Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[MNdible]

I think this has been discussed before, but were the state to buy them out, is there an option to make the shift to the BNSF tracks further west? Like outside of the metro area further west?

[mattaudio]

I believe that would be the western terminus of the line, at Hanley Falls (near Granite Falls). It's not a realistic option since most shipping on the line is headed to/from points east via handoffs to the Class I railroads at freight yards in the metro area.

[MNdible]

Or south to the UP?

[David Greene]

I urge everyone to look at that document and review the "Old 169" alignment. It's a former (removed) freight line that is now a pedestrian trail that has some development along it. Houses would need to be removed, but the alignment itself for freight makes a lot more sense than the one that's being considered. They quote $120MM in 2009, so it surely would be more now, but it seems worthy of discussion. I'm surprised the "Safety in the Park" folks from SLP haven't brought it up now that the proposed re-route has gotten so ugly and expensive.

It has been discussed on numerous occasions. It was just brought up at the last CAC meeting (not that particular route, but looking at other freight routes). I would not be surprised if some other options get looked at, though I have not heard anything official about it.

[David Greene]

You go with what you have and adjust as you get new information.

Glad to hear you're finally onboard with adjusting to 3C!

I know you're joking, but we still don't have any information that would justify the change.

[mulad]

Connecting to the UP would require building a new connection across the Minnesota River to Shakopee via Carver or Chaska. That had been studied at one point and wasn't a terrible option if I recall, but a new route is always going to cost a lot. There was a bridge in Carver up until just a few years ago, though it wouldn't have worked well since it was oriented more toward trains headed south (not a fatal flaw, but not great either).

[mattaudio]

It was also studied to connect the TC&W to the U.P. via heading south on the Dan Patch Line and crossing the Dan Patch Bridge in Savage. Obviously the TC&W thought this was a potential solution, since they purchased the river bridge and are the current owners.
Mike, any chance you have a copy of the original TC&W reroute study? I remember seeing it but I never saved a copy.

[UptownSport]

You go with what you have and adjust as you get new information.

Glad to hear you're finally onboard with adjusting to 3C!

I know you're joking, but we still don't have any information that would justify the change.

Lets be honest, there would never be any information that would justify the change ; this was decided before project was started, and spin on how great the 'job creator' line is will continue no matter the facts.

[mulad]

I think I've lost track of the particular study that looked at a reroute via UP. I'm thinking it was from 2003. I'll have to try poking around this evening after work.

Here's some background from the FTA on the way freight operations were negotiated on Salt Lake City's Blue Line (UTA TRAX): http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/12840_9633.html

They allow freight operations on the line between midnight and 5 am. It includes a note that the time-share scheme let them get around the issue of the TRAX system legally becoming a railroad and becoming subject to railroad labor regulations, which is certainly a minefield that would be best to avoid...

[sad panda]

Are you thinking the 2009 TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study done by Hennepin County? If so, it can be found at: http://www.hennepin.us/files/HennepinUS ... .18.09.pdf

[mulad]

Hmm, yeah, it does get mentioned in that doc. I was certain that there was an older one too, partly since Google Maps was in wide use by 2009 and could have been used rather than the ugly maps from that DeLorme software (though I guess the maps were made with a 2006 version...)

[kiliff75]

One of the mayoral candidates supports running the 3C alignment:

“The cost assumptions that under-girded that analysis are no longer valid,” he said.

He later added: “The path that we’re going down now leads to no project, leads to no train.”

Winton said Minneapolis and its suburban neighbor are in a “zero-sum game,” and that both should deny the project their official OK, known as municipal consent. Together, he proposed, they could “get leverage” on the Met Council to reconsider the old 3C alignment.

In advocating for 3C, Winton used an argument familiar to anyone who was paying attention during the locally preferred selection process: It’s a choice between routing transit “where people live” in Uptown or “through the woods” on the Kenilworth Corridor.

http://www.journalmpls.com/news/2013-ci ... n-greenway

[orangevening]

^ That's ironic and a typical Republic move- He does this interview on the Midtown Greenway when the Midtown Greenway Coalition was pretty clear on it's support for the 3A/Kenilworth route. The 3C route would force bikers over the LRT tunnel/ portal and on to Nicollet was one of the reasons the Coalition supported the 3A route

[Viktor Vaughn]

I agree with Cam Winton's position on reevaluating 3c, but it's hard to know whether he's interested in better transit or just derailing the train all together. This might fall into the category of the Cato Institute (etc) arguing for buses over trains, and then turning around and working to cut funding for buses.

At Open Streets yesterday he expressed opposition to cycle tracks, "because that funding could be used for books in schools".

I don't trust the man; he's very slippery. The comparison someone made to Pawlenty in the 'Mayor's Race' thread is right on.

[RailBaronYarr]

While it would be a disappointment for bicyclers and trail walk/runners, can we point out that having a single at-grade crossing in a several mile long, grade-separated trail would be a very small price to pay. If (obviously, big IF) 3C were actually re-opened as an option, the Greenway/Bicycle Coalitions would have to make some concessions - look at the world of alternatives and think outside the impact to just the Greenway or Kenilworth trails. Homes being taken, freight rail through football fields, etc.

[Silophant]

I agree with Cam Winton's position on reevaluating 3c, but it's hard to know whether he's interested in better transit or just derailing the train all together. This might fall into the category of the Cato Institute (etc) arguing for buses over trains, and then turning around and working to cut funding for buses.

At Open Streets yesterday he expressed opposition to cycle tracks, "because that funding could be used for books in schools".

I don't trust the man; he's very slippery. The comparison someone made to Pawlenty in the 'Mayor's Race' thread is right on.

This is what worries me the most about his opposition to the Nicollet-Central Streetcar.

"Instead, let's use the $200 million to bring BRT improvements all over the city!" sounds like a good idea, but it could easily turn into "Instead, lets save and only spend $20 million to bring BRT improvements to Nicollet-Central!" then into "Instead, lets save and spend only $20,000 to to put a heated shelter at 7th and Nicollet!"

[orangevening]

While it would be a disappointment for bicyclers and trail walk/runners, can we point out that having a single at-grade crossing in a several mile long, grade-separated trail would be a very small price to pay. If (obviously, big IF) 3C were actually re-opened as an option, the Greenway/Bicycle Coalitions would have to make some concessions - look at the world of alternatives and think outside the impact to just the Greenway or Kenilworth trails. Homes being taken, freight rail through football fields, etc.

Obviously their focus is looking out for the Greenway and the people who use it. They have worked extremely hard to keep the Greenway as nice as it today, not to mention creating the Greenway in the first place. If they haven't fought as hard as they have we would have a much different (and uglier) Greenway that we would today. Plus many of the issues of the Kenilworth alignment/relocation/co-location weren't brought to light until recently. Which is pretty shady of the Met council-but that's another issue.

[orangevening]

I'd shoot my mouth off and say cost would be silly high;
but since price seems to be no object ...

I'm more at Matt's idea instead of trying to find ways to save a bad project that just beached itself

Obviously not a equal comparison, at the same time when I move back here from Seattle they were working on a LRT line from Downtown to Capital Hill and then to the University (then eventually one line will go east over the lake AND another continuing north to NorthGate mall)- the whole damn line underground . Minneapolis is smaller too. If your going to do a tunnel at least put it where people are and are going to use it- i.e. Hennipen [sic]

[UptownSport]

. If your going to do a tunnel at least put it where people are and are going to use it- i.e. Hennipen [sic]

QFT

[twincitizen]

Indefensible: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-89Sw ... AG0471.jpg

0 residents within 1/4 mile. Are we sure this is the right place for an LRT station?