The Blue Line Extension in Limbo

After decades of planning, Southwest LRT (the Green Line Extension) is finally under construction. Unfortunately the news is not so good for the Bottineau Corridor (the Blue Line Extension). Between Minneapolis (specifically just west of Olson Memorial Highway & Penn Avenue) and Brooklyn Park (specifically just north of I-94) the Blue Line Extension would operate in right-of-way owned by BNSF Railway. BNSF is opposed to the Blue Line Extension project, and negotiations with the railroad have stopped at the present time.

Background on the Issue with BNSF

BNSF could be opposing the Blue Line Extension simply to get more money from the Metropolitan Council to share their land, but there are two other possible reasons why BNSF is opposed to the Blue Line Extension. One is Hennepin County blocking a new railroad connection from being built in Crystal, and the other is safety concerns with light rail trains operating next to freight trains.

In regards to the latter reason, there are numerous light rail lines in the United States and Europe that operate on or along tracks used by freight trains. The BNSF tracks would be upgraded as part of the Blue Line Extension project, so as long as the rail infrastructure is well-maintained there should be little concern over a derailment. A crash-wall could also be built between the freight and light rail tracks, which is what BNSF demanded for the Green Line Extension just west of Downtown Minneapolis. Currently freight trains on this route, known as the Monticello Subdivision, operate at between 15 and 30 miles per hour. With upgraded rail the speed limit would likely be the same as the route is only used by a single local freight train per day. That freight train serves local industries between Brooklyn Park and Albertville, and on very rare occasions a train serves the Monticello Nuclear Plant.

Img 1273

Screen Shot 2019 06 29 At 8.28.13 Am

Above: One of numerous examples in Europe of lighter-weight passenger trains sharing tracks with freight trains is Munich’s S-Bahn. While the freight trains are lighter than American freight trains, a collision or derailment would still be a big and potentially deadly mess.

Img 2361

Above: The local freight train on the Monticello Subdivision near the Maple Grove/Osseo border.

With the above information in mind, it’s likely that BNSF’s reasoning is to get back at Hennepin County for blocking their Crystal Connection, but we don’t know for sure since they haven’t publicly stated so. In 2015 the Crystal Connection was planned connecting Canadian Pacific’s busy Paynesville Subdivision from the west to BNSF’s lightly used Monticello Subdivision to the south.

Two or three properties would have had to be acquired for the Crystal Connection. The purpose of the Crystal Connection was to relieve freight traffic in the busy Northtown Yard area in Northeast Minneapolis, and when it was proposed, oil traffic spiked. With the Crystal Connection, a certain number of Canadian Pacific freight trains would be detoured away from Northeast Minneapolis and would instead go through Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, and Downtown Minneapolis. This would likely include oil trains, and that’s part of the reason why Hennepin County snatched the land BNSF needed for the Crystal Connection. Another reason is Canadian Pacific’s freight trains can be a mile long, and would block several road crossings for an extended period. Grade-separation of crossings could be done, but it would be expensive and require multiple property acquisitions. After Hennepin County purchased the land, BNSF and Canadian Pacific instead expanded track capacity through Northeast Minneapolis. It was a victory for the county, Crystal, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale and Downtown Minneapolis, but this decision may have come back to haunt them.

Keep the Blue Line Extension Alive?

In addition to Hennepin County buying the land where the Crystal Connection was proposed, the state imposed restrictions on the railroads’ eminent domain powers, specifically stating that the railroads cannot take land owned by Hennepin County. However since railroads are federally protected, it’s questionable if this state law would trump the railroads’ authority. BNSF and Canadian Pacific gave up on the Crystal Connection plans, so we don’t know for sure if they could’ve bypassed the state law.

In order to keep the Blue Line Extension alive, a tough choice might need to be made. If BNSF truly is opposing the Blue Line Extension because of the Crystal Connection being blocked, then the county would need to hand over the land to BNSF and allow the Crystal Connection to happen. However, just as with St. Louis Park and the ill-planned freight rail reroute as part of the Green Line Extension, there would be a major legal battle between multiple stakeholders. That battle would likely lead to several years of delays and millions of dollars in cost increases for the Blue Line Extension.

As the fate of the Blue Line Extension is unknown, let’s look at potential alternatives.

BRT Option

The BRT option would replace the Blue Line Extension with BRT along a similar route. The service and infrastructure would be similar to the proposed Rush Line and Gold Line in the east metro in which most of the route has dedicated bus lanes and high frequency service all-day in both directions. The routing would be Olson Memorial Highway or Glenwood Avenue, Penn Avenue, West Broadway, Bottineau Boulevard, and West Broadway again to the Target North campus. This would be cheaper than the Blue Line Extension, and would be able to share ABRT stations with the C Line. However, it would likely not be as fast as the Blue Line Extension and would be more susceptible to traffic congestion and inclement weather. Ridership would be lower and it would be less likely to attract development.

LRT Along Bottineau Boulevard

This would be similar to the alignment of the already-built Blue Line along Hiawatha Avenue in South Minneapolis. Instead of operating along a freight railroad the Blue Line Extension would operate along Bottineau Boulevard between Robbinsdale and Brooklyn Park, and then the original planned alignment on West Broadway to the Target North campus. Between Downtown Minneapolis and Robbinsdale the Blue Line Extension would operate in a tunnel under North Minneapolis.

While significantly more expensive than the current proposed alignment, it would directly serve North Minneapolis, likely have higher ridership due in part to directly serving North Minneapolis, and avoid BNSF’s land. It would also lead the way in an eventual downtown LRT tunnel that will be needed if we want to add more light rail routes in downtown and/or increase frequency of the existing light rail routes.

aBRT or Streetcar Option

This option would have arterial BRT (aBRT) or a streetcar line operating between Downtown Minneapolis and Downtown Robbinsdale via West Broadway. While cheaper than the Blue Line Extension, it would not reach as far north and would be of little benefit for Golden Valley, Crystal, and Brooklyn Park. However, whether or not the Blue Line Extension is built, aBRT or streetcar on West Broadway is still recommended.

Img 6363

Above: The C Line is the latest ABRT service to be implemented in the Twin Cities. This service should also be implemented on West Broadway to Robbinsdale.

Regional Rail on the Monticello Subdivision

This option replaces the Blue Line Extension with a less frequent (around every half hour) but still all-day service along the entire BNSF Monticello Subdivision between Target Field Station in Minneapolis and Monticello. This would serve most places the Blue Line Extension is planned to serve, and also provide an alternative to driving on I-94 for certain trips.

There are two possible routes for this service: entirely along the existing right-of-way, or one or two detours off the railroad right-of-way to directly serve major activity centers in Maple Grove. Rolling stock would be diesel multiple units (DMUs), bi-mode units (multiple units that can run on diesel and electric), or battery-electric multiple units (BEMUs).

43862672641 1c2c355c3d O

Above: An EMU regional train in Norway. With advances in battery technology electric trains could be used without needing to install expensive overhead wires on the entire route.

This would require increasing track capacity on the Monticello Subdivision, particularly on segments where BNSF serves shippers. It would also have to be approved by BNSF, and if BNSF wants the Crystal Connection the regional rail proposal would have the same luck as the current Blue Line Extension. Expanding track capacity for regional rail could also provide relief in freight traffic congestion if the Crystal Connection is built, but grade-separating all or most crossings in Crystal and Robbinsdale would likely be needed to reduce auto traffic congestion and allow emergency responders quicker and easier routes across the tracks.

Moving Forward by Going Back

If the Blue Line Extension is cancelled, my recommendation is aBRT on West Broadway to Robbinsdale, regional rail to Monticello, and bus service improvements in Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove that should eventually lead to BRT or LRT along the I-94 North Corridor. aBRT on West Broadway should move up higher on the priority list of aBRT projects, unless funding for the locally preferred alternative, streetcar service, can be achieved before funding for aBRT service. All of these routes would provide similar service and coverage as the Blue Line Extension except for North Hennepin Community College and Target North Campus in Brooklyn Park, but that issue is easily solvable with regular bus service improvements.

Unfortunately with our bureaucratic process, we can’t simply shift to a different mode and/or route on a dime. That needs to change. Environmental studies and community engagement are important, but it shouldn’t take years to do that. If the Blue Line Extension is cancelled that will be several years of planning wasted on top of the millions of dollars we’ve already spent on the project without moving a single piece of dirt.

aBRT or streetcar on West Broadway should be a simple planning process, as there only needs to be communication with stakeholders, determining an alignment in Downtown Minneapolis, and determining the best locations for stations. I-94 North BRT or LRT is more complicated, but we know for sure that the alignment should be on the west side of the freeway and preferably not in the trench, in order to improve accessibility despite the higher cost than running in the median. Regional rail from an infrastructure standpoint is simple; rebuild the entire route and build stations in town centers and activity centers. What isn’t so simple is what the railroad wants, and if BNSF wants the Crystal Connection that would complicate the process.

Keep in mind that, for now, the Blue Line Extension is alive. These proposals are for the worst-case scenario of the Blue Line Extension being cancelled. The Green Line Extension has had at least one near-death experience, and the Blue Line Extension is experiencing that in 2019. Hopefully the Blue Line Extension will have the same luck as the Green Line Extension, but for now, all we can do is watch and wait.

For any future transit projects in which land near or on railroad right-of-way will be used, it’s important that the impacted railroads are consulted in the beginning of the planning process in order to know if they will allow it, and what their concerns are. On a Federal level, there needs to be legislation requiring freight railroads to work with transit agencies on solutions to transit projects, instead of the status quo of simply saying “no” and allowing transit project to become stalled or killed.

 

Streets.mn is a non-profit and is volunteer run. We rely on your support to keep the servers running. If you value what you read, please consider becoming a member.

, , , , , , ,

18 Responses to The Blue Line Extension in Limbo

  1. Elizabeth Larey July 1, 2019 at 11:42 am #

    I always thought the majority of people would have preferred electric street cars. No need to spend billions of dollars on light rail. And tear up peoples neighborhoods. 😔

    • Dan July 1, 2019 at 10:32 pm #

      Both light rail and streetcars are electric, streetcars just carry fewer people and are much slower because they run in traffic like buses….and are not much cheaper than light rail.

  2. Scott July 1, 2019 at 2:27 pm #

    Not a fan of the Blue Line extension due to the alignment down the middle of highways and through low-density land uses including parks and corn fields. There’s got to be a better use of $2 billion in scarce transit funding.

    By the way is there a reason Hennepin County wouldn’t consider redirecting sale tax funding to ABRT lines?

  3. Andrew Evans July 1, 2019 at 3:05 pm #

    Meh, maybe this is why we can’t have nice things.

    The whole debate about taking light rail through North happened before I bought a house there, and before I was really paying attention to these things. In fact I didn’t pay much attention to the South West extension other than that those of us in Stevens Square received notification that our opinion was needed due to one of the proposed routes going through our neighborhood.

    I guess too it comes down to street car or bus vs light rail and the different uses for each.

    So we go back to the different options…

    One was to take the light rail up Lyndale or Washington and over on Lowry. As a homeowner on Lyndale close to that intersection, this would be neat for my resale value. Although getting tracks down either of these streets would be a pain for traffic and everyone, Lowry was never really built or intended to be a major street like Broadway and would need quite a bit of work.

    If it goes up Washington then there may need to be different freeway access put in for those who use it out of downtown to go North on 94. Likewise a different route may be needed for those using it to connect to Plymouth. Not that this couldn’t be done, or that some traffic couldn’t be moved to 2nd (or the tracks for that matter), it would add congestion to an already busy road.

    Broadway, as a street, is a little more built up than university was, and has more intersections and lights than Hiawatha. Running a light rail down it, especially in rush hours, is asking for a slowdown for those riders from out of town, and that corridor already has bus routes to downtown. So you’re not really giving the community any real service boost (other than trains are neater than buses) and slowing down service for everyone else.

    All of this led to having it go out 55, in my opinion. That option doesn’t really do a lot for current city residents (although has the promise of redevelopment), but is better to serve the rest of the ridership.

    Plus, if Lyndale or Broadway were really an option, why not run it up Penn or really any number of north south streets to get to Broadway and up? Which may have been options, I didn’t pay that much attention to things.

    Getting back to the statement about street cars. If rail were really that shiny and attractive of an option, then street cars would better serve residents in North. They wouldn’t be limited stop, wouldn’t impact traffic nearly as much, and still provide bumped property values due to the rails. If I recall correctly this was used as a reason or promise when the route was moved away from North.

  4. Eric Anondson
    Eric Anondson July 1, 2019 at 9:03 pm #

    I think a commuter line to Monticello plus aBRT to the Brooklyn Park greenfield development is a superior consolation prize.

    • Mark July 2, 2019 at 9:54 am #

      Why does Monticello need a commuter line when there is one 3 miles away in Big Lake?

      • Eric Ecklund July 2, 2019 at 12:54 pm #

        It’s not 3 miles away for the whole route, plus there’s a giant river separating the two corridors.

      • Andrew Evans July 2, 2019 at 1:29 pm #

        Mark

        Off the top of my head the problem with Monticello is that it’s on a less developed rail line, with fewer cities. Currently, and especially if the BNSF line goes two tracks it’s whole run, there are more cities on the East side of the river (this is the old original GN line).

        Maybe in the future they can do both lines, or make it work, but there wouldn’t be much after Monticello, since the East line would pick up to St. Cloud and beyond.

        just IMO

        • Eric Ecklund July 2, 2019 at 1:44 pm #

          I don’t think regional rail on the Monticello Line would ever go beyond Monticello since segments of the abandoned right-of-way are developed. But the Monticello Line has the advantage of having only one freight train (besides the railroad crossing with the Canadian Pacific in Crystal) so it could have more service than Northstar without having to double-track the entire route.

          • Andrew Evans July 3, 2019 at 1:54 pm #

            I had thought BNSF plans were to double track that line all the way up to Fargo or Minot or wherever it ends, for freight use. If that happens, and they were in a good mood to allow it, running commuter rail wouldn’t be as big of an issue. However, iirc, it is a pretty busy freight line.

            I’m not sure how much farther north Monticello could go. The main line, which follows the original NP route, is on the East side of the river. Going North of St. Cloud Rice and Royalton are on the East, and the main tracks finally cross in Little Falls. From there the original route stayed East and went up to Brainerd, although most of those tracks North of Camp Ripley are gone.

  5. Nimrod Warda July 2, 2019 at 4:48 am #

    Why not at least initially do a Streetcar line (building the tracks grade seperated from traffic like LRT) to Penn Ave via Olson Hwy? We need to discuss transit equity, as part of the north side can still be served almost immediately (within two to three years).

    Once the other issues are worked out (one way or the other), the Streetcar can then either be extended north via Penn and Broadway (with signal prioritization) or the BNSF route (transitioning to LRT). If the line eventually becomes full blown LRT, the Streetcar vehicles could then be moved to the West 7th Street corridor in Saint Paul or another future planned Streetcar project (like maybe the Central or Nicollet corridors).

    Just my two cents…

    • Matt Steele
      Matt July 2, 2019 at 10:12 am #

      I think it makes a lot of sense to consider incremental extensions of our lines. Seattle seems to think this way, and it’s working out much better for them. Extending the Blue Line west along Olson to Penn Ave would be a great way to connect more of the north side.

      My main concern on this segment is that the Blue Line was designed to be an at-grade LRT corridor in the median of a six lane Olson Highway. Imagine the Green Line on University but with more lanes of faster traffic to get to the rail in the middle.

      Given the width of ROW on Olson, I’d rather see this short segment be grade-separated. The rail could be in an open cut in the median with full heavy rail-style connections to the street level on each side of Olson. Or, we could simply remove the TH-55 designation from Olson and traffic calm it into a community corridor.

      • Adam Froehlig
        Adam Froehlig July 3, 2019 at 1:32 pm #

        Or turn it into a multiway boulevard. There’s the right-of-way width for such. Could still have rail tracks in the median and local access. And with enough excess right-of-way at Penn to still have adjacent infill development.

    • Nimrod Warda July 5, 2019 at 8:24 am #

      Correction, I meant LANE seperated (like along Hiawatha), not GRADE seperated. Grade separation (i.e. adding trenches, bridges or tunnels) would massively increase the cost of construction. Moreover, being from Chicago, I honestly find that most a grade light rail stations are much easier to access then elevated are subway stations. Even in the rare instance when you have to wait for a train to pass to cross the rail tracks, it is generally less time than it would take to walk up or down stairs (or escalator or elevator) every single time you use the station. Similarly, it’s more favorable to people with disabilities or limited mobility to avoid the extra step (no pun intended) of going up or down to access the station.

      Also, Olson could go through a road diet to two lanes in each direction, adding protected bike lanes or just a wider parkway (and bump outs at intersections).

  6. Monte Castleman July 2, 2019 at 11:39 am #

    It’s not surprising that the railroad is balking, given that Hennepin County basically punched them in the face by blocking their plans to add badly needed capacity to their system and now expects them to be receptive and cooperative. Or that they’re worried about liability considering how vexatiously litigious our society is (although they were OK with Northstar).
    The problem with the idea of regional rail is it also would require cooperation between Hennepin County and BNSF, and presumably BNSF isn’t going to change their tune about cooperating.

    I’m not against the idea of commuter rail if that can actually happen, but I’d rather leave the light rail idea in on hold rather than spend money building another BRT line that suburbanites won’t ride as much as rail because it’s still ultimately a bus instead of a train. Maybe we can focus on building a tunnel or whatever it takes to build the 7th Street corridor as a completely grade separated LRT line. Nor am I against the idea of some kind of north side streetcar, which wouldn’t preclude building the Blue Line extension in the future.

    • Adam Froehlig
      Adam Froehlig July 3, 2019 at 1:29 pm #

      I wouldn’t call it “much needed capacity”, especially as the need for that “capacity” has dropped over the past 4 years. There were also plenty of concerns and issues involved with the rerouting that countered any positive benefit from the “added capacity”, especially in light of train length, cargo, and traffic/public safety impact.

  7. Melody Hoffmann
    Melody Lynn Hoffmann July 3, 2019 at 12:29 pm #

    Thank you kindly for this detailed update on the Blue Line Extension. I live in Near North and have been very excited to see a train connect North to other parts of the city where we are notoriously cut off (ex. there is no direct bus line to Uptown). The train won’t solve all our problems (e.g. getting a direct line to Uptown) but it will be a great lift up for our community.

  8. Nicole Salica
    Nicole Salica July 16, 2019 at 5:51 pm #

    I used to work at the second-to-last planned stop, and left the job in part because the transit sucked. (I took the bus to the target north campus and biked from there.)
    The businesses there could benefit a LOT from transit access to population centers, but they wouldn’t know it, because they’re car-culture places on the outer side of the second ring of suburbs.

Note on Comments

streets.mn welcomes opinions from many perspectives. Please refrain from attacking or disparaging others in your comments. streets.mn sees debate as a learning opportunity. Please share your perspective in a respectful manner. View our full comment policy to learn more.

Thanks for commenting on streets.mn!