Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[Silophant]

So, no then.

As far as I know, legitimate questions about ridership forecasting methodologies were never answered by project staff or the consultants, at least not substantively. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're presumably not actually suggesting the only legitimate way to critique these fishy numbers is to hire our own consultants to conduct their own study. So can we please dispense with this kind of argumentation?

He basically is. Engineers made them, you see. Can't argue with Engineers.

[Anondson]

Speaking of forecasting methodologies: I hope the next transit project budget forecast has properly accounted for "inevitable delay-making process tactics" when they reach a number.

[Archiapolis]

Still citing the obviously false numbers saying 3A and 3C would have essentially the same ridership, I see

You have others?

Asking a person on a message board to produce numbers/documents that you know don't exist is disingenuous to say the least.

You are obviously happy that "the other route" is dead; why provoke people? I've challenged you over and over to take a "common sense" look at a simple aerial view of Uptown/Greenway densities versus the 3A route densities and you've never responded because you KNOW that the numbers are indefensible rubbish. I wish I could go back in time because I'd bring a poster sized aerial view of Uptown with the *permitted projects* along the Greenway/throughout Uptown and a contrasting poster sized image of the 3A densities to every meeting and challenge the methodology of the study numbers at every meeting.

I never thought a sane SWLRT line WOULDN'T go through Uptown so I made a mistake and checked out way too early.

Say what you want about "equity" and stick to that argument because at least then you have a moral stance but don't try to substantiate garbage data.

[HiawathaGuy]

Still citing the obviously false numbers saying 3A and 3C would have essentially the same ridership, I see

You have others?

Asking a person on a message board to produce numbers/documents that you know don't exist is disingenuous to say the least.

You are obviously happy that "the other route" is dead; why provoke people? I've challenged you over and over to take a "common sense" look at a simple aerial view of Uptown/Greenway densities versus the 3A route densities and you've never responded because you KNOW that the numbers are indefensible rubbish. I wish I could go back in time because I'd bring a poster sized aerial view of Uptown with the *permitted projects* along the Greenway/throughout Uptown and a contrasting poster sized image of the 3A densities to every meeting and challenge the methodology of the study numbers at every meeting.

I never thought a sane SWLRT line WOULDN'T go through Uptown so I made a mistake and checked out way too early.

Say what you want about "equity" and stick to that argument because at least then you have a moral stance but don't try to substantiate garbage data.

I understand not being happy with the selected route. But the blatant disregard for the process of how transit projects move forward, in order to be federally funded, boggles my mind. I just don't understand how constantly harping on something over and over and over, when it won't change the outcome, is helpful?

[David Greene]

As far as I know, legitimate questions about ridership forecasting methodologies were never answered by project staff or the consultants, at least not substantively. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, they were. Multiple times. It's all in the DEIS.

[Archiapolis]

I understand not being happy with the selected route. But the blatant disregard for the process of how transit projects move forward, in order to be federally funded, boggles my mind. I just don't understand how constantly harping on something over and over and over, when it won't change the outcome, is helpful?

Apologies. I am not trying to "boggle your mind" by being obtuse.

Questions for you:

1. Putting aside the freight rail issues (you know, that little detail) do you think the "process" in this case is sound and the ridership data collected is accurate/legitimate?

2. Do you think using the same metrics that were used on SWLRT should be applied to other rail decisions?

You are right, THIS "battle" appears to be over. HOWEVER, I think it is important to do a "pre mortem" on the SWLRT line so that we can do better on the next one. The preliminary Bottineau plan appears to be bypassing established density as well but it appears that you aren't concerned about density.

Do you not see a connection between existing density and transit?

Any "process" that asks me to ignore common sense and visually verifiable phenomena is massively flawed in my opinion but it seems that you are saying that I should accept a study because studies and engineers.

I apologize for wasting your time beating a dead horse. Since this fight is over and the $1.7B is going to happen if Mpls relents, I guess I will have to transfer my energy to the Bottineau line and the NEXT demonstrably flawed "process."

[mattaudio]

I don't know how someone can have a sentiment other than blatant disregard for our transportation and land use planning processes. Just look at the outcomes...

[FISHMANPET]

Still citing the obviously false numbers saying 3A and 3C would have essentially the same ridership, I see

You have others?

Asking a person on a message board to produce numbers/documents that you know don't exist is disingenuous to say the least.

You are obviously happy that "the other route" is dead; why provoke people? I've challenged you over and over to take a "common sense" look at a simple aerial view of Uptown/Greenway densities versus the 3A route densities and you've never responded because you KNOW that the numbers are indefensible rubbish. I wish I could go back in time because I'd bring a poster sized aerial view of Uptown with the *permitted projects* along the Greenway/throughout Uptown and a contrasting poster sized image of the 3A densities to every meeting and challenge the methodology of the study numbers at every meeting.

I never thought a sane SWLRT line WOULDN'T go through Uptown so I made a mistake and checked out way too early.

Say what you want about "equity" and stick to that argument because at least then you have a moral stance but don't try to substantiate garbage data.

Bring a poster like that to Bottineau meetings and I'll be right there with you.

[anders]

As far as I know, legitimate questions about ridership forecasting methodologies were never answered by project staff or the consultants, at least not substantively. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, they were. Multiple times. It's all in the DEIS.

The same DEIS that included park-and-rides for Minneapolis and said LRT replacing bus service would hinder TOD?

Still some gems in these comments from the City: http://www.metrocouncil.org/getattachme ... dd3e/.aspx

[grant1simons2]

Don't want to interrupt what I'm sure is very educated debate but.. Could this be the most viewed and active post on the forum ever? It should get a little award

[FISHMANPET]

There are at least 3 threads in the Downtown thread (Stadium air rights, LPM, and a closed stadium thread) that have more than the 105k views than this thread does, but this thread might have the most posts (none of those are over 100 pages).

[seanrichardryan]

That's not to say this thread wouldn't be at the top of the snark and butthurt rankings.

[blobs]

So what's the consensus on this thing

[Silophant]

What, on SWLRT? There isn't one, and there probably won't ever be.

[ECtransplant]

The consensus is nobody likes it while some people want to push the flawed line through while other people would rather spend the time to fix the flaws (at least the major ones) and do it right

[seanrichardryan]

You're right, 3C was a flawed alignment. Now if we can get the northern tunnel eliminated and add the 21st st station back in we'll be back in business.

[Nick]

At some point, I'm going to make a chart like this for Southwest.

[seanrichardryan]

Wouldn't link-

[Archiapolis]

The consensus is nobody likes it while some people want to push the flawed line through while other people would rather spend the time to fix the flaws (at least the major ones) and do it right

Brilliant.

[David Greene]

St. Louis Park is seeking input on developing a form-based code for station areas.

http://www.stlouispark.org/light-freigh ... erway.html

Sounds like a great opportunity to demonstrate how form-based zoning can work.