SW Light Rail Transit: What is the best alignment for Minneapolis?
Introduction: Two alignments are being considered in Minneapolis for the Southwest Light Rail Transit from Eden Prairie: (1) Route A: Kenilworth Corridor to the intermodal transit station next to the new baseball stadium; and (2) Route C: the Midtown Greenway and north to downtown on Nicollet Avenue. Variants of Route C also have been considered including routes down Lyndale and Portland Avenues. Both routes are controversial in part because they proceed through or near residential and park areas.
Overview: The Greenway Route would serve higher population neighborhoods in central south Minneapolis. As a result, this route offers intuitive appeal to many stakeholders. In 2008 we are still in the process of evaluating research and feedback about the project. To date, careful analysis of financial, technical, and operational factors, suggest that the Kenilworth Route offers clear advantages. These advantages relate to cost, downtown street transit congestion, and transit network connections. Furthermore, the Kenilworth Route in fact serves many interests of Minneapolis.
One of the key pieces of research that we must consider is the ridership estimate based on the model of the Federal Transportation Administration, which predicts similar total ridership levels for both alignments (28,100 per day for the Greenway vs. 27,000 for Kenilworth). The model predicts more new riders, however, for Kenilworth: 7,800 vs. 6,800. (These estimates may change somewhat in 2008-9 after we input new data from Minneapolis’ revised Comprehensive Plan.) This estimate is counterintuitive to many stakeholders because the Greenway Route precedes through Minneapolis neighborhoods with higher population densities. The Greenway Route “cannibalizes” the city’s existing north-south bus system, so fewer new riders would be added to the Greenway Route than we had hoped for. In addition, the model shows that routes down Nicollet, and particularly Portland, increase ride times, which reduce the number of riders from the suburbs. Opponents of the Kenilworth Route have questioned the validity of the FTA’s model. Actually, although no model is perfect, it offers reasonable scientific validity based on thirty years of experience with many LRT systems throughout the country. Moreover, we must work with the FTA and its rules whether we like it or not. The model represents a cornerstone of the FTA’s evaluation.
There are five major advantages of the Kenilworth Route compared with the Greenway Route:
- Project Cost: The Greenway Route costs about $200 million more than the Kenilworth Route ($1.4 vs. $1.2 billion total cost in 2015 dollars). For the Greenway Route, we spend a lot to dig up streets, build a tunnel, and bring the system downtown. Cost by itself, of course, does not determine the best route. If we were to advocate the more costly, less efficient Greenway Route, however, we would seriously jeopardize our chances of financing the project. There are three major reasons for this conclusion:
1) Half of the project cost will be paid by local sources (the State, County, etc.), so funds come out of scarce and politically sensitive local transit dollars. An extra $100 million to be paid out of local taxes is very significant in this context.
2) The Federal Transit Administration opposes more costly projects without higher ridership benefits. Projects with a Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) higher than about $23 currently are discouraged or opposed by the FTA. At the present time, the Kenilworth CEI is $26, closer to the FTA target, while the Greenway Route has a CEI of $30. We have learned about the importance of CEI in the case of the Central LRT project. The University of Minnesota wants a $200 million tunnel, but this expenditure is simply too costly and inefficient for the FTA.
3) We are competing with many other LRT projects throughout the country for scarce Federal transit dollars, so cost is important regardless of efficiency.
- Downtown Street Transit Congestion: Even if cost of the Greenway Route were not a problem, downtown street transit congestion perhaps would pose the biggest challenge for the Greenway Route. The Kenilworth Route avoids downtown streets by using an existing rail corridor to connect with the intermodal transit station next to the baseball stadium. The Greenway Route would not connect with the intermodal station, but rather would proceed north on perhaps the Nicollet Mall, which would conflict with the city’s downtown plans. Other central north-south streets are planned for bus and automobile traffic. A Portland Avenue Route would require transfer to the Hiawatha LRT by the Metrodome for passengers to proceed downtown. There would be no capacity on the Hiawatha LRT for these transferred passengers. A new Portland Route, which would proceed, west down 10th Street to the intermodal station, has been proposed by CIDNA (Route E), but this option would increase project cost and suburban ride times, and further reduce efficiency of the project. This conflict of LRT with downtown street congestion is a common problem in large cities. If the Greenway Route were implemented through downtown, Minneapolis would represent the only US city with two LRT corridors in the central business district.
- Serving the Interests of Minneapolis: The Greenway Route offers the apparent advantage of serving south Minneapolis with higher population density. The Kenilworth Route is criticized by some stakeholders for serving only the suburbs. Actually, the Kenilworth Route offers seven major benefits to Minneapolis:
1) The Kenilworth Route would represent a financeable project whereas the Greenway Route may not be financeable.
2) West Minneapolis would be served with stops at West Lake Street, 21 St., Penn, and Van White. A large transit-oriented development community is planned for the Van White neighborhood. West Lake would represent an active transit stop for feeder lines and commuters.
3) More commuters would get out of their cars, thereby addressing congestion issues in Minneapolis.
4) The Minneapolis central business district would continue to be supported as a transit focal point in the regional transit grid; commuters would be encouraged to use LRT to come downtown for business and pleasure.
5) Downtown street transit congestion would be minimized by using existing rail corridors for LRT.
6) For when the time is right, whether sooner or later, the Midtown Greenway would be preserved as an efficient cross-town rail connection (LRT or streetcar) between the Kenilworth Route and the Hiawatha LRT. This feeder line would connect Uptown, Lynlake, Midtown Exchange, and the transit dependent areas east of Nicollet, and could be implemented more efficiently (at less marginal cost) than the Greenway Route down Nicollet Avenue, without digging up streets and interfering with downtown traffic. If rail transit were not immediately implemented in the Greenway, bus feeder lines on Lake Street would connect Uptown with the Kenilworth Route at West Lake Street. Feeder bus lines are a common strategy for LRT systems. Currently, for example, about half of Hiawatha LRT riders transfer from other forms of public transportation.
7) Minneapolis would receive all of the advantages above with no direct funding burden.
- Compatibility of LRT with City Streets: The Kenilworth Route maximizes the advantages of light rail trains, which are best utilized at higher speeds, without stops, off of city streets, in dedicated rail corridors. Street cars should be planned for city streets, and as feeder lines to the LRT system.
- Operational Efficiency: The Kenilworth Route would interline LRT vehicles with the Hiawatha and Central Corridors, whereas the Greenway Route would not. Interlining permits cars on one line to be used on other lines, resulting in significant long-term operating cost and performance efficiencies.
Environmental Factors: Both routes proceed through residential areas and green space. Kenilworth is often cited as more park-like and residential, while the Greenway as more city-like and multi-family. Kenilworth offers a pristine, expansive, and natural setting, surrounding by beautiful homes, while the Greenway has been converted from a drug-infested abandoned rail corridor into a beloved urban green amenity proceeding through an area of the inner city that lacks the abundant park space of the city’s west side. Communities have worked hard to beautify both corridors with funds from the County, City, Federal government, and in the case of the Greenway, from the Midtown Community Works Partnership. Cedar Lake Park Association is to be commended for the park created west of Kenilworth, but Cedar Lake Park is not part of the Kenilworth Route. We all value these greening efforts. It does not seem fair or responsible, however, to now oppose transit in these corridors in the name of parks after the County has so cooperatively encouraged greening of their transit property. There is no credible reason why both corridors should not be used entirely in the long term for the intended purpose of rail transit, and share green space with recreational users.
The environmental impact on residences in both corridors would be noticeable. The Greenway is generally a narrower corridor, but some stakeholders assert that more single-family residences would be affected in Kenilworth. Actually, more single- and multi-family residences may be affected by the Greenway Route. In any case, mitigation for both corridors should address reasonable noise reduction and aesthetic efforts such as berms, landscaping, and sound walls. We should study a grade-separated crossing to address traffic congestion caused at Cedar Lake Parkway by the Kenilworth Route.
Conclusion: We cannot afford to miss this opportunity to design a Southwest LRT that is financeable, while providing the most new riders and optimal benefits for both the city and the region. The SW LRT Route should not be “gerrymandered” to serve all possible neighborhoods and communities, but rather the line should serve the function of a central transit “spine” to which a networked web of feeder lines (bus, streetcar, and other LRT) would bring riders. Although there is no perfect solution, the Kenilworth Route offers clear advantages for the city and the region compared with the Greenway Route when all factors are carefully considered.
Bob Corrick, SW LRT PAC Member; and CIDNA resident
John DeWitt, SW LRT Alternate PAC Member; Founder, Transit for Livable Communities; Minneapolis Resident
Note: Although factual matters presented herein are based on research such as the SW LRT Study, the alignment conclusion represents the opinion of the authors, and not the SW LRT PAC. Additional data, input and feedback may change final conclusions.
Hi, this is a comment.
To delete a comment, just log in, and view the posts’ comments, there you will have the option to edit or delete them.