urbanMSP

I know a few people had the idea for a LRT spur to the West End, departing the Green Line at Cedar Lake Junction, then running alongside the BNSF Wayzata Sub before turning north to West End. Seems like it would be a relatively low-cost connection to an area that has a ton of jobs and recently more housing. Eventually the line could extend west somewhere in the 394 corridor.

Thoughts on price or feasibility?

Not a bad idea at all, but our region seems to be completely uninterested in light rail projects that aren't full-blown independent corridors by themselves. Also, I do wonder how the would choose to run it operationally - having half of the trains go south and the other half follow this spur might work, but it could result in pretty low frequencies out to the ends.

It could work as an extension of the blue line until Bottineau came online.
Otherwise, if SW LRT was routed through Uptown then up Nicollet Ave, it would allow for the green line to cover St. Paul to West End via Minneapolis.

It would be nice to see a real BRT proposal for 394. That could be quite successful, and MT is upping the 675 bus to every 30 minutes in December.

Could be used as the other end to a UofM Transitway LRT.

The UM Transitway to SLP West End idea is a great one, but there's a small wrinkle: the trackage on 5th downtown couldn't handle that much traffic. Assuming the Green Line runs every 7.5 minutes and the Blue Line runs every 7.5 minutes, even a 15-minute interval on this line would mean twenty trains *EACH WAY* per hour - or a total of 40 trains per hour, a train every 90 seconds on average on 5th.

It seems to me that the next big rail investment after Southwest and Bottineau needs to be a long-term solution for the downtown segment. Elevated rail would be a great solution except for the skyways; tunneling wouldn't be that expensive, but with the current routing on the west side of downtown it would be hard to get out of a tunnel in time to cross 394 - unless it were bored out to run *under* 394, but that would be expensive and would require them to redo the Interchange arrangement yet again.

I'm guessing that more likely is a downtown split where some lines loop to go around the south side of downtown.

AFTER they sort out downtown, I think a SLP - to - St. Paul Campus UM line would be a good one, especially given how little new track it would require. Of course, a Riverview line would only require about 6 miles of track too, most of it on a wide street with excess ROW, and yet that's not even being considered so I wouldn't hold my breath.

If I recall correctly, the electrical systems for the downtown segment can handle a train every 2.5 minutes, or 30 trains per hour. That's also the most you can get through standard street crossings. So to go beyond that you need to grade separate. A cut without cover ala midtown greenway could be nice, but operations wise you couldn't pull it off on the current routing without bustituting the downtown portion for a year or two while fifth street was lowered 15-20 feet. Also no idea what that would cost compared to straightup tunneling.

Grade separation for downtown Minneapolis ...maybe would be less laughable by 2040-2050. I think our precious transit funds would better be spent building the street car system and other BRT lines instead of a tunnel for downtown LRT trains. Sure 2050 may be different but I think having a midtown greenway streetcar is 10x more critical than a tunnel!

Secondly couldn't the second "segment" that been suggest be a separated line that requires a transfer? Also slightly off point but couldn't the stations be extended to allow 4 car trains if rush hour demand ever needed more capacity even going so far as positioning the trains on the platforms to allow one door for the 1st and 4th trains loading and unloading (yes increasing loading and unloading times at the stations that lack the space to accommodation longer trains) Making the need for a downtown grade separation tunnel a luxury instead of a need?

You could always put tracks on a different street downtown. Most major transit systems don't put all their trains on the same street when they hit downtown.

Having a spur that requires its own train might not be feasible for a route this short. Even if you expand it to the U the extra stops might not be worth the extra train traffic. I also think that if you take demand away from a proposed future route it might impede on its future construction. The idea of connecting the West End to a commuter rail or a future 394 BRT seems more prudent to me.

3 car is as big as you can fit on a city block, so longer trains also require grade separation.

As of now you could either route a train south of the Metrodome onto 6th, or branch off at Chicago Ave onto 4th, though not sure how the new Vikings stadium would change that.

A few of my other crazy ideas that affect what has been discussed...
- Yes to a tunnel! I think 6th Street would be ideal. It would be cut and cover except a deep bore under Target Field/394, then a new portal on the west side when we decide to ditch HERC. On the east side, it could have a portal in alignment with the existing DTE diagonal stop. This tunnel would be halfway between Washington Blvd, and 10th Street, both which would make for excellent east-west streetcar/malls for near-downtown neighborhood developments on the four corners (Elliot Park, Mill District, North Loop, and Loring Park).

- It would also be great for said tunnel to be double decker like Market Street in SFO. The lower level could be a Philly-style suburban rail tunnel that connects from The Interchange to Downtown East. In addition to The Interchange, it would have a 600' stop between Nicollet/Marquette and 3rd Ave, on the west end connecting to the Nicollet/6th interchange for all subway LRT services under Nicollet and 6th. On the east end it would connect to the Government Plaza LRT stop. There may also be a downtown east stop somewhere near 35W... along with my other plans to basically eliminate the Wash Ave trench between 10th Ave S and Cedar, this would take advantage of the existing trench and the excavation planned for the Vikings stadium to make sure we have grade separated heavy rail in the segment from this shared tunnel to the old NP #9 bridge towards St. Paul.

-I also like the idea of LRT along the U of M transitway. I had envisioned a service that uses streetcars on LRT ROW via the transitway, the Green Line from Stadium Village to just east of the new Green/Blue junction, then cutting two blocks through the MILW ROW to Washington Ave to continue via downtown to North Loop or beyond via street-running. LRT might work too but as others have noted it gets tricky to cram six segments on three lines through downtown ROW.

-I also imagine that West End could have a commuter station on the BNSF Wayzata Sub, which would potentially be a funnel point for commuter trains inbound to The Interchange. Future commuter rail on the Wayzata Sub, TC&W, or Dan Patch line would join together immediately to the west at the "iron triangle" and head inbound. This would also provide a decent level of commuter service to West End.

This is kind of an aside, but I went to a movie at the West End this weekend and parked in the ramp rather than the basement, where I usually park. After going to through the first ramp and crossing over to a second ramp, it was a really terrible pedestrian experience. The signs for elevators appeared to be completely off, the stairwells were not close to anything, and once you got to the ground level you had to walk along an isolated street between the ramps to find a back door. It really couldn't have been done worse, in my opinion.

with the current routing on the west side of downtown it would be hard to get out of a tunnel in time to cross 394.

Can you explain? Why would it be difficult for the train to emerge from a tunnel here (between 1st and 2nd avenues)? Presumably it would be a shallow tunnel.