B Line Lake St Rapid Bus, Midtown Rail Transit

[MSPtoMKE]

It seems to me like gauntlet tracks are probably a good solution when you have a relatively short pinch point in the right of way. In particular, I can remember seeing one in Milan where trams went through a portal in the city walls to enter the old city. Once you start to extend the length of the gauntlet section, you are increasing the materials cost. Yes, you save on the price and complexity of a switch and on right of way, but the materials cost would be about the same as double track, and you lose the operational advantage of a crossover. So, if there are bridges in the greenway that can't accommodate two tracks, that is where you would most likely see double track, however, the only proposed single track sections are at the ends, with few bridges to contend with.

[Tcmetro]

Looking through the project maps, Metro Transit has created two track options:

Option 1 - Double track throughout, except between West Lake Stn and Calhoun Beach Club, Hennepin and Bryant, Garfield and Blaisdell, and 17th and Hiawatha.

Option 2 - Double track throughout, except between West Lake Stn and Calhoun Beach Club, and 17th and Hiawatha.

http://www.metrotransit.org/project-library

It seems to me that the most detrimental impact to the trails is between Hennepin and Bryant, and that the segment between Garfield and Blaisdell wouldn't really have too many impacts to the trail. It would require the construction of a retaining wall for double track; however that retaining wall is less than 5 feet tall in most places.

EDIT: Even considering that, the worst impact is only under the Hennepin Ave bridge. The other bridges can be modified to accommodate double track and a full-width ped/bike path.

[mattaudio]

Wouldn't modification of the Hennepin Bridge already be in order to provide vertical circulation down to the trench?
The typical station profile shows a "headhouse" built to the south of the trench. Due to existing constraints (Mozaic on the south side) and transit connectivity (transit station on existing bridge) it would make the most sense to have an island platform with vertical circulation down from both sides of Hennepin similar in concept to the 46th St Orange Line station.

[Tcmetro]

Honestly I think that vertical circulation to the bridge deck (where the bus stop is) is the best idea, but it seems that Metro Transit is taking the cheap option here.

I'm actually surprised that the Hennepin Ave bridge was built so limiting to the trails and transit. Seems like it would have been a no-brainer at conception to accommodate both.

[woofner]

Uptown Transit Station has long been my favorite poster child for the failure of our fractured regional governance structure. It was designed by the Met Council before MnDot decided to sever the TCW rail line at Hiawatha and before Hennepin County was cajoled into building the Midtown Greenway. Of course no attempt was made to coordinate any of these changes but hilariously one of the station's contractors pretend that they planned for it successfully.

I would agree that additional vertical circulation from the east side of the transit station would be ideal, but would require a taking of the Old Chicago property (Matt's idea of a configuration like 46th St station would be even better but waaaaay too much money). It would be cool if any level of government were still proactively developing affordable housing so they could incorporate vertical circulation into a building there. I suppose it could still be done, but that site is probably too small for a market-rate developer.

[Tcmetro]

So, the TAC met on the 16th, and a slew of new documents have popped up on the Midtown Transitway website, including:

- Lake Street Arterial BRT before 2020 targeted.

- Talk of extending arterial BRT to Downtown St. Paul during peak hours.

- No LPA recommendation by the TAC. Decision will be made on Feb. 12th

- Lots of new documents!

http://www.metrotransit.org/project-library
http://www.metrotransit.org/meetings-and-events

[Nathan]

I love the look of the Turf options, purely out of aesthetic in the Greenway... Cool stuff, thanks for the links!

[Tcmetro]

Notes from the TAC meeting on the 16th:

http://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites/ ... -notes.pdf

[Tcmetro]

Nobody would happen to know which of the alternatives was chosen at this mornings PAC meeting, would they?

[Silophant]

The combo option. Rail in the corridor, and Enhanced Bus on Lake St.

[Tcmetro]

Nice. So now we have to find $50 million for the enhanced buses and the $200 million for the LRT. Is this a project that will apply for FTA New Starts funding?

I wonder how receptive the FTA will be to our "dual alignment" option. I recall reading something about how Austin, TX transportation officials applied for Small Starts funding for a limited-stop "BRT" line on their main north-south corridor that is now in operation. They launched a new study of the corridor and were told that the funds used for BRT would have to be payed back if they selected a new mode of transportation, as the original study said that the limited-stop bus service was actually the best match for the corridor, not a light-rail line.

[kiliff75]

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/245882761.html

[Silophant]

[quote=Strib Commenter]"The expected cost of the project is between $235 and $270 million"-------sounds like we could probably do 5 or 6 projects like this throughtout the metro for the same cost as the one southwest lrt, and serve a helluva lot more people.[/quote]

Sigh. Sure, if you can find 5 or 6 more dense corridors with preexisting grade separation, we'll get right on that.

[bubzki2]

Not only grade separation, but tracks that are not owned or used by railroads. There are other corridors, but they currently carry trains, right?

[Silophant]

Right. I should have included that. For example, I heard some discussion once about the trench through Dinkytown being used for a streetcar line, but the track through there is considered an active line by BNSF, despite being actually used for trains approximately once per never, and it would be extraordinarily complicated to convince them to share.

[min-chi-cbus]

Don't they have to share with the future Southwest Corridor through Kenilworth? That's an active line. The North Star line to Big Lake also shares with BNSF, and it's causing big delays.

Sharing isn't unheard of, although with the apparent increase in oil shipped by rail I don't know how some of these corridors are going to survive the long-run given the increase in the amount of total trains per day.

[mulad]

Northstar shares freight tracks for almost the entire distance (only the Big Lake and Target Field stations have their own spur tracks) -- but that's commuter rail. Light rail is almost always completely separated from freight tracks, though there are a small handful of exceptions. I've suggested having Southwest share a short segment of track through the Kenilworth area (1-2 miles, much like Matt Steele's plan of single-tracking LRT for a short distance), but I don't think anyone has suggested running LRT on the existing track farther than that. The LRT line would parallel the Twin Cities & Western tracks from Minneapolis (or St. Louis Park, if the reroute ever happens) out to Hopkins before the LRT line turns south along a greenfield route.

One of my suggestions over the years has indeed been to implement commuter rail on the existing rails, while putting LRT on another nearby route (such as in a tunnel down to the Midtown Greenway, then following Excelsior Boulevard out to Hopkins), but I don't think anything like that has been on the radar of local decision-makers at all. 30-minute service frequency can be implemented pretty easily on a single-track line with just a few sidings (sidings about 15 minutes apart, probably around 7-10 miles, depending on speed). Mixing freight and passenger operations gets somewhat tricky, but a few freight runs can be squeezed into the midday lull or shifted to the overnight hours. TC&W still only has 3-4 trains per day at the moment, though I don't know how many of them (if any) need to make multiple stops along the way to serve customers.

[David Greene]

I don't remember where I read it (here?) but I distinctly recall someone stating that Mike Opat has basically said, "Go to hell" on CTIB funding for this project in its dual-mode form. This would be a good project to organize an UrbanMSP push to get done. I think we all agree it would be a huge improvement for the region.

[twincitizen]

That was me. Ideally, I've love to see the City of Minneapolis (i.e. electeds) fall in love with the project and push hard for an accelerated timeline.

Judging from a couple of public meetings I've been to, this project is going to meet resistance from:
A: folks who live near the 3 at-grade intersections west of Hennepin (Humboldt, Irving, and James)
B: some bicyclists who see the Greenway as belonging to them and view this project as degradation of the bicycle corridor.

Rant regarding group B:
As a 3-season cyclist living a block from the Greenway myself, nothing irritates me more than hardcore cyclists who don't respect the superiority of transit in the mobility heirarchy. That's a really simplistic/antagonistic way of saying there are some cyclists with an incredibly myopic view in which everyone has the ability (or desire) to ride a bicycle, especially in the winter. A fast train in the Greenway would carry more passengers than the number of cyclists on the nicest day of the year. In the winter, transit would win that contest by a factor in the hundreds. I'm not naive enough to think that adding transit isn't going to have negative effects on the bicycling experience down there. There is obviously going to be a loss of greenery and the addition of trains moving pretty quickly. On the plus side, there will be enough additional lighting, cameras, and eyes on the bike trail that will make it safe for all users, 24/7. Currently, there are people who will not ride alone in the Greenway after dark, for fear of physical attacks (either by muggers or kids throwing objects from above).

[MNdible]

...there are some cyclists with an incredibly myopic view in which everyone has the ability (or desire) to ride a bicycle, especially in the winter. A fast train in the Greenway would carry more passengers than the number of cyclists on the nicest day of the year. In the winter, transit would win that contest by a factor in the hundreds.

QFT.