Today in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, I read that the Minneapolis suburb of St Louis Park has rejected a proposal to divert TC&W freights to the ex MN&S tracks. TC&W freights currently operate over a right of way which was the mainline of the M&StL which the TC&W tracks share with a bike trail.Hennepin County which is the county Minneapolis is located wishes to construct a light rail line where the bike trail will remain and the TC&W trackage would be removed. Minneapolis has a very vocal bike lobby.
First of all, Star Trib writer Laurie Blake does not say that the ex- MN&S trackage is owned by CP Rail nor does she identify TC&W by name as the freight line. The ex-MN&S trackage right now is lightly used and that is the way St Louis Park wants it.Even when the MN&S was operating its Baldwin center cabs the suburb and the railroad had an adversarial relationship. One St Louis Park council member is making her NIMBY arguement about homes schools and hospitals; even though for much of St Louis Park’s existance it has had four railroads running through it.The suburb is much quieter than it once was.
Even though Cedar Lake Yards and all traces of the M&StL are gone the trackage was never officially abandoned and TC&W has used the trackage since it stopped using the ex Milwaukee transcontinental main line through South Minneapolis in 2001. TC&W seems to be the odd man out.
The light rail route is the best for exiting downtown Minneapolis. The alternative is putting light rail on congested Hennepin Avenue which is one of the most congested streets in the entire Twin Cities. TC&W does not need to obtain trackage rights on BNSF to Montevideo Minnesota to access home rails either.Where has compromise gone.
Minnesota cannot extend unemployment benefits or fund its schools properly but it can re-study this issue again and again !
How close to actual construction is that LRT line? And once it leaves Minneapolis, how far will it be built on the ex-M&StL right of way? Will it be built to the southwest in stages over several years?
And then there was this"…Our hero’s name isRay LaHoodand he is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). He leads the federal agency responsible for setting policy and dispensing billions in funds for all forms of transportation…"
Looks like this will be a hard slog to get anywhere on this issue of Heavy Rail vs LRT Usages, especially where bucyclists might be impacted…[2c]
Those are interesting points about the philosophy of bicycling as a government funded component of transportation.
Bicycling and LRT are the PC darlings of New Urbanism. And cars are the enemy of NU. This philosophy is woven throughout all layers of government, right down to the police departments. It has spawned such dangerous ambiguity as the crosswalk law with its confusing overlap with the so-called trail crossings.
With the new Dakota Rail Trail in Minnesota, cops were vigorously enforcing the trail crossings as crosswalks, even though there is no agreed on definition of a crosswalk in the state. Drivers were getting huge fines for rolling through the crossings after crossers were past them, but still in the crossing. Yet there is never a peep of response from the police as every last bicyclist blithely ignores their stop sig
How much freight traffic actually operates on the TC&W ROW? Perhaps it is only lightly used and its traffic could be easily handled on another line? Using the ROW for LRT may be a better use of a resource.
Daily freight, plus rare extras. The diversion to the former MN&S is the only viable diversion in the Twin Cities area. The only other possibility is at the western end of the line a connection could be made to the BNSF. Assuming you could work out a trackage rights or haulage rights agreement with BNSF, I still think that the TC&W would gradually wither away due to the slower and more expensive roundabout way to the Twin Cities. TC&W offers its customers access to all 4 Class I carriers in the Twin Cities.
I am not familiar enough with the TC&W to know of any alternative route could serve their territory west of Minneapolis. But their traffic is relatively light, so it seems like some type of heavy rail commuter service could share the same line from a practical standpoint. The state has developed the North Star commuter line on the BNSF running out to Big Lake, and I have heard that they are looking for other possible routes for this type of service.
I don’t think there is any potential spoke route that can tap into significant passenger traffic, but the plan is always to build them first and hope that the people will come. So any spoke route is as good as another.
I am sure that TC&W has been considered by planners, but of course, there could be many reasons why it might have been rejected. Their corridor was once double track far to the west, so there is room for a second track. TC&W might find some advantage to partnering with the state for sharing their right of way, or even their track; or they may not prefer this partnership for some reason.
However, in either case, TC&W seems to be between a rock and a hard place if Hennepin County decides to move ahead with plans to d
I work for CP and have worked on the short line that we do own. Like everyone else has said, The railraod line might see 4-5 trains a day so really I don’t see why they couldn’t work out some type of LRT during the day and Real Railroading at night. The bike path that they are taking about two is the old CN&W line that is just too the north of the CP tracks.