Southwest Transitway Open House – Why I’m Still For 3C

Basically a bus.

Basically a bus.

I left Thursday’s Southwest Transitway open house in Minneapolis with a better understanding of the benefits of route 3A, and also the methodology by which the consultants have identified that as the “best” route.  However, I remain unconvinced that 3A is the best alternative, for a few reasons, including reasons that are not considered during the LPA decision-making process (but maybe should be). After the break, I’ll start with reasons that the FTA cares about.

  1. There was no detailed explanation of ridership calculation. Thursday’s open house really just included boards summarizing each of the alignment alternatives, there was no explanation of how ridership was calculated.  While staff was very helpful, there wasn’t anyone in attendance who had actually worked on the modeling.  So questions remain, such as: how many riders are assumed to be from park and rides located in Minneapolis?  It is doubtful that any park and ride lots would be approved by the city within it’s boundaries and therefore any ridership assumptions that come from these lots is questionable.  This is admittedly probably a small number, however, I think the public deserves an explanation of the methodology, not just a technical memo and not just to be told the numbers.
  2. Planning compatibility must give equal weight (or at least mention) land use plans, not just transportation plans.The open house presentation boards only mention 3C’s incompatibility with transportation plans, and make a very general statement about 3A  being compatible with all plans.  There is no mention of land use planning.  To be fair, staff did say they had considered all land use plans, but you can’t tell that from the boards.The entire length of 3A south of 394 is designated “Urban Neighborhood” and “Parks and Open Space” by the Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth, the adopted land use plan of the City of Minneapolis.  The plan says that Urban Neighborhoods are “Not generally intended to accommodate significant new growth, other than replacement of existing buildings with those of similar density.” (Ch 1, p. 8 )  Residential density is also limited to single and two-family residential.  This doesn’t sound like an area that is appropriate for a fixed-route transit line.  Compare this to the type of land uses that are being encouraged along Hiawatha, and this area appears to be destined for underuse (from a ridership perspective).The 3C alignment on the other hand, is designated a commercial corridor, planned to have a mixing of uses and high residential density (up to 120 units/acre). No mention on the open house boards of which one of these two types of planned land uses would be more appropriate along an LRT line.
  3. The ridership model may underestimate the number of riders switching from bus to rail along 3C.My head scratching about how the ridership numbers for 3A and 3C could be exactly the same was brought to an end at the open house by a friendly staff member who was familiar with the modeling process.  He told me that given the high level of transit service in the 3C corridor (Hennepin, Lyndale, Nicollet), the model may assume that few people would switch to LRT from their existing bus service, especially if it required them to walk further.  I use the word may because as I note above, we haven’t been given a detailed explanation of this model, or its assumptions so we have no way of knowing.From the staff I spoke with, it also seemed clear that a review of case studies had not been performed, to see if cities that had put LRT in transit-saturated areas really did se low switchovers from bus to rail. This would be a test of the model. But again, we simply don’t know what assumptions went into these numbers until more details are provided.

These preceding are issues that can be addressed within the current planning framework, meaning within the guidelines of the FTA process.  The following are issues I think should be considered, but are not things the FTA cares about (yet).

  1. The model used to evaluate alternative routes uses mobility as a primary measure, not accessibility. Moving around faster (with less delay) should not necessarily be the ultimate goal.  Having access to destinations (jobs, housing, goods) should be.  The maps I’ve made for previous posts were an crude attempt to illustrate this point.
  2. This is the only opportunity we are going to get for improved transit service on a dedicated right-of-way (for a long time). There is an argument out there that goes like this: trust the engineers, they know that Kennilworth is a better/more cost efficient alignment.  Minneapolis has a plan for improved transit, and it is streetcars on the greenway and down Nicollet.  Stop making a fuss, you’ll get yours later.I don’t buy this argument for two reasons. First, streetcars, on their own seem to solve none of the limitations existing bus routes face (namely, on-street congestion). The next step in transit service is dedicated right of way. Whether its buses or street cars or LRT doesn’t matter to me. Second, and related, the City of Minneapolis is not in the transit-building business. Without the planning staff, political clout, and most importantly, ability to spend that Hennepin County has, Minneapolis will not be building any dedicated right of ways for transit on their own in the forseeable future.So this is the opportunity we need to seize. This line can either serve the second downtown of Minneapolis, or it can bypass it in favor of faster travel times for suburban residents. This sounds selfish, but in a world where all transit projects compete against each other (and systems are never analyzed as a whole), you have to be.
Related Posts with Thumbnails
  • Sam

    For all of you out there who think that those of us who live in the Nicollet Ave. area are dying for LRT don’t be so sure. It will greatly disrupt out neighborhoods during construction and we will not get great benefits out of it once it is built. I for one am a bus rider living in the area of 24th and Blaisdell. I have great bus service today to downtown Minneapolis, Uptown, and to the jobs in St. Louis Park and Minnetonka. The access is through great bus service, which I want to keep. I will not use the train because it will take me longer to get to places because I have to walk farther to the station than to the bus stop on Nicollet ave. and I would also have to wait longer for a train to arrive. How is that improving my transit service.
    From the discussions I had with staff at the open houses it seemed reasonable to assume that if people in areas with little to no transit service are given better service they will use it. I was also compelled by information on how dramatically LRT would improve the work trips for people living in North Minneapolis. The deal here is that I can get most any place I want today using the buses which run often and are located close to my home and to the places I want to go to. We need to ensure that all part of Minneapolis can be served this well by transit – whether it is bus or a train. I think that providing people in North Minneapolis with opportunities to use transit to get to the jobs in the southwestern suburbs is something this region should be doing. Shame on all of us if we deprive them of the opportunites the rest of us enjoy!

    • http://netdensityblog.slotterback.net Brendon

      I have never heard any information about changes to bus service if any of the 3C alignments were to be chosen. In fact, I was told that one of the reasons that ridership on 3C was low (exactly the same as 3A) was because bus transit could not be reduced if LRT were built and the model assumed few people would switch from the bus to the train (it appears you would be a good example of just this type of rider). However, to my knowledge, no information has yet been released on how many people the model assumes will switch. So, to your first point, it appears given current information, your access would not change. If you want to keep riding the bus, you would be able to.

      As for the jobs issue, the 3C and the 3C sub-alt would provide access to more jobs than 3A. When you miss Uptown, there are far fewer jobs near the stations. I’m not sure why people assume that an Eden Prairie job is more important to access than a Minneapolis job.

      Finally, would you mind disclosing whether you work for Hennepin County? I received two comments within minutes of each other from the same IP address that belongs to Hennepin County. Perhaps you’re commenting from the library, but if you are a County employee, perhaps you have a unique perspective on the project.

  • http://twitter.com/uptown612 Anders

    I’m very late to this post, but want to say thanks for your last point in particular. I’ve been very disappointed with the way this process has been going, mostly because I don’t see there being any feasible transit improvements in Uptown/Midtown in the next half-century without dedicated ROW. Does anyone really think a Greenway streetcar will be a game-changer for mode share? That’s the most cited alternative to LRT, and it essentially would be a route 53 bus that doesn’t stop next to businesses. It’s frustrating because Southwest LRT is the only clear opportunity to give people in Minneapolis a car-besting trip to Downtown (9 mins or less) or to the suburban job centers (esp. Eden Prairie). We’ll be mired in congestion in 30 years wishing we had done something differently back in 2009. And when I say “we,” yes, I mean Minneapolitans.

  • Pingback: Net Density » Southwest LRT fliers hit the streets

  • Pingback: Net Density » Creating Real Transit Improvements in Uptown: Part 1

  • Pingback: Net Density » Federally funding for transit projects now to consider “livability”, analysis no longer dominated by cost-effectiveness

  • Pingback: Train in the Woods | Net Density