HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 6:24 PM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is online now
Chef beyond the wall
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,039
Minneapolis southwest LRT

The Minneapolis SWLRT line was fast tracked by the federal government years ago but is becoming bogged down in local political disputes. Yesterday Betsy Hodges, the Mayor of Minneapolis spoke out against the plan at the SWLRT Corridor Management Committee meeting but was outvoted by the suburban representatives 11-2. State law directs the Metropolitan Council to seek municipal consent of the communities that LRT lines go through, but is fuzzy on what happens if they deny it. It is possible that Minneapolis might deny municipal consent to the project.



Some history of the project:

Quote:
Southwest LRT plan is 'advanced but not endorsed'

By Brian Lambert | 10/15/13.

The Southwest LRT as of today … Pat Doyle of the Strib says: “Controversial plans for a light-rail line to the southwest suburbs were advanced but not endorsed Monday by key policymakers who withheld judgment on digging nearly a mile of tunnels in a recreational corridor of Minneapolis. The unusual decision came on the eve of talks on the project scheduled Tuesday involving Gov. Mark Dayton, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, Hennepin County officials, legislators and Metropolitan Council chair Susan Haigh, whose agency is planning the $1.55 billion rail line. … The decision to avoid taking a stand underscores the contentious nature of the Southwest Corridor light-rail plan, which is opposed by Rybak and some City Council members, and adds more uncertainty to the project’s future.”

But … . Steve Inman, a Minneapolis resident, argues in a Strib commentary: “I am disappointed that the Star Tribune Editorial Board, suggesting that ‘it’s time to move forward,’ has concluded that the ‘Shallow tunnel plan is best for Southwest LRT’ (Oct. 13). We’ve all grown weary of this never-ending process. However, when Metropolitan Council officials are pressed with questions on design, engineering and environmental impact, there is a striking lack of substantive information. One can only conclude that this hastily created plan has not been thoroughly studied to determine the true cost in dollars and sacrifice. … Selection of the shallow-tunnel option not only violates promises made to Minneapolis but results in precisely the type of outcome the environmental review process is designed to avoid: a single community bearing all of the negative impacts of a governmental action while accruing none of the benefits.”

http://www.minnpost.com/glean/2013/1...d-not-endorsed
Quote:
200+ skeptics offer blunt appraisals of Southwest Light Rail plan

By Karen Boros | 01/08/14.

They don’t like the proposed route of Southwest Light Rail through what is now recreational space.

They don’t think it serves potential Minneapolis riders.

And they said repeatedly that they don’t trust the Metropolitan Council to make wise decisions.

Those were the blunt messages from more than 200 people who filled Minneapolis’ Kenwood Recreation Center gym at the first of two public meetings planned to get input on the project.

The second meeting is Thursday at the St. Louis Park Recreation Center, where it is doubtful the messages will be much nicer.

“I am very, very late to this conversation,” said Dan Cramer of Grassroots Solutions, who was hired by the Metropolitan Council to conduct both meetings.

Large posters explaining the project surrounded half the room, with tables designated for discussion topics filling the floor space.

“There is a lot of frustration, there is a lot of anger, there is a lot of mistrust,” said Cramer, who had read transcripts of previous public meetings. “I am really sorry about that and I realize one meeting can’t change that.”

Participants divided themselves by discussion topics and spent an hour debating water quality, the light rail route through the Kenilworth Corridor, ridership by Minneapolis residents, as well as options for freight trains, tunnels and vegetation.

Their comments on freight trains and water quality will be forwarded immediately to two staff groups currently conducting studies on those topics. The groups’ work is expected to be complete by the end of the month.

Comments on all of the topics will be presented to “decision-makers” involved in the final plans for Southwest Light Rail line, which is expected to cost $1.5 billion.

“The hunger for federal money on the part of everybody in this process is trumping good planning and design,” said a representative from a freight-lines discussion table in his report.

His group said they would prefer the current three or four freight trains a day that travel through the Kenilworth Corridor to the proposed 200 light rail trains a day. The group favored moving the light rail line to St. Louis Park.

“There was distrust and fear, kind of a skepticism, of the whole process,” said a representative from a water-quality discussion group. “We are afraid of polluting and losing our lakes.”

“Most of the people at our table opposed the route completely,” she added. “There’s no room for development. Why not have the route go away from the lakes and to businesses it could help?”

A representative from the discussion group dealing with vegetation and green space drew applause from the crowd when he said: “At our table it was pointed out that the Metropolitan Council has allocated a great deal of money for suburban mitigation, close to $300 million, to move the alignment in the suburbs. Why isn’t this line serving a greater population density within Minneapolis?”

Large posters explaining the project surrounded half the room, with tables designated for discussion topics filling the floor space.

He added: “This line runs through neighborhoods that are neither dense nor have a population that would use this corridor. It is not moving people who desperately need transportation.”

The general consensus of the crowd seemed to be that routing the line through Uptown was a better alternative than sending it through the narrow strip of land between Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles.

“Uptown has a burgeoning population,” said a woman from another discussion group. “We’d really love to see southwest neighborhoods with dense populations served by mass transit. This alignment doesn’t do that.

“This current alignment favors suburban riders over Minneapolis riders, and it was based on federal criteria under the Bush administration,” she added, pointing out that the rules have changed under President Obama and now focus on urban density.
Quote:
Southwest LRT proposal rumbles into ‘near-death experience’ territory

By Judy Keen | 10/25/13.

Is it time to pull the plug on the Southwest Corridor light-rail line? Or is it already unraveling in slow motion?

After more than a decade of debate, there’s still no consensus on the route, and the $1.55 billion project was postponed when Gov. Mark Dayton last week called for a delay of up to 90 days so more studies can be conducted and more alternatives considered.

The decision to kick what was an imminent vote down the road is raising questions about the project’s viability, the availability of federal funds and future political implications.

It’s not easy to discern a resolution to the dispute at the heart of the postponement.

Minneapolis opposes current plans for construction of two shallow tunnels next to freight rail and bike trails in the city’s Kenilworth corridor. Opponents say light-rail trains would be above ground for too long, disrupting bicycling and other recreational activities. Trains would emerge from tunnels to cross a bridge over a channel between Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles.

Minneapolis has for years endorsed light rail at grade level in the Kenilworth corridor in exchange for the rerouting of its current freight-train traffic.

An alternative Southwest Corridor plan would have shifted those freight trains through St. Louis Park, making room for light-rail trains at grade. Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak preferred that option; metro leaders rejected it.

After meeting with suburban officials on Tuesday, Dayton said he wants to find a way to reach consensus among the cities that would be served by the line.

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-pol...ight-rail-plan
Quote:
Planners recommend shallow SW LRT tunnels and a bridge over channel

By Joe Kimball | 03/31/14.

Southwest Light Rail planners have approved a plan to build shallow tunnels under a trail and a bridge over a channel, in the latest action for the rail line that would run from downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie.

Minneapolis officials have opposed that portion of the plan, which now calls for "two shallow LRT tunnels to be built in the Kenilworth Corridor under the trail, with light rail trains emerging for about 20 seconds between them on a new at-grade LRT bridge over the channel between Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles."

Planners for the Metropolitan Council said:

The recommendation preserves homes, businesses, a trail used by over a half-million pedestrians and cyclists a year through the Kenilworth neighborhood and railroad tracks used by freight trains carrying commodities for shippers in more than two dozen west-central Minnesota farming communities.


http://www.minnpost.com/political-ag...e-over-channel
Quote:
Latest Southwest LRT options give Minneapolis unwanted freight trains, shallow tunnels

By Karen Boros | 03/27/14.

Minneapolis appears to be getting the freight trains it didn’t want and the shallow tunnels it rejected as planning continues for the Southwest Light Rail route through the Kenilworth Corridor.

The re-routing of the freight trains through St. Louis Park no longer appears an option after the Twin Cities and Western Railroad rejected the plan, citing safety concerns.

The Southwest LRT Management Committee, which includes city officials from communities along the proposed route from Eden Prairie to the edges of downtown Minneapolis, reviewed the remaining options this week before its scheduled vote on the final proposal next Wednesday.

“We dither at our peril,” Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin told the group Wednesday. He pointed out that the Southwest line last year was one of 10 similar projects competing for federal money.

“All but two of those have been moved forward. Southwest is one of the two that hasn’t,” said McLaughlin. “Treading water is making a decision. Treading water is costing us money, and it’s not going to advance a new transit system for this region.”

By 2015, there could be 15 projects seeking federal funding, including projects in New York, Chicago and Boston.

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-pol...-trains-shallo
Quote:
Hodges' dissent didn't sway Southwest LRT panel's 11-2 backing of shallow-tunnel plan

By Marlys Harris | 04/03/14.

It was a foregone conclusion that the Southwest LRT Corridor Management Committee would endorse the plan to send the proposed commuter line through shallow tunnels and over a bridge in the scenic Kenilworth Corridor between Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles. And so it did, despite the determined opposition of Betsy Hodges, mayor of the largest and most populous municipality in the project, who insisted that the project, as constituted, was unfair to Minneapolis.

That assertion was "astounding," said Peter McLaughlin, a committee member and a Hennepin County commissioner. The line "will bring thousands and thousands of people to Minneapolis."

In previous meetings about the line, emotions had run hotter than pizza ovens, and normally calm citizens turned purple with rage. But the 150 people who came to hear the proceedings at Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park on Wednesday seemed somewhat dispassionate — possibly because they already knew how the vote would go. A few Kenilworth residents pleaded with Hodges to stand fast in her objections to the LRT plan. "Use every legal means at your disposal to fight this plan," directed one of her constituents.

http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/20...ow-tunnel-plan
While on the face of it, it looks like opposition in Minneapolis is coming from NIMBYs in one of the state's richest and most politically connected neighborhoods; underlying that is a sense that this route was poorly planned from the beginning. It runs through some of the least dense areas of the city and does nothing to serve nearby dense areas. The alternate route that went through those denser areas was rejected because of the cost of building a tunnel for ten blocks through the south side. Now with the new tunnel through park land being proposed, the current route is almost as expensive as the rejected one and serves far fewer people.







If anyone is interested in the 100 plus page debate on this line at UrbanMSP, here is a link to that thread:

http://urbanmsp.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5

Last edited by Chef; Apr 4, 2014 at 6:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 6:28 PM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is online now
Chef beyond the wall
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,039
Here is the full text of Mayor Hodges' remarks yesterday to the Southwest LRT Corridor Management Committee:

Quote:
Thank you Madame Chair, thank you fellow committee members. I also want to echo, thank you to everybody who came out and spoke today. The public process here today I think has been valuable for everybody to hear what was said, and I do appreciate that.

I do need to note that what the Met Council is proposing today in 2014 is very different than the reasons and what was being proposed by the Met Council even in 2013. What you asked in 2013 is very different than what was asked in 2014.

In 2013 we were told, you can’t reroute the freight. There’s no way to do it safely, the physics have changed. Then a report came back, and then we were told, well, we didn’t plan for the railroads to say no, and we don’ t have time to go to the Surface Transportation Board, the body that can actually make a judgment about whether or not the physics worked, because we have an actual alternative in front of us.

And there’s been a lot of hue and cry, and I’ve heard you all today say, well, you can’t go back in the past, it is what it is. But I just want to note that this problem that we’re facing is not one that the Met Council is observing, it’s a problem that the Met Council created. By not hiring a company like Trans Systems many years ago, by not building the time to go to the Surface Transportation Board into the project schedule and by giving the railroads veto power over the project, even though we have a place to sort these disputes out: the Surface Transportation Board.

It’s a policy decision to give the railroads the veto power over whether or not we go forward. It’s a policy decision that I have not seen any body vote on. Not this body, not the Met Council, no body involved in this process has affirmatively said, well, if the railroads don’t like it, then we shouldn’t do it. Today will be the first vote on that score.

And we shouldn’t give them that power. We should not give them that power.

If you had told Minneapolis in 2009 that the reroute – what was going to happen, as they already been talking about for years and years, and the promises that had already been made – and you had told Minneapolis, well, we’ll do reroute but only if the railroads don’t object. If you had said, Minneapolis, we’re going to give the railroads veto power over whether or not we do the reroute, then Minneapolis would not have voted for that locally preferred alternative. This would not be the route that Minneapolis would have supported for light rail. We would’ve had a clarion call, perhaps not for Nicollet, Commissioner McLaughlin made very good points about that, but perhaps there would have been a clarion call to say, what would it look like on Hennepin, what would it look like on Lyndale, we need to find another alternative here because our support is predicated on the reroute of freight. And so that’s an important bit of context here.

That’s a point that needs to be raised – that this reroute was never taken seriously. This reroute has not been taken seriously. It’s safe, it meets the AREMA standards. Then we were told there were other standards that exceeded the AREMA standards even though those were the ones we agreed to. If it is inconvenient that a plan came forward that met the standard that we had set, just say so. Don’t retroactively apply a different safety standard, just say it’s inconvenient that we actually have a reroute here on the table that meets the standards that we set, but we didn’t anticipate. If it’s inconvenient, just say so.

It’s also a cost-versus-value question. There are costs associated here. But the tunnels add no value to this LRT project. They are intended – and that can be disputed – they’re intended to protect an asset that already exists. But it doesn’t create more ridership, it doesn’t create more development, they don’t do anything.

Moving, rerouting the freight, would actually add value. Three of the biggest stations along the line, two of the stations are in St. Louis Park, the return on investment for our $1.6 Billion would be in that economic development. And St. Louis Park noted that, in their 2012 comments on the DEIS. They said, freight trains will interfere with the operations of the LRT stations and be a detriment to development in the area as a reason to move those tracks around those stations. Because they wanted that development. St. Louis Park said that in 2012.

So it’s a cost-versus-value issue here. What value is being brought, it’s not just a question of how much is it going to cost.

So when we get down to it, there are two promises being broken here. There are two broken promises. First, the project is breaking a promise to the residents of Minneapolis that when we chose this alternative route, we would move the freight. That’s a promise that’s being broken. It facilitates St. Louis Park breaking a promise as well. The promise they made to the region that they also would accept that freight reroute. Part of that promise was codified in accepting the money for the Golden Auto Site from the state. Because it was money given to St. Louis Park – who took it and used it – by the state, Minneapolis doesn’t have standing. But just because we can’t sue St. Louis Park, doesn’t mean St. Louis Park didn’t make a promise, it doesn’t mean St. Louis Park isn’t breaking a promise, all it means is that they’re getting away with it. And that has to be clear here, too.

So the question today isn’t about support for light rail. It isn’t even a question about support for the Southwest light rail line. I know how valuable light rail is. I’ve been arguing the virtues of transit for years, and I have been arguing it all across the city. I’ve been willing to say tough things to my constituents about supporting light rail and supporting light rail through this corridor. I understand the value, I understand what it can do for a community.

But today, this is about a fundamental failure of fairness. That’s what today is about. What the Met Council is offering is not shared burdens or shared benefits. And our constituents – my constituents – they know it. Because in this instance, St. Louis Park is going to get everything they want. Everything. Their alignment of LRT which they got in 2009. Their alignment of freight. $55 million of optional rail improvements. And they get to keep the Golden Auto money that was supposed to be used to reroute the freight.

Minneapolis, on the other hand, and what you are asking me to do right now on behalf of Minneapolis, is to lose on absolutely everything we cared about and put forward. We’re going to be getting our third choice for freight and our fourth choice for LRT, which are shallow tunnels that we don’t want and did not ask for. Asking Minneapolis to lose everything is something I will not say yes to. I will not, on behalf of my constituents, vote yes to lose on everything when there are other, better alternatives that we could and should pursue. I will be voting no.

http://www.minnpost.com/community-vo...ure-fairness-0
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 7:16 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,230
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
Here is the full text of Mayor Hodges' remarks yesterday to the Southwest LRT Corridor Management Committee:
Just wanted to add that this project will never get FDA "New Starts" funding when the largest city opposed to its alignment. Since moving the freight tracks are impossible, they should reevaluate and select the other route through uptown Minneapolis, imho for light rail.
Besides, I have always thought extending the Northstar commuter rail along the freight corridor would be a better and cheaper solution for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2014, 10:41 PM
hygge hygge is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 18
Thanks for the informative write up, Chef. I don't live in MSP and have never been there, but I hope you guys get the alignment through Uptown. That area looks like a great place and is screaming for a project like this. That Freight corridor alternative is crazy stupid and as electricron said, that area would be much better served with Northstar commuter expansion. Good luck MSP residents and let it be known that transit enthusiasts are rooting for you and the far superior alternative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2014, 5:54 AM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is online now
Chef beyond the wall
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Just wanted to add that this project will never get FDA "New Starts" funding when the largest city opposed to its alignment.
It already received preliminary FTA New Starts approval in 2011. That was before the problems with rerouting the freight rail became apparent. The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County, the entities that planned this line and didn't do due diligence are now telling Minneapolis it has to accept this line as is because otherwise it would have to re-apply for New Starts funding and go to the back of the queue.

Last edited by Chef; Apr 5, 2014 at 6:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2014, 3:11 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Exhale solutions.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
The Minneapolis SWLRT line was fast tracked by the federal government years ago but is becoming bogged down in local political disputes. Yesterday Betsy Hodges, the Mayor of Minneapolis spoke out against the plan at the SWLRT Corridor Management Committee meeting but was outvoted by the suburban representatives 11-2. State law directs the Metropolitan Council to seek municipal consent of the communities that LRT lines go through, but is fuzzy on what happens if they deny it. It is possible that Minneapolis might deny municipal consent to the project.



Some history of the project:













While on the face of it, it looks like opposition in Minneapolis is coming from NIMBYs in one of the state's richest and most politically connected neighborhoods; underlying that is a sense that this route was poorly planned from the beginning. It runs through some of the least dense areas of the city and does nothing to serve nearby dense areas. The alternate route that went through those denser areas was rejected because of the cost of building a tunnel for ten blocks through the south side. Now with the new tunnel through park land being proposed, the current route is almost as expensive as the rejected one and serves far fewer people.







If anyone is interested in the 100 plus page debate on this line at UrbanMSP, here is a link to that thread:

http://urbanmsp.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5

Both would be ideal. One to generate density along a low ridership corridor and the other to spark rejuvenation along a poor and transit dependent corridor.
__________________
Nothing useless can be truly beautiful. -W.Morris | Nothing Need be Ugly
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2014, 3:27 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,230
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
It already received preliminary FTA New Starts approval in 2011. That was before the problems with rerouting the freight rail became apparent. The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County, the entities that planned this line and didn't do due diligence are now telling Minneapolis it has to accept this line as is because otherwise it would have to re-apply for New Starts funding and go to the back of the queue.
They had preliminary approval before Minneapolis changed its mind because of the failure to move the freight line. Preliminary isn't final.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2014, 4:47 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is online now
vertical
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: unconventionally bicoastal
Posts: 9,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Both would be ideal. One to generate density along a low ridership corridor and the other to spark rejuvenation along a poor and transit dependent corridor.
It won't generate density along the Kenilworth corridor. The residents won't support it, so Minneapolis will end up with three lightly-used stations and no TOD. Eventually Minneapolis would try to bolster ridership by building parking garages at the stations.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2014, 5:14 PM
Jasonhouse Jasonhouse is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 23,024
Change the alignment. They don't get a redo, without great cost.
__________________
"Imagination is more important than knowledge".
Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2014, 2:56 AM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is online now
Chef beyond the wall
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
It won't generate density along the Kenilworth corridor. The residents won't support it, so Minneapolis will end up with three lightly-used stations and no TOD. Eventually Minneapolis would try to bolster ridership by building parking garages at the stations.
It won't even get parking garages. Because you have Lake of the Isles on one side and Cedar Lake on the other there are no major streets in the area. Kenwood, the neighborhood surrounding the Kenilworth Corridor, is a mansion district cut off from the rest of the city by geography. There might be a little bit of TOD around the Van White and Royalston stations, but it would be on narrow challenging pieces of land that are former rail yards that are cut off from the rest of the city. I wouldn't expect it to happen for at least a few decades, because there are much better places in the city to build. Kenwood will never see any TOD, the residents don't want it, and they are the fundraising base for the state Democratic party, so it won't happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2014, 5:11 AM
miketoronto miketoronto is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by hygge View Post
Thanks for the informative write up, Chef. I don't live in MSP and have never been there, but I hope you guys get the alignment through Uptown. That area looks like a great place and is screaming for a project like this. That Freight corridor alternative is crazy stupid and as electricron said, that area would be much better served with Northstar commuter expansion. Good luck MSP residents and let it be known that transit enthusiasts are rooting for you and the far superior alternative.
Would the Uptown variant require large segments operating in the middle of the street?
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2014, 5:19 AM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is online now
Chef beyond the wall
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
Would the Uptown variant require large segments operating in the middle of the street?
The east/west section would go through the Midtown Greenway, an old rail corridor turned bike path, from the West Lake station to the 28th St station. An undeveloped right of way has been left in the Greenway for future transit. The north/south portion would have been in a tunnel from 28th St to a bit north of Franklin, and then would be on surface streets downtown. At this point, tunneling through downtown is expensive enough that no light rail lines would meet federal cost/benefit formulas, so all the downtown light rail in Minneapolis is on the street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2014, 6:23 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the Pascack Valley
Posts: 1,583
The Proposed Bottineau Boulevard Transitway also skips the dense areas....which is a dam shame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2014, 7:06 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,906
quite obvsly it must be the uptown route. money be damned. sheesh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2014, 9:43 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is online now
vertical
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: unconventionally bicoastal
Posts: 9,980
Hennepin seems like a good compromise choice... plenty of potential for density but it adds less distance. Unfortunately it might need to be in subway, which is costly.

There's a precedent, though... Arlington, VA rejected the routing of the Metro Orange Line down the median of I-66 and pushed for a more costly subway 1/2 mile away below a local avenue. The result was several new neighborhoods full of dense TOD (mostly built on commercial/industrial sites with little impact to nearby single-family homes).
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2014, 10:49 PM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is offline
spooky action
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Saint Louis
Posts: 4,399
interesting, i'll have to read up on this. here in st. louis we are debating where our third light rail alignment shall be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2014, 5:19 PM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is online now
Chef beyond the wall
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,039
Dayton calls Minneapolis tunnels for Southwest LRT the 'only option'
Article by: PAT DOYLE , Star Tribune
Updated: April 9, 2014 - 5:56 AM

Gov. Mark Dayton on Tuesday said a plan to run the Southwest Corridor through tunnels in the Kenilworth corridor of Minneapolis is flawed but the “only option” for the light-rail line to advance.

His comments came on the eve of a crucial Wednesday vote on the plan by the Metropolitan Council, the agency overseeing the project. “There does not appear to be any other viable alternative to what the council will be considering,” Dayton said in an interview with the Star Tribune. “It’s the only option for the line to go forward, and I support the line going forward.”

Dayton said if Minneapolis officials continue to oppose the tunnel option, the Met Council must decide if it will proceed without the city’s consent. But, the governor said, a protracted dispute would likely doom the project, bogging it down in many months of negotiations and lawsuits.

“The federal funding would be likely to disappear,” he said. “I don’t see any practical way that the Met Council can proceed over the adamant opposition of the elected officials in Minneapolis.”

Kate Brickman, a spokeswoman for Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges, declined to comment on Dayton’s remarks.

http://www.startribune.com/local/254469331.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 4:46 AM
Jasonhouse Jasonhouse is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 23,024
Quote:
Gov. Mark Dayton on Tuesday said a plan to run the Southwest Corridor through tunnels in the Kenilworth corridor of Minneapolis is flawed but the “only option” for the light-rail line to advance.
If that is truly the case, then unfortunately, the expansion of the LRT network in this direction should not occur until the plan is right.

Where is the federal oversight on this?
__________________
"Imagination is more important than knowledge".
Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 5:47 AM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is online now
Chef beyond the wall
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,039
He is saying that it is the only option because we are too far into the planning process to change the alignment to the more urban one. That is what the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin county are saying too. In their minds the alignment is settled and there is no reason to revisit it. They were the ones who planned the line in the first place so if they change the alignment now they will be admitting that they made a mistake the first time around. At this point this line is driven by institutional face saving and a desire to not lose their place in the Fast Tracks program.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 7:16 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,230
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
Dayton calls Minneapolis tunnels for Southwest LRT the 'only option'
Never say "only" - that way you never have to eat crow.

Transit line planners should listen to local government officials. It usually doesn't work out when the planners dictate what must be....

As I wrote before, if Minneapolis is against the alignments, it will not likely get "New Starts" FTA funding. The Feds like to see everyone onboard - and not everyone is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:26 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.