urbanMSP

At the (considerable) risk of getting hammered again by some of the nice people on this board, doesn't the least expensive, simplest, most acceptable option seem like co-locating freight and LRT, skipping any tunnels, and relocating the bike path???

OF COURSE!! punish the bikers. We all know bikes aren't *real* means of transportation and therefore bikers, blah, they are just 2nd-class citizens who only bike because they can't afford *real* transportation (i.e. a car)

You know why moving the bike trail is the cheapest option? Because bicycle infrastructure is (relatively) cheap to construct. Thank you R.T. Rybak and the other leaders of Minneapolis for standing up for people who think traveling with 2 wheels (vs. four) is the way to go and important biking corridors like Kenliworth are unique and special to Minneapolis and make it was it is today.

But, your screed aside, doesn't it make the most sense to relocate the bike path? It saves piles of money and there's no reason to think a relocated path needs to be second class - after all, they could coast it with gold and still save money.

Thank you R.T. Rybak and the other leaders of Minneapolis for standing up for people who think traveling with 2 wheels (vs. four) is the way to go and important biking corridors like Kenliworth are unique and special to Minneapolis and make it was it is today.

Running it through on an elevated path would make it even more unique and more special and cheaper than the alternative options. And increases safety for cyclists as it would create a grade separated crossing at Cedar as the elevated path effectively is a bridge over Cedar just for trail users. It could be one less site adding to the bike/car crash numbers.

Just saying. an elevated path is kinda a first class treatment for two-wheelers.

The mayor of SLP has a counterpoint to Mark Andrews' recent published comment in the Strib.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 09651.html

Summary, Mark Andrews misstated what was in the (preliminary) agreement significantly, there was never a final agreement, and the railroads were never party to any of it.

I'm curious to know more about the feasibility of an elevated bike path, a sort of causeway option. Isn't it Denmark where they've done this more extensively? When you don't need high weight capacities I could see this being a real option worthy of consideration. Of course, as evidenced by the Sabo bridge, peds and cyclists will go out of their way to avoid grade changes and many seem to abhor pedaling up or down hills.

There are multiple policies at the city, county and regional levels that support the continued provision of a high-quality, conveniently routed bike facility in Kenilworth or roughly paralleling it. I haven't seen an official bike path reroute that would come anywhere near what exists in Kenilworth. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I certainly haven't seen it. Today that path only sees around 2,000 trips a day, but continued consistent push towards cycling as a viable transportation option regionally (which seems likely since this region seems incapable of accomplishing more complex transit projects) could easily see that expand to 10-20,000 trips/day. That won't happen if the trail is rerouted onto a serpentine sidepath, it will only happen if a way is found for the trail to continue on a relatively straight and separated route.

In contrast, there are no policies at any level of government supporting the continued existence of cookie-cutter 1980s middle-class townhomes. I'm not surprised but highly disappoint that this option, which actually would have improved the aesthetics and increased available park space in Kenilworth, seems to have dropped off the table.

Well, yes, it is difficult to pedal up hills, learned that very early.
The trsil isn't only for commuter bicyclists.
My observations are that people use it for lesuire more (I don't, generally see trail during early weekday hours).

Question, again, is the line worth inconvenencing anyone, no matter how they use the trail?

I'm just not seeing how it helps Minneapolis considering the costs.

"In contrast, there are no policies at any level of government supporting the continued existence of cookie-cutter 1980s middle-class townhomes."

Um, the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

just sayin'

At any rate, assuming you do anything, running freight trains and LRT on the same tracks (at different times) would be the most cost-effective for society overall, but the freight railroad will want a side payment for the inconvenience, and FRA will want to be lobbied.

You want public use? How about 4? I'll give you LRT, and throw on freight rail, a bike trail, and parkland, and a cherry on top! How much more would you expect to pay for this alternative? $350 million? $150 million? $100 million? How about just $50 million more than the LPA project cost! Act now, and I'll also throw in a feeling of security that your city-defining hydrological feature won't be affected! But you have to act now, our sanity storeroom is clearing out fast!

There was a hilarious (I thought) comment on the Jeff Jacobs commentary that "Coke admitted that New Coke was a failure, so why can't these guys?".

There are multiple policies at the city, county and regional levels that support the continued provision of a high-quality, conveniently routed bike facility in Kenilworth or roughly paralleling it. I haven't seen an official bike path reroute that would come anywhere near what exists in Kenilworth. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I certainly haven't seen it. Today that path only sees around 2,000 trips a day, but continued consistent push towards cycling as a viable transportation option regionally (which seems likely since this region seems incapable of accomplishing more complex transit projects) could easily see that expand to 10-20,000 trips/day. That won't happen if the trail is rerouted onto a serpentine sidepath, it will only happen if a way is found for the trail to continue on a relatively straight and separated route.

In contrast, there are no policies at any level of government supporting the continued existence of cookie-cutter 1980s middle-class townhomes. I'm not surprised but highly disappoint that this option, which actually would have improved the aesthetics and increased available park space in Kenilworth, seems to have dropped off the table.

Thank you woofner, for putting things in much nicer and productive way than I could. I was crabby, tired and saw a fight I wanted to take my bad night out on. I get tired off of how little respect a lot of driver's have for bikes including bike lanes. Yes bikers break the rules of the road, although I think they get a bad rap for it since I see cars and even more so, pedestrians do so even worse and nobody complains about them.

*Rant over*

Back on topic- I just *can't* picture a elevated trail here. Elevated LRT yes, although I don't think neighbors would like it. Plus the trail at the pinch point isn't very wide (each way + ped lane are right next to each other), wouldn't they need to take out the townhomes to have enough space anyway? The point about grade separation over Cedar Lake parkway is mute since most cars stop for bikes there (I wish they would have a light there though)

"Hennepin County [has hired] a Colorado firm to take a fresh look at rerouting the freight train traffic that has become a stumbling block to the light-rail transit (LRT) project."

"The county asked the Met Council [to hire] Transportation Technology Center Inc. in Pueblo, Colo., to explore alternatives to a reroute option facing resistance from St. Louis Park officials and some residents."

"Transportation Technology Center is a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads, an industry trade group representing freight carriers and others."

[Translation: potential for pro-Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company (TC&W) bias]

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/222279031.html

[Translation: potential for pro-Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company (TC&W) bias]l

It really can't get much worse as far as that goes. The Railroad has not been willing to compromise on much. They graciously allowed the engineers to put the LRT closer than 25' away from the freight centerline in Kenilworth.

That said, if some additional work gives public officials some cover by allowing them to say they explored every possible option, I guess I have no problem with that. $10,000 is cheap.

I'm still holding out hope for the "Old 169" alignment.

Not gonna happen. The number of property acquisitions necessary would make "Brunswick Central" or Kenilworth co-location pale in comparison. There are so many townhomes and apartments built in the path of that old alignment. If we could go back in time, yeah that would be the way to do it, but unfortunately that ROW was abandoned too long ago and we did not preserve it.

The best case that could emerge from this study is a reroute or connection made west of the metro area. It might involve some compensation for TC&W, but as Transportationist / David Levinson once pointed out, TC&W's entire business isn't worth all that much.

The best case that could emerge from this study is a reroute or connection made west of the metro area. It might involve some compensation for TC&W, but as Transportationist / David Levinson once pointed out, TC&W's entire business isn't worth all that much.

I completely agree -- this is likely the best, and cheapest, solution.

The best case that could emerge from this study is a reroute or connection made west of the metro area. It might involve some compensation for TC&W, but as Transportationist / David Levinson once pointed out, TC&W's entire business isn't worth all that much.

I completely agree -- this is likely the best, and cheapest, solution.

Yep, I really hope this happens. It would be a win-win. However, TC&W has opposed it for a long time, according to people I've talked to.

Looks like the deep tunnel is officially dead:

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/222369461.html

3C, and I'll just keep repeating it. Far too much waste has been concentrated on these 3A variations. 3A = rich folks line, no other way to put it and if I hear further cries that it will serve North Mpls, all two stops at the edge of Bryn Marr (which is so unlike the rest of North Mpls) no thanks. A better designed Bottineu option can best serve Near North and better trigger the Basset Master Plan, which will also help the Northside.

It appears this line and Bottineu are horrible examples of social engineering that fail to capitalize on higher density zones.

I hear complaints that 3c will redline Phillips, hogwash. I also hear us folks in the the Wedge, Lowry Hill, ECCO, Lyndale and Whittier already have decent public transportation - again hogwash! Traffic is getting nasty in these neighborhoods and the explosion of apartments along Midtown has yet to take shape, car wise.

The current Green Line mess, as stated, is nothing more than a suburban line (which will get riders), yet only limited ridership from the well to do of Minneapolis. 3C would address a thriving, booming section of Mpls, which at the end of the day could finally become a better example of sustainable, walkable, high density living.

Unbelievable how shortsighted the planning for this line has been and continues to be - I fear the compromise will be lame and completely squash any revived hope for 3c. Too bad.

3c could also finally lump into a plan to eliminate the Kmart Nicollet nightmare and improve the odd circuity between Isles and Calhoun. Eat Street could finally live up to its name once 3c is done. Anyways, I'm whining. I'm sure some of you disagree. I'm a bit insensitive here, I know many Minneapolitans fear Chicago, SF, or NYC style density which this city is far from reaching, even with a 3c approval. I'm just getting so damn sick and tired of the cars and buses on Lyndale, Nicollet, Lake and Hennepin, esp, which has become awful - side streets as well. I don't know how some bikers deal with it - courage and patience I suppose.

PS Anyone else find he Tea Party types beyond entertaining and myopic whenever you read the comments that follow a Strib article on SWC? If I see the word "boondoggle" again, I'm going to choke the first person I see driving by him-herself in rush hour traffic, esp if they're in an SUV talking on a cell.

3C would address a thriving, booming section of Mpls, which at the end of the day could finally become a better example of sustainable, walkable, high density living.

Isn't a streetcar, that makes 3 times as many stops as light rail, a better means of serving dense areas like this? Why do we still want 3C when there's a very good chance we'll get streetcars in Midtown Corridor and along Nicollet?