Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[twincitizen]

I wonder how the CEI looks if you chop this baby in half at like 63rd Ave or Brooklyn Blvd....
You're still serving the exact same municipalities if you make it to Brooklyn Park's border, so the political picture doesn't change (much).

There's an existing (smallish) P&R at 63rd. Couldn't we just expand that and route a bunch of local buses there for now?

Other than the Hwy. 55 portion, the inner portion of this line runs exclusively in the RR ROW. Can't we come up with like a $600MM LRT project and just start building the damn thing? I'd imagine the heavy majority of the ridership on this line comes from the inner 2/3, unlike SWLRT, where you have the Golden Triangle and Eden Prairie Center out near the far end.

I can't be alone in thinking that the reason we're not building anything is because we insist on doing it in huge $1B to $1.5B pieces at a time (Central Corridor excepted from this argument).

Why not chop this corridor and start building sooner? The extensions will come in due time.

[talindsay]

Heck, I'm of the opinion that both Bottineau and SW could be built as a series of single station extensions to the existing blue and green lines, without even involving the feds, using cash as the CTIB gets the money. By the time federal money finally comes through for either project, the federal project could be three or four stops shorter.

[Nick]

Wasn't this supposed to be sub-$800 million like...less than a year ago? That's a big increase in a short amount of time. How many utilities do they have to relocate under Theodore Wirth Park?

[twincitizen]

I'm looking to start a conversation about extending the Blue Line along Olson Hwy (to Penn Ave) in the short term, i.e. before 2022.

It is entirely possible (let's face it, very probable) that this line becomes subject to the same environmental hang-ups, cost increases, and other sillyness that has plagued Southwest. Am I crazy, or would it make a ton of sense to begin a dialogue with HCRRA/CTIB to think about building an extension to Penn Avenue in the short term? I'm not sure what kind of federal funding, if any, would be available, but perhaps we could build this extension entirely with MNDOT/CTIB dollars and get "reimbursed" when the full Bottineau line gets a federal funding agreement. MNDOT money is definitely on the table...it is a state highway after all.

Who's with me? Let's get in touch with Mayor-elect Hodges, Peter McLaughlin, Linda Higgins, et al.

I know we all immediately fall in love with our own ideas, but I feel like I'm not wrong here. Even without federal funding, I feel like this is still worthwhile.

[mattaudio]

Makes sense. Have any other cities found ways to be flexible with FTA New Starts?

I think there would be significant advantages in general if we built out our system more incrementally. A few stations here and there, but fitting into a larger vision.

[RailBaronYarr]

I think there would be significant advantages in general if we built out our system more incrementally. A few stations here and there, but fitting into a larger vision.

Yes. If the route and overall system vision are in place, aren't there benefits to giving high-quality/frequent access incrementally to the people along those locations? Perhaps the downside is extensions may never happen, but the cost savings by building now (instead of in 7 years) seem to erase that risk from a cost/benefit standpoint..

[talindsay]

Yes, and this approach has been taken in several cities. The FTA is quite willing to work with incremental projects - typically, any part that's built with 100% local funds can be treated as part of the 50% local match for the part that's built later with FTA funds. Obviously that's not guaranteed, but it's worked well for other cities that were more willing to fund things up-front. Basically, the feds really like proof that the local community is financially on-board, and nothing says you're financially on-board quite like building an extension entirely with your own money.

In general I wish both SW and Bottineau would be done that way. We could use non-bonded proceeds coming in to the CTIB each year to pay as we go for slow,incremental extensions without exhausting our bonding authority or affecting future ability to fund projects, and then when the FTA process is finally ready we only have to worry about what's left of the project. We could easily be a couple stops out on SW or Bottineau before either of them gets funded by the FTA.

[David Greene]

I think this idea has merit, but I would guess even an extension would require going through the NEPA process. Bottineau is already well into that so it makes sense to just complete it and then figure out what portions to build.

I think this will be a very interesting case. As twincitizen wrote, you've basically got the same line of argument that Golden Valley could use as the CIDNA/Kenwood folks used on Southwest. The reaction from public officials will be telling.

[mattaudio]

The Green Line will be great. My worry is that Southwest and Bottineau are worthless by comparison (especially Bottineau, taking you through ravines on your way to corn fields) and after they're built we'll lose the momentum we gain with Central.

[David Greene]

The Green Line will be great. My worry is that Southwest and Bottineau are worthless by comparison (especially Bottineau, taking you through ravines on your way to corn fields) and after they're built we'll lose the momentum we gain with Central.

I think given Central, Southwest is an even more important investment.

I'm not sure why you say Bottineau ends in a corn field. Target has a major campus up there.

In any case, we aren't going to build LRT beyond Bottineau/Southwest any time soon, so we don't have any momentum to carry as far as LRT goes.

[mulad]

There are definitely farm fields up there.

[David Greene]

There are definitely farm fields up there.]

Well yes but the post makes it sound that that's all that's there.

[mattaudio]

There's even a farm field adjacent to the planned stop at 85th Ave. Three planned stops adjacent to three farm fields. Not sure how that's worth defending.

Even if your point is that Target has a big campus in Brooklyn Park -- how is it worth defending serving that either? There are plenty of auto-dependent corporate campuses and employment centers within the beltway that are underserved by transit. Why should we be spending a billion dollars on a Target shuttle in the first place? If they would have kept their employees downtown where the transit is, they wouldn't have this need. So it's basically subsidizing job sprawl, which is bad policy.

I've turned down two consulting gigs because Target North was where my desk would be. Even this train wouldn't change my desire to work in an urban environment with character.

[VAStationDude]

I really enjoy the new, fresh posts about about the Green Line extension route. Maybe Matt could share his thoughts on the moa transit center.

[mulad]

I have a lot of trouble imagining that the Target campus will attract many riders to LRT either. The folks who currently drive there would likely be in the northern suburbs which won't have good connectivity via transit -- probably along the I-694, MN-610, US-169 and I-494 corridors.

Building transit to corn fields was fine for 1913, not so good for 2013.

Now to try and yank this back to the Central Corridor in some sense, I'm becoming more baffled every day that it wasn't planned to extend past downtown St. Paul at all. We've got the southwest extension planned to add 14-15 miles, yet we can't get rail transit to get that far into the second core city (the full Green Line route being 11 miles or so, only 9.5 miles of extension from the junction at I-35W).

[mattaudio]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, VAStationDude, but I usually wait until a discussion matures before I share such insights. That's what I did over on the MOA thread after three people spoke in favor of it and two people spoke against it. But I'm sure you knew that.

[Zanderkx]

I have a lot of trouble imagining that the Target campus will attract many riders to LRT either. The folks who currently drive there would likely be in the northern suburbs which won't have good connectivity via transit -- probably along the I-694, MN-610, US-169 and I-494 corridors.

Building transit to corn fields was fine for 1913, not so good for 2013.

Now to try and yank this back to the Central Corridor in some sense, I'm becoming more baffled every day that it wasn't planned to extend past downtown St. Paul at all. We've got the southwest extension planned to add 14-15 miles, yet we can't get rail transit to get that far into the second core city (the full Green Line route being 11 miles or so, only 9.5 miles of extension from the junction at I-35W).

I completely agree. It is mind-blowing that Central does not terminate at the Sun-Ray center or 3M campus. Such an extension would have had reasonable ridership, and completed the most viable section of Gateway.

[Rich]

it's basically subsidizing job sprawl

It’s certain that those fields will soon be developed. If we supply transit, the development will be less car-centric, no? Wouldn’t that be a favorable result sprawl-wise?

[David Greene]

it's basically subsidizing job sprawl

It’s certain that those fields will soon be developed. If we supply transit, the development will be less car-centric, no? Wouldn’t that be a favorable result sprawl-wise?

It's a fair point. Remember that the NYC subway was built to serve suburbanites in Harlem.

[mattaudio]

It’s certain that those fields will soon be developed. If we supply transit, the development will be less car-centric, no? Wouldn’t that be a favorable result sprawl-wise?

It's a false choice to say we must either subsidize auto-dependent sprawl or transit-oriented sprawl.

Instead, we should be asking why we're spending large amounts of capital to subsidize new development when our existing land use - existing transit service to existing transit-dependent populations, existing transit-friendly neighborhoods and existing transit-compatible job centers - is lacking significantly.