All posts in the topic Light Rail and Uptown (Short link)
Summary
- There are 45 posts — by 26 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by David Greene at 2009 Aug 20 16:14 UTC
I have a hard time imaging Uptown without a solid light rail link and its important role as an urban and cultural center. What are the details on the costs? $1.2 Billion sans Uptown, 1.8 w/Uptown apparently. Who is fighting to prevent Uptown from becoming the DC equivalent to Georgetown which is inaccessible from the Metro? Some maps: http://www.southwesttransitway.org/possible-routes.html Could you combine a trolley spur on the road surface with links to light rail if it skips Uptown in a federal funding package? Some news: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/10/southwest_light_rail/
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM, <email obscured>> wrote: > I have a hard time imaging Uptown without a solid light rail link and its > important role as an urban and cultural center. > > What are the details on the costs? $1.2 Billion sans Uptown, 1.8 w/Uptown > apparently. > > Who is fighting to prevent Uptown from becoming the DC equivalent to > Georgetown which is inaccessible from the Metro? Some maps: > http://www.southwesttransitway.org/possible-routes.html > > Could you combine a trolley spur on the road surface with links to light > rail if it skips Uptown in a federal funding package? > There's several good posts on this blog about the issues: http://netdensityblog.slotterback.net/ -- this post in particular links to a bunch of helpful maps: http://netdensityblog.slotterback.net/2009/07/26/396/ Reading his posts and looking at the density maps, I think it becomes clear that the Kenilworth Trail option is just commuter rail, where the Uptown option is actual urban transit.
On Monday 10 August 2009 22:39:04 you wrote: > I have a hard time imaging Uptown without a solid light rail link and its > important role as an urban and cultural center. Uptown already has the highest, most frequent and most reliable transit service in the entire state. It's not going to go missing anytime soon. > What are the details on the costs? $1.2 Billion sans Uptown, 1.8 w/Uptown > apparently. There are many factors that go into a project like the SW LRT. I'll just touch on a few. The federal government will pay for at least half of this. If they don't, it will never happen anyway. So we need a project they'll support. The feds want to see cost and ridership numbers (among other things). For the SW line, the 3C route through Uptown costs ~$300 million more than the 3A route through the Kenilworth corridor with no significant ridership gain. The 3C route has numerous logistical problems that make it unworkable: - The tunneling along Nicollet Ave. would be a huge disruption to minority- owned businesses with little gain for said businesses since LRT in a tunnel would largely bypass Eat Street. The EPA will have serious concerns about this because negative impact on environmental justice communities (poor, minorities, disabled, etc.) must be mitigated, and that's a WHOLE lot of mitigation in this case. By executive order, environmental justice communities may not suffer disproportionate negative impacts from transportation investments. - The route does not generate many new transit riders in the Uptown area. People would simply shift from the bus to rail. - Travel time on route 3C is about 7-10 minutes longer than 3A. Note that this does NOT ONLY AFFECT SUBURBAN COMMUTERS. More on that in a second. - There are many historic properties along the 3C where major mitigation would have to be done. The 3A route has many important benefits, not all of which are readily apparent to some of us: - It costs ~$300 million less. - Travel time is cut by 7-10 minutes. - Here is the big one that's absolutely critical for Minneapolis. The 3A route generates significant new transit ridership into Uptown and the SW suburbs. Where are these people coming from? North Minneapolis! The Royalston bus station serves as many vehicles as the Uptown station. There is no current transit connection from North Minneapolis out to the jobs in the SW suburbs. People are literally cut off from the SW metro area. The 3A route starts to break down those barriers. This has huge implications for the economic vitality of North Minneapolis and therefore for the city as a whole. It is in Minneapolis' best interest to connect people in North Minneapolis to jobs. Some people will say that route 3A doesn't serve Minneapolis and is "only" a commuter route from the suburbs into the city. Apparently they do not consider North Minneapolis to be part of the city. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. That's PRECISELY why we need route 3A. The people of North Minneapolis deserve to be in sight and in mind. In short, they deserve to be part of the community. *I* want to be in community with them. It's also a connection INTO North Minneapolis. Again, the connectivity is central to the vitality of our city. We can't continue to have entire neighborhoods cut off from the rest of us. To me, this is about social justice. Are we really going to say to the people in North Minneapolis, "so sorry about cutting you off with that whole I-94 and I-394 thing. Wish we coulda done better. Our bad. Perhaps you'll enjoy a nice visit to the green space along the Kenilworth corridor, which we were able to preserve (freight rail line and all!) by cutting you off from job opportunities." That sounds perfectly fair to me. How about y'all? > Who is fighting to prevent Uptown from becoming the DC equivalent to > Georgetown which is inaccessible from the Metro? Some maps: > http://www.southwesttransitway.org/possible-routes.html Um, lots of us. But people have different opinions on what that means. > Could you combine a trolley spur on the road surface with links to light > rail if it skips Uptown in a federal funding package? By far the best plan I've heard is a streetcar link between Hiawatha and the West Lake station along the Greenway. It makes a lot of sense but also would compete with existing Lake Street bus service so we need to evaluate that. David Greene The Wedge
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:09 AM, David A. Greene <email obscured>>wrote:
> - Here is the big one that's absolutely critical for Minneapolis. The 3A
> route generates significant new transit ridership into Uptown and the SW
> suburbs. Where are these people coming from? North Minneapolis! The
> Royalston bus station serves as many vehicles as the Uptown station.
> There
> is no current transit connection from North Minneapolis out to the jobs in
> the SW suburbs. People are literally cut off from the SW metro area. The
> 3A
> route starts to break down those barriers. This has huge implications for
> the economic vitality of North Minneapolis and therefore for the city as a
> whole. It is in Minneapolis' best interest to connect people in North
> Minneapolis to jobs.
>
Can you clarify: I don't get how this relates to North Minneapolis? Neither
route goes into North Minneapolis. Is it just a question of where the
downtown terminal goes?
Ian Bicking wrote:
> Can you clarify: I don't get how this relates to North Minneapolis?
> Neither route goes into North Minneapolis. Is it just a question of
> where the downtown terminal goes?
It *serves* people in North Minneapolis. A line need not physically run
through an area to serve it. The Royalston station area is already a
major transfer point for North Minneapolis today. Tapping into that
with the SW LRT opens up the entire Southwest Metro to a whole lot of
people who don't have access to it today. The Van White station would
do the same and promote development in a distressed area. The Basset
Creek area plan assumes an LRT station at Van White. The neighborhoods
are already planning for it.
The Remington-proposed subalternative along 10th/11th Sts. doesn't
really work for North Minneapolis (or anyone else for that matter).
While it connects to the Royalston depot, it increases travel time
significantly and costs even more than the 3C option. It also happens
to destroy a bit of Peavy Plaza. There are apparently some skyway
problems as well.
I would encourage everyone interested to attend the open houses and talk
to the planners and engineers. Ms. Walker in particular is incredibly
knowledgeable and can explain all this far better than I can.
I live in North Minneapolis and I do not support the 3A.
It's hard to imagine how the line will not devastate Cedar Lake Park given all
of the built infrastructure that we see on the Hiawatha Line. Building a
massive fenced enclosure to keep the trains moving quickly and safely would not
be in the interest of preserving and enhancing green space - especially in a
corridor that has already been reclaimed from heavy rail activity.
As a Minneapolis resident, I'm more concerned with getting around the City of
Minneapolis than getting to a suburb. I think it makes more sense to live
close to where I work; that is one of my interpretations of "sustainability".
Ergo I'd much rather see a line that better connects points within the City and
not harm parks along the way.
Oops, forgot to sign:
Tony Kelly
Harrison
I would urge people to put their provincialism aside and to think of our
greater transportation system rather than looking at the SW corridor in a
vacuum. We need to look at this issue in the context of the greater rail
transit system that we're planning and building as a city, as a county, and as
a metropolitan region *at the same time*.
If we are able to bring ourselves to do this we will see planning and
opportunity for a local rail system, a metro rail system, and a regional rail
system described as follows:
Local system - a network of Streetcar lines that connect local residents to
local destinations and serve as local distributors for people from other parts
of the region after transferring from the metro or regional system. The City
of Minneapolis had conducted a study that shows that such a network is feasible
on the Midtown Greenway, Hennepin Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, Chicago Avenue,
Washington Avenue S., Central Avenue, and West Broadway. This system allows us
locals to circulate throughout our city and our commercial corridors without
needing to use private cars for every trip.
Metro rail system - Light Rail Transit lines that carry more people over
greater distances traveling at faster speeds with fewer stops. This part of
the system connects downtown to the greater metropolitan area and allows people
to get between downtown and more distant suburban origins and destinations
without having to bring their cars into and out of Minneapolis and our
neighborhoods.
Regional rail system - Heavy rail and High Speed rail connecting Minneapolis to
even more distant places (like St. Cloud and Duluth) along with connecting us
to other regions of the country (like Chicago, St. Louis, and Detroit). This
part of the system allows more people to get to and from these destinations
without bringing their cars into and out of our neighborhoods.
When we look at this in a holistic fashion it should be clear that expecting
one single piece of a greater system to serve two out of the three levels of
need at the same time is not a wise route to pursue.
Let's keep in mind that Light Rail Transit is a specific transit technology
(one of many). Insisting that Uptown--or any other neighborhood or commercial
node--needs to be served by a particular transit technology or it is being left
off the map or somehow it will not be connected is a misguided lens through
which to see this issue.
There has been many years of study and community involvement that has gone into
this process and by every metric, the Kennilworth alignment for the SW corridor
in conjunction with a local Streetcar network has come out as the best option
for Minneapolis and the region.
Thanks,
Matty Lang,
Midtown Phillips
Thanks Matty. We need to stop thinking about neighborhood vs. neighborhood
in everything. Neither Kenwood, Harrison, Phillips, or any other
neighborhoods will be able to stand alone in many scenarios, so we need to
stand together for the better Minneapolis and Minnesota.
Devin Quince
Harrison
I do find it curious that the route misses the most densely populated of
Minneapolis even Minnesota, however, several times each week I take a
bus between downtown and Uptown and don't really think that LRT would
save me any time. Given the cost differences I think I might be able to
understand the decision.
Terrell Brown
Loring Park (but writing this from Uptown)
A couple of comments:
1. These ridership and cost numbers are preliminary and the ridership data is
problematic. The updated ridership forecast is does NOT incorporate the updated
comprehenisve plan numbers for Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, and Minnetonka
because they weren't adopted (and still may not be adopted) at the time they
ran the analysis. Hennepin County said later this month they'll share the
ridership numbers that do include those comprehensive plans.
2. The ridershipship data released hasn't been vetted by the PAC and not very
much by the TAC. This is a major issue considering that the public and some PAC
members raised 'red flags' about the ridership forecast in the Alternatives
Analysis. Those 'red flags' had to do with the boardings/alightings projected
for each station and how the Uptown, Lyn-Lake, 28th/Nicollet, and
Franklin/Nicollet stations all had incredibly low numbers of people walking to
them to catch the train. In some cases, lower than some of the suburban
locations. When I asked some TAC members about this, they said they believed
this was the result of using an assumption that people would walk to a bus stop
if it's closer than walk an extra block to LRT. Based on experiences in other
cities, if you're traveling to a regional destination or if you want a fast
ride or if you want a smooth ride, you go to the regional LRT over local bus
service. While I'm not saying that the assumption is wrong, I'm saying that it
raised some significant concerns about their assumptions on ridership
projections that needs to be discussed publicly.
3. Hennepin County claims that releasing this data now isn't taking away from
the PAC's ability to analyze the data and come to a fair conclusion. What crap.
If there were some sort of crazy mistake the consultants made in the ridership
forecast and the CEI's for the lines significantly changed on the 3C/3C-2, the
public would have already been educated on the data and already asked for their
opinion. The Strib and Mpls/St. Paul Biz Journal have already stated that only
one alignment seems feasible. Overcoming this is going to be next to impossible
unless there's a major outcry.
4. I completely agree with the Georgetown comments. It's incredibly
disappointing that we can't figure out how to design a regional transit system
that usefully connects regional destinations. Downtown is connected fine, the
Airport was done okay minus Humphrey's station being incredibly far away and
not pleasant, Mall of America was going to be across the street a ways until
the Mall finally played ball, and now we're very likely to skip over
Uptown/Lyn-Lake, Eat Street/MIA/MCAD, and the Convention Center/South Nicollet
Mall Hotel District.
5. Streetcars in the Midtown Greenway is not a better solution. We're not sure
if the communities and businesses along the route even want it in the Midtown
Greenway rather than Lake Street. It's had very low ridership forecasts, though
I think it'd be wise to relook at the numbers given how silly SW LRT numbers
have played out. There's no financing plan in place on how to execute the line.
More importantly, it's LOCAL service that sort of duplicates some of the 53
route but not all of it. If they ran it all the way to the Raymound LRT station
on Central or over on Marshall to Snelling and up, then that's one thing, but
the talk is to go from SW LRT to Hiawatha, and that's better than no streetcar
but it's not something that I think gobs of people will use. We'd need to have
some serious development in the Midtown Greenway corridor to create the numbers
to support that at Route 21 at the frequencies that I think people would
desire. And to date, I don't see any reason to think that densities are going
to get to the level needed to support that....though densities certainly will
increase.
Just some thoughts...
Thank you,
Thatcher Imboden
Uptown business person
Kenny resident
As a Whittier resident, I must say that I am mystified at the perception that
the Nicollet route "largely bypasses Eat Street". Maps show stations at
Grant, Franklin and 28th Street. Thus, any business between downtown and the
back of the K-mart would be within 3 blocks of a light rail station. If light
rail comes to Nicollet, businesses can expect a windfall of new customers
pouring out of all three of those stations to enjoy the diversity of offerings
here. The pedestrian traffic to and from those stations would be like
something Eat Street has never seen. It already is a bustling, successful
district. Just the kind that should be rewarded with a world class train line
to bring tourists to our front doors.
Let's face it, right now downtown conventioners do not come to Eat Street in
large numbers. If they could hop a train at 8th and Nicollet and get off at
28th, they could walk, shop and dine on our stretch of Nicollet. Hotels will
advertise Eat Street, "easily accessible by light rail". And yes, it will be
much much quicker to get from 5th and Nicollet to 28th and Nicollet. Right
now, the 18 plods through downtown, and that trip takes 20 minutes or so. On
light rail, it might take 6-8 minutes. The conventioners will come. Downtown
tourists will come. Families from the western suburbs will come. Restaurant
workers will come. The rail will breathe a huge breath of economic fresh air
to our stretch of Nicollet and will inspire new business, new investment,
higher home values, less crime, and more people out at all hours of the day.
Here's for light rail on Eat Street.
As a Whittier resident, I must say that I am mystified at the perception that
the Nicollet route "largely bypasses Eat Street". Maps show stations at
Grant, Franklin and 28th Street. Thus, any business between downtown and the
back of the K-mart would be within 3 blocks of a light rail station. If light
rail comes to Nicollet, businesses can expect a windfall of new customers
pouring out of all three of those stations to enjoy the diversity of offerings
here. The pedestrian traffic to and from those stations would be like
something Eat Street has never seen. It already is a bustling, successful
district. Just the kind that should be rewarded with a world class train line
to bring tourists to our front doors.
Let's face it, right now downtown conventioners do not come to Eat Street in
large numbers. If they could hop a train at 8th and Nicollet and get off at
28th, they could walk, shop and dine on our stretch of Nicollet. Hotels will
advertise Eat Street, "easily accessible by light rail". And yes, it will be
much much quicker to get from 5th and Nicollet to 28th and Nicollet. Right
now, the 18 plods through downtown, and that trip takes 20 minutes or so. On
light rail, it might take 6-8 minutes. The conventioners will come. Downtown
tourists will come. Families from the western suburbs will come. Restaurant
workers will come. The rail will breathe a huge breath of economic fresh air
to our stretch of Nicollet and will inspire new business, new investment,
higher home values, less crime, and more people out at all hours of the day.
Here's for light rail on Eat Street.
I also cannot understand why on earth Uptown and south Minneapolis score so lowly in this assessment. I don't believe they have done their homework. The light rail is faster, quieter and much more preferable than taking a bus. The assessment assumes that people will save walking a block and take a bus instead of the LRT, if they live in Minneapolis. I found an interesting picture on this site which compares density in both areas, and it is shocking to see the difference. LRT would miss out on a lot of density if it were built in the rail trench. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/11/southwest-minneapolis-transit-route-selection-process-may-rule-out-light-rail-to-uptown/ The assessment assumes that uptown wouldn't generate much "non-commuter traffic" which is absurd because uptown and eat street arguably have some of the best restaurants in the area. All the bars in uptown are also a major hit for anyone in the metro. People shop their too. I don't believe it's too late to stop them from choosing the wrong route. I am willing to stand up and fight this. When is the next meeting that we all can attend. Is anyone else with me on this? At the very least, we can email them to voice out our concerns. I already have: <email obscured>
The routes shown on a map that I have seen all seem to offer different good and
bad points to them.
Part of what I see missing in this thread is a discussion over getting more
transit riders or shifting of existing transit riders from bus to train.
To me it seems that this new corridor is better at getting more new transit
users than serving existing transit riders.
More transit riders would be my preference over changing what form of transit a
person uses.
I like that several of the routes start to connect north Mpls to the rest of
the world. (I wish the powers that be would get the boulevard built connecting
near Dunwoody to north Mpls, but that might delay all the efforts to change
P&P).
I am glad that some of the heads on here are giving heed to the need to look at
this as a part of a big picture and not as an isolated component.
Ron Leurquin
Nokomis East
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:47 AM, <email obscured>> wrote: > I don't believe it's too late to stop them from choosing the wrong route. > I am willing to stand up and fight this. When is the next meeting that we > all can attend. Is anyone else with me on this? At the very least, we can > email them to voice out our concerns. I already have: > <email obscured> > The next meeting is an open house, tomorrow, Thursday, at 11:30-1:00pm at the central library: http://www.southwesttransitway.org/component/jcalpro/view/65/43.html Other meetings are listed here: http://www.southwesttransitway.org/events.html This open house is the only upcoming meeting scheduled inside Minneapolis. And conveniently timed for suburban commuters to attend, but not for people in Minneapolis that don't work downtown. Huh. Anyway, if you can't make it, of course you can go to any open house regardless of its location, and there are evening open houses coming up in Minnetonka and St. Louis Park.
And ask yourself who might have had the power to influence the MPLS meeting
time when thinking about your decision on a route, but again this more than
a route, it is the start of a solution to our dying car-centric way of life
so think of the big picture.
Devin Quince
Harrison
First off, I'd like to say that I have a lot of respect for my friends Thatcher
Imboden and Jeff Carlson even though it seems that we may not see the issue of
the SW LRT line routing in the same way at this time. That being said, I have
a couple of comments and then a question for forum members.
I made a very quick and crude illustration of the proposed regional (shown in
red) and local (shown in green) rail routes as they might run in Minneapolis
(see attached file). I hope that this illustration can help people think of
these routing decisions in a more holistic way that considers our entire
transit system and in a way that considers thinking forward at least 50 years
if not 100 years into the future. Keep in mind that the SW alignment I show is
for purposes of this discussion and has not been finalized. Likewise, the
Bottineau routing is still under evaluation. Obviously, I'm a strong supporter
of the local streetcar network and believe that that should be a top priority
of the City of Minneapolis.
We are collectively investing a huge amount of money in a rail transit system
that needs to work well for the entire city and the entire region for the next
50 to 100 years (hopefully 100). I think it's very feasible to conceive of
densities heigh enough along the Lake Street/Midtown Greenway corridor to
support both an express streetcar line in the greenway and a local streetcar
line on Lake Street 50 years into the future--if we do things right today.
Looking at this illustration we see Uptown and Eat Street very well served and
connected to the regional system via a local streetcar network that has been
proven to be wildly successful in places such as Portland, OR and Toronto
Canada. Portland has demonstrated a public/private financing model that we can
learn from and expand upon to build our own streetcar network. We also see the
Nicollet streetcar line going past a reconfigured K-mart reconnecting the
Kingfield and Whittier neighborhoods that were wrongfully cut off with the
current suburban style development we live with. Implementing the local
streetcar system in Minneapolis would do wonders for sparking the development
of a strong local economy full of housing and the supportive services needed
for more people to choose to live in Minneapolis without being car dependent as
our metro area continues to grow.
Proponents for the Greenway/Nicollet alignment for the SW line often cite the
density of Uptown as a primary reason that the SW line ought to be snaked
through Uptown on its way downtown. This argument makes me think of the
Hiawatha line as the two corridors have a lot in common.
Between Lake Street and Franklin both the Hiawatha line and the Kenilworth
alignment of the SW corridor pass through areas of very low density. Just like
with the SW line, the Hiawatha line has a center of very high density
residential and employment numbers in Midtown Minneapolis along the Chicago
Avenue and Lake Street corridors.
Question: Does this mean that the Hiawatha line should have snaked east at
Lake Street and then headed north down Chicago Avenue instead of its current
alignment? After all, Midtown Minneapolis certainly is home to more jobs than
Uptown and our residential density has to be very close to that of Uptown and
the line still would have gotten to the Metrodome. I don't think so.
If we would have done that the Hiawatha line would have missed out on serving
Cedar-Riverside which is a very high density neighborhood. Similar to
Cedar-Riverside the proposed development at the Van White station could be a
great new high density neighborhood (with better design hopefully), but this
will not happen without the spark of the Van White station.
Some things to think about as we ruminate on this issue.
Thanks for reading,
Matty Lang,
Midtown Phillips
P.S. I just realized that I left the 35W BRT line and the connection to the
Greenway Streetcar at Lake Street off of my crude illustration. Another
important regional connection to the local system to consider.
P.P.S. I'm not even touching on the myriad technical challenges associated
with the Greenway/Nicollet alignment for the SW route that would make it very
unlikely to ever be built no matter what changes are made to the Federal
funding guidelines.
The following file was added to this topic:
Steve Gjerdingen: "I found an interesting picture on this site which compares density in both areas, and it is shocking to see the difference. LRT would miss out on a lot of density if it were built in the rail trench. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/11/southwest-minneapolis-transit-route-selection-process-may-rule-out-light-rail-to-uptown/" This is a great map; it's pretty hard to imagine how Minneapolis residents are better served by the Kenilworth route other than better access to Hidden Beach. It makes no sense to me to run this line away from the dense areas of the city in favor of a route that would severely compromise some of the best park land in the city. Now maybe I'm wrong about the latter; I haven't seen elevation drawings of the safety gates, fencing, stations, and other LRT paraphernalia that would be situated where I now enjoy a serene and quiet park. Asking city residents to mindlessly acquiesce to the greater needs of the "region" uncomfortably reminds me of the reasoning that built the neighborhood-bisecting freeways in the first place.
Steve Gjerdingen: "I found an interesting picture on this site which compares density in both areas, and it is shocking to see the difference. LRT would miss out on a lot of density if it were built in the rail trench. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/11/southwest-minneapolis-transit-route-selection-process-may-rule-out-light-rail-to-uptown/" This is a great map; it's pretty hard to imagine how Minneapolis residents are better served by the Kenilworth route other than better access to Hidden Beach. It makes no sense to me to run this line away from the dense areas of the city in favor of a route that would severely compromise some of the best park land in the city. Now maybe I'm wrong about the latter; I haven't seen elevation drawings of the safety gates, fencing, stations, and other LRT paraphernalia that would be situated where I now enjoy a serene and quiet park. Asking city residents to mindlessly acquiesce to the greater needs of the "region" uncomfortably reminds me of the reasoning that built the neighborhood-bisecting freeways in the first place.
Wonder if anyone has the facts at hand that would help to tell the
land acquisition and construction costs for the alternatives being
discussed?
John Ferman
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Kingfield Neighborhood
<email obscured>
The Harrison Neighborhood Association along other organizations have formally
taken action and provided rationale for the Kenilworth alignment.
The following is HNAâs rationale for supporting the Kenilworth Alignment.
Nearly a century of urban policies and land use decisions that have contributed
to the environmental deterioration, social marginalization and economic decline
of the area in and around Harrison and Near North Minneapolis. The City of
Minneapolisâs urban policies and land use decisions led to a class action
lawsuit by public housing residents resulting in the Hollman Decree.
Harrison Neighborhood Association strongly supports the Kenilworth alignment.
The support for this alignment is based in years of work to meaningful connect
to North and South Minneapolis, create needed housing and job opportunities for
Harrison and Northside residents through the redevelopment of Bassett Creek
Valley. HNA has engaged hundreds of residents, hosted culturally based focus
groups and conducted surveys. Consistently, residents state the need for
living wage jobs and quality affordable housing.
The Kenilworth alignment is necessary to ensure a successful redevelopment that
will provide living-wage jobs, quality affordable housing, increased businesses
that serve the surrounding community, and an improved natural environment.
The widely accepted and respected Mind the Gap Report documented the entrenched
racial, economic and spatial disparities in the metro area. The report further
points out that these entrenched disparities put at risk the economic health
and competitiveness of the entire region. These disparities are
hyper-concentrated in a few communities, North Minneapolis being one of them.
Therefore it should be the priority of public and private entities to use mass
transit to mitigate racial and economic disparities by connecting people and
commerce.
The following are a list of basic points to consider in evaluating proposed
routes:
⢠Proposed development on Linden Yards and impound lot is likely to generate
approximately 6,000 â 8,000 employees and 800-900 households upon completion
of proposed development
⢠Improved viability for affordable housing success in Bassett Creek Valley
Area, by providing cost-effective and readily available transit options for
lower income area residents
⢠Increased âvalueâ placed on Bassett Creek Valley location by employers
who value the labor force available in the Bassett Creek Valley area, and
connections to potential employers in the Southwest metro area
⢠Improved connections for area residents that have been historically
isolated by past transit decisions.
⢠Increase opportunities for Northside residents at employment centers in
Southwest metro area - Current commuteshed data indicates a large number of
Northsiders employed along the Kenilworth Alignment.
⢠Reduce parking required in BCV Redevelopment
⢠Improved Regional access to Bryn Mawr Meadows Athletic Facilities
⢠Improved access to Bryn Mawr commons
⢠âDaylightedâ Bassett Creek natural area
The Southwest Transit Corridor has the potential to build a strong and
connected regional economy. The Kenilworth alignment is best situated to
ensure that the public investment benefits the most people and especially those
in need.
Larry Hiscock
Director/Lead Organizer
Harrison Neighborhood Association
This is a great thread, with thoughtful, passionate posts. I'd like to ask for your input over at the Daily Planet. Art Hughes is writing about SW LRT for the Daily Planet - the first article is "Consultant analysis narrows Southwest Light Rail options" at http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2009/08/10/consultant-analysis-narrows-southwest-light-rail-options.html Help us cover the story – tell us what you think is important, go to a meeting and tell us what happens there, send us the questions you want answered. You can comment on the article, or on the "REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK | LRT going Souithwest" at http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2009/08/10/reporters-notebook-lrt-going-souithwest.html Or email me at editor at tcdailyplanet.net, and I'll forward your comments to Art.
This schedule is blatantly biased toward suburban input.
Suburban meetings are in evenings where potential suburban riders live
and during the day where they work.
There ses no real interest in gaining input from urban residents,
unless they believe there's a group of central city residents who are
dying to get to Eden Prairie.
Ridiculous
Steve Kotvis
Kenwood, mpls
Sent from Steve Kotvis' iPhone
Who exactly is the big "they" developing all these plans? "THEY" should be
challenged immediately and hard for purposely scheduling minneapolis
resident's voice out of this "planning." Let me guess, appointed Met
Council?
caty royce
bancroft
The big "they" would be the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority, not the
Met Council.
Wendy Wulff
Lakeville
Met Council District 16
[caty royce:]
Who exactly is the big "they" developing all these plans? "THEY" should be
challenged immediately and hard for purposely scheduling minneapolis
resident's voice out of this "planning." Let me guess, appointed Met
Council?
On Wednesday 12 August 2009 14:12, <email obscured> wrote:
> I made a very quick and crude illustration of the proposed regional (shown
> in red) and local (shown in green) rail routes as they might run in
> Minneapolis (see attached file). I hope that this illustration can help
> people think of these routing decisions in a more holistic way that
> considers our entire transit system and in a way that considers thinking
> forward at least 50 years if not 100 years into the future.
Thanks Matty. I hope people take a look at this. Because we do need to
consider SW LRT in the context of our overal regional plan. People need to
understand the vision that's being created for Minneapolis and how a 3A SW LRT
alignment actually allows that vision to come into reality. A 3C alignment
kills the vision.
To me, as streetcar down Nicollet does a *much* better job serving the
businesses there than an LRT in a tunnel. There's much less disruption
due to construction and in the end people riding the streetcar will
actually be able to *see* the businesses as they go by. Don't discount
that -- riding Hiawatha at grade is how I discovered Cap's Grille and
I'm a fairly regular patron now.
Streetcars will also serve those along the Chicago corridor, who are
left out of the LRT service no matter which route is chosen. If 3C
is chosen, it's very likely those folks don't get a streetcar either
due to the enormous cost of 3C.
And obviously there's no Greenway and/or Lake Street streetcar with 3C.
There seems to be a lot of confusion and misspeculation about what is
going on. The current ridership numbers are derived using a complex
model vetted by various agencies at multiple levels of government. From
what I understand, it's true that the models need to be refined some to
account for updated comp plans. But really, I wouldn't expect them
to change all that much given my experience of the Central Corridor
process. Let's give the professionals some credit. They aren't out
fudging numbers on purpose. To say otherwise is libel.
The fact is that the ridership on the Uptown alignment isn't as high as
one might think because people really do prefer buses for the kinds of
trips they make in that area. I'm sure not going to hop an LRT just to
get to Lake Calhoun. Mostly I'll walk or I'll take the bus from Hennepin
downtown or out to Southdale. This very effect was seen on the Central
Corridor models. One of the scandalous dirty little secrets there is that the
Met Council had to reduce Route 16 frequency because it was pulling too
many riders from the LRT, so many that it wouldn't qualify for federal
funding. Thankfully, our county officials aren't willing to cannibalize
the bus system to do LRT. In fact they are working very hard to integrate
the two.
As for the open house locations and times, y'all might want to do a little
digging and talk to county staff. In my conversations with county staff,
it was very clear that they wanted to do more Minneapolis meetings
(particularly in North Minneapolis) but couldn't for various reasons. All
I know right now are stories people tell me so I don't want to repeat
hearsay. Please talk to county staff and draw your own conclusions about
who's at fault here. I agree, the meeting schedule is an abomination.
As I said very early on in this conversation, 3A is *not* just a commuter
route for suburban residents (and suburban residents needs service too!).
It serves a very densely populated and transit dependent area in North
Minneapolis. Again, the Royalston station serves as many buses as the
Uptown station and those folks have *no* reaonable way to get to the SW
suburbs. And yes, they want to go there. Go talk to people up on Harrison
who are desperately looking for work but can't get to most places of
employment.
Larry laid out some of the other ways 3A benefits Minneapolis. Uptown is
not the most critical part of the city. North Minneapolis is. If North
Minneapolis residents continue to be unable to get to jobs, that affects
you and me. Not only is it morally wrong to continue to isolate those
neighborhoods, it could very well sink the city.
If you love the Greenway, you might want to know what route 3C will do to it.
When it makes the turn north at Nicollet, it will obliterate the existing bike
trail. There is no room to put a bike trail alongside a 90-degree LRT turn in
the trench. So we'll have a very large bridge carrying bikes over the LRT and
Nicollet Ave. To maintain a reasonable grade for bikes, imagine where that
bridge will have to start and where it will end. It's not one block, I'll
guarantee you. The entire character of the Greenway will change around
Nicollet.
3C costs $600 million more than 3A. $600 million! That's at least two
commuter rail corridors. You can kiss Bottineau, Red Rock and Rush Line
goodbye if we do 3C. There ain't no money to do all of them and there isn't
likely to be any more for a good long while. No streetcars in south
Minneapolis either.
On the bright side, if we do 3C it's likely we'd actually be able to
accelerate Bottineau because there's no way the feds are going to finance
a 3C route. So SW LRT is dead. If you take nothing else from this message,
remember that. 3C kills the SW LRT project. No deal. Dead. Done.
SW LRT is not the only rail transit that will be coming to south Minneapolis.
It doesn't have to try to serve everyone. We need to let it do what it can
and build out the other infrastructure to create something truly fantastic
for Minneapolis. The *whole* city.
SW LRT: How do we serve the most employment, transit-dependent riders, and
transit-oriented development in Minneapolis?
In our discussion about SW LRT, we should be considering what we are getting
for our money. The Greenway/Nicollet LRT alignment will add at least $500
million to the project cost based on data released on Monday. Unfortunately,
that added expense would give us a light rail line that is most notable for
what it just misses.
Access to jobs drives transit ridership. Some 70% of transit trips in the Twin
Cities are job related. That grows to 80% with the addition of University
students. A map of Twin Cities’ employment clusters shows just one significant
employment cluster in south Minneapolis, the Abbott-Northwestern, Allina, Wells
Fargo complex. But the Greenway/Nicollet alignment misses that important
cluster by nearly a mile. In 2010, the long awaited Bus Rapid Transit service
on 35W will begin. And again, the Greenway/Nicollet alignment will miss an
important transfer point at Lake Street by four blocks. (The 35W hub will be
at Lake Street, not E. 28th St.)
The city of Minneapolis has designated four growth centers: downtown, the U of
M, Basset Creek Valley, and the Abbott Northwestern, Allina and Wells Fargo
complex. The Greenway/Nicollet alignment misses all of those growth centers,
except for downtown.
To build the kind of transit the Twin Cities region needs in the 21st century,
it’s important to focus on the system, not just one individual line. A network
combining a streetcar line through the Midtown Greenway with a light rail line
through the Kenilworth corridor will perform much better than a single light
rail line using the Greenway/Nicollet alignment. In addition, this Network
Alignment would save taxpayers some $400 million.
A Greenway streetcar line would connect the Hiawatha and SW LRT lines. It would
serve all the neighborhoods and businesses along Lake Street from Hiawatha
Avenue to West Lake Street, including Uptown. It would directly serve some of
the most transit dependent neighborhoods in Minneapolis as well as employees at
Abbott-Northwestern, Allina, and Wells Fargo along with the 35W BRT transfer
station. Together, the light rail and the streetcar line would serve three of
the four designated growth centers in Minneapolis. Finally, the Kenilworth leg
of the Network Alignment would better serve transit riders from north
Minneapolis.
There is strong community support for the Network Alignment. The Midtown
Greenway Coalition, Lake Street Council, and Midtown Community Works
Partnership are behind it.
Last but not least, the Greenway/Nicollet LRT probably is not fundable. Half
of the total project cost of $1.7 must be funded locally. Saving $250 million
of local dollars is a big deal, especially if we can get comparable ridership,
and many more other benefits at lower cost by choosing the Nework Alignment.
Moreover, the FTA probably will not fund the the Greenway/Nicollet LRT based on
preliminary cost, ridership, and efficiency data.
A Network Alignment would serve Minneapolis far better at much less cost.
The following file was added to this topic:
Thanks to Bob Corrick for your salient and clear thinking on this issue.
One only has to drive west out of downtown on Hwy 394 to see how city (and
county) planning has favored South Minneapolis over North Minneapolis. To the
South is the Walker and the Sculpture Garden and to the North is a rock crusher
and manure pile (and overflow impound lot storage.)
My point is not to further an "us and them" fued but rather to say that we have
an opportunity to close the gap by routing the light rail through this area via
the Kenilworth Alignment, thereby creating opportunities for development on the
northside- which has historically been kept out of the transit and development
loop. It doesn't solve decades of neglect but it is certainly a step in the
right direction.
I don't have anything to add, and I've hardly have taken the time necessary to
make any judgements. But I do have a question simply to satisfy my own
curiosity.
Could someone tell me, online or off, why Hennepin Avenue to the greenway was
not a final contender? That'd seem to hit the area of greatest density in
Uptown, and still split the difference between the two remaining contenders.
Just curious, that's all...
Many who support the 3A alignment keep on mentioning things like the Basset
Creek redevelopment to create density in North Minneapolis, and also the
addition of a Greenway street car line "sometime in the future" to connect to
uptown.
If we are going to proceed with the 3A route, I believe that there are 2 other
projects that must become mandatory and occur at the same time while the SW LRT
is being constructed.
1) Immediate construction of the Van White Parkway road to connect to Dunwoody
Blvd. No one is even going to consider redevelopment of that area unless the
road is already there. This will also provide a better connection for those in
Minneapolis to get to that particular stop located in the Van White area.
2) A commitment to begin planning and construction of the Greenway Streetcar
system by the Met Council, Minneapolis, and whoever else is involved. If this
built soon after the SW LRT is built, there will be much synergy regarding the
connection between those 2 systems and people will use both of them. If the
Greenway Line doesn't get built until way later, the SW LRT won't get used a
much and the overall boom won't be as large. This Greenway Line needs to run
as often as the 21 does in order to be effective. In fact, it could possibly
replace the 21, if the line crossed the river and went into St Paul.
Replace the 21 bus route with a Greenway streetcar? Bad idea! We need to
replace car trips with transit. Capturing bus riders for streetcars doesn't
accomplish much.
Buses should stay on Lake street. A Greenway streetcar would make sense from
Uptown to Cedar or 26th street. It stops making sense closer to the river.
Closer to the Mississippi the Greenway is three long blocks from Lake Street
and the bridge. Using the railroad bridge to cross the river would then require
a massive amount of contruction on the east side of the river.
The 3A alignment makes sense to me. Some have criticized it because there
wouldn't be that many trips entirely within the city.
I live half a mile from the Hiawatha LRT. Most of my trips on the train
either start or end outside the city limits. Usually MOA, sometimes Highland
Park or the airport. I usually take the bus for downtown trips. City Hall or
the Dome is a little more convenient with the train.
Ed Fesler <email obscured> Corcoran neighborhood
People who use the 21 bus come with their babies and groceries. Asking them to
truck from the 29th St. depression--gentrified to be called the Greenway--is
really unfair to passengers. They take the 21 to businesses ON LAKE STREET or
to transfer to crossing bus lines.
Consider that the 21 runs from Hennepin to downtown St. Paul. That's a lot of
businesses which will lose custom if a Greenway streetcar is installed to
replace the 21. A streetcar, at this juncture, will be no more than a nostalgic
cutesy throwback, not a transit solution.
Bob Spaulding wrote:
>Could someone tell me, online or off, why Hennepin Avenue to the greenway was
not a final contender?
ML:
Although Bob has likely received an explanation off line, I'd like to share
some thoughts on this for the benefit of the rest of the forum. I'm going
strictly off the top of my head and my personal memory so others can correct me
if I get anything wrong.
For the most part Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) are separated from general traffic
due to their size and multi-car train configurations unlike Streetcar vehicles
which are generally smaller, and built and designed to share a lane along with
general traffic at street level. This does not mean that Streetcar vehicles
cannot operate at higher speeds on exclusive rights of way like the Midtown
Greenway, for example.
Given this, the traffic engineers among us likely did not endorse taking away
two lanes of general traffic from Hennepin Avenue in Uptown and I'm sure they
certainly would have opposed this on the Lyndale/Hennepin commons that separate
the Sculpture garden from Loring Park.
The alternative would be to put the trains in a tunnel under Hennepin Avenue
which would result in the same CEI issues as the tunnel under Nicollet. In
addition, when the line reaches the Lyn/Henn commons it would have to be
tunneled under the I-94 Lowry tunnel. I seem to remember some technical
challenges associated with this that were in addition to the cost issues.
That's why I think it was dismissed pretty much out of hand as an option.
I would also like to comment on a couple of other things as follows:
1. I want to clarify that the illustration I made was intended to aid this
specific discussion regarding the SW LRT alignment. The alignment I showed in
that illustration for the Bottineau line is not my preferred alignment. In
fact, I drew that one only because I was in a rush and it was the easiest
alignment to draw. ;)
2. For those who couldn't make it to the open house at the Central Library
yesterday I don't think you missed much. There was no public debate (that I
saw) and it was only an informational open house--not a public hearing where
testimony and passionate speeches were given.
It was a good chance to ask the consulting engineers technical questions about
various treatments along the various proposed alignments. I had a lot of my
thoughts confirmed about what a Greenway/Nicollet alignment would mean for the
look and feel of the Midtown Greenway from talking about this with the
engineers. David Greene's description of what the Greenway would be like
around Nicollet is 100% accurate according to the consultants.
It was also a good chance to discuss/debate with friends.
3. Regarding ridership estimates and numbers from the newest Comprehensive
planning process, I had a chance to speak with Don Pflaum from Public Works at
the open house. Don assured me (and a friend of mine who is on the other side
of this issue) that the updated numbers will be included before the final
decision is made.
Don told us that the updated numbers will likely decrease the CEI numbers for
both alignments by about $1 (this is just his best guess because I asked him--
it's not a fact quite yet). This is because the cost of construction is the
largest factor in the CEI formula. This would put the Kenilworth alignment
within Federal funding guidelines while the Greenway/Nicollet alignment would
still be well over the limit to receive Federal funding. We'll see the results
soon enough for ourselves.
4. The Midtown Greenway Streetcar line is not and should not be intended to
replace the route 21 bus on Lake Street. In theory, the Midtown Greenway
express Streetcar line could be used to replace part of the 53 express route,
but that would require a transfer at the Hiawatha station which would probably
counteract the time savings of finishing the trip to Uptown via the Greenway
rather than on Lake Street in general traffic. This is one of the reasons that
the Greenway line did not score out as well as some of the other Streetcar
lines in the City's planning process.
5. The idea has been floated before that a piece of the Greenway line from
Uptown to the Lake Calhoun station of the SW line might be able to be build
with local money and considered as a part of the local match for the SW LRT
line. If this is possible, this would be a way to connect Uptown from the the
get go.
Does anyone know if that's a possibility?
Thanks,
Matty Lang,
Midtown Phillips
Wizard says, "A streetcar, at this juncture, will be no more than a nostalgic
cutesy throwback, not a transit solution." But isn't that what we're doing
with the corridor transit from Minneapolis to St. Paul? Aren't we spending a
billion dollars on a "nostalgic, cutesy throwback" that will tie up traffic and
make University Avenue and the University of Minnesota non-navigable.
What's the alternative? Another Hiawatha Death Star, that just claimed its
seventh victim this past week?
If you run a train at grade down city streets, then it should observe existing
traffic laws. If you don't, then you kill people. That seems pretty obvious.
There is another alternative: to run trains on existing railroad right of way.
If the Hiawatha line had been moved across Hiawatha Avenue to existing railroad
right of way, probably most of the fatalities wouldn't have happened. Running
trains down the middle of University Avenue might excite some developers and
help politicians collect campaign funds, but it's not going to do much for
transit. A genuine solution to connecting Minneapolis downtown to the
University to Midway and to downtown St. Paul would have been to use existing
railroad right of way that exists just below grade at the University and a
block off University Avenue in St. Paul, but developers got to politicians
before anyone else could talk sense to them.
Which brings us back to the 29th Street corridor. It's a natural for a high
speed train with stops at Hopkins Hennepin Avenue, Chicago Avenue (for the
Midtown Market), Hiawatha junction and downtown St. Paul over the Mississippi
River railroad bridge. The big problem with that will be that developers will
convince politicians that they have to add stops at other locations, and the
system will be seriously compromised. The line should never be thought of as a
substitute for buses. It's the express line and buses are the locals.
And Wizard's right, "People who use the 21 bus come with their babies and
groceries." The train at Hiawatha and Lake Street uses enclosed escalators to
go from the street to the train.
There are sensible solutions to transit problems, but probably not with the
current crop of politicians.
Ed Felien
Powderhorn
Ed
Get off the 'Death Star' line of inflammatory rhetoric.
It doesn’t help your cause at all.
From what I've been told, this last death was very likely a suicide.
How many have died in the last two years as a result of bus accidents?
How about driving deaths?
Our present LRT is a shining example of how good and well used rail transit can
be.
That said, could the LRT have been done better, probably.
Let have this next component of our rail system be a good addition to our
transit system.
Or perhaps Eden Prairie is just in need of its own 'Death Star' line as well.
Ron Leurquin
Nokomis East
On Friday 14 August 2009 12:06, <email obscured> wrote:
> I would also like to comment on a couple of other things as follows:
Matty, great summary of both the Hennepin Ave. question and the other issues.
> 5. The idea has been floated before that a piece of the Greenway line from
> Uptown to the Lake Calhoun station of the SW line might be able to be build
> with local money and considered as a part of the local match for the SW LRT
> line. If this is possible, this would be a way to connect Uptown from the
> the get go.
That's an interesting idea. We'll have to see if there's any headroom in the
CEI for SW LRT to do something like this. CEI is more than just capital cost
so I'd imagine a streetcar line would have to including ridership studies and
everything else that goes into the equation. It's not a trivial thing to do.
On the other hand, I recently found out that any *private* money contributed
to a transit project does not impact the CEI at all. So private interests
could fund a streetcar line. In that case we wouldn't have to include it in
the SW analysis at all. It'd be a completely separate project completely
under local control. The same would be true of a locally-finanaced streetcar
that doesn't use any federal dollars.
In most cases around the country, streetcars are either funded by local units
of government or use a public-private funding model. Rarely do they apply for
federal funds. They want to avoid the paperwork and arduous federal approval
process.
I believe a streetcar would be in the $50 million range. Not cheap, but over
an order of magnitude less expensive than an LRT and certainly more at scale
with the surrounding neighborhood. Talking with county officials at the open
houses gives me the impression that they are thinking through this and very
interested in pursuing streetcars. That's a long way from actually finding
the money but it is at the center of the radar at least.
Small point to Ed to go along with what Ronald said:
The person who was recently hit by the Hiawatha LRT was driving a car and
attempted to go around the crossing arms. Not to suggest he got what he
deserved, but that's pretty stupid. The train had the right of way and the
driver should have respected that, especially given the tremendous disadvantage
he had from a simple physics standpoing.
Not so different from the argument many drivers make about why bicycle riders
ought to respect our traffic rules, is it?
Mark Snyder
Windom Park
I'm sorry if my characterization of the Hiawatha Line as a Death Star has offended some sensibilities. If you would like a more reasoned argument against the University Avenue corridor line as it is being proposed, I would refer you to my article in Pulse from June of 2006, The Great Train Robbery: http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2560. You might also be interested in Peter McLaughlin's response to the article and my response to him: http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2570 The point of all that is that there is a difference between light rail as a transit option and a streetcar. We don't need any more boutique streetcars. They are proposing running the light rail down the middle of University Avenue. You can't run a train down the middle of a busy street. When I asked some of the people planning this misadventure they told me, "Oh, it won't go faster than 35 mph." Then it's not light rail, it's a street car. If you want a genuine light rail option, then it has to be separated from street and pedestrian traffic. This is a billion dollar boondoggle for developers and their politician friends. It will make transportation more difficult. To return to the 29th Street option--which could connect Hopkins, Hennepin Avenue, the Midtown Market, the Hiawatha line and downtown St. Paul--developers will turn politicians who will turn it into a streetcar line. Ed Felien Powderhorn
Ed Felien wrote:
> > What's the alternative? Another Hiawatha Death Star, that just
claimed its seventh victim this past week?
Come on, Ed. National Enquirer style presentations don't suit you.
How many people have been killed by automobiles? So shouldn't we
require that any street that is accessible by pedestrians to be
pedestrian-only?
The difference, for the most part, is that trains are driven by people
who actually are trained professionals. Cars are driven by people who
are trying to talk on the phone, change CDs, drink coffee, and
simultaneously control brawling rugrats and loose dogs in the back
seat. I'm willing to bet that casualties per passenger-mile related
to trains (not just train passengers, but including the negligent
and/or suicidal morons who drive/walk in front of the train) are
orders of magnitude lower than those related to automobiles.
> > If you run a train at grade down city streets, then it should
observe existing traffic laws.
Don't existing traffic laws say you don't try to beat the crossing
arm, you don't go around it, when the lights are flashing you stop?
So are you saying the Hiawatha line is really a trolley from the new stadium to
the dome and then it becomes a light rail?
Your talk of the speed being the difference between trolley and light rail
would lead one to believe that’s what you're saying.
Is it speed that makes the difference between trolley and light rail or is it
the vehicle that is used?
If that is correct then I doubt most people know that.
I always conjure up a picture of a SF trolley car on a steep hill when people
talk trolleys, not something that moves at less than 35MPH
My mental picture of the central corridor has always been something that looks
much like the Hiawatha line, perhaps even the very same cars, just moving
slower that much of the present Hiawatha line does.
Can I/we get some clarification on what the difference between a trolley and
light rail are?
Ed wrote:
The point of all that is that there is a difference between light rail as a
transit option and a streetcar. We don't need any more boutique streetcars.
They are proposing running the light rail down the middle of University Avenue.
You can't run a train down the middle of a busy street. When I asked some of
the people planning this misadventure they told me, "Oh, it won't go faster
than 35 mph." Then it's not light rail, it's a street car. If you want a
genuine light rail option, then it has to be separated from street and
pedestrian traffic. This is a billion dollar boondoggle for developers and
their politician friends. It will make transportation more difficult.
Eddie calls the Hiawatha Line a "Death Star", but fails to compare it to the
number of people killed by traffic in those same 7 years (around 3,500 deaths
and 10,500 serious injuries).
And note that none of those deaths has been a passenger on the light rail. And
all of them were killed when violating traffic or LRT regulations.
Hardly a "Death Star".
This kind of rhetoric makes me think that Eddie is getting his paper ready for
a sale to Rupert Murdoch, and converting to his style of 'journalism'!
Southwest LRT: Saving half a billion dollars by building better transit
Let’s start building a 21st Century transit system, not just one light rail
line
Communities between downtown Minneapolis and Eden Prairie are being asked to
select the route for SW LRT that will best serve our neighborhoods, cities, and
region. The route through Minneapolis has become one of the most controversial
decisions. But recently released preliminary data, combined with long-known
facts, lead to a compelling conclusion: SW LRT through Kenilworth Corridor
will cost some $500 million less than the Greenway/Nicollet alignment, while at
the same time offer us many more benefits. Both routes through Minneapolis are
projected to carry about 27,000 riders a day. (Incorporating data from
Minneapolis’ most recent Comprehensive plan may result in slightly revised
estimates.) In addition, the Kenilworth LRT will give us the opportunity to
start building a robust, cost-effective 21st century transit system that will
achieve five important objectives not attained by the Greenway/Nicollet LRT:
• Serve more Minneapolis employment centers
• Serve more designated growth centers in Minneapolis
• Serve more neighborhoods in Minneapolis that have transit-dependent riders
• Connect directly with the planned 35W BRT station at Lake Street
• Encourage more transit-oriented development in the city
Employment: Access to jobs drives transit ridership. Some 70% of transit trips
in the Twin Cities are job related. That grows to 80% with the addition of
University students. There is just one significant employment cluster in south
Minneapolis, the Abbott-Northwestern, Allina, Wells Fargo complex. The Network
Alignment serves this important employment cluster, but the Greenway/Nicollet
alignment would miss it by three-quarters of a mile.
Growth Centers: The city of Minneapolis has designated four growth centers:
downtown, the U of M, Basset Creek Valley, and the Abbott Northwestern, Allina
and Wells Fargo complex. The Network Alignment serves 3 of these centers
(missing the University) while the Greenway/Nicollet LRT would miss all of
these growth centers except downtown.
Transit-Dependent Riders: While both alignments provide connections to the
North Side with a stop at Royalston, the Network Alignment also serves the
neighborhoods east of Nicollet along Lake Street. These are some of the most
transit dependent neighborhoods in Minneapolis. More population and
transit-dependent riders will be served by the Network Alignment than by the
Greenway/Nicollet Alignment. The Green Line will serve all of the Greenway
neighborhoods west of Hiawatha, while the Greenway/Nicollet LRT would split the
Greenway in two with wealthier neighborhoods west of Nicollet benefiting from
LRT and neighborhoods east of Nicollet unlikely to see any rail transit.
Bus Rapid Transit Station: In 2010, the long awaited Bus Rapid Transit service
on 35W will begin. The Green Line will connect with the planned Lake
Street/29th St. station, but the Greenway/Nicollet alignment will miss this
important station by several blocks.
Transit-Oriented Development: Transit stations drive transit-oriented
development. The Network Alignment would have 12 stops in Minneapolis
(including 8 on the Greenway and 1 at the Basset Creek development) while the
Greenway/Nicollet LRT would have only 9 (4 on the Greenway).
The Data: Much criticism has been leveled against the data by some proponents
of the Greenway/Nicollet route. These criticisms are unjustified. County
staff and consultants are not attempting to mislead the public with inaccurate
data. Ridership forecasts are developed according to FTA guidelines.
Actually, the forecasts are reasonable. South Minneapolis has a rich network
of bus routes which can’t be shortened or eliminated by a Greenway/Nicollet LRT
line. This means that bus and rail are competing with rather than complementing
each other. The outcome is an ineffective transit network, one costing
taxpayers some $500 million. This is bad transit policy. As we await revised
ridership numbers from Minneapolis’ most recent Comprehensive Plan, we must
understand the slight ridership gains anticipated are unlikely to offset the
high cost of the Greenway/Nicollet LRT.
Funding: The Greenway/Nicollet LRT faces significant funding challenges:
(1) The Federal Transit Administration would be unlikely to approve the project
because of the high cost in relation to the project benefits.
(2) Under today’s funding scenario, the Counties Transit Improvement Board
(CTIB) is required to provide 30% of a project’s cost. This would be $150
million to fund the increased cost of the Nicollet/Greenway alignment. It will
be difficult if not impossible to convince the five counties comprising CTIB to
give up nearly two years of revenue and delay their own projects to fund a
costly route diversion in Minneapolis.
(3) Both the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority and the State of
Minnesota are to contribute 10% of the project cost or an additional $50
million each for the Nicollet/Greenway alignment. Securing these funds will
also be challenging.
The funding prospects for the Green Line, although by no means easy, are not so
challenging. The Green Line has many of the qualities of a potentially
successful transit project: low-cost, below-grade railroad corridor, located
near a major intra-city commercial corridor, in a corridor with proven
potential for transit-oriented development, and with strong community support.
Streetcars have been proven to be an effective component of well-designed urban
transit systems. Dozens of streetcar systems are being built or proposed
throughout the nation. Portland recently obtained the federal funding from the
new Small Starts program and Tucson funded a shovel-ready streetcar with
stimulus dollars. The Green Line is a small project that sooner or later will
be funded if the Kenilworth LRT is selected and stakeholders commit to the
line.
The Kenilworth LRT, and the Green Line through the Midtown Greenway, which
together will form the Network Alignment, will serve Minneapolis far better at
substantially lower cost. The Network Alignment offers better funding
prospects than the Greenway/Nicollet LRT.
Mitigation – Both alignments pass through developed and environmentally
sensitive areas. Adequate mitigation and betterments will be crucial components
of either alternative.
For key facts to consider for SW LRT alignment in Minneapolis, and citations
for this data, please refer to my blog at southwestlrt.wordpress.com
Bob Corrick
The following file was added to this topic:
On Wednesday 19 August 2009 12:03, <email obscured> wrote: > Transit-Dependent Riders: While both alignments provide connections to the > North Side with a stop at Royalston Actually, that's only true with the 3C subalternative. The original 3C alignment heads up Nicollet Mall and bypasses Royalston entirely. The subalternative (3C-2) would add significant travel time to riders from the north side. > For key facts to consider for SW LRT alignment in Minneapolis, and > citations for this data, please refer to my blog at > southwestlrt.wordpress.com I would also encourage everyone to look at the latest report to the PAC on the alternatives analysis here: http://southwesttransitway.org/technical-documents/doc_download/134-pac-presentation-8-10-2009.html I hope we can have a robust conversation that includes all of the facts and implications of the choices in front of us. I am highly suspect of numbers that come from anywhere other than the Southwest Transitway Project Office, whether they support or oppose a particular alignment. Only with full trasparency can we hope to build the system that will serve our city as well as possible.
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.