B Line Lake St Rapid Bus, Midtown Rail Transit

[Viktor Vaughn]

Thanks to all who responded to my single/double track questions. It does seem like a reasonable option.


Talindsay, what did you mean by this comment? I'm not seeing how the bicycle coordinator relates to no rapid transit in the greenway. Nor do I understand what you mean by the double/single streetcar not precluding rapid transit buildout later. Could you elaborate?

Realistically speaking however, the minute RT decided that Minneapolis needed a bicycle coordinator, it became clear that full rapid transit in the Greenway wasn't going to happen in the near future. I like the double/single streetcar arrangement because it doesn't preclude proper rapid transit buildout later, and allows infrastructure to get constructed in the mean time.

[talindsay]

Thanks to all who responded to my single/double track questions. It does seem like a reasonable option.


Talindsay, what did you mean by this comment? I'm not seeing how the bicycle coordinator relates to no rapid transit in the greenway. Nor do I understand what you mean by the double/single streetcar not precluding rapid transit buildout later. Could you elaborate?

Sure, I'll be glad to. The Greenway has quite a lot of ROW, but it's chopped up funny with the old bridges, the sloping sides, the bicycle path, and at places, the odd shifts of the various elements within the ROW. In order to fit full double-tracked rapid transit into the space available, they would have to either (1) remove or drastically narrow the bicycle road; or (2) rebuild several bridges in tight spots, and square off the sloping sides of the Greenway. The latter is not only cost-prohibitive right now, it also probably couldn't pass an environmental review because the bridges are considered historic structures that can only be replaced if they reach some critical structural deficiency levels.

So, given current constraints, only by substantially reducing the bicycle amenity in the Greenway could they fit double tracks in there given current other constraints. The mayor's decision to substantially raise non-motorized transportation's stature in the city bureaucracy clearly indicates a policy shift on the city's part that will preclude substantial reductions in the bicycle amenity, and hence it's not really feasible to imagine the city approving a double-track line at this time.

The single/double arrangement is, in my opinion, a very good interim solution, but it *is* an interim solution; it will provide significant mobility improvements in my opinion, but it will not achieve the levels of service necessary to be deemed rapid transit in a meaningful sense of the term. However, establishing the line's presence in the Greenway and establishing a significant user base for it should go a long way towards making its expansion into a true rapid-transit line more likely as the bridges get replaced and/or the Greenway bicycle path gets supplanted by other city priorities. Also, the single/double plan advanced by the Greenway coalition had the added benefit of being *very inexpensive*, which should help it move forward. Incremental improvements, aligned with bridge replacements and/or other shifts in Greenway use planning, will also be affordable and can improve service quality incrementally as the Greenway continues to evolve.

[NickP]

Talinsday, do you, or anyone else, know if there is an official structural status on the bridges? I biked under them the other day and there is a lot of rebar visible. I was wondering if they didn't need an update soon anyways.

[seanrichardryan]

The greenway is on the National Register for some reason. The current bridges will remain.

[talindsay]

I don't know what the structural status on them is; MnDot does track them, I'm sure. I also know that while they *are* on the National Register they *can* be replaced when certain criteria are met - hence they could replace the ones that have been recently replaced with a different style of bridge. But they can't just tear them down because they want to put transit in the Greenway; and I don't believe they can be replaced simply to expand the capacity of the roads traveling over them either. If anybody knows the exact status of these bridges it would be good to know.

[mattaudio]

They do replace some bridges. I'm assuming Nicollet Ave would get replaced if it is reopened. Portland was replaced in the last few years, and Park is being replaced this summer.

[mulad]

There has also been talk of de-listing the corridor from the National Register of Historic Places in order to get around this, though I'm sure there would be a lot of pressure to avoid doing that. Of course, if any funding for the Midtown Greenway came about because of the NRHP listing, then such money should be paid back if the corridor was de-listed. I wonder if they could just drop certain sections from the listing?

Anyway, I've mentioned before that each of the full-width "portals" under the historic bridges originally had enough room for two freight tracks. If you walk or ride along the corridor, most of the bridges have a full portal on the south end, but there's a slope partially filling in some of them. In my mind, this is all a matter of building retaining walls. Would adding a few more retaining walls destroy the character of the trench? I'm pretty dubious about that, particularly since whatever the "period of significance" is defined as for this stretch, it was an industrial corridor with smoke-belching trains and businesses. People will whine about the reduction in greenery, but perhaps that could be mitigated by shady-side ivy plants to create a green curtain along the wall? (I don't know enough about plants...)

Besides, wouldn't it be considered historic to add/restore tracks to the corridor?

[mattaudio]

I've also thought it would make sense to leverage private development along the Greenway to help connect the trail and/or transit stops to the street level.

A little public investment and guidance would allow these private buildings to potentially walk out to the trail or a transit station, and they could even serve as ADA-compliant vertical circulation.

[NickP]

^^^Agreed. I understand the corridor is on the NRHP, but how did the development in Uptown (Elan I think) get away with their plaza? I am all for what they did but I would think the alteration would go against the NRHP status. Maybe none of what they are buidling is technically in the greenway?

[MNdible]

The trench itself is considered to be historic, but that doesn't mean that they can't touch anything.

[twincitizen]

A little public investment and guidance would allow these private buildings to potentially walk out to the trail or a transit station, and they could even serve as ADA-compliant vertical circulation.

mattaudio for Mayor!

[MNdible]

As long as he can find a source for these magical public funds, I'd tend to agree.

[twincitizen]

They're right here: http://www.metrocouncil.org/Communities ... pment.aspx We're just not putting them in the right place. (*cough* like giving Surly $500k from this fund after already giving them $2MM in various cleanup grants)

[mattaudio]

Alternatives Analysis public meetings this week:
http://www.metrotransit.org/midtown-transitway-home

Tuesday, May 21
6 to 8 p.m.
Colin Powell Center, 3rd Floor
2924 4th Avenue South

Thursday, May 23
6 to 8 p.m.
Whittier Clinic
2810 Nicollet Avenue South

[David Greene]

And to add to what MNdible said about single/double tracking: apparently some group of fools are convinced that the bridges are historic and should be preserved! What a crock!

That group is the Federal Government. And it's not the bridges, it's the embankments that are the issue.

I know, I don't understand it either. Fortunately, there really is no service level tradeoff going from full double-track to single-/double-track.

[David Greene]

This corridor needs to be fast enough to be part of the regional network. If you were traveling from Hopkins to the airport, I would hope SW to Greenway to Hiawatha would be a lot faster than SW to Hiawatha, even with the extra transfer.

Also I would think the people taking this from Hopkins to the airport and visa versa would be much more willing to transfer to another train as opposed to a bus.

I really question whether this line would see that kind of usage. As someone who grew up in Hopkins, I think it much more likely that residents would take a car down 169 to 494.

I think there are some hard questions to ask about the purpose of this corridor. Should the enhancements serve trips within the corridor or are we primarily looking at end-to-end service? Decisions about mode are all going to flow from the answer to that question.

I find it hard to believe that there will be enough end-to-end riders to justify the cost of a streetcar. Let's say I wanted to go from Uptown to Bloomington. A streetcar would be faster, yes, but would it be faster enough than aBRT to justify the cost? Especially given the challenges of creating viable pedestrian connections from the trench to Lake St.?

I honestly don't know. I don't think we should be making assumptions that one or the other is a _fait_accompli_.

[Tcmetro]

Personally, I think the idea of rail transit in the corridor is very smart. We literally have a grade-separated corridor one block from the longest commercial corridor in Minneapolis. The Lake St buses are slow, frequent, and overcrowded. This is honestly one of the most logical investments we can make. I'm not too worried about station spacing, the proposals are for stops every 1/2-3/4 miles, and provide good access for the denser neighborhoods north of Lake St.

There aren't really any challenges in creating pedestrian connections from Lake St to the corridor. Hennepin and Lyndale are well connected, Nicollet will see a new connection with the reopening of the street, and Chicago has the hospitals and the Midtown Exchange. The most difficult streets are 5th Ave and Bloomington, but those can easily be fixed.

I just hope that the line can be built to LRT spec (single or double tracked) so that we can take advantage of the operating facility that will be a part of the SW line.

[UptownSport]

Personally, I think the idea of rail transit in the corridor is very smart. We literally have a grade-separated corridor one block from the longest commercial corridor in Minneapolis. The Lake St buses are slow, frequent, and overcrowded. This is honestly one of the most logical investments we can make.

Agree with that, seems a no-brainer-
I'd be for more frequent stops- Take the 21 off lake- It'd be in effect BRT without (much) infrastructure.

Win for everyone!

[mattaudio]

Anyone going to the meeting this evening?

[twincitizen]

Probably going on Thursday.

Complete heresay, but supposedly Gary Schiff is/was hoping for the Greenway/Lake Street loop option. Don't vote for that guy, yikes.

My number one and two concerns are making it fast (no additional stations) and making it future-proof (eastward extension ready). A single station should be able to serve Nicollet and 35W. This is rapid service. Lake Street will still have frequent stop bus service, hopefully with marginal improvements