Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[mattaudio]

No chance this added expense will make them rethink the Target Farmfield Campus terminus, right? Wouldn't be possible to have it follow BNSF to Osseo and then cross 81 at a stoplight?

[helsinki]

I would generally not advocate the use of eminent domain ... However, wouldn't it perhaps be less expensive to relocate/pay FMV to Wendy's and the car wash, and allow a grade crossing at 71st, rather than an aerial crossing at 73rd?

[jafeik]

A couple of firsts for me...

I went to my first Light Rail meeting (Robbinsdale station concept), and this is my first post on streets.mn forum!

I was pretty impressed at the presentation itself. The people from the County and from the Urban Design Associates firm were all polished and professional. There was an open house with lots of cool maps and stuff, then a meeting where they showed renderings and then we had small group discussions where we put stickers on large maps.

I thought the design firm did a good job with the renderings. I haven't seen them posted online yet, but they have a 4 story 500+ P+R wrapped inside of a commercial building "liner". I asked if there was a similar ramp like this in the area and they said there was one like it somewhere in Edina. Pretty cool looking if you're going to have a parking ramp. Seems like a pretty big one though. Another cool idea was to have a civic space and "pedestrian promenade" that goes from the station area to Bottineau.

Their market analysis said the area would densify around the station. Good, good. They also said this would justify building another municipal parking ramp in the next 10 years or so. I mentioned that there was a 500+ space parking ramp already and a light rail stop nearby, so why another ramp? Felt good about that input.

There were no naysayers like I suspected, except at the entrance with a "NO LRT THROUGH OUR WOODS" (I kinda agree with that) and a creepy lady that passed out a flyer that said "NO BOTT- NO". Clever.

[HiawathaGuy]

Golden Valley pushes for Bottineau park-and-ride
*Unlocked*

http://finance-commerce.com/2015/10/gol ... -and-ride/

Should be some good forward progress with this line over the coming half year.

[twincitizen]

Revised cost estimates will reportedly be released tomorrow. Of course they are going to be higher than the previous $1.1(?) Billion figure that's been used for a while. The question is how much higher?

I'll put the over/under at $1.45 Billion.
What'll it be, folks? Over or under?

[mattaudio]

You'd think Golden Valley would want high-value tax-revenue-producing transit-adjacent land uses for humans rather than low-value tax-exempt land for car storage.

[twincitizen]

Why would make you think that? It's Golden Valley.

The land they are likely talking about for a surface lot P&R is already tax exempt anyways: https://www16.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/pi ... 2924240002 (I'm guessing)

Rather than pave over any more land, there's a perfectly good church parking lot right there that probably sits empty Mon-Fri. I smell a business opportunity for the church.

[mattaudio]

Once again, if stuff like this comes up we're probably building regional rail system stations in the wrong locations.

Adding a park-and-ride would likely have environmental impacts on the existing park land where prairie grasses are being restored...

[alleycat]

Strange to hear surface parking for this park and ride. Earlier iterations showed a parking structure built into the hillside masking any structure in a plaza or green space. I hope that was just bad reporting. Makes me wonder how they're handling people parking at the golf course and hopping on at the Plymouth station. It might actually be wise to have a park and ride at GVR to negate that.

Matt that land would never generate tax income. It's park land. The church across the street on the other hand could be redeveloped. I'm not condoning a surface park and ride, but your post makes no sense.

https://goo.gl/maps/qjPUsde1vyA2

[mattaudio]

The land they are talking about (I'm guessing) for a surface lot P&R is already tax exempt anyways: https://www16.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/pi ... 2924240002

That little wedge would be an awesome Hong Kong-style value capture district with dense TOD. (And I hear MPRB could use some cash)

Matt that land would never generate tax income. It's park land. The church across the street on the other hand could be redeveloped. I'm not condoning a surface park and ride, but your post makes no sense.

There's plenty of precedence for MPRB selling park land, both good and bad. If MPRB could sell some land for dense TOD and establish a legacy fund with the proceeds which would benefit the park system in perpetuity, it could be a win for all. If MPRB would not consider allowing development adjacent to a station on our regional rail network, I have no idea why we'd bother building a LRT station there.
http://minneapolisparkhistory.com/2012/ ... st-part-i/

[MNdible]

There's plenty of precedence for MPRB selling park land, both good and bad.

Plenty of precedence, but not much in the last 50 years. Not that they shouldn't consider selling land when it's appropriate, but referencing land sales that occurred under a different political reality isn't very relevant.

[Tiller]

The new cost estimates have been released.
http://www.startribune.com/price-tag-in ... 338139341/

The price tag for the next light-rail transit project in Twin Cities, linking Minneapolis to the northern suburbs, has increased by nearly $500 million and now stands at $1.48 billion.

[acs]

Revised cost estimates will reportedly be released tomorrow. Of course they are going to be higher than the previous $1.1(?) Billion figure that's been used for a while. The question is how much higher?

I'll put the over/under at $1.45 Billion.
What'll it be, folks? Over or under?

Sadly, you were almost dead on... only in government projects are 50% cost overruns tolerated. Would the met council even be seriously considering expanding light rail if they had known in 2009 that Southwest would cost $2B and Bottineau would cost $1.5B? Would the state even consider creating the CTIB if they knew the true costs of the pretty lines the DFL drew on the map were up to double what they were saying and the state would be on the hook for significantly more than they were signing up for? Doubt it. It would be one thing if they went to the state when they had at least a reasonable estimate of the cost of these lines and asked for a .75 or 1 cent tax to make them happen. It's another to go to them and say they can build central, SW, Bottineau, Orange and Gold on .25 cent tax and a %10 state contribution in the $400m range and then have to come back 6 years later and ask for a doubling or tripling of the tax just to cover the same projects. This is going to be an uphill battle in 2016 and beyond and even if Duinick is successful I'm not sure we're really going to gain anything.

[David Greene]

Oh please. Cost estimates are based on 1% engineering. I can guarantee you equivalent "overruns" in the private sector are much worse.

This is transparency in action. In the corporate world, 1% cost estimates never appear in public.

[Silophant]

That's exactly right. In my job, an estimate based on 1% engineering is only expected to be accurate to within +- 40%, and it's not terribly surprising if it isn't. That's why they're never even given to anyone outside the group, much less made public.

[Tcmetro]

The new project total seems quite high. I'd say it would be worthy to cut the line short, but the OMF is planned to be out near 101st Ave. Maybe defer a station or two and not reconstruct Olson as heavily.

[RailBaronYarr]

I know we've discussed this before, but maybe it's possible we shouldn't be picking a preferred route, terminus, and even OMF facility locations based on a cost estimate that could jump up 50% like this from 1% engineering to 15% engineering. Or we should just apply a 50%+ safety factor adder on any numbers used that early on. Real budgetary and project mix planning stems from those numbers. How much does $500m set back other regional projects? How do consistent jumps like this affect public opinion?

[mattaudio]

^Agreed. We should determine scope after we have accurate cost estimates. Can you imagine a company committing to doing something before having anything resembling a possible cost? I wonder if this will end up as more of a CF than SWLRT. End it at Robbinsdale.

[HiawathaGuy]

^Agreed. We should determine scope after we have accurate cost estimates. Can you imagine a company committing to doing something before having anything resembling a possible cost? I wonder if this will end up as more of a CF than SWLRT. End it at Robbinsdale.

What I don't understand is that so many of you seem to want to change things so things can be 'figured out later'. Except, you know, in order for us to receive Federal Funding, we have to follow the rules established. That means doing this exactly as Met Council is doing.

This is how rail projects all over the country are done. If not, we wouldn't receive matching Federal Funds.
I can understand price increases - more bridges were added, more rail cars, another station. As long as we stay competitive for Federal funds, I have no problem investing in a long-term transit plan.

No one talks about how much money we spend on new and updating highways. I wish that information would be headline worthy in the Strib!

[amiller92]

only in government projects are 50% cost overruns tolerated.

These are not cost overruns.