I appreciate the response, but I still don't see how the cost-benefit equation ever balances out in favor of rail in the Ford Spur west of 7th, especially given the vastly greater likelihood of congestion once it interlines with the mixed-traffic Riverview portion. Your map is pretty, but it's also pure fantasy.
I feel like these projects are so far in the future right now that it's not much of a point to say it's fantasy. Everything we're discussing right now falls into that category.
As for Riverview, I'm
very much on the record as saying that the mixed traffic Riverview section is a joke. Since the project is still a long time away, I'd hope that awful decision would be reconsidered. But my understanding is also that the mixed traffic portion is only a fragment of the route, much closer in to downtown. Two trains in each direction every ten minutes would be tight, but I don't see why it would not be doable.
edit: I'll say that if the Twin Cities were actively considering an LRT spine between Hopkins and downtown St. Paul, it could make sense to have rail in this ROW. But we already know that likely won't be the case for the Riverview section. The Midtown section could be built this way, but just as easily might not be. And it would have cascading effects on a whole list of other planned or hoped-for projects: it would probably rule out bike lanes on 46th and Ford; it would (probably) require two-car stations, adding to impacts on the Midtown Greenway; and a host of other things we haven't even thought about.
The Riverview route was focused on connecting the downtown and the airport. Having it add 11 minutes onto that trip to make a Ford detour never made the slightest bit of sense. But that doesn't mean a separate route couldn't take advantage of that ROW.
The purpose of the Midtown route wouldn't be to connect Hopkins with St. Paul, it'd be to provide METRO-quality service through the second densest part of the urban area. If the Ford Site were built out as hoped for, we would surely count Highland as one of the densest neighborhoods, and it would be worthwhile to expand the METRO system there as well. Especially considering that we have dedicated and abandoned ROW available, serving and connecting areas that are the right density for transit makes sense.
I'm not sure why it would be an issue to build longer stations in the greenway trench. Why wouldn't they do that from the start? Given the density and growth of the Midtown area, any Midtown line probably should be running two to three car trains from the start regardless.
I never quite understood this line when it was proposed on the main page. I don't see the value of connecting Uptown and the (hypothetical fully-built-out transit-oriented) Ford Site without serving either Downtown. I do like the idea of extending Greenway service to Hopkins--those neighborhoods/towns have a lot of shared amenities--but IMO the only extension eastward from the Greenway that makes sense would be running on Lake and Marshall like the B Line.
The problem with the Midtown route is that it runs north of Lake St, so in order to connect with the East Lake station on the same platforms, it will have to turn to the south. Figuring out how the train gets out of that situation is tricky, and I think the only way to manage it is to have the train continue along the Blue Line route until there's a justification for branching off. A fully built-out Ford Site would be just about the only conceivable justification.
With regard to your critique of the route I proposed, I don't understand the fixation with endpoints. Few trips are made from one end of the line to the other. Not many people ride the Green Line from downtown to downtown, and those that do are mostly dumb, because the 94 bus will get them there much faster. The Green Line is successful, first and foremost because the University is a ridership machine, but second because throughout its route, including downtown, it connects a lot of smaller urban neighborhoods and destinations.
A Midtown route would do the same thing. There are a ton of people who live in proximity to that trench (only Loring Park is currently denser, and that's a much smaller neighborhood), and not only would they take the train to make connections to the Green and Blue Lines to get downtown (although again, people who live near aBRT on Chicago, Hennepin, or hopefully in the future some other N/S arterials would be smarter to take the bus), but they would take the train to go to Midtown Global Market, or the lakes, or parties in Uptown, or groceries, etc. etc.
It doesn't hurt that Uptown is taking on some characteristics of a CBD, with a hotel and new office space, but I think the fixation with commute trips or sporting event trips is unhealthy. In a city with a developed transit system, people take transit for all kinds of reasons. If MSP wants to be a place where owning a car is optional, the METRO and aBRT systems need to serve all kinds of trips. Not every route needs to hit either downtown. If they are instead hitting some of the densest neighborhoods in the city and intertwining closely into the system, that works as well.
I think the two scenarios that make sense for serving the Ford Site would be:
(a) aBRT (with long-term possibility of upgrading to another mode) on the existing 46 route, as discussed above, with either a high-amenity connection to Riverview, or thru service to Downtown St. Paul--could buses serve the hypothetical streetcar platforms?
(b) LRT following the Blue Line from Target Field to 46th St., crossing the river and serving the CP spur, then following the Riverview route to Union Depot. That way you'd connect Highland, Ford, and South Mpls to both downtowns. This involves the same amount of construction as what you proposed but IMO links more destinations.
I mean, the Ford Site is already served by aBRT.
Your alternate LRT route differs from mine by replacing the benefits of serving the entire Midtown corridor with one-seat service to downtown and doubled service at the Franklin Station and one of Cedar Riverside's two LRT stations. I'm not sure how that tradeoff puts anyone ahead. Your route also increases by 33% train traffic in the Minneapolis CBD. I don't think there's anywhere in the MSP area where you could run three routes along the same track at 10 minute headways that would both deserve that treatment and not be extremely congested. It would require running a tunnel.