Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[talindsay]

Saying the SW line serves the north side because there are jobs in the SW metro that people on the north side are eligible for is like saying that the Vatican bank serves Americans because there are Catholic churches in the Vatican and many Americans are Catholic. It's not that the supporting claim is *untrue*, it's just not a terribly direct or useful claim.

Note that as a transit pragmatist I just want them to be build 3A as cheaply as possible and be done with it (my preference would be to terminate the line in Hopkins for now, but whatever); I'd rather not keep rehashing stale arguments about 3A vs. 3C because at this point it's water under the proverbial Cedar Lake bridge (ha!). But it does seem like a pretty extreme case of trying to create a racial-justice argument to claim that this alignment in any meaningful way directly serves the north side - any meaningful connection is a transfer connection, just as *any* of the options for SW would have been.

It's a SOUTHWEST transitway, not a NORTHSIDE transitway, and it doesn't directly serve the north side at all. A bus transfer could happen at Target Field just as easily as it could happen at Royalston, Van White, West Lake, or even Hopkins for that matter. Heck, northsiders would be better served by a bus that runs from Penn Ave N down along this corridor and has stops in Hopkins, Opus, and points south, than they would be by a transfer to the SW line.

Furthermore, when a future Bottineau line is built the transfer point will be Target Field; all potential SW alignments would have been served by one transfer from Bottineau to SW, whether that would happen at TF or Nicollet. Any future northside streetcar will enter downtown as well, where a transfer could take place. Almost all major northside buses currently run into downtown too, where a transfer can happen at any downtown station of choice. Buses from the northside can be reconfigured to meet the train at ANY light rail station, with virtually no impact on trip time and still requiring one transfer.

I'm not arguing against the route chosen - I'm fine with it. I do want northsiders to have social justice in the transit system as well. I don't see *ANY* possible link between the two issues. And I've had to read about them for the past three years. Heck, I'll donate to a kickstarter campaign to *pay* for the one-seat northside-residence-to-southwest-jobs bus if it means the senseless argument that somehow one SW alignment is going to make the northside and another isn't can finally stop.

[mulad]

I think Archiapolis may have Royalston and Van White reversed in those arguments, but I agree with many of your comments.

Something that really irks me about people talking about Southwest is the supposed attraction of city residents to the suburbs for work. Live in the city, work in the 'burbs. It will be feasible for some folks, but the Golden Triangle and other commercial zones are vast areas. By contrast, the Mall of America is practically a single point, and areas like downtown Minneapolis and downtown Saint Paul are quite compact.

We should organize a walking tour of the Golden Triangle or something. Except we'd all get frostbite from walking for hours on end.

[mattaudio]

Another year, another epic rip of the 3A/Northside justifications.

[David Greene]

I've said all this before... *Thanks for humoring me and repeating.

- It will spur development at Van White.
*Wow. Is there a study that backs this up?... Care to make an argument?

The neighborhoods have over the last many years put together the Basset Creek Valley Master Plan. Ryan has exclusive development rights to Linden Yards and has a proposal with renderings. Minneapolis is going to sell pieces of the impound lot off around the Van White bridge. There will certainly be feeder buses down Van White.

- Royalston, today, is a huge bus transfer point for the northside. Add service to the southwest suburbs here would give access to lots and lots of people.

*Same to be said for Royalston. No residential density (some is coming but...). It isn't all about residential density obviously as this area has office coming online and some potential but again, to say that this area is attractive (especially to the south and west) is a VERY long view. Is transporting labor from North to the SW suburbs REALLY the point of SWLRT? I'm happy for more people to be employed but creating this line is ALREADY a massive nod to the SW suburbs, shouldn't we be encouraging an alignment that focuses on the core rather than moving people FROM the core to the suburbs?

Jobs access to the SW suburbs is extremely important. The point aout Royalston is lots of people take buses to transfer there TODAY. They will easily plug into SWLRT. Then housing will come later.

- We have buses! People aren't only going to walk and bike to SWLRT from North. Certainly people from the Broadway area know how to take a bus and transfer to LRT.
*Opinion: Buses suck.

We have plenty of real-world experience of people taking buses to Hiawatha. My sense is that most people here think the Snelling aBRT is a decent enough idea. I don't see why N. Penn is any different. Yes, it's narrower but traffic volumes are lower too.

- We know people in Near North have job skills that match up very well with jobs in the southwest suburbs. Harrison did a job skills inventory that demonstrates this clearly.
*See earlier comment regarding the focus on moving people from the city to the suburbs being the reverse of what this line should focus on (emphasis on "FOCUS ON.")

The two are not exclusive. Reverse commutes are going to be very important on SWLRT. It brings people into the core and brings people from the core, Near North and Calhoun-Isles out to the suburbs.

I'll reiterate this point:

- We know people already travel from Near North to the southwest suburbs, though generally not by transit, though some DO take long bus rides to get there!. Harrison did a travelshed study that shows this. Many more people would be able to make these trips if reasonable transit were available.

How would an extension to the Blue Line work? A transfer or A/B trains? I very much question the practicality of this over the current Midtown rail option. Why is the Midtown rail option + Nicollet streetcar not just as good?
*
Confession: I am uninformed about the "Midtown Rail option." What I am suggesting is true light rail that is in the trench, Phase 1 from EP to Nicollet (and downtown), Phase 2 from Nicollet to Lake, Phase 3 from Lake -->east.

Rail on Lake St. is noit going to happen. We just completely reconstructed it and businesses have made it very clear they don't want to go through that pain again. That leaves rail in the Greenway, which seems less and less attractive the further east you go because it gets further and further away from Lake St. The Midtown corridor proposal is an LRV line from the West Lake station to Hiawatha and enhanced bus/aBRT from the West Lake station to Snelling/University.

And what do you propose to do for Near North?
*I already proposed it - a line that would run from the Intermodal station in a northwest fashion with the objective of linking to Broadway.

That's Bottineau + the Broadway streetcar. That doesn't get people to the southwest suburbs.

[David Greene]

Saying the SW line serves the north side because there are jobs in the SW metro that people on the north side are eligible for is like saying that the Vatican bank serves Americans because there are Catholic churches in the Vatican and many Americans are Catholic.

You totally lost me. We know that people from the northside work in the southwest suburbs today. We know many others can't get there due to a lack of transit options.

It's a SOUTHWEST transitway, not a NORTHSIDE transitway, and it doesn't directly serve the north side at all. A bus transfer could happen at Target Field just as easily as it could happen at Royalston, Van White, West Lake, or even Hopkins for that matter. Heck, northsiders would be better served by a bus that runs from Penn Ave N down along this corridor and has stops in Hopkins, Opus, and points south, than they would be by a transfer to the SW line.

I fail to see how. A bus would not spur development.

Buses from the northside can be reconfigured to meet the train at ANY light rail station, with virtually no impact on trip time and still requiring one transfer.

Ok, how do you route a bus from the northside to the West Lake station and have it be faster? Heading into downtown and back out certainly will take longer than a transfer at Penn, Van White or Royalston plus we wouldn't get development of the impound lot and Linden Yards.

I'm not arguing against the route chosen - I'm fine with it. I do want northsiders to have social justice in the transit system as well. I don't see *ANY* possible link between the two issues. And I've had to read about them for the past three years. Heck, I'll donate to a kickstarter campaign to *pay* for the one-seat northside-residence-to-southwest-jobs bus if it means the senseless argument that somehow one SW alignment is going to make the northside and another isn't can finally stop.

It's about priorities. From an equity standpoint, 3A is a better deal for transit-reliant populations than 3C. Uptown alreadty has good transit service. Argue all you want but it is some of the best in the metro. Equity demands that we invest elsewhere to close the gaps.

[mattaudio]

Another year, another epic rip of the 3A/Northside justifications.

[Nick]

I don't think anyone recapped in depth, but the meeting was disappointing. There was a stretch at the end where the audience basically commandeered the meeting, while the moderator was hunched over and Susan Haigh was whispering in her ear. It was embarrassing, and I wasn't embarrassed for the St. Louis Park people. It's just...I dunno. There was a huge contingent of recognizable elected and unelected officials in the back of the room, and literally no one felt like they should step up and say something while the St. Louis Park people were asking questions of them. The safety stuff is a little bit ridiculous, but hot damn, if they actually build a 20 foot berm through the middle of that city...it's just...there is almost no aspect of this process that has not been done badly, and it's incredibly disappointing. From the letter from Susan Haigh we were handed at the beginning of the meeting with a blatant, obvious typo in the first sentence, to the unshoveled bus stop outside of the meeting place, to 1,000 riders in Kenwood.

Who knows what's going to happen in the immediate future in elections, and what kind of legislature and governor we're going to have. The Metropolitan Council, which is a good idea, is potentially risking their entire existence with this ridiculousness.

[ECtransplant]

Uptown alreadty has good transit service. Argue all you want but it is some of the best in the metro. Equity demands that we invest elsewhere to close the gaps.

That would be like NYC building a subway to the Bronx before Brooklyn and saying Brooklyn has great bus service.

[FISHMANPET]

Transit is not a welfare program, it's a transportation program. End of story. We should build lines that provide the most transportation benefit. You yourself, David, admit that there are people that are already making the drive from the North to jobs in the Southwest. So I'm not sure why those people are more deserving of a more convenient ride to work than people that live somewhere else.

If you really want to get north siders to Southwest, then advocate for an Express bus route, it'll be faster for them and much cheaper to implement.

[Silophant]

Uptown already has good transit service. Argue all you want but it is some of the best in the metro. Equity demands that we invest elsewhere to close the gaps.

This is the worst argument for 3A over 3C. LRT shouldn't be for bringing transit to areas that don't have it. That should be buses, so when you find that the studies mispredicted the exact routing, you can move the route over a block or whatever to make it work better. Rail should be for expanding capacity in corridors that desperately need it. By your argument, the Green Line shouldn't have been built, since the University Ave corridor already had great transit service.

[David Greene]

Transit is not a welfare program, it's a transportation program. End of story.

No, not end of story. Transportation isn't welfare but it _is_ opportunity. Not paying attention to dynamics of racial barriers and segregation is what got us into our curent shameful situation of wealth, income, employment and education disparities. Transportation is not only about technicalities and engineering.

[Chef]

In a hundred years all the various racial and economic communities will be living in different places (if they even exist at all in today's sense) but the light rail line will still be where we build it today. The primary goal should be to build a line that makes sense within the built environment.

[FISHMANPET]

Transit is not a welfare program, it's a transportation program. End of story.

No, not end of story. Transportation isn't welfare but it _is_ opportunity. Not paying attention to dynamics of racial barriers and segregation is what got us into our curent shameful situation of wealth, income, employment and education disparities. Transportation is not only about technicalities and engineering.

To be perfectly blunt I don't think anybody here believes that 3A is actually going to provide increased access to more than a handful of Northsiders, other than you.

And this isn't the 50s and 60s where we tear down minority neighborhoods to build our infrastructure. No alignment of anything is going to rebuild Frogtown, so let's not waste our money trying, and instead spend it building transportation infrastructure that will benefit the most people for the lowest cost.

[mattaudio]

Indeed, which is why it's irrelevant to debate whether transit is for mobility, improving equity, or whatever inside this very Southwest Corridor thread. Which is because the Southwest Corridor sucks miserably no matter what value you prescribe to transit.

[talindsay]

To be perfectly blunt I don't think anybody here believes that 3A is actually going to provide increased access to more than a handful of Northsiders, other than you.

And this isn't the 50s and 60s where we tear down minority neighborhoods to build our infrastructure. No alignment of anything is going to rebuild Frogtown, so let's not waste our money trying, and instead spend it building transportation infrastructure that will benefit the most people for the lowest cost.

Hear hear!

[David Greene]

And this isn't the 50s and 60s where we tear down minority neighborhoods to build our infrastructure

Even if that were true (and I'm not convinced it is), the fact that we decimated minority neighborhoods means that some communities start out at a huge disadvantage, even today. That demands proactive steps to address those gaps. We don't get to absolve ourselves of responsibility because, "my parents did it, not me."

And I'm so glad people still think this is a white suburban commuter line. You've swallowed the CIDNA disinformation campaign hook, line and sinker.

[Viktor Vaughn]

And I'm so glad people still think this is a white suburban commuter line. You've swallowed the CIDNA disinformation campaign hook, line and sinker.

When I said in an earlier comment that I was concerned this line would tar light rail in the region, it's because, if built as planned, I believe the line will be primarily a commuter line. It's not enough to be busy at rush hour. If we are going to spend a $1.5 billion on this, it needs to be busy on Sunday too. Hiawatha is anchored by the MSP and the MOA, so it has a lot more non-commuter trips than it would otherwise.

The SLP and Hopkins stops are very promising, but they won't carry the line. Coach buses from Park & Rides would better serve the further out stops at a small fraction of the price.

A route through some of the densest and most desirable neighborhoods in Minneapolis would drive ridership for the whole line, and make it a seven-days-a-week success. Skipping Uptown dooms the line to commuter rail status. At least it traverses 1st & 2nd ring suburbs, rather than exurbs, but I believe SW will be closer on the spectrum to the Red Line or Northstar, than Hiawatha or Central. You don't have to be subjected to a CIDNA disinformation campaign to believe that.

Unfortunately, the route for Bottineau is even worse.

[David Greene]

A route through some of the densest and most desirable neighborhoods in Minneapolis would drive ridership for the whole line, and make it a seven-days-a-week success.

Here's what I don't understand. WHY is this so? If you believe the current alignment would only serve commuters, why would an Uptown alignment be any different? Are you saying that the number of trips to/from Uptown-downtown would swamp the number of all other trips on the line? If so, then ridership models should have shown that and we should tunnel from Hennepin & 5th down to 29th St. and be done with it.

If you are saying tons of people will travel to/from the suburbs-Uptown, then why won't the Midtown Corridor + SWLRT serve exactly the same purpose and generate the same ridership on SWLRT?

I honestly don't see why 3C is significantly better than 3A + Midtown as far as ridership on SWLRT goes.

[RailBaronYarr]

I honestly don't see why 3C is significantly better than 3A + Midtown as far as ridership on SWLRT goes.

I think I agree with you on this for suburbs->Uptown or Uptown->suburb trips. You're basically adding a transfer from one high frequency route to another, increasing wait times by 3.5-5 minutes most of the day. Not a huge deal. It's the other trips (Uptown->downtown/U/beyond) and other people (the "blue" folks in that image I made a while back that get a slower/less reliable streetcar vs LRT into downtown) that are affected more. Obviously this discussion needs clarity if we're talking a 3C interlining or a 3C-2-like N-S routing (since the latter forces a transfer for those in Uptown continuing eastward). I did the time differentials earlier, based on real travel estimates from all 3 lines, so we can certainly discuss the merits of each.

It's been pointed out before (though not disputed recently, I think) that Penn aBRT will not reach the Penn station, which deals a major blow to North Mpls transfer capability. In the end, it's just as easy to say that 3A isn't significantly better for N Mpls than 3C + Penn aBRT/Broadway.

In the end, I tend to agree with woofner much earlier. It's exhausting to go over and over the +/-s here, and the potential negative of significant delay and cancellation (and likely Midtown streetcar) are potentially worse than the possible negative perception of a less than ideal routing.

[David Greene]

It's the other trips (Uptown->downtown/U/beyond) and other people (the "blue" folks in that image I made a while back that get a slower/less reliable streetcar vs LRT into downtown) that are affected more.

I agree 3C might be faster for those already along Nicollet, but I don't think it would replace service for people currently taking the 6 from Uptown. They go to different places. Midtown + Nicollet streetcar might actually be faster than the current 17 for those headed to the Mall. 3C would be faster too. Almost anything would be faster.

I guess I don't see the case for spending another $150 million and seriously disrupting the Greenway and businesses on Nicollet Ave. to make those taking the 17 a little bit happier than they might be with a Nicollet streetcar.

It's been pointed out before (though not disputed recently, I think) that Penn aBRT will not reach the Penn station

Oh, it will.

In the end, I tend to agree with woofner much earlier. It's exhausting to go over and over the +/-s here, and the potential negative of significant delay and cancellation (and likely Midtown streetcar) are potentially worse than the possible negative perception of a less than ideal routing.

Agreed. Believe me, I do read the arguments and understand them. I just don't think there's a strong enough case given the equity opportunity available.