Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[mattaudio]

Moved the tax and financing discussion to Anything Goes:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1352

[lordmoke]

A system of taxation that is reliant on sales tax more so than income tax is inherently much more unfair to poorer people. People in lower income brackets obviously don't make as much money as the wealthy, and are therefore unable to commit a very large portion of their incomes to savings. This of course means that a larger portion of their income is being spent (and taxed.) The tax on purchases is the same for all income brackets. Someone who makes $100K a year pays the same 7 cents per dollar that someone who makes $12K a year, and they're certainly going to be less affected by it, especially if they can afford to keep dumping their money into a savings account, where it sits doing nothing. From the government's point of view, it collects most of its taxes when money changes hands, so if the money's not going to be moving around at all, might as well get the most out of it the one time you can.

[Tcmetro]

It looks like the Eden Prairie routings are being narrowed down.

EP Town Center - Looks like it's possible to see a station on Singletree Lane in front of the Wal Mart. This will provide much better access to the mall and surrounding buildings, and a routing along Shady Oak Rd should get rid of the need for a giant bridge over 494. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Southwest Station - Probably placed right at the existing bus station.

Mitchell Road - Looks like the line could be extended past Mitchell to Wallace Road, providing better access to the office park and diverting park and ride traffic to the lower traffic interchange at Wallace.

http://www.ci.eden-prairie.mn.us/module ... entid=2405

[TWA]

What a weird place to terminate the line. It's kind of out of the way and hard to get to... at least the mitchell terminus left a huge chunk of greenfield development opportunities around the station versus being in a weird industrial park next to a middle school...

[RailBaronYarr]

If the purpose of the SW LRT was to get people from North Mpls (and other underserved markets) out to places with jobs, this makes a heck of a lot more sense (I count 9 buildings within a 3-5 minute walk) than building more "TOD" in a car-dependent neighborhood (aka it would serve young people commuting to Mpls for work but driving everywhere else). Since parking at each of these will almost be a guarantee, the city/MT could be creative about leasing out under-utilized surface spaces in the adjoining industrial park which gives them much greater flexibility over time. Just a thought.

[mamundsen]

The interesting thing to me about the alignment options to get it closer to the mall is that after the stop right by Walmart on Singletree Ln, there would be a steep hill down to Prairie Center Drive. THEN there is a sharp right turn. Do we know if LRV can handle those, especially in the winter?

[David Greene]

He was a user here for a hot minute but his last login per the "Members" page was last year. I think he got burned out by everyone disagreeing with him.

Or maybe just got tired of the same old same old.

And decided to devote time to something productive, like securing transit funding at the capitol.

[TWA]

If the purpose of the SW LRT was to get people from North Mpls (and other underserved markets) out to places with jobs, this makes a heck of a lot more sense (I count 9 buildings within a 3-5 minute walk) than building more "TOD" in a car-dependent neighborhood (aka it would serve young people commuting to Mpls for work but driving everywhere else). Since parking at each of these will almost be a guarantee, the city/MT could be creative about leasing out under-utilized surface spaces in the adjoining industrial park which gives them much greater flexibility over time. Just a thought.

Totally understand. However the buildings in that area are a city building (where they house plow equipment), the EP school bus depot and the middle school. The larger employers in the area would be just as close to this station as if it were to terminate at Mitchell.

[RailBaronYarr]

Totally understand. However the buildings in that area are a city building (where they house plow equipment), the EP school bus depot and the middle school. The larger employers in the area would be just as close to this station as if it were to terminate at Mitchell.

Touche. I did a quick look on Google Maps and assumed they were medium industrial type buildings. This yet again shows the challenges in the reverse commute rail lines. No matter where you put the stations the pedestrian (or transit) access in the area is pretty poor, giving a small radius of job opportunity per station (without high cost and time-consuming shuttles taking people around the area). I don't doubt that David Greene is right in the demographic/job match from N Minneapolis to SW burbs, I just have a hard time believing any less than 95% of the purpose of this line is to serve commuters going downtown.

[UptownSport]

He was a user here for a hot minute but his last login per the "Members" page was last year. I think he got burned out by everyone disagreeing with him.

And decided to devote time to something productive, like securing transit funding at the capitol.

Unfortunately, you would have been just as productive here ....

Minnesota House rejects $800 million bonding bill
http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_2 ... l-over-its

-- $50 million for Twin Cities-area bus and rail transit projects.

[TWA]

Totally understand. However the buildings in that area are a city building (where they house plow equipment), the EP school bus depot and the middle school. The larger employers in the area would be just as close to this station as if it were to terminate at Mitchell.

Touche. I did a quick look on Google Maps and assumed they were medium industrial type buildings. This yet again shows the challenges in the reverse commute rail lines. No matter where you put the stations the pedestrian (or transit) access in the area is pretty poor, giving a small radius of job opportunity per station (without high cost and time-consuming shuttles taking people around the area). I don't doubt that David Greene is right in the demographic/job match from N Minneapolis to SW burbs, I just have a hard time believing any less than 95% of the purpose of this line is to serve commuters going downtown.

I only know that because I went to middle school there... and that little back road area is where we were bussed in.

I think you are spot on by knowing that 95% of this line (in the EP segment) will be a park and ride type commuter rail to downtown. The part about having it at mitchell is that area has a lot of space for future development- it's a large piece of untouched land. That would make it enticing if I were EP, and would definitely be able to draw some retail and residential development, maybe even more office.

[mattaudio]

It seems totally backwards that we've subsidized the mass migration of employment out to the suburban fringe through massive freeway expansion, induced demand, and bundling car storage... yet now we want to spend billions to give urban dwellers transit access to a tiny fraction of these jobs.

Seems like we'd be far better off focusing on quality high speed transit within existing urbanized areas... maybe SWLRT to the Opus area, maybe Bottineau to Robbinsdale, but then more lines to dense areas such as West End, Northeast Industrial/Rosedale, Central Ave, etc.

[RailBaronYarr]

I'm on the same page as you, Matt. It's a totally backwards narrative to say the line will give access. With the roads/highways we've built, if the goal was to give access to jobs on the fringe we might be better off simply subsidizing car ownership and gas cost entirely for the people who need access to those places, which actually may be more effective than a single line or 2 giving access to a tiny fraction of the total opportunity. I have a hard time in my gut saying it's ok to justify the $1B projects (SW LRT, Bottineau Line extension) that serve more to reward people (with a rapid, easy mode of transit and loads of free car storage to boot) and company's choices of where to locate when they weren't productive in the first place.

I'm torn because MetCouncil/Metro Transit are such top-down style organizations, but they have such little power to affect any real change. It would be great if MC could say "For us to build this line out to EP or Brooklyn Park you need to show that you're serious about changing your land-use and development patterns. We will only extend it to you once you have a place where 80% of the daily ridership necessary to justify the line lives within walking distance of where the station would go." But they can't - MC has no real authority and their funding mechanisms rely too much on federal aid for projects like this, and the federal criteria are nowhere near something this substantial.

Edit: I say I'm torn because for things like transit/transportation I'm not a huge fan of top-down rules because then we get far too many one-size-doesn't-fit-all appraches to doing things (cough stroads) and perverse strings attached to projects from the federal level or even state/county to local (County State Aid Highways being streets in major cities being a great example). But I also think if we're serious about building effective transit in our region the MC needs to have some rules and not build the line to satiate the desires of less congestion for people who choose to live out in the burbs.

[mattaudio]

Also, no point in the cheap shot, UptownSport. Obviously I disgree with David Greene on some of the details of how/where transit should be implemented, but I am confident he's pro-transit just like most of us on here. And I'm probably safe in assuming he's not personally responsible for the failure of the off-cycle bonding bill.

[woofner]

MetCouncil/Metro Transit are such top-down style organizations, but they have such little power to affect any real change. It would be great if MC could say "For us to build this line out to EP or Brooklyn Park you need to show that you're serious about changing your land-use and development patterns. We will only extend it to you once you have a place where 80% of the daily ridership necessary to justify the line lives within walking distance of where the station would go." But they can't - MC has no real authority and their funding mechanisms rely too much on federal aid for projects like this, and the federal criteria are nowhere near something this substantial.

The Met Council actually has the express authority to do that in their power to approve comp plans. They don't even have to ask the municipality at all, they can just plan for a certain land use in their regional plan and reject any comp plan that doesn't conform. In practice the Met Council hasn't ever been that heavy-handed, but at least one prominent academic (Myron Orfield) has advocated for them to be.

[RailBaronYarr]

The Met Council actually has the express authority to do that in their power to approve comp plans. They don't even have to ask the municipality at all, they can just plan for a certain land use in their regional plan and reject any comp plan that doesn't conform. In practice the Met Council hasn't ever been that heavy-handed, but at least one prominent academic (Myron Orfield) has advocated for them to be.

I guess but, as you say, they never seem to do it. Yes, the station area planning and land use seems to be influenced by Met Council goals, but to be perfectly honest, I am constantly underwhelmed by the results. IF the MC was trying to pursue better growth patterns (assuming they ignore existing places, which they often do), why would they so frequently build free parking garages directly adjacent to the stations instead of much further away AND at a price? Why would they never require that the entire municipality show some sign of changing land-use patterns? I also question how much actual authority they have as speaking with MC representatives directly led me to believe they have no power to force cities to do anything in their codes, laws, regulations, etc even if it supported a broader regional goal the MC puts forward.

[UptownSport]

So what affect, if any, does the $800 million bonding bill defeat have on this project?

And he so deserved that, every word.

[David Greene]

And decided to devote time to something productive, like securing transit funding at the capitol.

Unfortunately, you would have been just as productive here ....

Yep, MAJOR bummer on that and the lack of transportation funding. But it was still productive to be involved. A lot of legislators are on notice now. Not to mention the Governor.

Changing the transportation vision of a state doesn't happen in one year or even ten. I think we are on the cusp of turning a corner and I'm excited to be a part of it!

But I'm pissed off as hell at the DFL right now, yes.

We're letting them know about our displeasure. I hope that everyone on UrbanMSP will call their legislators and tell them to support a sales tax for transit next year. If that requires a gas tax increase to make it politically feasible, I'm all for it.

[David Greene]

Also, no point in the cheap shot, UptownSport. Obviously I disgree with David Greene on some of the details of how/where transit should be implemented, but I am confident he's pro-transit just like most of us on here. And I'm probably safe in assuming he's not personally responsible for the failure of the off-cycle bonding bill.

Eh. FWIW I didn't see it as a cheap shot at all. From a results perspective, he's quite right. But it's not only about results. It's about building and strengthening relationships and foundations so something wonderful can happen in the future.

And yes, I am most definitely pro-transit.

[David Greene]

So what affect, if any, does the $800 million bonding bill defeat have on this project?

And he so deserved that, every word.

Huh. So it was a cheap shot. Oh well. I don't really care either way.

As for the project, the transportation bill did have a minimal amount of money for SW LRT, probably enough to hobble along for a little while.

At least the legislature plugged the $18 million hole that Metro Transit was facing.

So not great by far but at least we aren't moving backward.