Sometimes I wonder if the Twin Cities should even bother with rail transit, and I say that as someone who’s usually a major advocate for it. But we’re showing an impressive ability to make every rail project we build into a ridiculous mess.
Let’s review our history:
- The Hiawatha line had its maximum speed decreased from 55 mph to 35 mph so it would not have to blow its horn. Both problems could have been avoided by elevating the line, with the added bonus that traffic lights would not have to be adjusted for the frequently-running trains.
- The Northstar commuter line was originally set to connect Minneapolis and St. Cloud, but we decided we were only willing to pay for half of that. Now, instead of connecting the two metropolitan areas, it serves Minneapolis only.
- The Central line will also not be elevated, which will more than likely cause serious traffic along University Avenue. It will now stop nearly as frequently as a bus in St. Paul.
- The Southwest line is the next LRT line we’re planning to mess up, by having it completely bypass the central city in an effort to get suburban commuters downtown as fast as humanly possible, without serving the needs of residents in Minneapolis.
These projects could all be a major benefit to the entire region with proper planning. By the time we’re done with them, though, it looks like we’ll have planned the vast majority of the benefits out of them. That’s a shame — especially for the money we’re spending on these projects.
1) Elevating lines costs a ton of money. If money was no object, you could certainly do that.
2) You can certainly build the Northstar line out to St. Cloud, but I don’t know if you need to. People are not traveling between metropolitan areas - they are commuting from the suburbs and exerbs in Minneapolis. There probably are not too many people who are commuting all the way from St. Cloud. Its kind of the same reason the Duluth line is such a dumb idea, and why a train that direction should only go up to Forest Lake or something around there.
3) You say that the next line is bypassing the central city and not serving the needs of Minneapolis, but then you complain the central line has too many stops. There is a trade off between stops (service to the central city) and speed.
Yeah, I don’t get it, Jeff. You can’t be both for trains going as fast as possible (and skipping local stops to do so) and against going as fast as possible (and adding local stops to do so).
I hate to say it, but is this contradiction because in Minneapolis, the extra stops would be in Uptown while in St. Paul, the extra stops would be in a less wealthy area along University?
I’ve been following the Southwest line very closely, and I initially thought going through Uptown made sense, as well. But the problem with that approach is that it adds a lot of cost, and it prevents the various lines to line up. With the other alignment, trains go on the Southwest line and on to the Hiawatha line or the Central Corridor line. With the Uptown alignment, that’s not possible. I would really like to see some sort of connection between Southwest and Uptown, however, whether that’s extra buses or streetcars or something: would be very nice to easily get to Uptown on public transportation.
Yes I can. It’s pretty simple: there’s a happy medium to be had. Lines should serve the central cities, but stops should be once per mile.
Jeff, I have to disagree, and more broadly question why this is even up on MNPublius. I don’t think it’s an appropriate forum for the post you put up. However, Central Corridor has always been focused on development of an underutilized corridor within Minneapolis-StPaul, not commuter travel. Who goes from one downtown to the other anyway? The train will spur high and medium density mixed use development along the entire 11 miles. People will travel from Raymond Ave to the U, from Western Ave to Snelling, and that’s the point. Buses are over capacity and rail will leverage dramatic development prospects, raising millions of dollars in new tax revenue and bringing thousands of new residents to the city. This is not meant to be a commuter train; more stops are good.
I think the original thought was: hardly any stops and then add streetcars? What ever happened to that???? Instead, the lightrail is trying to be all things to all people (but it’s still a success, judging by ridership). Hopefully, it’ll get better as the system matures.
Jeez! You hicks ever been in a big city?
Yes, YOU CAN have a train line that both serves local residents and commuters. What’s the big secret?? LOCAL/EXPRESS trains. Like roads, you can have multiple train tracks going in one direction. Trains switch tracks to bypass local stations.
PARRY WINS!!!!
So……hows that special election working out for ya?
Waiting for the libs to blame the candidate…….
CHANGE IS ON THE WAY!
I can’t wait to see the spin on this…
I agree. It’s really a shame that our money is spent on a ridiculous project.. they could have put the money on a project that would have benefit a lot of people’s comfort. So next time, let’s choose our candidate wisely.
It IS a shame that our money is wasted on yet another ridiculous project. We are slow learners but I do think that increasing numbers of voters are waking up to the need to say STOP! to this bad governmental predilection. But, not in this instance, I guess. Another expensive pork-fest.
I would much much much rather see high speed trains connecting our metro areas than slow trains connecting neighborhoods within the metro. Buses can use existing infrastructure, they displace no one and cost relatively little compared to trains. They aren’t as cool as the expensive choo-choos that urban planners love but lower taxes will attract a lot more business than cool metro light rail ever will. Perhaps if we hadn’t ripped up all the train tracks for bike paths the story would be different but that ship sailed a long time ago.
Conversely, trains between the state’s various urban areas would open up more businesses to more workers and could use infrastructure that is already in place. Sadly most rail experts see the idea as a non starter because the rail lines are already extremely congested with cargo traffic and passenger rail has never been able to succeed without government subsidy. It’s too bad really but that’s the way it is.
“But we’re showing an impressive ability to make every rail project we build into a ridiculous mess.
Let’s review our history:
The Hiawatha line had its maximum speed decreased from 55 mph to 35 mph so it would not have to blow its horn.”
Everything has Pros and Cons. That something has a Con does not make it a mess. I ride the Hiawatha line almost every day. The only times I do not is when it is bitterly cold and I chose the 1/2 block walk to the bus rather than the 5 block walk to the Hiawatha line. From a riders’ point of view, the train is much more pleasant and much faster than the bus. The biggest problem is that the train is popular and I have a hard time getting a seat.
From another point of view, the line has consistently and significantly performed above ridership expectations. The strongest empirical evidence that we have* indicates that much of the ridership would not have taken mass transit without the train. Ergo, it is popular, well-liked and continues to grow. Only a few years after the line was put in, platforms are being expanded to add third trains due to ridership demand.
One may disagree about whether light rail is advisable or not in general. But using the Hiawatha line as a piece of evidence to support a general thesis that “every rail project we build is a ridiculous mess” is, ironically, completely ridiculous.
*which trumps ideology, whether of the left- or right- wing variety
Ridership beating expectations is in no way an empirical measure of success. Mainly because the original ridership expectation numbers weren’t based on anything meaningful. They were a guess on what ridership would be and not tied in to any quantifiable metrics that would make that level of us a “success”. If they had said 10 riders a day were expected would that mean 11 is a success? Reaching a arbitrarily set numeric goal is not really much of a success and it is no way scientific no matter how many times you use the word empirical.
Nothing with the light rail system has any meaningful measurements attached to it. No meaningful goals determined necessary to achieve meaningful positive outcomes. No goals on the impact it has on the environment, congestion or other social and economic factors have been set. Those things would be necessary in order to actually understand if light rail is the best way to achieve those goals. As such no ridership level can be consider a success in any meaningful way.
Real measurable numbers that can be repeated and viewed against other options would trump political ideology. The numbers and reason you present do no such thing.
By putting it down University Ave, it’s poised to disrupt the largest strip of minority owned businesses in the state, just like I-94 did two generations ago.
Taxes and assessments for these small business will go up, some clientele will be cut off, parking will be impossible and visibility will be hampered. Before a few days ago, there weren’t any stops in the neighborhood either.
So, while they use the area’s demographic as one that would be served, it was not the main point. The point was to get people to the Capitol and Downtown from points west. Its an example of my liberal brethren making decisions on behalf of people without those people being at the table. It would have been different with the people who live and work there.
If this train was scheduled to be some hi-speed commuter, then I-94 or Peirce Butler set up with park and rides, would have been ideal. However, I suspect that there was some extra money involved if they could say that it would be a service to an under-represented community. University Avenue presented itself as a main artery of the cities and diverse enough to take advantage of grants, with the ‘right’ political people representing it that it was the compromise spot. When folks who actually live there and work there begin to complain that their voice was not being heard, this is the result- three more stops.
Who do you think will utilize the public trans system more? People on the west end down at St Anthony Park or the east end in the old frogtown area?
I’ve hated this project from the beginning. It always felt like we were doing something just to do it before it becomes too expensive to justify.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The problem isn’t rail or no rail, density versus not. The problem is to be very clear about what problem we are trying to solve and how we can make a transportation system that works for the people that use it - at the lowest cost.
The “leadership” of the Met Council never asked those questions, preferring to hammer through an LRT line whether or not it was a good idea. The engineers at URS (a company currently being sued by the State of Minnesota for its role in the I-35W bridge collapse) did exactly what they were told to without providing a whit of expertise or asking what it is they were supposed to be doing.
I’ve written at length about this over the years. My arguments are a bit complex, but they always start with the simple question - “What are we trying to accomplish?”
http://erikhare.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/reboot/
http://erikhare.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/pedestrian-friendly/
http://erikhare.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/crazy-train/
Nothing has changed in the two years since my first piece on my blog about this, and nothing has changed since I first got involved in this issue in the 1990s. The big screwup happened right at the very start and has never been questioned. It’s very sad that it has to go this far and blow this much money before we finally realized it, but I’ve done my part to say that the Emperor has no clothes - and he’s not very attractive, either.