“Blocks long open light rail cuts” is a completely fabricated complaint. 3C was going to have a tunnel under Nicollet; only during construction would the street be disrupted. Either way, traffic counts on Nicollet are relatively low compared to other N/S streets. In any case, why prioritize cars over transit when they already get the advantage on every other thoroughfare? (Is Nicollet even a real thoroughfare?)

How does one prove that “the larger Whittier neighborhood wants light rail”? Why does that even matter? Why assume that a neighborhood group represents majority opinion? Should transit investment be decided on a majority-rules basis anyway? This seems so tangential to the larger questions involved in the disturbing Southwest LRT planning process.

Improved bus service for the south side would be great, but in a growing city like ours, it’s not enough. Meaningful change means separate rights of way and high frequency. Without LRT, it looks like we won’t have either of those in the densest parts of Minneapolis any time in the next few decades.

Also you’re going to need to provide some proof that the larger Whittier neighborhood wants light rail.

What south minneapolis needs is improved bus service. Removing a few stops, adding bus lanes and allowing rear door boarding would do more for residents than the train ever could – for hundreds of millions less.

Also tired, also short.

Neighborhood organizations represent a demographic that is less likely to ride transit. Their opposition to LRT (and I’ll note that ECCO and CARAG actually supported it) is not remotely representative of what the larger community wants. If you think for a minute that these groups represent a majority of the citizenry, you’re very, very optimistic.

The last census showed that single-occupant cars were still a major commute mode for workers in the Uptown/Nicollet area. Those that do ride transit (and that’s a larger percentage in Whittier/Wedge) would benefit from guaranteed ride-times and fixed schedules — something the current bus system does not provide. Ride the 6, 17, or 18 during rush hour and tell me that you’d prefer that to a LRV that gets you from downtown to your stop in 5-10 minutes regardless of traffic or weather.

I don’t know whether you ride the bus or not, but as someone who does (daily), I know that the current system is unsustainable in the long run. Traffic counts are swelling along all the north/south thoroughfares, and when K-Mart is moved to open up Nicollet some day, even that street will see major increases in traffic. Buses (or streetcars) have to deal with that traffic, which will only get worse. Submerged LRT along the Greenway and under Nicollet would not.

This is a major metropolitan area that thankfully is becoming more urban once again. Unfortunately, we’re not planning for that change. We’re giving suburban commuters a leg up while telling city residents that their slow, unreliable buses are what they deserve. Oh, and apparently we should be grateful. Please.

“The southwest corridor is pretty much a commuter route that serves the southwest suburbs and this is not what Nicollet and Uptown need.”

That’s exactly the problem. The route was not pre-destined for that fate. If you think it was, I suggest you read the project documents (particularly the Alternatives Analysis). Enhancing mobility, one of the key goals, should not be only a goal for suburbanites. City residents, such as those who commute along Nicollet (or Hennepin or Lyndale), face 20-25 minute rides under good conditions at rush hour. Longer in bad weather or if there’s an accident, stalled vehicle, or disabled person needing the ramp.

As for station distance, the engineering never got far enough along to meaningfully address this point. The Franklin Ave station could just as easily be mid-block, closer to 22nd St. With that placement, there would only be a .6 or .7 mile distance between the two stations — easily within the half-mile radius traditionally used as a catchment area.

Nicollet and Uptown need separate-ROW transit. This is the best chance the areas have. Bus-only lanes aren’t feasible on any of the north-south thoroughfares as long as local business owners oppose eliminating on-street parking (lane widths are already quite tight). Streetcars will be even slower than buses, doing nothing for accessibility or mobility.

The Greenway streetcar between the two LRT stations will likely see lower ridership than the north-south bus corridors already receive, and at a much greater cost. While routes 21 and 53 are highly utilized (and extremely slow), there’s a question of how many people are willing to switch from the Lake Street corridor, where businesses are, to the Greenway — a trench a block and a half away. In any case, if you look at employment data, you see that there’s not a great deal of east-west commuting within Minneapolis. Generally speaking, only riders travelling from areas near either end of the line will have much of an interest in riding that streetcar.

And this is just the beginning of the long list of flaws with the piecemeal, unconvincing plan for Minneapolis transit. So many different modes, so little connectivity.

3C as it currently stands is just like the central corridor before the new FTA rule. Re-examining the route only with ADDITIONAL stations at 24th St. and 15th St. on Nicollet would make sense.

It doesn’t matter that actual ridership would inevitable be higher on 3C (especially over 30-50 years), or that more minority, lower-income, transit-dependent populations would be served by 3C. It doesn’t matter that the tax base would grow more as a result of 3C. It doesn’t matter that mobility would be improved for tens of thousands of urban residents as they bypass congested roadways on 3C. The politicians either kowtow to suburban commuters (who keep winning on transit issues) or are worried a delay will scuttle the project (in spite of the new FTA rules which were clearly made with SW LRT issues in mind).

But that’s the Twin Cities for you. The most conservative ‘progressive’ metro in the nation, at least on transportation.

I hope that the FTA will address how ridership forecasting is conducted right now, as it led to all sorts of issues for the Uptown alignment that just can’t be right. Uptown’s boardings were projected to be 1,100 per day while Kenwood (21st St) were projected at 1,000. The Uptown (and Eat Street and LynLake) station(s) all had incredibly low numbers for people walking to the station. In many cases the suburban locations had more. This led to either an inflated number for 3A or a deflated number for 3C1 and 3C2.

Certainly the FTA decision would help Uptown, if anyone wants to revisit it. But quite frankly, it’ll require new voices to the discussion as those of us who were big advocates aren’t popular right now with the PAC or other elected officials. Perhaps it’s time for a lawsuit, who knows.