If the 3C route is chosen for the Southwest LRT, it will cover about half of the Midtown Greenway, from Lake/Excelsior to Nicollet. A proposed streetcar on the Midtown Greenway would have very little chance of being built if the 3C route is chosen. How about an LRT line that would continue from Nicollet to Hiawatha?
I think a line connecting Uptown to Hiawatha could do very well. The corridor is grade-separated and Lake Street is becoming closer to the Midtown Greenway through new developments (i.e. Midtown Exchange, LynLake). Only about 3 miles of new dual track would need to be built, and only 3 new stations would be needed (Nicollet, Chicago, Bloomington, Hiawatha).
The main problem is getting the Nicollet-Lake station correct. A well designed station would need to take advantage of redevelopment opportunities at the K-Mart site. At Blaisdell the lines could turn slightly south and a station would be put under a new development between Blaisdell and Nicollet, and the Midtown Greenway and Lake Street. The SW Line trains to Downtown could turn north on a sharp curve, and would have to room to build a new tunnel between Lake Street and 27th Street so that Nicollet Avenue could be opened between 28th and 29th Streets (the 3C route will close this portion of Nicollet). The 28th Street Station could be moved to 26th Street, and would be underground. The Midtown Greenway trains would move back to the Midtown Greenway ROW between Nicollet and 1st Avenue.
A Midtown Greenway line could be extended to the Midway area to attract more riders. It could potentially run from Hiawatha-Lake to the Midway via Lake Street, Marshall Avenue and Snelling Avenue and would connect Hiawatha and Southwest riders to the Midway area. MG trains could theoretically continue to St. Paul on the Central Corridor track. This would effectively make a much faster version of the very high ridership 21/53 bus lines.
April 14, 2009 at 10:39 pm |
I like the idea of LRT connecting to Hiawatha. The only issue is where would you find the appropriate ROW to continue the line onto Saint Paul via Marshall Avenue? This is a predominantly residential street, with a single lane of traffic, center turn lane and dual bike lanes most of the way.
I do not see this alignment being suitable for the area, nor would it be acceptable now that Saint Paul has added those cute medians with the plantings and trees. I’m sure the neighborhood would freak out about it as street parking would be lost and the width of the street would have to be widened. No sidewalks unless they encroach on private property. Try selling LRT on the railroad tracks adjacent to the MG, if and when freight activities go away.
June 15, 2009 at 8:16 pm |
Do you like buses or trains? Would you use them if you could? Tell us what you think about public transportation. We want to change the way buses and trains help young people get to where they need to go. Take just a couple minutes to give us your thoughts on how we can improve transportation for you by going to this link and answering a couple questions. Your opinion matters!!!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=SXANzMR34XwSLj4R5_2bNINQ_3d_3d
August 12, 2009 at 7:23 pm |
@JHop:
There is, sadly, some disconnect between “light rail” and “streetcars” in the Twin Cities (and in a lot of the current discourse). It is not really the vehicles involved as much as it is the right of way. But in the case of Marshall, streetcars could be introduced without any major headache (other than a few months of street reconstruction. The street, in its current state, is more than wide enough, and neither parking nor the bike lane would disappear. How so? The streetcars could run in the current through lanes (vehicles are the same widths as cars).
A cross-section of the street could be something like as follows: parking, a bike lane, a combined streetcar-travel lane, a median which would serve as a platform at stops, and the same on the other side. Bikes wouldn’t be impeded in the bike lane. The medians aren’t really an issue. And while traffic would have to stop behind streetcars, transit loading and unloading would be faster with level thresholds and traffic would no longer have to yield to buses as they enter and exit the traffic flow. The line could be extended similarly east on Selby, or south along Grand, although getting in to Downtown might necessitate rehabilitating the Selby Subway.
Finally, another option is to use the railroad right-of-way along the Greenway towards Saint Paul, but this might not be as attractive for a couple of reasons. First, the area is less dense than Lake and Marshall (but has plenty of room for redevelopment). Second, where to go in Saint Paul is an issue. Third, accommodations for the active rail line would need to be made, although the few trains using this could do so overnight similarly to how the Trax system in Utah shares its tracks. Still, it, too, is a possibility.
In any case, trains along the Greenway could presumably make it from Uptown to Hiawatha in eight or ten minutes (assuming 1.2 m/s/s (2.75 mph/s) acceleration, a top speed of 50 mph and stops at Lyndale, Nicollet, Chicago and Bloomington-Cedar with 20-30 second dwell times), which is about a third of the current bus schedule. This would be very attractive for cross-town travel, especially at rush hour.
September 16, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
I’m trying to understand why Minnesotans think that LRT and streetcars can’t share tracks. I have heard a certain Minneapolis councilmember assert that the two modes have different track gauges, which is flat out false. As I’m sure you know, today’s idea of LRT grew out of modern streetcar line extensions in western Europe in the 1970′s (Karlsruhe is typically cited as the homeland, I think).
The Hiawatha line basically acts as a streetcar in downtown Minneapolis, where it shares a roadway with cars for most of its route, and has very closely-spaced stations. In the case of the SW transitway, it would be particularly compatible, as you wouldn’t need stops more than every half-mile between Nicollet and Hennepin anyway.
Do you think that streetcar would be incompatible with the proposed SW transitway or are you basing your verdict of “very little chance” on politics?