#Light rail route mn series#

Here’s a comparison of the density of the neighborhoods within a half-mile of the two principal alternatives through Minneapolis, as well as an indication of the walk score of the areas around the proposed stations. That’s too bad, however, because route 3C would be far more effective in encouraging transit use in Minneapolis. Federal rules make it difficult to imagine that any decision in favor of route 3C is possible. Elected officials on the Metro Council will decide later this year whether to follow the recommendations of the planners. In the neighborhood meetings coming up over the next month, planners will endorse the construction of route 3A and then listen to the concerns of community members. Both 3A and 3C would be expected to attract 30,000 daily riders, 8,000 of whom would be new to transit. Trains could be operating by 2015 or 2017 at the latest if the FTA endorses project financing. The cost of the corridors ranges from less than $1 billion for 1A to about $1.5 billion for 3C - and operating costs would similarly be higher on the latter route because of its slightly longer distance. 3A would skim the side of the Kenilworth trail and lounge the edge of two lakes, running through neighborhoods of single-family housing.Īll routes would operate from downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie, through St. The last (#3A) is the only route, according to local planners, that could meet federal cost guidelines - but its effect on the commutes of people who live in Minneapolis would be marginal. 3C would operate on the Midtown Greenway parallel to Lake Street in that section of the city. Another (#3C) is too expensive because it would require a tunnel under a section of Nicollet Avenue, but it would serve the city of Minneapolis best because it would provide several stations in the dense and active Uptown district. Of the three routes being considered for the Southwest Transitway’s alignment, one (#1A) has been dismissed by suburban officials because it won’t serve the city of Eden Prairie as effectively as the others, even though it would be cheaper to build. This requirement puts elected officials in a quandary: should they work to build the most effective transit network possible, or should they limit their ambitions for fear that the federal government will rule out any funding at all?Įffectively, this is where Minneapolis finds itself, and the region is coming dangerously close to eliminating its best route option because of cost-effectiveness concerns. In order to receive money from Washington, Metro will have to show that the proposed route meets national cost-effectiveness guidelines, which are stringent enough to sieve out a large percentage of proposed new transit lines. Their endorsement of a route through low-density neighborhoods in place of a more expensive line through Minneapolis’ lively Uptown is symptomatic of the failure of government transportation policy in addressing the needs of inhabitants of dense inner city communities.Īfter years of study, Minneapolis is almost ready to submit its locally preferred alternative (LPA) corridor to the Federal Transit Administration, which will distribute up to 60% of total funds to the project through the New Starts major capital grant program.

#Light rail route mn series#

In a series of meetings beginning today, citizens will have the chance to discuss the exact route of the Southwest line - and their input could be essential, because planners are currently angling to make the wrong decision about where trains should run. The Southwest Transitway will be the region’s third light rail line after the Hiawatha line, which linked downtown Minneapolis and the airport in 2004, and the Central Corridor, which will connect downtown Minneapolis and the capital complex in St. The Twin Cities’ Metro Council regional planning authority is in the midst of evaluating route alternatives for a new transit line extending southwest from downtown Minneapolis. The most advantageous route isn’t the cheapest, and the federal cost-effectiveness process may therefore prevent it from being built.