MNdible wrote:This is only good news if you're the sort of person who settles for the good over the perfect.
If you think that building three miles of rail through parkland is good, then I have a great deal for you on real estate in Florida. And I don't agree that light rail would be do significant damage to the park's ecosystem or user experience - Wirth Pkwy, Golden Valley Rd and Olson Hwy are already far more disrupting than LRT would be - but the issue for me is that you're spending $200m on a medium-capacity transit facility in a place that is guaranteed to never attract decent ridership.
MNdible wrote: Better to kill this now with the hope that someday we'll tunnel under north Minneapolis.
Assuming this was directed at me, I should clarify that I don't think Bottineau should be stopped until they're willing to build a subway. 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) was a significant flaw of the AA process.
But not the only significant flaw - despite pushing on the scales to make BRT seem less cost-effective that it would be (by assuming a much longer travel time than would be realistic), the AA still consistently found BRT would be more cost-effective than LRT
(for example, the BRT version of the LPA was estimated to cost about half of what the LRT version would cost to build, but the projected ridership was more than half that of LRT). Yet somehow the conclusion ended up recommending LRT, for which I've never been able to find any quantitative basis.
So, to rehash, I think Bottineau should be halted because it's a very risky prospect as LRT (seemingly banking on massive job sprawl in Brooklyn Park), and because BRT would be a safer bet. But if you're offering to build that Northside tunnel, that sounds good too.