CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7557
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby mattaudio » November 26th, 2012, 12:16 pm

Seems like CP is only using this small yard for storage now that the Twin Cities Assembly Plant has closed.

Anyone know if there are other customers on this branch? Or what CP intends to do with the line?

I hope if it is abandoned that there's a way to preserve the ROW for future use.

User avatar
Ottergoose
Metrodome
Posts: 72
Joined: October 11th, 2012, 3:54 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN
Contact:

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby Ottergoose » December 3rd, 2012, 9:47 pm

CP's using the old Ford plant as a storage and training (as in "learning") yard.

Johnson Brothers, a beverage distributor, is the only remaining customer on the line.

DanPatchToget
Rice Park
Posts: 444
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby DanPatchToget » February 24th, 2018, 4:49 pm

Might as well update this thread since:
-it looks like CP is about ready to abandon the line considering a few crossings have been paved over
-Riverview will be streetcar/LRT on West 7th
-improved transit to the Ford Site is still an open discussion
-St. Paul is conducting the "Reimagine the Railway" study, which you can learn more about here https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/plan ... udying-new

There's an open house this Thursday from 6-7:30 PM discussing trail and other options for the Ford Spur. Its at the West 7th Community Center.

My ideas for the Ford Spur besides the trail:
-use the western section through the Ford Site to West 7th for ABRT coming from 46th Street, this service could go to Edina (the current Route 46)
-have a short stub track at the Ford Site, just to show what was there before
-more out of the box is preserving right-of-way for a potential DMU express service between the Ford Site and Downtown St. Paul (https://www.twincities.com/2017/09/12/l ... ford-spur/)
-also out of the box is a heritage streetcar line running as far west as West 7th & Alton to as far east as the Schmidt Brewery, it would be seasonal and tourist-oriented like the Harriet and Excelsior streetcar lines

tmart
Landmark Center
Posts: 259
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby tmart » February 25th, 2018, 11:26 am

DanPatchToget wrote:
February 24th, 2018, 4:49 pm
-more out of the box is preserving right-of-way for a potential DMU express service between the Ford Site and Downtown St. Paul (https://www.twincities.com/2017/09/12/l ... ford-spur/)
What advantage does DMU have over LRT in this context?

DanPatchToget
Rice Park
Posts: 444
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby DanPatchToget » February 25th, 2018, 12:53 pm

tmart wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 11:26 am
DanPatchToget wrote:
February 24th, 2018, 4:49 pm
-more out of the box is preserving right-of-way for a potential DMU express service between the Ford Site and Downtown St. Paul (https://www.twincities.com/2017/09/12/l ... ford-spur/)
What advantage does DMU have over LRT in this context?
Not having to install overhead wires.

DanPatchToget
Rice Park
Posts: 444
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby DanPatchToget » February 25th, 2018, 1:33 pm

I should mention this would be in addition to the Riverview Corridor, and assumes most of the existing rail could be saved. The only cost would be new rail on a few segments, a couple station platforms (SPUD is already built so don't have to worry about that), signals, and a few DMUs. However the youngest rail I've seen on that line is from the 70s, oldest is from the 50s. The big question is are the tracks in good enough condition for something like this? If yes, that makes it much more feasible. If no, then I don't see it happening (well, even if the tracks are in acceptable condition I won't hold my breath on the city considering it).

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5961
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby twincitizen » February 25th, 2018, 1:45 pm

DanPatchToget wrote:
February 24th, 2018, 4:49 pm
My ideas for the Ford Spur besides the trail:
-use the western section through the Ford Site to West 7th for ABRT coming from 46th Street, this service could go to Edina (the current Route 46)
Any public transit use of the spur ROW between HP and the Riverview Line on West 7th would have to be evaluated in the context of the existing service making that connection today, so I like where you're going with this. The infrequent 46 and 84 connect HP to 7th via Cleveland and St Paul Ave, respectively. The 46 segment does seem a more logical candidate for replacement by a bus service on the spur (simply shifting the stops a block to the east), while eliminating the 84 in favor of the spur route would have some station access issues, as there are houses that back up to the ROW, blocking pedestrian access to it.

I like the longer term potential for the 46 to be upgraded to aBRT. Despite fairly low ridership today, upgrading this route to aBRT seems like a natural fit for the string of nodes that it serves (west to east): SWLRT Opus Station, Grandview/50th & France in Edina, Orange Line @35W, D Line @Chicago, Blue Line @Hiawatha, Ford Site / Highland Park, and Riverview / West 7th. This route also serves at least 5 high schools (3 MPS and a few charters) along the way. I'd guess that demand between the major nodes is relatively low, lending itself well to total replacement with limited stop service.

This would make a lot of sense in the Highland area specifically, where the A Line infrastructure already exists and people are becoming familiar with the branding/service. F Line for Ford? H Line for Highland? There's really no rush to open this aBRT service before SWLRT, Riverview, and Ford site infrastructure development are complete anyways, so I'm talking like 10 years from now. That should leave plenty of time to get D Line, B Line (Lake St), E Line (Hennepin), and other higher-priority lines done.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2205
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby EOst » February 25th, 2018, 2:00 pm

I know we all love dedicated ROW transit, but what's the actual problem that a busway or rail in the Ford Spur would solve? There is rarely congestion on St. Paul Ave or Montreal Ave, and the area has very low transit demand. Why would we squeeze the likely greenway on this spur when ABRT on Montreal Ave or St. Paul Ave would have comparable reliability and serve more destinations for much less money?

alexschief
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 176
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby alexschief » February 25th, 2018, 2:23 pm

If the Ford Site is built out to the density that the zoning plan calls for, then it will merit high capacity, high frequency, congestion-free transit. I think the railroad ROW should be preserved until we know what development will look like at the Ford Site.

The best way to use that ROW for transit would be as part of a Phase II expansion of the Midway rail line. The Midway line will need to turn to the south anyway to serve the East Lake Station and connect with the Blue Line. The Midway line could then travel along the Blue Line route, serving the 38th and 48th St. Stations, before branching off along 46th Street, crossing the river, and using the CP spur ROW to serve the Ford Site, Highland neighborhoods, and eventually meet the Riverview route.

Here's how that could look. The cyan line shows this proposed route.

Zkools20
Block E
Posts: 5
Joined: February 19th, 2018, 4:24 pm

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby Zkools20 » February 25th, 2018, 3:35 pm

Now that’s what I call a transit plan! Look at all those light rails connecting every suburb to both cities.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2205
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby EOst » February 25th, 2018, 3:59 pm

I appreciate the response, but I still don't see how the cost-benefit equation ever balances out in favor of rail in the Ford Spur west of 7th, especially given the vastly greater likelihood of congestion once it interlines with the mixed-traffic Riverview portion. Your map is pretty, but it's also pure fantasy.

edit: I'll say that if the Twin Cities were actively considering an LRT spine between Hopkins and downtown St. Paul, it could make sense to have rail in this ROW. But we already know that likely won't be the case for the Riverview section. The Midtown section could be built this way, but just as easily might not be. And it would have cascading effects on a whole list of other planned or hoped-for projects: it would probably rule out bike lanes on 46th and Ford; it would (probably) require two-car stations, adding to impacts on the Midtown Greenway; and a host of other things we haven't even thought about.

tmart
Landmark Center
Posts: 259
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby tmart » February 25th, 2018, 4:22 pm

alexschief wrote: If the Ford Site is built out to the density that the zoning plan calls for, then it will merit high capacity, high frequency, congestion-free transit. I think the railroad ROW should be preserved until we know what development will look like at the Ford Site.
Agreed with this take, for sure. There's no real reason IMO not to at least preserve the ROW the same way the Greenway and all the various LRT trails throughout the metro area have been. Make a trail/linear park and defer on bus/rail/whatever until the transit-supporting development exists more than just on paper.
The best way to use that ROW for transit would be as part of a Phase II expansion of the Midway rail line. The Midway line will need to turn to the south anyway to serve the East Lake Station and connect with the Blue Line. The Midway line could then travel along the Blue Line route, serving the 36th and 48th St. Stations, before branching off along 46th Street, crossing the river, and using the CP spur ROW to serve the Ford Site, Highland neighborhoods, and eventually meet the Riverview route.

Here's how that could look. The cyan line shows this proposed route.
I never quite understood this line when it was proposed on the main page. I don't see the value of connecting Uptown and the (hypothetical fully-built-out transit-oriented) Ford Site without serving either Downtown. I do like the idea of extending Greenway service to Hopkins--those neighborhoods/towns have a lot of shared amenities--but IMO the only extension eastward from the Greenway that makes sense would be running on Lake and Marshall like the B Line.

I think the two scenarios that make sense for serving the Ford Site would be:

(a) aBRT (with long-term possibility of upgrading to another mode) on the existing 46 route, as discussed above, with either a high-amenity connection to Riverview, or thru service to Downtown St. Paul--could buses serve the hypothetical streetcar platforms?

(b) LRT following the Blue Line from Target Field to 46th St., crossing the river and serving the CP spur, then following the Riverview route to Union Depot. That way you'd connect Highland, Ford, and South Mpls to both downtowns. This involves the same amount of construction as what you proposed but IMO links more destinations.

Zkools20
Block E
Posts: 5
Joined: February 19th, 2018, 4:24 pm

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby Zkools20 » February 25th, 2018, 5:58 pm

EOst wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 3:59 pm
I appreciate the response, but I still don't see how the cost-benefit equation ever balances out in favor of rail in the Ford Spur west of 7th, especially given the vastly greater likelihood of congestion once it interlines with the mixed-traffic Riverview portion. Your map is pretty, but it's also pure fantasy.

edit: I'll say that if the Twin Cities were actively considering an LRT spine between Hopkins and downtown St. Paul, it could make sense to have rail in this ROW. But we already know that likely won't be the case for the Riverview section. The Midtown section could be built this way, but just as easily might not be. And it would have cascading effects on a whole list of other planned or hoped-for projects: it would probably rule out bike lanes on 46th and Ford; it would (probably) require two-car stations, adding to impacts on the Midtown Greenway; and a host of other things we haven't even thought about.
Yeah I agree we will be lucky to see both proposed lines done before 2030 with the way they are moving with this.

alexschief
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 176
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby alexschief » February 25th, 2018, 6:33 pm

EOst wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 3:59 pm
I appreciate the response, but I still don't see how the cost-benefit equation ever balances out in favor of rail in the Ford Spur west of 7th, especially given the vastly greater likelihood of congestion once it interlines with the mixed-traffic Riverview portion. Your map is pretty, but it's also pure fantasy.
I feel like these projects are so far in the future right now that it's not much of a point to say it's fantasy. Everything we're discussing right now falls into that category.

As for Riverview, I'm very much on the record as saying that the mixed traffic Riverview section is a joke. Since the project is still a long time away, I'd hope that awful decision would be reconsidered. But my understanding is also that the mixed traffic portion is only a fragment of the route, much closer in to downtown. Two trains in each direction every ten minutes would be tight, but I don't see why it would not be doable.
EOst wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 3:59 pm
edit: I'll say that if the Twin Cities were actively considering an LRT spine between Hopkins and downtown St. Paul, it could make sense to have rail in this ROW. But we already know that likely won't be the case for the Riverview section. The Midtown section could be built this way, but just as easily might not be. And it would have cascading effects on a whole list of other planned or hoped-for projects: it would probably rule out bike lanes on 46th and Ford; it would (probably) require two-car stations, adding to impacts on the Midtown Greenway; and a host of other things we haven't even thought about.
The Riverview route was focused on connecting the downtown and the airport. Having it add 11 minutes onto that trip to make a Ford detour never made the slightest bit of sense. But that doesn't mean a separate route couldn't take advantage of that ROW.

The purpose of the Midtown route wouldn't be to connect Hopkins with St. Paul, it'd be to provide METRO-quality service through the second densest part of the urban area. If the Ford Site were built out as hoped for, we would surely count Highland as one of the densest neighborhoods, and it would be worthwhile to expand the METRO system there as well. Especially considering that we have dedicated and abandoned ROW available, serving and connecting areas that are the right density for transit makes sense.

I'm not sure why it would be an issue to build longer stations in the greenway trench. Why wouldn't they do that from the start? Given the density and growth of the Midtown area, any Midtown line probably should be running two to three car trains from the start regardless.
tmart wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 4:22 pm
I never quite understood this line when it was proposed on the main page. I don't see the value of connecting Uptown and the (hypothetical fully-built-out transit-oriented) Ford Site without serving either Downtown. I do like the idea of extending Greenway service to Hopkins--those neighborhoods/towns have a lot of shared amenities--but IMO the only extension eastward from the Greenway that makes sense would be running on Lake and Marshall like the B Line.
The problem with the Midtown route is that it runs north of Lake St, so in order to connect with the East Lake station on the same platforms, it will have to turn to the south. Figuring out how the train gets out of that situation is tricky, and I think the only way to manage it is to have the train continue along the Blue Line route until there's a justification for branching off. A fully built-out Ford Site would be just about the only conceivable justification.

With regard to your critique of the route I proposed, I don't understand the fixation with endpoints. Few trips are made from one end of the line to the other. Not many people ride the Green Line from downtown to downtown, and those that do are mostly dumb, because the 94 bus will get them there much faster. The Green Line is successful, first and foremost because the University is a ridership machine, but second because throughout its route, including downtown, it connects a lot of smaller urban neighborhoods and destinations.

A Midtown route would do the same thing. There are a ton of people who live in proximity to that trench (only Loring Park is currently denser, and that's a much smaller neighborhood), and not only would they take the train to make connections to the Green and Blue Lines to get downtown (although again, people who live near aBRT on Chicago, Hennepin, or hopefully in the future some other N/S arterials would be smarter to take the bus), but they would take the train to go to Midtown Global Market, or the lakes, or parties in Uptown, or groceries, etc. etc.

It doesn't hurt that Uptown is taking on some characteristics of a CBD, with a hotel and new office space, but I think the fixation with commute trips or sporting event trips is unhealthy. In a city with a developed transit system, people take transit for all kinds of reasons. If MSP wants to be a place where owning a car is optional, the METRO and aBRT systems need to serve all kinds of trips. Not every route needs to hit either downtown. If they are instead hitting some of the densest neighborhoods in the city and intertwining closely into the system, that works as well.
tmart wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 4:22 pm
I think the two scenarios that make sense for serving the Ford Site would be:

(a) aBRT (with long-term possibility of upgrading to another mode) on the existing 46 route, as discussed above, with either a high-amenity connection to Riverview, or thru service to Downtown St. Paul--could buses serve the hypothetical streetcar platforms?

(b) LRT following the Blue Line from Target Field to 46th St., crossing the river and serving the CP spur, then following the Riverview route to Union Depot. That way you'd connect Highland, Ford, and South Mpls to both downtowns. This involves the same amount of construction as what you proposed but IMO links more destinations.
I mean, the Ford Site is already served by aBRT.

Your alternate LRT route differs from mine by replacing the benefits of serving the entire Midtown corridor with one-seat service to downtown and doubled service at the Franklin Station and one of Cedar Riverside's two LRT stations. I'm not sure how that tradeoff puts anyone ahead. Your route also increases by 33% train traffic in the Minneapolis CBD. I don't think there's anywhere in the MSP area where you could run three routes along the same track at 10 minute headways that would both deserve that treatment and not be extremely congested. It would require running a tunnel.

DanPatchToget
Rice Park
Posts: 444
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby DanPatchToget » February 25th, 2018, 6:48 pm

We seem to be ignoring the fact that Midtown LRT going to the Ford Site would require someway of turning east from 46th Street Station onto 46th Street. Not only is that a tight turn, it would have to be grade separated. We don't have to worry about the freight tracks since they end just before 46th, but dealing with 46th & Hiawatha would be very complicated from an engineering and cost standpoint.

I've always assumed Midtown LRT would be at-grade and get as close as possible to the Lake Street Blue Line Station. While this wouldn't be the most efficient operation, I think if Midtown LRT ever goes further east it'll be a wye track from Lake Street Station going west to Uptown and going east either along the freight corridor towards Downtown St. Paul or my preferred option of going to Stadium Village.

alexschief
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 176
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby alexschief » February 25th, 2018, 7:12 pm

DanPatchToget wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 6:48 pm
We seem to be ignoring the fact that Midtown LRT going to the Ford Site would require someway of turning east from 46th Street Station onto 46th Street. Not only is that a tight turn, it would have to be grade separated. We don't have to worry about the freight tracks since they end just before 46th, but dealing with 46th & Hiawatha would be very complicated from an engineering and cost standpoint.
I don't understand why this is the case. The intersection is absolutely massive, the station is north of 46th St, and the angle of the turn is greater than 90 degrees. It would be a substantially easier turn than the two that the Green Line makes on E 12th St. just across the highway from downtown St. Paul.
DanPatchToget wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 6:48 pm
I've always assumed Midtown LRT would be at-grade and get as close as possible to the Lake Street Blue Line Station. While this wouldn't be the most efficient operation, I think if Midtown LRT ever goes further east it'll be a wye track from Lake Street Station going west to Uptown and going east either along the freight corridor towards Downtown St. Paul or my preferred option of going to Stadium Village.
For the first option, you're forcing people to walk two blocks underneath the elevated LRT tracks in order to make a transfer. For the second option, (if I understand it correctly) you're building even more structure, and potentially having the train back out of the station? Both of those options seem far worse than just building a new bridge to merge the tracks, and then having the Midtown route continue south (not to mention far more complicated or less desirable than just moving cars back for more space in the 46th and Hiawatha intersection).

DanPatchToget
Rice Park
Posts: 444
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby DanPatchToget » February 25th, 2018, 8:02 pm

The station platforms are 290 feet away from the intersection. You need to get two LRT tracks over or under Hiawatha and back to at-grade at 46th. You need four tracks coming out of 46th Street Station to the south (two Blue Line, two Midtown), you definitely need grade separation across Hiawatha, and you need to somehow retain pedestrian access to the station on the south end and pedestrian access across Hiawatha. We could debate for hours if this is or isn't complicated, so I'll let an engineer weigh in if there are any on this forum.

As for Lake Street, either way we're building more structure; your plan requires a bridge and an interlocking approaching the station, my plan requires an underpass for going east. As I see it people would have to walk 0.13 miles (700 feet) between platforms, so not a huge deal as long as the path is well lit and marked. Going east the tracks would go under Hiawatha Avenue. As for operations, trains would not be backing up. Coming from west going east, trains would turn into the at-grade Lake Street Station, the driver goes to the other end of the train, and then turns east. Adds a little bit of time, but not terrible.

mamundsen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 983
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby mamundsen » February 25th, 2018, 8:38 pm

This could all be moved to Fantasy transit. They will not be putting transit on CP spur. Highland will be served by A Line and Riverview. No way they add a 3rd.

tmart
Landmark Center
Posts: 259
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby tmart » February 25th, 2018, 9:29 pm

alexschief wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 6:33 pm
The problem with the Midtown route is that it runs north of Lake St, so in order to connect with the East Lake station on the same platforms, it will have to turn to the south. Figuring out how the train gets out of that situation is tricky, and I think the only way to manage it is to have the train continue along the Blue Line route until there's a justification for branching off. A fully built-out Ford Site would be just about the only conceivable justification.
Well, if the Midtown line was just running east-west then there'd be no need or sense to use the same platforms as a north-south line--especially when Midtown is below grade and the existing Lake station is above grade. I figure the biggest problem is getting from the Greenway onto Lake, but that feels like it should be solvable, and figuring out a convenient station location and pedestrian connection between them would be a secondary concern. In any case a single intersection probably shouldn't take precedence on transit planning.
With regard to your critique of the route I proposed, I don't understand the fixation with endpoints. Few trips are made from one end of the line to the other. Not many people ride the Green Line from downtown to downtown, and those that do are mostly dumb, because the 94 bus will get them there much faster. The Green Line is successful, first and foremost because the University is a ridership machine, but second because throughout its route, including downtown, it connects a lot of smaller urban neighborhoods and destinations.

A Midtown route would do the same thing. There are a ton of people who live in proximity to that trench (only Loring Park is currently denser, and that's a much smaller neighborhood), and not only would they take the train to make connections to the Green and Blue Lines to get downtown (although again, people who live near aBRT on Chicago, Hennepin, or hopefully in the future some other N/S arterials would be smarter to take the bus), but they would take the train to go to Midtown Global Market, or the lakes, or parties in Uptown, or groceries, etc. etc.

It doesn't hurt that Uptown is taking on some characteristics of a CBD, with a hotel and new office space, but I think the fixation with commute trips or sporting event trips is unhealthy. In a city with a developed transit system, people take transit for all kinds of reasons. If MSP wants to be a place where owning a car is optional, the METRO and aBRT systems need to serve all kinds of trips. Not every route needs to hit either downtown. If they are instead hitting some of the densest neighborhoods in the city and intertwining closely into the system, that works as well.
It's not a fixation with endpoints, per se. I just think connecting the most people to the downtowns--and downtown Minneapolis specifically--in one seat should still be our top priority. It's a big driver of economic opportunity and quality-of-life. I do agree that trips other than commutes are super important, just secondary: given a choice, I'd rather make a transfer on my way to parties in Uptown one night a week than make a transfer every morning on my way to work. (For the record I agree that Uptown is super important and I think it's a travesty that nobody's even talking about a way to connect it to the CBD without a transfer.)
I mean, the Ford Site is already served by aBRT.
It's served by aBRT but not to the interior of the site, and not with one-seat service to either CBD. I don't think the A Line really competes with the service I described--the 46 bus already exists, after all, and improving its service quality to aBRT and adding Ford as a destination seems to make a lot of sense.
Your alternate LRT route differs from mine by replacing the benefits of serving the entire Midtown corridor with one-seat service to downtown and doubled service at the Franklin Station and one of Cedar Riverside's two LRT stations. I'm not sure how that tradeoff puts anyone ahead. Your route also increases by 33% train traffic in the Minneapolis CBD. I don't think there's anywhere in the MSP area where you could run three routes along the same track at 10 minute headways that would both deserve that treatment and not be extremely congested. It would require running a tunnel.
Well, it's trading one-seat CBD service for one-seat CBD service: Uptown--Downtown St. Paul vs. Highland/Ford--Downtown Mpls. (In both alignments Ford and South Mpls get direct service to Downtown St. Paul.) IMO the latter alignment adds more value; I imagine there's more interest in travel between that pair, and more jobs and events and shopping drawing people to Downtown Minneapolis than Downtown St. Paul, but I don't have data to back that up.

Re: traffic in the CBD...well, we're one of the largest metro areas in North America without a subway or elevated rail. If we ever plan on offering more service than just the Blue and Green lines, it will eventually become a necessity. That's actually a good problem to have--the congestion and ridership would justify the investment in a way we couldn't back when we built the original Hiawatha Line. Look to Seattle for an example of a similar-sized area that eventually moved its CBD spine underground once traffic made it necessary.

DanPatchToget
Rice Park
Posts: 444
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: CP Ford Spur to Highland Park

Postby DanPatchToget » February 25th, 2018, 9:35 pm

mamundsen wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 8:38 pm
This could all be moved to Fantasy transit. They will not be putting transit on CP spur. Highland will be served by A Line and Riverview. No way they add a 3rd.
There are plenty of posts in other threads that "could" be moved to fantasy, but unless we're talking about something ridiculous like maglev or HSR on the Ford Spur, I think we're fine. And unless you're psychic, you don't know what's going to happen to the Ford Spur. Wild card event is CP doesn't abandon it and a few industries are still served (highly doubtful, but they still own it so there's a chance).


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest