Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[UptownSport]

That channel is beautiful.
I'd understood the tunnel was to end South of the channel-
I must've missed that proposal.

I hope to God they don't do a shallow tunnel across the channel, it would ruin it entirely.

If there *were* to be deep tunneling, Hennepin would be prime, and at least add merit to the line.

BTW, how many of you are familiar with the channel, that is, kayaked or canoed the channel?

[alleycat]

I've kayaked the channel and it's a magical place. Much more so than the Kenilworth trail above it.

[orangevening]

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/220732001.html

Minneapolis Park Board recommends deep-bore runnel under trail if freight can't be re-located. While I personally think this option is laughable, if the MPB thinks it's the best option, how unrealistic should we all think it is?

There interest is in saving park land and this recommendation completely fits with that, same with the Midtown Greenway Coalition protecting the Greenway. It's easy to rip on them but they are just doing their job

[David Greene]

Kenilworth isn't part of the park system, despite what the Park Board lawyer might think. It's owned by HCRRA. How does the park board have any say in this? Simply because of the channel?

A deep bore tunnel is a joke and *would* be a tremendous waste of transit dollars. That's why it ain't gonna happen.

What is so bad with running a train over the channel where a bigger, louder train already runs over the channel?

It appears that various groups are organizing to try to kill the project entirely on the theory that the freight rail dispute is to hard to solve. Is that what we really want? Think twice 3C backers, because if we kill this one, I don't think there will be another one, not Southwest and not Bottineau. No Greenway streetcar (nothing to connect to) and probably no Broadway streetcar. We'd probably build a Nicollet streetcar simply because the funding mechanism was approved, but if that project is quesitonable now, it will be downright stupid without a network to connect to.

Who thinks FTA will be willing to put forward $$$ in the Twin Cities if we can't get one of our premier lines built?

I believe we'll end up with a shallow tunnel under the Kenilworth pinch point and at grade just north of Cedar Lake Pkwy. That would seem to be more than a reasonable compromise to me.

[talindsay]

What is so bad with running a train over the channel where a bigger, louder train already runs over the channel?

Personally I think it would be fine, but to be fair to the naysayers, remember that the "bigger, louder train" is relatively infrequent, while the light rail trains will be twelve trains per hour for eighteen hours a day - roughly 200 trains a day, or essentially all the time. Light rail trains are quiet, quick, and small and they don't bother me, but it is a significant increase in *volume* of trains.

I do think you're kind of fear-mongering on this whole, "if this one gets killed nobody will ever build another" - there's just no reason to think that's true, especially given that we have a dedicated transit tax that will have money to spend if this doesn't get built. I've said before that I think at this point Bottineau should jump ahead in line; get it built and let this go back to the drawing board to be sorted out properly. Tunnels in parks are nonsense when we're told we can't build tunnels in places like the East Bank (although personally I prefer the transit mall).

[Anondson]

How is it possible to build this tunnel in this pinch point and not disrupt/stop the freight line for months while it is dug and built? How will TC&W deliver anything to their StP yards that are so crucial while the tunnel is constructed?

I just can't see it not halting all freight for months on end while it is built. If TC&W isn't halted entirely for the construction, what contingent plans will they make to survive the tunnel construction phase that wouldn't just be a better cheaper plan to go with instead of the tunnel in the first place?

[David Greene]

How is it possible to build this tunnel in this pinch point and not disrupt/stop the freight line for months while it is dug and built? How will TC&W deliver anything to their StP yards that are so crucial while the tunnel is constructed?

The engineers are quite aware of this issue and have said they can keep the freight line open during construction.

[UptownSport]

Strib article on NIMBYism:

Did set as truth 'The promise'

http://m.startribune.com/local/?id=2209 ... 556291&c=y

[UptownSport]

I do think you're kind of fear-mongering on this whole, "if this one gets killed nobody will ever build another" - there's just no reason to think that's true, especially given that we have a dedicated transit tax that will have money to spend if this doesn't get built.
...
Tunnels in parks are nonsense when we're told we can't build tunnels in places like the East Bank (although personally I prefer the transit mall).

Fear-mongering. Race baiting. He'll say about anything to get this turd rolling.

[Anondson]

Fear-mongering. Race baiting.

^^ Wow.

[UptownSport]

About his second post in this thread-
Don't start blaming me for what he's written

No. It not only doesn't make sense to spend $300 million to keep black people cut off from jobs, it's immoral.

[cowboyjones]

I think the central corridor Green Line will be quite successful, perhaps even more so than the Blue Line. If the extension is so worth building, then even if we go back to redo it and lose our federal money, then, damn the torpedoes, do it anyway and pay for it locally. If the Green Line is as successful as I think it is, there will be enough support to do it locally. And if that is the case, it can be built in stages to improve profitability by opening it sooner, for instance using Downtown to Uptown with the best alignment, opening first, then another segment, and finally a segment out to EP.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Since everybody apparently thinks there was some sort of conspiracy that doomed 3C, who do you think was behind it? What was their dark secret motive to choose the clearly inferior 3A routing?

Was it the Illuminati? The Freemasons? Henry Kissinger?

I'm tempted to blame EVERYTHING on Henry Kissinger, but I'll refrain in this case.

I appreciate your attempt to lump 3c proponents with Birthers and the otherwise unhinged, but would it really be some crazy conspiracy theory to suggest they worked the numbers to play to the cost-effectiveness-index the feds had in place at the time?

As you well know, at the time the route was selected the FTA's criteria prioritized new transit riders traveling far distances fast. The planners knew that 3a was the better route FOR THAT CRITERIA, so they worked the numbers to make that route look as good as possible. They played the tune the feds called, and when the CEI was changed because it produced perverse outcomes (you know, like skipping dense commercial areas for mansion-laden railroad corridors), local planners thought we were too far along to switch our song.

Conveniently, I don't have to don a tinfoil hat or project dark secret motives on the planners to believe that.

[David Greene]

I appreciate your attempt to lump 3c proponents with Birthers and the otherwise unhinged, but would it really be some crazy conspiracy theory to suggest they worked the numbers to play to the cost-effectiveness-index the feds had in place at the time?

Yes it would and it would be very insulting to the professional engineers involved in the project. Professional engineers do not "work the numbers" to make them fit expectations. They run the numbers and make conclusions based on that.

when the CEI was changed because it produced perverse outcomes (you know, like skipping dense commercial areas for mansion-laden railroad corridors), local planners thought we were too far along to switch our song.

Just so you know, the CEI was changed because the Stops for Us coalition made it happen. It had nothing to do with "skipping dense commercial areas for mansion-laden railroad corridors."

That said, given that the new criteria could transit-reliant riders double, it could very likely strengthen Kenilworth as the outcome. Careful what you wish for.

[David Greene]

I do think you're kind of fear-mongering on this whole, "if this one gets killed nobody will ever build another" - there's just no reason to think that's true, especially given that we have a dedicated transit tax that will have money to spend if this doesn't get built.

Ok, so I'll admit that not everything will grind to a halt. But we will not build SW LRT in the next 20-30 years, that's for sure. If we don't build SW LRT I do believe there is less reason to build a Midtown streecar. Not no reason, but less reason.

I think the FTA would think twice about funding Bottineau since it has many of the same issues as Southwest. If SW LRT is halted, certain Golden Valley residents are going to take it as a signal that they can stop Bottineau too simply by following the same playbook CIDNA has used.

Without Bottineau, there is less reason to build a Broadway streetcar. And so on.

No, not a collapse of investment but things do get significantly more difficult. Remember that we have a Tea Party-controlled House that would like nothing better than to kill all federal transit funding.

As for the sales tax money, I'm not terribly excited about using it to build more Freeway BRT that really doesn't serve city residents very well. If we lose SW LRT, we might as well build Bottineau if we can and then repeal the tax, having it blink off once the bonds for Central and Bottineau are paid off. That or redirect the sales tax to regular route buses. Part of it was supposed to go there way back in 2008 until House leadership cut the tax in half.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Yes it would and it would be very insulting to the professional engineers involved in the project. Professional engineers do not "work the numbers" to make them fit expectations. They run the numbers and make conclusions based on that.

Oh yes, I forget we aren't supposed to question professionals. Yet, your faith in them reminded me of this quote from Mulad some pages ago.

I have to say that traffic models are not engineering in anywhere near the same sense as the the formulas handling loads in buildings and bridges or anything like that. Models rely on a lot of assumptions about personal behaviors, trends, etc -- there's waaay more variation there than in parts coming off a manufacturing line. I'm not convinced that the projections are substantially better than intuition.

And some dog already alluded to the inherent conflict-of-interest between the consultants who crunch the numbers and the politicians that pay the bills.

Personally I could believe that a politician that either wants to get a big project under his or her belt or else genuinely wants to improve transit could lean on staff to come up with reasons to support their preference, who then either put corresponding pressure on the consultant to come up with numbers that support their preferred route or merely point out to the consultant which way the wind is blowing, and the consultant comes up with numbers that make it more likely they'll win another bid.

I know you can come up with a better argument than "you trust engineers and we should too or it's insulting to them". Your suggestion that the politician/consultant relationship is somehow beyond reproach is amusing.

Just so you know, the CEI was changed because the Stops for Us coalition made it happen. It had nothing to do with "skipping dense commercial areas for mansion-laden railroad corridors.

It was about including urban, transit dependent populations in the transit investments rather than just serving suburban commuters. Southwest is Exhibit A for the "misallocation of regional priorities" caused by the old CEI.

[mark]

There seems to be a lot of recency bias undergirding the feeling that the tea party movement will continue as a phenomenon long-term. We don't know that. Frankly, the kind of Jacksonian populism that flourished in the wake of the economic downturn should have been expected. Similarly, it is just as predictable that the political party that coopted this movement will jettison it, when the recovery is sufficient to cause the tea party message to lose its resonance.

If anyone wants to bet on the long-term viability of the tea party, please let me know; depending on the specifics, I'll probably take that bet.

[MNdible]

I won't bet on the future of the Tea Party, but I will bet that Republicans don't turn into big supporters of transit within the next 10 years. Even though shifting demographics might suggest that they should.

[David Greene]

Yes it would and it would be very insulting to the professional engineers involved in the project. Professional engineers do not "work the numbers" to make them fit expectations. They run the numbers and make conclusions based on that.

Oh yes, I forget we aren't supposed to question professionals.

No, you should not question the integrity and ethics of people without reason. Ethics is what we are takling about here. No one deliberately cooked the books to get a predetermined outcome.

Just so you know, the CEI was changed because the Stops for Us coalition made it happen. It had nothing to do with "skipping dense commercial areas for mansion-laden railroad corridors.

It was about including urban, transit dependent populations in the transit investments rather than just serving suburban commuters.

No, it was about including urban, transit dependent populations in the transit investments that went right through their neighborhoods without stopping.

With your interepretation we could never build the Red Line, Orange Line, Gateway Corridor or any commuter bus service for that matter.

[RailBaronYarr]

With your interepretation we could never build the Red Line, Orange Line, Gateway Corridor or any commuter bus service for that matter.

All of which have a much lower return on their investment from a ridership and impact on a more sustainable land-use pattern than pretty much any urban (Mpls, StP, and a few first-ring suburbs) transit improvements would have.