Blue Line Extension - Bottineau LRT

[Minneapolisite]

A high frequency #38 or #74 is infinitely more exciting than this and the swlrt combined.

[MNdible]

Isn't it easier to be resigned and complacent?

They're both pretty easy, probably. Trying to develop constructive paths forward that at least give a nod to the world in which we actually live is hard.

I'm not claiming to be a fount of answers, by the way, but it's a breath of fresh air when somebody actually takes the time and thought to go beyond parroting the same predictable negative responses.

[Chava]

Not sure where this should go, but I'll place this right here for some thought.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... ingblunder

[Tcmetro]

Not sure where this should go, but I'll place this right here for some thought.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... ingblunder

Ehhhhhhh, I'm not a big fan of streetcars but the Economist is against basically any public transit. I remember reading an article in that mag about how Shanghai shouldn't be building subways because they're too expensive and should invest in buses.

[Tcmetro]

On another issue...

I am a Maple Grove resident still upset that they chose the Brooklyn Park (B) northern alignment viruses the Maple Grove (A) alignment. Although the Maple Grove alignment would have meant more ridership, Maple Grove leadership didn't do anything to advocate for the line (NIMBY?) and Brooklyn Park fought hard for it. It is what it is.

I was taking a look at the location of stations in the preferred alignment and noticed that the current plan is for a Park and Ride at the 93rd Street Station and then a station in the middle of Broadway at 85th Street. I think a lot of commuters (like me coming from Weaver Lake Road) would be willing to use the 85th Street Station but unwilling to detour to the 93rd Street Station to use a Park and Ride. the Park and Ride is a farther station and would only add time to commuters from the East (85th) and West (Weaver Lake Road). This might mean a lot of commuter cars left all day near the intersection of 85th and Broadway. This would probably negatively impact NHCC and the new library planned for the NE corner of the intersection. As the gravel pit area of Maple Grove along 85th gets developed with high-density residential, this commuter car issue would likely get worse.

I noticed that the SW corner of the intersection has an unoccupied (at least according to Google Maps) fast food restaurant and parking lot. I think this is where many commuters would naturally want to park. Project planners should consider acquiring or leasing a portion of this lot for a formal park and ride. Although this area is some-what dense, it will also pull a lot of commuters coming from farther away. Planners should prepare for this.

I agree with you about how MG should have been chosen over BP. MG has programmed a lot of higher density development around the areas where the line would have run, and the shopping center would attract more evening and weekend riders as well as improve access to entry level jobs. The BP alignment isn't all too bad. It serves the Starlite Center (heavily trafficked strip mall area), North Henn. Comm. Coll., as well as the burgeoning suburban job center at Hwy. 610.

I think both were good options, but at the end of the day the politicians would probably be more in favor of pandering to companies to get them to relocate to 610, and light-rail is definitely a selling point.

[FISHMANPET]

I don't know how much extra it would have cost, but it I've always thought it might be useful if we built both, and have every other train go to Brooklyn Park and the other trains go to Maple Grove.

Also, quoting Randall O'Toole is like the Godwins law of transit discussions.

[twincitizen]

Having two branches, one to BP and one to MG, was actually part of the early alternatives analysis. Aside from MG not wanting it, it didn't meet the CEI. I certainly wouldn't rule it out in the future though. It makes perfect sense to have higher frequencies on the trunk, and lower on the far suburban branches. In the meantime, an all day shuttle from MG P&R to Bottineau will have to do.

[David Greene]

Having two branches, one to BP and one to MG, was actually part of the early alternatives analysis. Aside from MG not wanting it, it didn't meet the CEI. I certainly wouldn't rule it out in the future though.

Indeed. I would not be surprised at all if the MG leg got built one day. It's probbly 15-20 years away, though.

This is complete fantasy, but what would happen if, instead of a 3rd lane on 494, we'd built LRT from Maple Grove to Eden Prairie, connecting the Green Line to a MG Blue Line extnesion? Where is most of the traffic going to/from on that stretch of freeway? It is terribly congested during peak, mostly due to the lane drop at MN 55. Mostly I'm just curious abour origins/destinations of those trips. Would a "western triangle" capture a significant number of those trips?

[EOst]

EOst says as much here, "Traffic disruption" is cited as the primary reason that 2f (Broadway->Washington) get a low score on alternative studies. Sorry to be obtuse but I'm guessing that car traffic has been "disrupted" by Central Corridor.

With respect, "traffic disruption" isn't just that it's harder for some people to get down Bottineau'd Washington Ave; traffic disruptions have cascading effects throughout the corridor and city.

Depending on where you draw the route, Washington sees 10-15,000 vehicles daily (maps http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data ... 013/3E.pdf); Broadway sees another 20-25k, a lot of whom turn on Washington. Let's say light rail in the corridor reduces vehicle demand by 5% in the corridor (a lot of those cars are coming from 94 on Washington, or from points west on Broadway), while also reducing vehicle capacity by, say, 33%. Those cars still have to go somewhere, and they aren't likely to just stay in a (suddenly extremely congested) city street. So where do they go?

That congestion goes to other streets in the area; local streets, other arterials (if possible, but sometimes those are near capacity themselves), and sometimes just results in backups. Remember, Broadway and Washington are the main way traffic from 94 gets into the north and the North Loop. That's an extremely congested intersection already; adding a light rail there, without tunneling or elevation, would cause big backups on I94. Nearby arterials could see 25% increases in traffic. None of these are desirable.

You could put a light rail on University because it's very wide, because it had another corridor nearby that could absorb some of the demand (I94), because it had excess capacity, and because light rail would cause a much greater reduction in actual trips on the corridor than we're estimating here for Broadway and Washington. I don't think that any of those are true of Washington or Lyndale or Broadway.

I don't think the idea should be discarded because "curves."

Significant curves mean slower trains, longer ride times, and lower ridership. Don't discount them offhand.

[Tcmetro]

I don't think the curves on Broadway are a significant obstacle to running light rail. The problem is that the placement of stations and trackway will require significant right of way. Broadway is a commercial street, so it will have a high demand for turn lanes as well as parking. I think light rail could become too successful, in that the businesses could become too popular, creating traffic issues for people driving to Broadway. In any case, our regional leaders have decided that buses are going to remain the public transit mode for the inner cities, while the rail and BRT lines will be the trunk lines to the suburbs.

There is a huge conundrum to providing high quality transit in the inner city. Residents and politicians are intent on not reducing car capacity requiring grade-separated rail lines; however, Minneapolis and St. Paul are too low density to justify such expenses. Additionally, the often toted bus rapid transit systems (Curitiba, Mexico City, Guangzhou, Lagos, etc.) require extremely wide rights of way on hybrid local arterials/commuter highways in cities that are far more car orientated than the central cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

Certainly, we have the streetcar proposals. Operationally, these aren't too different from the local buses. Pretty much all the improvements that can be made with dedicated lanes can equally be applied to buses or streetcars. The main use of the streetcar is to channel private investments to specific corridors.

All this being said, I think that the bus is what is politically possible for transit in the city. It doesn't require dedicated transit lanes, and traffic is pretty low on the streets during off-peak hours. Certainly, bus service improvements will attract more riders, but I don't believe that it is enough to make a significant mode shift from cars to transit.

[EOst]

The main use of the streetcar is to channel private investments to specific corridors.

Not to quibble, but it's also to make transit use more attractive overall. Rail bias is a real thing, and streetcars are a relatively painless way to harness it.

For example, one of the signal merits of the Nicollet-Central streetcar (in my eyes) is the network effect it has with the Blue/Green for downtown commuters. The Nicollet Mall stop is already the highest-trafficked stop in the system, but it's relatively far from the center of business activity in Minneapolis, which is farther south. Right now, a business commuter either has to walk from 5th, a tough sell in winter, or take the 18 (or route-alikes) down Nicollet. That works, but a bus down the Mall isn't all that attractive an experience. A streetcar in this corridor makes sense for someone commuting on the LRT (especially since its relatively short route makes it easier to coordinate with the LRT schedules) and its relative slowness doesn't make a huge difference, since they're only going a few blocks anyway.

[Nick]

I dunno, should we be directing our transit investments to capture the "people who don't want to walk four blocks" demographic?

[EOst]

I dunno, should we be directing our transit investments to capture the "people who don't want to walk four blocks" demographic?

What kind of question is that? Who "should" we be building our transit system for? People who want to get from Downtown to Uptown but think a 20-minute bus ride is too long?

The walk from Nicollet Mall Station to the Target HQ is 7-9 minutes. There are days in Minnesota where you're inviting frostbite from that walk. This isn't the attitude that is going to get people to use transit.

[Tcmetro]

The main use of the streetcar is to channel private investments to specific corridors.

Not to quibble, but it's also to make transit use more attractive overall. Rail bias is a real thing, and streetcars are a relatively painless way to harness it.

For example, one of the signal merits of the Nicollet-Central streetcar (in my eyes) is the network effect it has with the Blue/Green for downtown commuters. The Nicollet Mall stop is already the highest-trafficked stop in the system, but it's relatively far from the center of business activity in Minneapolis, which is farther south. Right now, a business commuter either has to walk from 5th, a tough sell in winter, or take the 18 (or route-alikes) down Nicollet. That works, but a bus down the Mall isn't all that attractive an experience. A streetcar in this corridor makes sense for someone commuting on the LRT (especially since its relatively short route makes it easier to coordinate with the LRT schedules) and its relative slowness doesn't make a huge difference, since they're only going a few blocks anyway.

????

If people have a problem walking 4 blocks in downtown of all places, then they should really re-evaluate their priorities. There's a bunch of skyways too, which is what Minneapolis is so famous for it seems.

[EOst]

Why is this so shocking? A huge percentage of trips on the 18 are eight blocks or less.

[ECtransplant]

The walk from Nicollet Mall Station to the Target HQ is 7-9 minutes. There are days in Minnesota where you're inviting frostbite from that walk. This isn't the attitude that is going to get people to use transit.

That walk takes 5 minutes and has skyways lining the entire stretch. Anyone without a medical issue who complains that is too far a walk is lazy, out of shape, or both.

[grant1simons2]

Also if you have the right gear that you should in the winter you'll be fine. If I can nordic ski at a level one, which is basically walking, in -10* in thin gear then someone can walk in a full hat, coat, gloves, long underwear and wool socks with boots

[EOst]

So are we as a forum really to the point where we think anyone who wants short-ride transportation downtown is a sissy?

[ECtransplant]

So are we as a forum really to the point where you can't express an opinion without it being part of trying to decide what the forum's official groupthink opinion is?

[grant1simons2]

Downtown shorter rides make sense to other parts of downtown.. Sometimes.