All posts in the topic Bottineau LRT (Short link)

From: Hawthorne Hawkman Date: Jan 30 18:24 UTC Short link

I'm not sure why Dyna created a separate thread about the Bottineau line and
its relation to north Minneapolis.  She said a lot of substantive things - some
of which I agree with, and others not so much.

Since I don't see why we need to have two separate threads going on one topic,
and there was nothing in Dyna's thread that indicated why we should give
preference to that one, I am going to defer to the person who started this
topic and post my response here.

First, one of the biggest mistakes I see people make in neighborhood politics
is falling into the trap of thinking that if there's one dollar or a billion
dollars to be spent on project A, then goshdarnit, why can't we take that
dollar or billion and put it towards project B, which a lot of folks think is
better?

The issue at hand is not what to do with a billion dollars that's been
dedicated to our community.  The issue is that rapid transit along the
Bottineau corridor will cost around that amount, so do we want it and in what
manner would we like to see it implemented?  If we don't build rapid transit
here then those funds aren't going to sit in a NoMi escrow account somewhere
just waiting for the right project.

The other area where I push back on what Dyna said (not necessarily
disagreeing, but pushing back) regards Penn Avenue as an economic dead zone.
Let's assume that's true for the sake of this argument.  Then what do we DO
about it?  Because letting it remain so is not acceptable.

I have to say that the fiscal conservative in me is fighting with the
neighborhood activist in me about this project.  If we're going to have LRT
then I do think it HAS to come down Penn at Broadway.  If NoMi is an economic
desert NOW, then just imagine what it will be like if rapid transit goes around
us instead of through our community.

BUT

One thing Rep. Champion said that has me concerned is his praise for Rep.
Ellison's removal of a certain affordability index.  Without that action,
apparently, this whole thing would be DOA.  So let me get this straight:  one
of the very first things we do around the Bottineau line is we say, "We know
this doesn't make sense financially so we're going to throw that consideration
out the window."  Granted, that particular index may not measure the true
benefits and costs in our community, but it still makes me nervous.

Jeff Skrenes
Hawthorne
    

From: Thatcher Imboden Date: Jan 30 19:46 UTC Short link

I attended the meeting as well.

My comments will be limited to a few areas: ridership forecasting, long term
economic development, and access.

Ridership Forecasting: What we learned with the Southwest Transitway is that
ridership forecasting is dictated by the Feds in terms of what can be counted
and what can't be counted. As a result, the riderhsip that they quote and then
use to base the alignment decision is very important and very difficult to
manipulate (which isn't a bad thing).

The ridership that was mentioned ranged from about 20,000 to 23,000 per day
along the entire corridor. Northside movers, shakers, and transit advocates
NEED to make understanding the ridership forecasts an area of focus. In my
opinion, demand that boarding information by mode be provided by station so
that we can spot out 'red flags'. In the Southwest case, it was that planners
thought Kenwood would only have 100 fewer boarders than Uptown per day, which
was insane. They also projected fewer people walking to the station between
Uptown and Franklin/Nicollet than most of the other stations along the line.
The assumptions, as we understand, were that people had good bus access and
wouldn't make the change to LRT in the city since bus re-routing in the Uptown
area wasn't going to happen. But switches from commuter buses to LRT would
happen in the suburbs even if travel time improvements were minimal. They
claimed that this was part of the adopted travel forecasting model approved by
the Feds. Another example is that event ridership isn't included, such as rides
to the Convention Center or Target Field or the Metrodome because they can't be
relied upon and aren't daily. It also seemed to minimize the potential for
riders who would have rode to Uptown/LynLake/Eat Street for
dining/entertainment/recreation.

This ridership issue is reduced in importance because of the CEI change, BUT
they still will use some sort of cost-benefit analysis to determine the
alignment. For example, with SW why would they route it through Uptown/Eat
Street if it cost $600 million more with no ridership gains? That's how they
ultimately let the decision go down. The data spoke for itself...but the data
was flawed.

Bottineau needs to get a fairer data set than SW got. That's for sure.


Economic Development: Access is king. Economic development in the long term is
key to investment patterns, plain and simple. It isn't the sole driver, as
North Minneapolis is pretty accessible now but attracting private investment
isn't easy now. But in the long term, if North Minneapolis is well-connected to
the region through a rapid, frequent, fixed-location transit option, investment
will likely happen and that investment will likely have residual positive
impacts in the form of retail and services aimed at transit patrons who are
coming and going to the stations, businesses locating nearby so that clients
and employees can easily access employees, and the corresponding benefits from
property and business investments in the area.

Getting stations into North Minneapolis' major commercial corridors are
critical to those efforts. While bus service is frequent in much of the area,
it still takes time because the buses stop frequently, can get stuck in
traffic, get stuck at traffic lights, and are local-serving in nature. Regional
connections are crucial to the major commercial areas, though care needs to be
taken in figuring out how to route the alignments to minimize impacts and cost.

Streetcars: While fixed in nature, Streetcars are only mildly better than buses
in my opinion. They are quicker to board, typically better at economic
development, and a more attractive ride than buses. But the way they've been
sold to us is that they'll run in mixed-traffic, meaning that they will get
stuck at traffic lights, they will get stuck in traffic, and will run at
limited speeds. This means that the trip will only be nominally quicker than
the existing bus. That is an enhancement but not the same thing (usually) as
what you'd get with light rail. Plus there is no actual proposal for a
streetcar on the table. It's on paper as a possibility but there is only
limited chances they'll get built anytime soon. Hopefully I get proven wrong on
this.


So all in all, maybe the Northside will be better at getting the planners to
figure out how to find an option that will connect North Minneapolis rather
than tell you all the reasons why they can't connect it. Shooting along Hwy-55
is okay, but figuring out how to connect parts of Lowry, West Broadway, and
Plymouth to the corridor would be better. That's at least my initial thoughts.

The meeting was informative and it seemed like there was a lot of reasonable
concern about the two options presented. Hopefully that will let Hennepin
County relook at the other options.

Thatcher Imboden
Kenny
    

From: Chris Steller Date: Feb 01 18:49 UTC Short link

The Bottineau Boulevard transit route got a couple shout-outs from Met Council
Chair Peter Bell at his State of the Region address this morning. The first was
in the context of pending studies, and the second came during Q&A when a NW
suburban questioner asked, basically, what have you done for us lately?
(Compared to the SW metro, for instance; the questioner also pointed out that
Northstar is commuter rail, not LRT). Bell said state Sen. Ann Rest, a strong
supporter of Bottineau Boulevard, is keeping the pressure on the Met Council to
get it done. He noted that the Bottineau Boulevard mode (bus rapid transit or
BRT vs. LRT) hasn't been decided. Earlier, Bell likened BRT routes to "busways
on steroids."
    

From: Carol Becker Date: Feb 06 17:43 UTC Short link

Alex Bauman

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:15 PM, <email obscured>> wrote:

> Seems like no matter which alignment they choose, there is a high risk that
> most of the dense development along this line will come in the suburbs.  So
> Bottineau may be, effectively, a giant subsidy to Maple Grove.
>
> Has anyone ever looked at running this line through North Minneapolis and
> Robbinsdale, but with a terminus at Brookdale instead of far-flung Maple
> Grove?
>

One of the fundamental problems with light rail is that you need right of
way.  This seems like a simple thing but the amount of right-of-way
available in the Twin Cities is very very small.  The amount of right-of-way
that connects from downtown Minneapolis to anywhere else is even smaller.
Society's tolerance for knocking down hundreds of homes to make right-of-way
ended in the 1970's.  I don't know of any right-of-way along the alignment
you are speaking of.  The Met Council has proposed bus rapid transit for
Broadway but this is a different discussion.

Will Bottineau be a big subusidy to Maple Grove?  Yes.  But it will be also
for all the other cities along the way.  Part of what is exciting about
Bottineau is that it also has a lot of land along it ripe for development or
redevelopment.  You have the potential for really developing a land use that
is much more transit friendly than what exists in most of the suburbs.  This
potential is way higher than Central, for example, which is pretty much
already developed and locked into a land use.  And a lot of people forget
one of the keys of transit - that you don't have a car at your destination
so you need a walkable environment wherever you are going.

The other thing you have to remember is that LRT isn't actually a very good
transit service from one key perspective.  It is good if you are wanting to
get to destinations about a mile part but it is not a good form if you are
going long distances (i.e. from one end of the line to another) or short
trips (in-between your mile stops.  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on a dedicated
right of way can do a much better job of meeting multiple types of trips
than LRT.  Miami built a right of way just for buses.  Some of the buses go
from one end to another, some stop every mile like LRT and some stop more
frequently.  But unlike LRT, they can go around each other so the slow bus
doesn't hold up the fast bus.  You can also structure the service so more
buses stop closer in where your service is in more demand.  But trains are
sexy and buses not, even though you can get rubber-tired trains (like
Montreal's subway) so we get lots of money spent on trains.

The other issue with Bottineau is the rail right of way that they want to
use is currently in use. This has to be resolved before the corridor can go
forward.

Carol Becker
Longfellow
Who wrote the region's long-range transit plan while working at the Met
Council
    

From: David Greene Date: Feb 08 04:35 UTC Short link

On Saturday 06 February 2010 11:42:55 Carol Becker wrote:
> Alex Bauman
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:15 PM, <email obscured>> wrote:

> > Has anyone ever looked at running this line through North Minneapolis and
> > Robbinsdale, but with a terminus at Brookdale instead of far-flung Maple
> > Grove?

Yes, that option is on the table.  bottransit.org.  The county is also looking
at possibly doing both northern legs but I see that as highly unlikely.

>  suburbs.  This potential is way higher than Central, for example, which is
>  pretty much already developed and locked into a land use.  And a lot of

Not true at all.  There is plenty of development to be done along University
Avenue.  Of course, it has to be managed fairly and justly.

> The other thing you have to remember is that LRT isn't actually a very good
> transit service from one key perspective.  It is good if you are wanting to
> get to destinations about a mile part but it is not a good form if you are
> going long distances (i.e. from one end of the line to another) or short
> trips (in-between your mile stops.  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on a dedicated
> right of way can do a much better job of meeting multiple types of trips
> than LRT.  Miami built a right of way just for buses.  Some of the buses go

BRT is completely ill-defined.  As used by some local officials here, it is
essentially LRT on rubber tires, so there would be the same service distance
issues.

> doesn't hold up the fast bus.  You can also structure the service so more
> buses stop closer in where your service is in more demand.  But trains are
> sexy and buses not, even though you can get rubber-tired trains (like
> Montreal's subway) so we get lots of money spent on trains.

Well, it's also a fact that many riders simply prefer trains.  There's a case
to be made that the cost-benefit tradeoff often favors trains because of much
higher ridership.

> The other issue with Bottineau is the rail right of way that they want to
> use is currently in use. This has to be resolved before the corridor can go
> forward.

True.  In my mind, we gave the railroads the land in the first place.  We need
to demand that they play nicely with others.

David Greene
The Wedge
    

From: Alex Bauman Date: Feb 10 22:06 UTC Short link

David - I think you misunderstood me.  Both northern alternatives are a bad
idea because they will stimulate more greenfield development - something that
is not needed in one of the most sprawling cities in the world.  I suggested
instead a northern alignment to Brookdale (and Earle Brown Center), a regional
center that is already developed, but is ripe for redevelopment.  There is
already public right-of-way from Robbinsdale to Brookdale along Hwy 100.

Thank you Carol for your information on long-range transit planning. Maybe
Minnesota should take a cue from the Federal Government and stop treating
transportation and land use as separate issues.