urbanMSP

I mean, my thing is that that specific example just seems like one subpar reason of many that we're pushing ahead with a Nicollet-Central Streetcar. Taking rail bias into consideration in transit planning isn't a bad idea, but it feels like the entire point of a streetcar on Nicollet-Central is rail bias. $300 million dollars to not walk four blocks?

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

Look, we can argue the ideal world where everyone is active and walks everywhere and takes transit, or we can discuss the real world where dozens of people get on the light rail at Target Field Station --or even Hennepin!--and get off at Nicollet (don't believe me? take a southbound train around 8:15am and watch it happen). You can argue that doing that is dumb, and let's be honest, it is. But it's also real-world behavior. Many of those people would be driving if they didn't have that four block trip on the light rail--many of them, in fact, wouldn't even live in the North Loop.

People like rail. Putting in rail--even slow rail--increases ridership. Ridership on the Portland Streetcar is six to seven times higher than that of the bus route it replaced. Increased ridership means more money for the transit system, and more support for future transit improvements. So many people here want to put the cart before the horse, as though we can prestidigitate a world-class transit system without public support, without gradual iteration, and demonstrated need. New York City has a massive subway network because before that, it had a massive El network, and before that it had a massive electric streetcar network, and before that a massive horse-drawn streetcar network, etc. There are few cities in the world that developed mass transit essentially from scratch, and most of those were in the developing world.

We wouldn't have the Central Corridor without Hiawatha to pave the way in public opinion, no matter how subpar the actual route of Hiawatha is. The $200 million of the Nicollet-Central is a down payment.

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

I agree with you. We shouldn't shame people for not wanting to walk - that just means they will take their cars. Transit downtown should serve real needs, and that is a need. Maybe it isn't the highest priority need, but the response "they should walk" just guarantees that you won't get them out if their cars.

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.

There are days like that but they are markedly reduced by dressing for it. Just like you would if you parked 2 blocks away.

Given the proliferation of parking lots in Downtown East you'd have to think a lot of people who drive downtown are parking > 4 blocks away.

But if we make it hard enough for them to use cars.....

They received federal approval to begin engineering: https://twitter.com/BlueLineExt/status/ ... 1425733632

With today's announcement of aBRT coming to Penn and Olson as soon as 2016...
https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3075
...I am wondering why we can't fast-track an extension of the Blue Line to Penn/Olson ASAP. It would be a meaningful improvement for transit on the northside, it would spur development along the Olson corridor which has been relatively stagnant since 2008. We could pay for it with local funds to fast track it, and those funds would count towards our match when we get federal dollars for the full line up to Brooklyn Park. It likely wouldn't be a big deal from a service planning perspective - it would likely be one additional trainset on the Blue Line at any given time, easily dispatched out of the Franklin Ave yard.
I just can't figure out a good reason *not* to fast track this first extension to Penn.

I just can't figure out a good reason *not* to fast track this first extension to Penn.

Because you'd have to pay to hire/rent the men and equipment twice; once when we did the tiny extension, and later (potentially significantly later) when you did the rest.

I just can't figure out a good reason *not* to fast track this first extension to Penn.

Because you'd have to pay to hire/rent the men and equipment twice; once when we did the tiny extension, and later (potentially significantly later) when you did the rest.

Wouldn't the added costs you cite be saved by avoided inflation? How much extra would the second fixed costs of hiring/contracting be?

If the extra mobilization costs were that significant, I think they would have saved the Target Field extension to come online with the Green Line, rather than building it by itself in 2009.

The Target Field extension was largely done because of the Northstar commuter line, and I think a lot of the money for it came from the Northstar budget.

Oh, right, I suppose. I was thinking that Northstar came later, for some reason.

At the very least, though, the Blue extension to Penn should happen with the Green extension, rather than tearing up the area for LRT construction twice in 5ish years.

rather than tearing up the area for LRT construction twice in 5ish years.

Which is funny because the original tail track past Target Field was torn up and rebuild just a couple years after it was installed as part of the Target Field Station upgrade.

I agree with Matt that a Blue Line extension to Penn in the short term is a good idea on paper(because it was my idea ). The biggest reason (other than it being useful to transit riders) is that I really believe that the Bottineau line is going to face the same environmental and "green space" challenges that Southwest has faced. While there won't be the same delays and arguments over relocating freight (because freight is staying no matter what) or tunnels through parkland, there will still be challenges and serious questions over routing it through an important regional park. Not to mention there is no guarantee of funding for this line at any level. Even our rosiest optimists would agree that there is no way this line is running before 2022 (or just 3 years after SW). The main argument for extending the Blue Line to Penn as a separate project is that it could possibly serve riders in <10 years.

HOWEVER, the huge problem with extending the Blue Line to Penn in the short term, and not part of a larger federal project, is that we have no idea yet how we want to do that. The question of whether the Blue Line runs at-grade on Olson Hwy through the intersection with I-94 has not been answered yet. Will we continue the elevated track structure from Target Field Station westward to carry the line over I-94 to avoid that congestion? Can we afford to do that? Can we afford not to? Running the Blue Line at grade through that intersection would be a nightmare for every single mode of transportation involved.

With today's announcement of aBRT coming to Penn and Olson as soon as 2016...
https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3075
...I am wondering why we can't fast-track an extension of the Blue Line to Penn/Olson ASAP. It would be a meaningful improvement for transit on the northside, it would spur development along the Olson corridor which has been relatively stagnant since 2008. We could pay for it with local funds to fast track it, and those funds would count towards our match when we get federal dollars for the full line up to Brooklyn Park. It likely wouldn't be a big deal from a service planning perspective - it would likely be one additional trainset on the Blue Line at any given time, easily dispatched out of the Franklin Ave yard.
I just can't figure out a good reason *not* to fast track this first extension to Penn.

Best idea I've read on here in a while. There really isn't a down side: we have the funds sitting in CTIB, it's on the agenda anyway, it would count toward Bottineau match, we can help the north side sooner, boost light rail ridership, coordinate with southwest project hires, keep our rail construction infrastructure mobilized. It makes a lot of sense.

To be fair, it was the other Matt's idea -- my idea was to try and build it to Robbinsdale first, but this seems like even more of a no-brainer.

I just can't figure out a good reason *not* to fast track this first extension to Penn.

Because you'd have to pay to hire/rent the men and equipment twice; once when we did the tiny extension, and later (potentially significantly later) when you did the rest.

Wouldn't the added costs you cite be saved by avoided inflation? How much extra would the second fixed costs of hiring/contracting be?

what about in conjunction with the sw extention?

I just can't figure out a good reason *not* to fast track this first extension to Penn.

Because you'd have to pay to hire/rent the men and equipment twice; once when we did the tiny extension, and later (potentially significantly later) when you did the rest.

Wouldn't the added costs you cite be saved by avoided inflation? How much extra would the second fixed costs of hiring/contracting be?

Maybe, but you'd have to do a fair bit of analysis to figure it out.

Best idea I've read on here in a while. There really isn't a down side: we have the funds sitting in CTIB, it's on the agenda anyway, it would count toward Bottineau match, we can help the north side sooner, boost light rail ridership, coordinate with southwest project hires, keep our rail construction infrastructure mobilized. It makes a lot of sense.

I sure hope there are some HCRRA, CTIB, MetCouncil, MetroTransit eyes who visit this page...

Seems like a perfect streets.mn post for someone who knows more about construction contracting/cost avoidance/Bottineau-specific engineering+ design questions...