Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[froggie]

Jumping in late on the West Broadway debate, the official right-of-way width between Penn and roughly James Ave is 73 feet. That the ROW narrows is confirmed looking at county tax parcel data in GIS (I have the county's shapefile for such), and even suggests the ROW may narrow to 68-70ft in the vicinity of Newton Ave.

At a minimum, (especially given the curves along this stretch), you would need 30ft of ROW in order to run two LRT tracks in dedicated space with overhead catenary and separation from adjacent uses. This does not include station space. For a minimalist cross-section, without any stations, turn lanes, on-street parking, or boulevard, and with 6ft sidewalks immediately adjacent to the travel lane, you could squeeze LRT onto West Broadway (you could fit the above on a 64ft ROW). But if you wanted to be able to cross West Broadway, or have an LRT station, or any meaningful width of boulevard or sidewalk, you'd need a wider cross section. And that's something you wouldn't be able to get on either Penn Ave (ROW generally 62-64ft), or on West Broadway between Penn and James (mentioned above).

[seanrichardryan]

Fact. Now, let's start talking about gaunlet track & tunnels because, whatever.

[woofner]

From Broadway to James is about a kilometer. That's a pretty typical station spacing, especially for a relatively low-intensity area like that one. The traffic counts are low there (about 10k/day, or about what W 36th carries between Lyndale & Nicollet), and the intersections there see few turns (around 3% of peak hour movements). It's not unreasonable to prohibit left turns in that kind of environment. It's disingenuous to suggest that it would be necessary to prohibit crossing the street to build light rail.

Personally I think the bigger story with Bottineau is that a marginal LRT route was chosen over a promising BRT route. This was basically political and can be blamed on Mike Opat specifically. But the regional ramification is that buses are relegated to highways and banished from getting their own lanes.

[froggie]

It's not disingenuous to suggest that if it's the reality. If you want to be able to cross at something other than a traffic signal (which, absent additional width for turn lanes, would need to be split phase and that would ruin timing for EVERYBODY...trains, cars, and peds), you'll need space for pedestrian refuges in between.

I'm also not convinced that you'd be able to coerce both residents and the city to forego all left turns through that stretch.

[EOst]

Although I still maintain that it would make little sense, I do think it's important to point out that the bottleneck between Penn and James would also be far and away the easiest stretch to widen, since in many cases both sides of the street are vacant.

[woofner]

Who is turning left there? EB between Penn and James there are two left turn possibilities, and WB there are three (four if you count the stub of Oliver). Remember, Broadway is not part of the street grid, and in this part of Broadway the grid is pretty well broken already. I understand that in most parts of the Twin Cities the lack of connectivity we accept as a legacy of the interstates is not accepted as a result of transit improvements, but I really don't understand who would protest on this particular segment. If you look at the peak hour diagrams at these intersections, there are 5 or 6 left turns.

Once you accept that there are no left turns, your concerns about phase splitting are immaterial. If there are no left turns, there isn't even a need for a signal, although I think sight lines might recommend them.

[froggie]

...in which case you would still need extra space for pedestrian refuges if you don't have signals. Either that or not allow pedestrians to cross except AT signals (as the D2 alignment along West Broadway and Penn Ave proposed).

[woofner]

Here is a 72' cross section at ped crossings:

6' - Sidewalk
10' - Car lane
5' - Ped refuge
30' - LRT ROW
5' - Ped refuge
10' - Car lane
6' - Sidewalk

It is certainly not ideal, but just as certainly feasible, and since the sidewalks there are currently 6' without any buffer from the 12.5' car lane, probably better for pedestrians than what is there now. Outside of the crosswalk, it could taper towards a more comfortable car lane width for those poor snowplow drivers and the boulevard could reappear.

Or, as EOst mentioned, the ROW could have been widened. As you know from your parcel data, the city owns most of it anyway (like literally almost all of it).

I'm not saying that's what should be built here, but the community should have been given this option during the Bottineau process.

[froggie]

One minor quibble: due to curb/gutter, your car lanes would need to be 11ft, not 10. Otherwise yes that would theoretically work, though the lack of separation between vehicles and peds would likely doom such a cross-section.

And as I recall, the community WAS given that option. The complaints from Penn Ave residents and businesses further down Broadway (where ROW was wider) were loud and clear.

[Archiapolis]

Here is a 72' cross section at ped crossings:

6' - Sidewalk
10' - Car lane
5' - Ped refuge
30' - LRT ROW
5' - Ped refuge
10' - Car lane
6' - Sidewalk

It is certainly not ideal, but just as certainly feasible, and since the sidewalks there are currently 6' without any buffer from the 12.5' car lane, probably better for pedestrians than what is there now. Outside of the crosswalk, it could taper towards a more comfortable car lane width for those poor snowplow drivers and the boulevard could reappear.

Or, as EOst mentioned, the ROW could have been widened. As you know from your parcel data, the city owns most of it anyway (like literally almost all of it).

I'm not saying that's what should be built here, but the community should have been given this option during the Bottineau process.

Thank you for this.

[mattaudio]

though the lack of separation between vehicles and peds would likely doom such a cross-section.

Blue Line doesn't think so. https://goo.gl/maps/8ppQ3xDK4eR2

[seanrichardryan]

Yeah, that certainly looks ideal. 54th & Minnehaha has it all!

[Archiapolis]

One minor quibble: due to curb/gutter, your car lanes would need to be 11ft, not 10. Otherwise yes that would theoretically work, though the lack of separation between vehicles and peds would likely doom such a cross-section.

And as I recall, the community WAS given that option. The complaints from Penn Ave residents and businesses further down Broadway (where ROW was wider) were loud and clear.

Putting Penn Ave aside, what were the complaints from the businesses? When you say "further down" are saying towards the burbs or towards the city?

[MNdible]

Yeah, that certainly looks ideal. 54th & Minnehaha has it all!

-1

[mattaudio]

You do realize I've pushed NENA and the Ward 12 office to try and remove those lanes over time...

[MNdible]

And you wonder why the Broadway business owners wouldn't be supportive of this plan.

[mattaudio]

Because it wastes space on lanes for motor vehicles?

[FISHMANPET]

Broadway business owners don't want LRT because Matt wants to remove lanes at 54th and Minnehaha. Got it.

[MNdible]

With the lanes, it's a brutal environment where nobody would want to hang out.

Without the lanes, you've removed access for two-thirds of the customers.

It's a lose-lose. People keep trying to cram the 10 pounds of potatoes into the 5 pound sack -- and you just might be able to do it, but the results aren't going to be pretty.

[BoredAgain]

This discussion just makes me wish that grade separation were a politically viable option. Even a short section through this area of tight ROW would be expensive enough that our planning structure would eliminate the option.

I happen to agree that removal of the car lanes at 54th and Minnehaha in the long term seems reasonable, but that is not a viable option in the Broadway corridor.