLRT line will have to be postponed because SWLRT will take all the money. Peter is looking at, and talking about, the whole long list of transit-funding priorities in front of the CTIB and indicating that as SWLRT swells, it's pushing out other projects. My guess is that he's really referring to Bottineau here.

Personally I'm beginning to think Bottineau should get to jump ahead of SWLRT in the queue - it's cheaper and not riddled with as many serious issues as SWLRT. We can take this one back for reevaluation while Bottineau goes forward. And of course that would serve the North side better than SWLRT anyway so maybe once the north side actually had service people would stop trying to pretend SW needs to "serve" the northside.

This is just my evolving opinion, I didn't think that a week ago and I may not think that next week; but up to now I've been of the opinion that "3C lost and we need to move on" right up until they started talking about tunnels in a park. Once we're talking about substantial tunneling *ANYWHERE* it seems to me that Nicollet should be back on the table. Let Bottineau get built now, delay SW a few years and see if we can't make an Uptown alignment work.

^^Totally agree with this