Downtown-to-Downtown Rail Capacity Study

[David Greene]

I would say adding a MnPass lane on 94

There was hope for that before Mn/DOT stole the shoulders. Those lanes were supposed to be temporary while the bridge was rebuilt.

[mattaudio]

True, those lanes were stolen from standards. They weren't there in the first place. And my guess is that there aren't federal strings attached (such as there would be for general purpose lanes) because the feds funded the temporary below-standard expansion as a stopgap after the bridge collapse (as David noted).

Solution? Keep the four lanes (and eliminate the lane drop in both directions at Snelling) and make the inside lane a HOT lane. The longer they sit on these lanes as general purpose lanes, the harder it will be to either remove them to comply with engineering standards, or convert them to a use that is more space-efficient within the constrained right of way.

The main problem would be the 280 interchange, since it involves many left exits and entrances. The easiest solution would be to move the southbound 280 to westbound 94 ramp to the right side, and then pop the eastbound HOT lane onto a slightly expanded westbound bridge. The result would still be left exit/entrance going eastbound, but these movements wouldn't interfere with the HOT lane.

On the St Paul end, there's already a left entrance from 12th to westbound 94. This could be the lane-add entrance rather than the 6th Street ramp. Eastbound, there could be a left hand HOT ramp in that same median bulb up to 11th or St. Peter. Of course, the ideal solution would be a HOT slip ramp up to the 5th/6th ramp pair, but that would require bulbing out the existing mainlines and likely flying over the Marion Street bridge.

On the Mpls end, the easiest place to build a slip ramp would be where the mainlines bulb out around 35W at the east end of the Commons. But this would have to connect to 11th Ave for the connection into downtown, which is definitely less ideal than a more direct connection to 6th/7th for crosstown or 11th/12th for Marq2.

[froggie]

MnDOT still has a goal of adding a MnPASS lane to 94 between the downtowns, including changes at the 280 interchange. I've seen several references targeting construction in 2020.

[mattaudio]

I'm hopeful but skeptical - look at how Plymouth fought for the right of their citizens to sit in general purpose lanes that cost more, rather than have the freedom to pay/transit/carpool to avoid congestion on MnPASS lanes that cost less.

[mattaudio]

280 by mattaudio, on Flickr
Count me as skeptical regarding how they can fit those ramps in there, especially due to the RR and Pelham bridges. And how they can fit 5 lanes in each direction (and why they need to).

[mattaudio]

On the St Paul end
On the Mpls end

Looks like the MnDOT study proposes the exact same connections. I guess you can't argue with the spot where the mainlines bulb out around a giant grassy median.

[HiawathaGuy]

280 by mattaudio, on Flickr
Count me as skeptical regarding how they can fit those ramps in there, especially due to the RR and Pelham bridges. And how they can fit 5 lanes in each direction (and why they need to).

Seem's possible...
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9592429 ... a=!3m1!1e3

[seanrichardryan]

The current Vandalia WB ramp is dangerous with little merge space before the 280 NB on ramp. Try it with semis.

But, how about that Rail capacity?

[mulad]

Have there been any updated cost estimates for the I-94 HOT lanes? This study suggests that some minor improvements would run $49 million, but it appears to recommend eventually doing a full rebuild, which was estimated at $485 million (both figures in 2010 dollars). MnDOT likes to phase in changes, and I think they've already done some of it (the automatic speed signs that were added a couple of years ago).

As for rail service, it's hard to say what the costs would look like. Northstar can be something of a guide, but was a significantly different project than what we'd see for a downtown-to-downtown link. It initially cost $320 million, though I think around $40 million of that went into the LRT extension, $100 million went to BNSF for a permanent easement for stations and the ability to operate on the tracks, probably $50-$60 million went to rolling stock, which left around $120 million for stations and the maintenance facility. I'm not sure if the track and signal improvements came from the permanent easement payout or the actual capital portion of the budget.

For connecting the downtowns, we already have the expensive endpoint stations done, including a whole new signaling system for the junction east of SPUD. An extra track probably needs to be added for much of the length, though hopefully adding one won't require property takings, since the easiest routes have had additional tracks in the past that have since been removed. BNSF's Midway Subdivision was quad-tracked, CP's Merriam Park Subdivision was double-tracked, though perhaps not all the way.

Unfortunately, I think it'll be hard to avoid the problem that the line would have to go through two or more rail yards on the way, which requires the train to slow down a bit, and could get blocked by freight trains as they slowly move in and out. The junction at St. Anthony (right where the UMN transitway goes over the tracks) is a significant chokepoint, and the whole Westminster/Division Street complex east of SPUD will still be challenging to update even with the upgraded signals (if they decide to go that direction).

One good thing about taking the BNSF route the whole way is that there are basically zero new at-grade road/street crossings to deal with -- the trains would still cross Nicollet Island at grade and Harrison Street in NE Minneapolis, but that's it. The CP route would have about 6 at-grade crossings unless they were removed/changed.

Anyway, I'm kind of optimistic that the cost could be in the $30-$100 million range, but that's certainly still a lot of dough.

[mattaudio]

Plus, this investment would set the groundwork for passenger tags for any services that would otherwise terminate in one of the two stations, which would benefit ridership on certain regional corridors.

Ideally? I'd love to see one passenger mainline (a third track) added to the Midway sub, and either a buyout of the CP Merriam Park sub or a passenger mainline (a second track) with connection on the north/east side of the MNNR yard. They would merge together with a double track mainline from Midway to Mpls Jct in Northeast.

And a redo of the single track throat on the southwest side of the double track BNSF Nicollet Island Bridge, so passenger trains between Target Field and St. Paul do not interfere with BNSF Wayzata Sub freights to/from Northtown (no idea why this wasn't already built - it would be cheap).

The benefit of this end state would be that trains approaching SPUD from either direction could leave for Minneapolis without reversing direction.

[Tom H.]

I'm trying to imagine some sort of financing scheme for this expansion, using mulad's $30-100M estimate. It would be great if some sort of agency (like CTIB) could float a bond (or issue a grant) to pay for the expansion and use its revenue stream to guarantee repayment. By my count there are something like 5 proposed lines (NLX, Zip, Chicago HSR, Red Rock, Northstar) that could use this connection - simply divide the cost among them ($6-20M each) and either (a) require the projects to pay that amount back to CTIB for trackage rights, or (b) count that CTIB investment towards the state/local match for the project. Is something like this feasible?

[MNdible]

Capital costs are one thing, but I'd suspect that this line would also have operating costs that greatly exceed every other service in the state.

[mattaudio]

That's why it would only make sense as tags/through-running for heavy rail services beyond either station.

[froggie]

If you're intending on using the BNSF Midway Sub, don't forget that Hoffman Junction is an increasingly significant bottleneck that would also have to be addressed. This would be avoided if we use the CP Merriam Park Sub, but only if the trains terminate at SPUD and don't continue east/southeast.

[mulad]

The corridor between SPUD and Hastings has been studied previously, and we have a thread on that: East Metro Rail Capacity Study -- that's partly why it took so long to get SPUD hooked into the main line, as Ramsey County got together with the various railroads to make a more comprehensive plan rather than fighting things out for themselves. It recommended up to $827 million in improvements through the whole corridor, though they will be phased in over time. A lot of it will be paid for by the railroads themselves.

But I think you're right in that they didn't look at passenger service looping around north and then west, rather than heading east/south. It wouldn't go through Hoffman, but it's definitely close enough to have a big impact.

[mattaudio]

Couldn't they just build an additional track that loops from SPUD to the Midway Sub while staying west of the existing tunnel portal that leads further north to CP and the St. Paul Sub?

[mulad]

Seems like a possibility. There's a significant sideways slope to that at times, so I'm not sure how difficult it would be to fill that in. Bridge clearance might be an issue, though the Lafayette Road bridge would probably be the tightest fit. If it's designated as a passenger-only track, some of the difficulty might just disappear since those trains can deal with steeper grades than freights can handle (I think the steeper tracks through here have a 2.5% grade).

[ProspectPete]

What type of frequency would be needed to do a project like this? Like every 30 or 60 minutes? Would it be possible (for starters) to just have a single track and on one set of rolling stock going back and forth on that line kind of like the people mover at the airport?

[holmstar]

One set of rolling stock with 30 minute frequency would mean an average speed of 53mph (11.5 miles with 2 minutes for loading/unloading at each end). That might be doable, but would mean that it would have to be traveling something like double that speed for the middle part of the journey.

[kellonathan]

I was on the special Northstar from SPUD to Target Field for Rail~Volution conference last week.

FYI, it took us about 23min from door-close to door-open via Midway Subdivision.