Midtown Greenway Trail Extension

[COLSLAW5]

My word, love how the estimates put this at a 15 to 18 year time line from the start of any actual work.

[BikesOnFilm]

15 to 18 year timeline from the day CPKC abandons this right away, at that.

At this point, I'd rather we turn our attention towards building a protected bikeway on Marshall Ave from the river to Ayd Mill. With that, you'd get basically the same thing and bypass needing to deal with CPKC, which might as well be trying to negotiate with a brick wall. Additionally, we'd save $30 million on a bridge and get the project done while those of us who care about it can still ride a bike.

It's not perfect, but perfect is the enemy of done.

[Korh]

Looking at the timeline and thinking of other projects around the metro, I wonder if the bloated timeline is a little bit of "we don't have enough money right now so where gonna extend things and hope we get the rest later" or "where gonna make this a coinvent political football for the next few elections so get out and vote for us if you want to see it done (or vote for us if you want this "wasteful" projected canceled)".

[DanPatchToget]

Another example of why I wish the U.S. rail network was nationalized.

[Tiller]

Yeah when there isn't immediate funding, the default seems to be to drag it out, in hopes that funding eventually materializes. But when it gets dragged out, costs escalate and random nimbys inevitably coalesce together into an opposition (for literally anything). Ownership of railroad trackage/ROW should be handled by the state and railroad companies should just run services on them. Would save us from some of these endless ROW fight headaches.

[DanPatchToget]

Looking at that Met Council presentation, specifically one of the reasons CPKC doesn't want a trail on the bridge:
"Safety: bridge is too narrow to provide sufficient separation between rail operations/trail users"

Meanwhile in Japan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBDRi5ZgXPc

For a less extreme example, there's the Stavne Bru/Bridge in Trondheim, Norway. Probably the closest real life example of what colocation of rail and trail would look like on the Short Line Bridge.

[twincitizen]

Update on the extension https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetin ... Study.aspx

Study Conclusions
1. All three corridor alignment alternatives deemed technically feasible but have unique and significant challenges for implementation.
2. Construction of a trail on the existing Short Line Bridge will not be allowed by the current railroad owner.
3. Corridor Alternative 1 (trail constructed on Short Line Bridge) may be possible through negotiated easements with a future railroad owner or through negotiated outcomes up to and including purchase of the rail corridor from the current railroad owner.
4. The Study acknowledges the possibility that the current rail corridor owner could change for unanticipated reasons and/or the remaining rail-dependent businesses west of the Mississippi River could unexpectedly choose to move their operations or dissolve entirely, which could remove the need for rail freight service west of the river.
5. Each potential partnering government entity will need to assess the potential cost and risk of their anticipated level of participation across all corridor alternatives.
6. The Study recommends that all alternatives (in their present form or as modified during preliminary engineering) should be carried into the environmental review process to ultimately select the most appropriate “preferred alternative.”

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. For Concept Alternative 1 of modifying the existing bridge (which CPKC objects to in their capacity as the owner), Met Council proposes that the government (likely state/MetC or HC) acquire the ROW from CPKC. As the new owner of the bridge, the government would have a different risk tolerance than CPKC for co-location of trail and freight tracks on the existing bridge.

This part isn't mentioned in the presentation, but CPKC is not the operator of freight trains along Hiawatha and over the short line bridge, which is actually MN Commercial Railway (MNNR), correct? Is it to be assumed that MNNR would not object to a trail being co-located on the bridge? While they don't own anything, surely they have some say in this.