Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[trigonalmayhem]

There is a spectrum of complaints. This is literally 3A and 3C, with both sides setting up the same strawmen to knock down (the complaints are about avoiding density/NIMBYism/etc), when in reality opinions on Bottineau can be more complex than that and span both sides.

As far as the people who live in the area are concerned, there is probably more collective concern about the houses being taken than anything involving the park (which is still an issue for some). UrbanMSP's 3A/3C issue seems to be frequently projected onto other things, regardless of the circumstances involved.

No I get it, it's OK to take houses to expand highways and add offramps (35w at lake) but not for transit because cars > transit. The 3A/C issue is a shining example of everything wrong with planning priorities here which is why it keeps coming up.

[HiawathaGuy]

No I get it, it's OK to take houses to expand highways and add offramps (35w at lake) but not for transit because cars > transit. The 3A/C issue is a shining example of everything wrong with planning priorities here which is why it keeps coming up.

Just want to point out that the redo of 35W at Lake Street and off ramps will not be taking any homes. And when MNDOT tried to widen 62 through the crosstown, they were forced to scale back their plans significantly to reduce the amount of homes they did need to take. So it's not as cut & dry as you seem to think it is. Although, I do agree with you that we certainly prioritize highway needs over transit needs. That's an American ideal, certainly not exclusive to Minnesota or the Twin Cities. I might add that we'll spend $700 million on a new bridge across the St. Croix, but not $200 million to tunnel under a dense section of the city for the 'best' transit access route.

It's not like this is new. It's part of the auto-dependent culture that is the USA. Until that changes, you can't expect State, County or City plans to look at transit routing any differently. That's just a reality of the political environment from Washington to St. Paul. We can advocate and should advocate for better policies - but we are at the mercy of Big Oil. Whether we like it or not.

[trigonalmayhem]

Did they drop the SB exit ramp to lake? Because the last map I saw involved several property takings for that ramp--mostly commercial/industrial but at least a house or two was in there.

And I'm just supposed to accept the status quo because that's how it is? The auto oriented nature of our built environment will never change if we just roll over and accept this disparate treatment of modes. Advocacy means never shrugging it off as 'how things are' and letting terrible decisions go. If shrugging and saying "oh well" is how transit advocacy works here it's no wonder we get such a steaming pile of crap for an urban transit system. I will remain angry until it gets better and they fix the many blunders they've made over the years. So yeah, I'll probably die early and angry. Oh well.

[David Greene]

"Literally no one" has to say that they wish to "avoid people" in order to take the path of least resistance (existing rail ROW and greenspace) but billions of dollars of planned transit doesn't support your position.

I appreciate your comment and totally understand your frustration.

What you say here is really, really important. It is what structural inequity is all about. No one *intends* for bad things to happen, yet they do. It's a structural problem, not a problem of individual motivations or scheming. I was objecting to your questioning of motives, not to your statements about outcomes.

That said, I don't think I even said, "SWLRT is done, let's do better on Bottineau." I've consistently said SWLRT seems to me the best outcome of the choices. I understand others have a different opinion and that's fine. I just want to be clear about mine.

Bottineau is a difficult one. I support the final plan but only because lots of folks on the Northside support it. I've always said Broadway should have been the alignment but the reality is we all got in too late to make that happen. I would have been equally happy with Broadway/Penn because again, many people on the Northside supported that. The neighborhoods were split 50/50 on the alignmnent question. But almost everyone in those meetings agreed the line is important to the Northside. They also agreed that they need much better regular route service.

[David Greene]

The side effect of seeking wide right-of-way is that you end up distancing the service from places that are dense with buildings or streets with high car traffic, even though those are the places where transit would bring the most direct benefit.

This is very much true and thank you for raising the issue. It's not just about wide RoW and displacing things, though. It's also cost. Yes, cost is too big a consideration in my mind but we're gonna need a real revolution in Congress and the executive branch to change that. I think it can be done but it's going to take years if not decades. In the meantime we have to get stuff done. So what's the best way to do that? While I have my disagreements with some of the choices we've made, overall I'm not sure if I have a much better idea than what we're already doing, given the reality of political and financial constraints.

[David Greene]

Even if everyone on the Met Council were gung-ho about removing both lanes of traffic on Penn to allow surface light rail, does anyone really think it would attract majority support of people who live near the route? Penn is the only route through several significant bottlenecks..

I think it could. People grumbled about losing parking in front of their houses, but by far the biggest objection was over the takings. Maybe that changes if takings are off the table but my sense was that people were more concerned about east/west connectivity than north/south.

People did like the idea of one-way LRT pairs on Oliver/Queen. Almost everyone preferred that option over everything else. Cost killed it.

I don't know, though. We'd have to ask those who live there.

[David Greene]

It makes me sick to my stomach that we are spending billions of dollars for transit options that are anything less than optimal.

I hate to say it, but if that is the benchmark then someone is always going to be sick to his/her stomach. Because not everyone agrees on the definition of "optimal."

[trigonalmayhem]

Relying on our dysfunctional federal government to fund transit is a losing battle. But Minnesota is pretty prosperous and could easily put together local funding to go it alone, except we lack the political will at the state level too. We'd rather dump money into stadiums for now, but it's a lot more possible to get something set up at a more local level than waiting for a handout from the feds with too many strings attached. I'm not terribly hopeful there because of the way the CTIB money is getting used, but it's a slightly better bet.

[Archiapolis]

What you say here is really, really important. It is what structural inequity is all about. No one *intends* for bad things to happen, yet they do. It's a structural problem, not a problem of individual motivations or scheming. I was objecting to your questioning of motives, not to your statements about outcomes.

I ABSOLUTELY question the motives of whoever keeps routing transit lines through the path of least resistance. I feel like these engineers and "boards" are motivated to do the easiest possible thing, not the best thing.

The first meeting should go like this:

Option 1:
Putting aside "takings", politics and neighborhood groups, the best TRANSIT route is this and then follow that up with a list/map of everything that would need to be demoed to make that work.

Option 2:
Thinking ONLY about money, the best route is this.

Again, from the outside, it appears that the determinations have been made ahead of time to choose option 2 (through existing rail ROW and green space) and the rest of the process is just a matter of convincing everyone that isn't a civil engineer that the cheapest route is the "only one that works."

I know that it is never this simplistic in the end but why start by giving up?

Most of my frustration is that the default position is that we can only build light rail or streetcars IF, we don't affect car traffic in ANY WAY, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!

Takings:
I need to learn more about what the objections are to demolition to make transit lines work. A big part of my architecture thesis studied the divisive nature of highways in an urban environment and obviously we have some egregious examples of highway expansion in this region (Rondo, etc.). I get that blowing through neighborhoods to build highways is an awful policy. With that said, light rail is not a highway and from what I've seen, we aren't talking about clear-cutting neighborhoods for light rail lines - we are talking about widening ROW on a few blocks, losing a few houses, losing yards, etc. I understand there are emotional scars from highway expansion (especially among people of color) but I'm an idealist and I think there HAS to be a way to demonstrate the value that light rail brings and that it is the exact OPPOSITE of highway expansion - growth v destruction.

I own an SFH (my second),I have a family and I'm an architect - if anyone should form a connection to a home it should be me. If I lived on Penn and my house were on the chopping block, I feel like I would absolutely welcome this line if it meant moving a few blocks. If I got market value for my home, I would not bat an eyelash about moving to a nearby location to take advantage of an incredible amenity. I live in an area of Minneapolis that is relatively transit starved and I have a higher tolerance for change and progress understanding that it comes at a cost.

I understand that not everyone thinks like I do so I need to understand why people are not willing to move. Are they not getting demonstrable market value for their home? Is there a dramatic difference from one block to the next (especially considering the end result - a new transit line/stop)? I lived in north after undergrad and I worked on one of the Green Homes North projects - there are great sites/value available in north.

I clearly don't understand what motivates people to object to moving. Give me market value for my home, and maybe a moving stipend in exchange for a light rail line/stop in my neighborhood and I'm out. I'd welcome any links, books or study on what I am missing.

That said, I don't think I even said, "SWLRT is done, let's do better on Bottineau."...

Bottineau is a difficult one. I support the final plan but only because lots of folks on the Northside support it. I've always said Broadway should have been the alignment but the reality is we all got in too late to make that happen.

I could probably dig up the back and forth in the SWLRT where this was said but putting aside scorekeeping, the statement that you make here is what is so disheartening and supports what I am saying - why should "we have to get in early" to get the best possible transit route? Your comment points up the fact that the default is rail ROW and green space and that we have to get in some kind of line early to fight AGAINST that mindset! This idea enrages me!

I would have been equally happy with Broadway/Penn because again, many people on the Northside supported that. The neighborhoods were split 50/50 on the alignmnent question. But almost everyone in those meetings agreed the line is important to the Northside. They also agreed that they need much better regular route service.

Here is where we deviate significantly. You say "equally happy" which I take to mean that you view the current alignment as equal to Broadway/Penn. Neighborhoods split 50/50 sounds like there was hope for a better alignment - until engineers cried "too hard, too expensive" and/or the fear/uncertainty/doubt about selling a house and moving to get a transit line was the tipping point leading to the alignment that we have now.

"...the line is important" should never have been in doubt if policymakers are doing their job but this sets up a false dichotomy - a choice between NO TRANSIT, and a bad alignment. From the outside, the choice should HAVE BEEN, a good (albeit more expensive) alignment and a bad alignment.

[amiller92]

If Minneapolis were full of huge streets like University Avenue, where you could maintain decent traffic flow while running light rail down the center, I'm sure we would see more of it.

West Broadway is pretty wide.

[FISHMANPET]

I'm not sure David Greene has ever met a transit planning status quo that he wasn't willing to fight to the death in defense of.

[MNdible]

West Broadway is pretty wide.

In point of fact, it's not.

[Archiapolis]

West Broadway is pretty wide.

In point of fact, it's not.

*IF* (exclamation points, caps, underlines, fireworks, explosions) you aren't willing to "disrupt" cars and this is why any Broadway alignment is apparently dead - car traffic, turning, access to parking, and surface parking lots can't be disrupted.

As I said to start my latest criticism, it appears that LRT is meant to transport people to and from the suburbs (with the exception of Central Corridor). If streetcars ever happen, hopefully they will be good/successful. I should probably stay out of the transit forums and stay away from transit issues because I keep getting surprised/outraged/confused by the outcomes that others appear to accept and support so I'm doing it wrong.

[MNdible]

You are correct. If you're not willing to either undertake massive land-takings along the entire length of the corridor at huge expense, or if you're unwilling to make the primary commercial corridor unusable for cars and buses. Then and only then is West Broadway not wide enough to route LRT down.

[mattaudio]

..or if you're unwilling to make the primary commercial corridor unusable for cars and buses. Then and only then is West Broadway not wide enough to route LRT down.

Yeah, I just have no idea how that could work.

[grant1simons2]

Seriously it's working so well down University, people learn how to adapt. But our planners are still scared to do it.

[mattaudio]

To be clear, my snark was more at the people answering MNdible's question with a "no" than to MNdible. But I'm fairly certain most of Broadway is slightly wider ROW than East Bank Washington, so I'm fairly certain we could still squeeze in access for buses and probably even cars. It just would no longer be a thoroughfare for cars. Which is fine.

[amiller92]

To be clear, my snark was more at the people answering MNdible's question with a "no" than to MNdible. But I'm fairly certain most of Broadway is slightly wider ROW than East Bank Washington, so I'm fairly certain we could still squeeze in access for buses and probably even cars. It just would no longer be a thoroughfare for cars. Which is fine.

It's 4-5 lanes and picks up a median on top of that west of Knox, so, yeah. Seems like you should be able to have one traffic lane in each direction next to the train, whether for buses or cars.

But I say that as someone with absolutely zero expertise in what it takes to do these things.

[mulad]

There's a measurement tool built into the "new" Google Maps that I encourage people to use -- just right-click on a map and go down to the "measure distance" item, and start clicking elsewhere to draw lines. Even if that doesn't work quite right or you have a system that doesn't deal with the new 3D-ified Maps, an alternative tool is My Maps, which I use quite a bit.

Much of West Broadway appears to be around 80 feet wide (plus or minus a few feet) from building face to building face. That's on par with the intersection itself in the photo you posted, and the section just to the east from Oak to Huron.

[Archiapolis]

You are correct. If you're not willing to either undertake massive land-takings along the entire length of the corridor at huge expense, or if you're unwilling to make the primary commercial corridor unusable for cars and buses. Then and only then is West Broadway not wide enough to route LRT down.

If you say that the takings would indeed be "massive", "along the entire...corridor", "huge expenses", and "unusable for cars and buses" then I'm not going to call you a liar. I am going to point out that there are plenty of people on this forum who would refute the adjectives that you are using while acknowledging difficulties.

I have my own biases and I tend to see most things as design problems with the possibility for creative solutions and I've already stated my tastes for "takings."

Others have pointed out Washington Ave through the University as a precedent so I'll just leave it it that.

I'll let you have the last word if you like while pointing out that your way of thinking appears to have won the day so what I think doesn't matter.