Page 4 of 88

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 19th, 2012, 11:16 am
by twincitizen
Most "studies" are just ways of justifying the assumed outcome, so the alternatives are all framed and scored in a way that makes the assumed outcome look like the only obvious solution. Unfortunately we need to do a better job of separating out the political process of weighting criteria and selecting a choice with the technocratic process of accurately defining and scoring alternatives.
QFT! Now how do we prove that and get people to care?

As complicated and heavy-handed as the FTA rules are already, I feel like a solution to this "problem" we're having in the Twin Cities would have to come from them. A rule change to weight ridership and residential density heavier than other factors (attracting new riders, marginal time savings between alternatives, etc). I know the rules were changed in 2009 (post-SWLRT desicion) to do basically what I just said, but it doesn't seem to be working. Why is moving current express bus riders to rail seen as a benefit, while moving urban local bus riders to rail is not? There's more subtleties to it than that, but I think you know what I mean.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 19th, 2012, 11:32 am
by woofner
to do so would require nearly the expense of LRT anyways (dedicated ROW, etc). So not really sure why BRT should even be looked at here.
No, as I said, BRT would cost literally half as much as LRT, even with quality stations and dedicated ROW. If you don't believe me, please review the AA document, which can be found at the project website.

Personally, I would take BRT or LRT to the NW suburbs all the time, which is part of the reason I prefer BRT - it would be great to have twice as much coverage.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 19th, 2012, 6:45 pm
by David Greene
Rather I think that the inclusion of several batshit alternatives while simultaneously failing to include a tunnel alternative (despite the fact that the Twin Cities have experience with cost-effective urban transit tunneling)
We do? What, the Selby streetcar tunnel? Tunneling is a non-starter. If it couldn't be done for Central Corridor, there's no way it will be done for Bottineau.
Yet somehow the conclusion ended up recommending LRT, for which I've never been able to find any quantitative basis.
Because transit (and transportation in general) is not only quantitative. We do _not_ want to make transportation decisions based solely on cost-effectiveness. That's why New Starts has additional criteria beyond cost.

Transit (and transportation in general) is not just about getting from point A to point B. There's a community-building aspect you're completely dismissing.

For the record, as stated earlier, I believe the LRT should be routed all the way down Broadway to Washington and then head south into downtown, precisely for the community-building effects mentioned above. But that ship has sailed and the plan we have now will improve things -- if North Minneapolis sees significant additional transit investmnet.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 19th, 2012, 6:50 pm
by David Greene
BRT has rarely been built in a way that actually resembles the service quality of LRT, and to do so would require nearly the expense of LRT anyways (dedicated ROW, etc). So not really sure why BRT should even be looked at here.
Very well said.
Most "studies" are just ways of justifying the assumed outcome, so the alternatives are all framed and scored in a way that makes the assumed outcome look like the only obvious solution.
I hear this accusation a lot but where is the proof? These studies are reviewed by FTA, EPA, FRA, etc. Major business decisions get much less scrutiny than transit planning documents.

Staff is not beholden to elected officials. I can't think of any good reason staff would risk losing their jobs or imprisonment for fraud to get a *transit* study to come out a certain way. It just doesn't pass the logic test.

So where is the proof that the studies are intentionally skewed by politicians to reach a specific outcome?

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 19th, 2012, 6:54 pm
by David Greene
Why is moving current express bus riders to rail seen as a benefit, while moving urban local bus riders to rail is not?
Who said that? As far as I am aware, both routes are viable. But believe it or not, North Minneapolis is not a homogenous community and opinion on the alignment is split 50/50. I'm not comfortable tearing down hundreds of houses unless the community has clearly stated it wants it. A Broadway streetcar could serve the urban population quite well. We don't have to have LRT everywhere.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 19th, 2012, 7:24 pm
by MNdible
Redisciple, as I said, that comment was bush league snark. Although I think you vastly underestimate the costs of tunneling, I think your instincts on this are pretty spot-on. I'm honestly more concerned about those who seem to think an LRT line could painlessly be rammed through North Minneapolis.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 19th, 2012, 7:55 pm
by mattaudio
David, I don't think it is politicians who skew the results, rather engineers themselves. As Strong Towns would call it, the "cult of engineering" where there's a prescribed solution to meet certain standards. It's not just engineering, though. I see it all the time in business, or elsewhere whenever decisions are being made on factors other than cost/revenue. Actually, it seems like Bottineau is an anomaly here given the momentum was for BRT but then it was halted to revisit the mode choice.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 19th, 2012, 8:10 pm
by David Greene
David, I don't think it is politicians who skew the results, rather engineers themselves. As Strong Towns would call it, the "cult of engineering" where there's a prescribed solution to meet certain standards.
Thanks for cclarifying. Certainly the politicians do set up the rules which absolutely influences the result. That's one of the (not necessarily most important) reasons we had a ridiculous Central Corridor plan that bypassed the most transit-dependent populations in St. Paul. And that's also one of the (not necessarily most important) reasons we were able to fix it.

However, I have a really hard time believing that engineers consciously rig the game. Do they have assumptions? Sure. You have to have assumptions to be in this game. Finding the flaws of those assumptions is why we have multiple levels of review including public vetting and technical review by outside agencies.

This is a big reason we should *not* base our decisions purely on cost and engineering numbers. There's a human aspect to this that has to be integrated. But that doesn't mean we ignore cost or what the engineering numbers are telling us. They are a significant guide.

Sometimes people don't like the conclusions. People point out flaws, real or not. That's why we have a public process. We gather all the information we can and make a decision. Of course politics is part of it. Humans are political creatures. But overall, I'd say we've done fairly well in MSP so far. I feel like each time we plan a new LRT, we do it better. Hiawatha was pretty seat-of-the-pants, Central was a bit better. Southwest even more. I've seen marked improvement with Bottineau and that makes me a lot more comfortable with the outcome.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 19th, 2012, 9:01 pm
by mulad
Rather I think that the inclusion of several batshit alternatives while simultaneously failing to include a tunnel alternative (despite the fact that the Twin Cities have experience with cost-effective urban transit tunneling)
We do? What, the Selby streetcar tunnel? Tunneling is a non-starter. If it couldn't be done for Central Corridor, there's no way it will be done for Bottineau.
He was referring to the twin Hiawatha tunnels under MSP airport. I believe those came in at a cost that was very good compared to other projects in the U.S., and wasn't too bad compared to the costs in other countries. However, those tunnels go down to about 70 feet below the surface, which would really not be practical for CCLRT or most other urban areas (unless maybe there was already something higher up). Closer to the surface, you're more likely to run into utility services of all types. But I'm just spitballing -- I'm not sure if that really contributed to the low cost or not.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 20th, 2012, 1:18 pm
by woofner
The BRT option did not have a fully private right-of-way.
Please take a look at some of the project documents before making such bold statements.
Transit (and transportation in general) is not just about getting from point A to point B. There's a community-building aspect you're completely dismissing.
What makes rail better for community-building than buses? How would a transit line that did a terrible job getting people from A to B be successful at building community? I'll add that because I actually use transit to get from A to B, I'm particularly focused on that goal, so I acknowledge that personal bias.
I can't think of any good reason staff would risk losing their jobs or imprisonment for fraud to get a *transit* study to come out a certain way.
This could probably get a thread of its own, but trust me, I read enough planning documents to know that fudging is a way of life. No one will ever be prosecuted for assuming that 70% of Kenwood residents will board at the 21st St station every day, but there it is in the DEIS. Most studies are done by consultants, not staff, so if they come up with a result that matches the worldview of the people who hired them, there is a better chance they'll get hired again. Very broadly speaking. In the case of Bottineau, if you ever actually get around to reading any project documents, you'll see that 90 pages of the AA report consists of quantitatively comparing different alternatives, and then the 1 or 2 page conclusion magically transforms those numbers into circles of varying shadings. If you can explain that magic trick to me, please do.
However, those tunnels go down to about 70 feet below the surface, which would really not be practical for CCLRT or most other urban areas (unless maybe there was already something higher up).
I think that's a fairly typical depth for deep bore tunneling. If you ever take the metro in pretty much any eastern european country, you spend a lot of time on the elevator. Also true in Atlanta and DC. Again, though, I'll emphasize that I don't necessarily think it would be cost-effective to tunnel, I'm saying it would have been worthwhile to study thanks to the simple facts that (a) tunneling would have best accomplished the access and mobility objectives of the line, and (b) the Twin Cities have experience in cost-effective urban tunneling.
Washington Ave. is a closer fit and we couldn't do it there.
No it's not and yes we could have. The decision to nix the Washington tunnel was entirely political.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 20th, 2012, 11:05 pm
by UptownSport
I've read your posts and have now stopped, so very likely disciple wised up long before me

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 21st, 2012, 11:37 am
by woofner
Buses operate in mixed traffic downtown. Did you look at the projected travel times for the BRT options?
That's true for two blocks for westbound buses, and for the entirety of downtown for eastbound buses. Scheduled travel times for existing 4th St buses and LRT are comparable, and I've noticed that in practice the buses are often faster. This may have to do with the fact that LRT has significant exposure to vehicular traffic downtown and doesn't get signal priority. From what I can tell, the AA study just makes vague statements about travel times, which is one of the techniques they use to skew the results away from BRT (along with assuming an unimproved route downtown for BRT). Can you explain why a BRT line on the same alignment outside of downtown and with demonstrably similar travel times downtown would have significantly slower travel time than LRT?
I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Try almost any study that's been done of development around rail vs. bus corridors.
Really dude? It's that self-evident? I've actually read several studies about TOD, but none that compared results across modes. If you've recovered from your temper tantrum, I'd be interested in any that you were willing to cite.
I'll add that because I actually use transit to get from A to B, I'm particularly focused on that goal, so I acknowledge that personal bias.
Now you're just being belligerent.
I'm being belligerent by stating my personal bias? Don't take things so seriously, it's good to disagree sometimes. Yes, economic development and community building are also important goals, but I disagree that they can be the main purpose of transit or even that transit is a very effective tool in accomplishing them.
very likely disciple wised up long before me
Guess not.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 23rd, 2012, 2:15 am
by Andrew_F
It's interesting that countries (regions) use many types of transport, just as all lines in Munich aren't underground, LRT, tram or even trolley bus, there must be sections where it'd make sense- like the U transitway or the Greenway, as buses could then disperse to other areas

The integration between bus, streetcar, u-bahn, and s-bahn (and regional and ICE trains for that matter) in many German cities is stunning. The way they blend all of their modes together is so foreign to those of us coming from the US who are used to looking at different modes as separate systems. Even the way the modes are graphically integrated in maps is brilliant.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: December 23rd, 2012, 9:39 pm
by UptownSport
It was pretty fun, could go from the post (some old SS camp in middle of nowhere) to Munich on Regional Bahn (slow choo-choo); that was half the adventure.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: March 11th, 2013, 5:55 am
by helsinki
I just realized that Bottineau will have a stop directly serving the North Hennepin Community College campus, an important institution with thousands of students (ie likely regular LRT riders).

You wouldn't know it from the map published for the public, because this map currently calls the stop "85th Avenue". Really, how little information does that impart? Who draws these maps?

Regardless of Bottineau's other faults, this is a wise connection (and hopefully renamed accordingly).

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: March 11th, 2013, 8:48 am
by mattaudio
Seems like a logical terminus rather than extending it past the *second* beltway.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: March 11th, 2013, 8:51 am
by lordmoke
I just realized that Bottineau will have a stop directly serving the North Hennepin Community College campus, an important institution with thousands of students (ie likely regular LRT riders).

You wouldn't know it from the map published for the public, because this map currently calls the stop "85th Avenue". Really, how little information does that impart? Who draws these maps?

Regardless of Bottineau's other faults, this is a wise connection (and hopefully renamed accordingly).
This is one of the reasons this line does have exciting potential beside Target transportation. The new Brooklyn Park Library will be built across the street from NHCC at this stop as well, and the stop just to the south of this will have a lot of local transit connections. It's too bad they'll be skipping North Memorial, though.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: March 12th, 2013, 3:58 pm
by lordmoke
Good article with a lot of info on plans for how this might integrate with Theo Wirth Park:
http://finance-commerce.com/transit/201 ... k-tie-ins/

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: March 13th, 2013, 6:57 am
by helsinki
Fascinating plans.

These two stops are excellent opportunities to connect the park to the regional transit system in a highly accessible way. The current 50th St./Minnehaha Park stop is alright, but forcing people to cross Highway 55 was quite the design blunder. They build this super-cool tunnel, with a green parkway on top, and then didn't put the station underneath it; understandable, given accessibility and the short distance to the 46th Street Station, but still regrettable in that it forces you to cross the equivalent of 8 lanes of traffic.

It was odd to see park-and-ride's mentioned. Let's hope that the requirements of parking, parking, traffic projections, and more parking don't hijack the design process.

Re: Bottineau Corridor (Blue Line Extension)

Posted: March 13th, 2013, 7:52 am
by mattaudio
Speaking of P&Rs, I wish the cost of providing parking was financed separately. I wonder how much it skews project costs.