Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

I remember some routes going along Park and Portland, then the Midtown Gnwy.

Those were fantasy routes brought up by a CIDNA resident. They were looked at but never seriously considered, as far as I know.

[orangevening]

From the LRT Done Right Facebook page:

SWLRT Update
We attended the Corridor Management Committee (group that makes recommendation to Met Council). Here is what we learned:

1. shallow tunnel appears to be preferred option coming forward.
2. 1,000 trees will come down with shallow tunnel on kenilworth; 600 trees with LRT at grade as originally proposed
2. crash wall will be in two areas south and north of channel. Crash wall will be 267 ft long x 2 1/2 ft thick x 6 ft high on the south side near town homes. 496ft long x 2 1/2 ft thick x 6 ft high on the north side of channel as LRT goes back into ground
3. LRT will be co-located for 1,088 feet over channel including transition (up and down)
4. 21st street station is gone under both tunnel scenarios
5. Deep tunnel does not appear to be viable option being considered

It's time to take ACTION- join us September 5th, 7-8pm at Kenwood Recreation Center for an update on status and action steps prior to September 25th Met Council decision

[LRV Op Dude]

Here is the link to the Southwest LRT Corridor Management Committee Presentation on Wednesday, August 28, 2013.

[twincitizen]

MPR article on tree loss & water issues, with lots of Peter Wagenius quotes: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... nnel-trees

Another one on water table concerns: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... tal-issues

[David Greene]

MPR article on tree loss & water issues, with lots of Peter Wagenius quotes: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... nnel-trees

"Huge swath." Interesting take. That was definitely not the mood in the room. No one expressed shock at the number, not even Peter W. He said he thought the 600 number for relocation was high but no one said the phrase "huge swath."

Another one on water table concerns: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... tal-issues

Jim Alexander stated that no red flags are appearing and the current flow of water between the lakes through the sandy soil dwarfs any impact a tunnel would have. Met Council is consulting with the watershed district and the DNR.

The meeting today went really well until the last 15 minutes where it devolved into a back-and-forth about who promised whom what 15 years ago.

[mulad]

Page 61 is of interest to anyone who tries to keep track of construction costs for various types of infrastructure -- it says that the Hiawatha LRT tunnels under MSP airport cost $115 million in 2001 dollars for 1.7 miles. Previously, I'd heard something around $200 million for the whole airport tunnel plus underground station (a big cavern costs big money, as well as the access to it). I've never been sure if that included tracks, catenary, and signaling or not. I imagine the $115 million number does not.

I get concerned when I see them take an inflation-adjusted number on the next page and then add design costs and contingency costs to it. I can understand if the $115 million original number came from pre-construction Hiawatha budget plans, but I worry that they took the real construction cost and added a big (26.7% for some reason) contingency on top of that -- that's a recipe for cost escalation.

[David Greene]

I get concerned when I see them take an inflation-adjusted number on the next page and then add design costs and contingency costs to it. I can understand if the $115 million original number came from pre-construction Hiawatha budget plans, but I worry that they took the real construction cost and added a big (26.7% for some reason) contingency on top of that -- that's a recipe for cost escalation.

I don't see why that's a problem. Contingency is just that. It's not included in the actual construction cost. I've never heard anything about the Hiawatha tunnel needing to use contingency though I wasn't around at the time.

Was it contingency funds that were used to bring the train into MOA?

[twincitizen]

This just keeps getting worse/weirder: http://www.startribune.com/local/south/221578331.html

Time for Nick to write another Streets.MN piece: "No, we REALLY need to stop the Southwest Corridor"

[David Greene]

This just keeps getting worse/weirder: http://www.startribune.com/local/south/221578331.html

Don't trust anything Pat Doyle writes. He has completely mischaracterized every meeting I've been to, taken statements out of context, etc.

The reason Chair Haigh didn't want a vote is that she wanted to use a consensus model, which can be a very effective decision-making tool. It lets everyone have their say without having people feel like winners and losers. It is a different model than a vote but no less a decision.

It looks like they are going to vote since that's what's been done on other CMCs.

[mulad]

Someone is going to have to remind me why tunnels are desired north of the channel. How many properties would be impacted by colocation there?

[David Greene]

Someone is going to have to remind me why tunnels are desired north of the channel. How many properties would be impacted by colocation there?

That is the big question. Will Minneapolis accept all three modes at grade north of the channel? Peter W. is being hard-nosed to get as much as he can. In the end, no one currently really knows what the city council would do with this scenario. Mayor Hovland asked a lot of questions that were obviously directed to clarify that a tunnel north of the channel isn't needed to avoid impacting properties. He's obviously thinking about the budget and trying to get to something CTIB can support.

Peter W. made the following argument about why a tunnel is necessary:

- Minneapolis was "promised" that freight would be relocated
- We (Minneapolis) are willing to accept something that approaches the conditions that would be present with relocation
- A tunnel is the only solution that satisfies that

I obviously disagree with this but I can see the logic if you accept that some sort of promise was made. Looking at it from the perspective of residents near the corridor, I can at least understand why they're pushing for a tunnel.

Peter W. also made the interesting suggestion that St. Louis Park pay back the money the county gave them to clean up the Golden Auto site, as a number of people believe that money was contingent on SLP accepting freight rail. His statement was that SLP should contribute that money to help fund SW LRT.

Like I said, an interesting end to the meeting.

[Uptown46]

If the shallow tunnel were used south of the channel and all 3 modes were co-located north of the channel would there still be potential to include the 21st St. Station? Is this station really expendable to Peter W. & the mayor to get more tunnel through parkland?

If we're going to build the LRT through Kenilworth, I'd rather see the station stay. Minneapolis should be fighting for more access/stations within the city. I don't think the 21st station will have huge walk-up ridership, but I do think it opens up some interesting possibilities. For instance the #2 bus could be extended westward to terminate at this station and provide Green Line access to neighborhoods along Franklin like Phillips that could also use new access to job opportunities in the SW suburbs.

[NickP]

^^^ I agree. I would like the 21st Ave Station to stay if possible. Despite being so close to downtown, Kenwood is pretty lacking in terms of bus coverage. This station could serve as an anchor to an elongated Route 2, or even more frequent Route 25 in the area.

[David Greene]

I completely agree with both of you. Minneapolis is apparently willing to sacrifice the 21st St. station for a tunnel. I think that's a bad trade but it's what some residents are clamoring for. Generally, Kenwood is split about 50/50 on whether they want the station or not. As always, the opposition is louder.

[UptownSport]

If you eliminate 21st, it helps those people in Eden Prairie get downtown all the quicker.

Looks like watershed could kill it; Doyle's article is clear County and railroad own trees.

Again the theme rises that anyone speaking against (I didn't find Doyle's remarks about voting or consensus against in any significance) the line we're told not to trust.
A bit back we're told we need to blindly (my word) trust professionals who concur with the project.

I think its time to scrap these projects and get spokes out though high density, transit dependent neighborhoods, instead of making a mockery of serving North.

I'll clean this up in a bit when i'm on a pc

The happy thing is, that since tunneling has been thrown around like it's no big deal, we could start by underground service to North and South.
All day Ridership would be a foregone conclusion.

Part of any process is the alternatives analysis- here it is what else we could do with that amount of money, and the amount of people (that need transit desperately ) it would help.

[garfield]

It was stated a while back for the 3C proponents to beware, because if this project doesn't start, it will snowball to NO projects being started. I couldn't disagree more...I believe the opposite - if this project IS built with a tunnel under a bike path, it will forever turn the tide AGAINST future transportation projects. The epic waste of resources would transform every argument for naysayers of all transportation. They would just say, "See, they built a $200 million tunnel just so that people could ride bikes over the train," and anyone on the fence about more lines would see that as absurd, and never support any future transportation.

It is clearly time to go back to square one with the Southwest Corridor. I would love it if construction started in 2015, but to push this through just to capture federal money would be irresponsible, wasteful, and, I think, this line would be a colossal failure.

[MumfordMoses]

^With you Garfield.

Projects of this scale will always have opposing forces & watered down compromise, but the fact that 3C doesn't seem to have any legs at this point is perplexing and exceptionally shortsighted. I don't want to hear about the streetcar plan or some allusion that 3C will redline Phillips. If anything, 3C will eliminate the need for a north-south streetcar line, yet likely promote a a smaller east-west streetcar line to serve Phillips and perhaps Seward & Longfellow - albeit the latter neighborhoods, esp their denser neighborhoods have decent access to the Hiawatha Line and 2.

Gun to head compromise may yield a long term disaster.

I simply see SWC w/either options of 3A as a very suburban line at this point, with very little benefit to North Minneapolis, long term - unless of course there will be some magical plan to add significant housing & a flame thrower to the impound lot.

On the other hand, I fear my neighborhood (the Wedge) will be overrun with even more cars because much of this newer higher density housing will have limited transit options & there won't be a powerful mass transit force to phase out car ownership. 3C has the potential to turn at least the Wedge and Whittier into near walkable-cycling communities at a much faster rate than say TOD in the Bryn Marr area which is undeniably separate from higher density neighborhoods of N. Mpls. Walkable-cyclable communities are obviously a plus.

[David Greene]

very little benefit to North Minneapolis, long term - unless of course there will be some magical plan to add significant housing & a flame thrower to the impound lot.

Actually, there is. Nothing magical about it.

[Tom H.]

^^^ I agree. I would like the 21st Ave Station to stay if possible. Despite being so close to downtown, Kenwood is pretty lacking in terms of bus coverage. This station could serve as an anchor to an elongated Route 2, or even more frequent Route 25 in the area.

I hadn't really ever thought about this, but I like the idea of extending the 2. That would make this station a pretty natural transfer point for a lot of trips, and may help justify the ridership number that many people are questioning for this station. Does anyone know if route extensions / transfers were included in the ridership analysis for the 21st St Station?

[UptownSport]

Here is the link to the Southwest LRT Corridor Management Committee Presentation on Wednesday, August 28, 2013.

Staring at slide #10, it would appear Midtown joins SW at East Lake. What if Midtown simply continued nominally southwest along the proposed SW route? (deleting SW, of course)
Nicollet would join Midtown (perhaps with the money saved, some trams could be made to branch West)
Seems that's a solution; run Midtown (as no one's yet claiming it can't be built) to East lake and add on as ridership justifies.
Eliminated:
Freight rail conflict
Tunneling costs
Tree cull
Adverse Groundwater effects
Wilderness stations
Bike/walker conflicts.

Obviously 'Brent' in Eden Prairie would have to ride the bus if his Bently broke down, so no political donations to pols with big aspirations.