Neighborhoods change. Technologies change. Economies change. While today a Distribution Center is advantageous in the West Midway Industrial Area, because the sunk costs are sunk and all the buildings are built and relocating is expensive, that might not always be true. Eventually these structures will be obsolete for the demands of the day, or a newer and higher use will bid them out. Today, newer distribution centers tend to be in the outer suburbs with better freeway access.
Recently the Green Line was opened with a station nearby, and much of this industrial land is within walking distance of the Raymond Avenue station (which to be precise is entirely east of Raymond Avenue). When this neighborhood changes, it might be wise to break up the large industrially-optimal superblocks for a more residentially-optimal fine grained grid. Change sometimes occurs quickly. Providing more East-West connectivity is especially important, so not all traffic is driven down to University Avenue. It might be wise to get those lines in the plan before proposals come before City to redevelop, so those redevelopments can it least be required to dedicate the right-of-way if not building the appropriate streets.
Getting this exactly right is not critical, there is no anticipatable precisely perfect location for future streets in a changing, adaptable world. Getting this basically right is important, a fine-meshed grid makes a difference for local circulation. However, knowing this is likely to be piecemeal, and knowing that roads should be and will be built opportunistically, but should not taking existing buildings with thriving businesses, means a rough sketch should be drawn with contingencies. The attached figure is a rough sketch.
The top black line and red lines are the posited or dreamed about westward extension of the Pierce Butler Route, denoted for reference. The blue lines illustrate a finer meshed grid in this area. Think about them as respecting property lines where possible, going through currently paved but unstructured land where possible. The most important pieces are making sure all the East-West streets connect to Vandalia Street, and thus to I-94, and making sure the North-South streets connect to Territorial Road, and thus to Mn-280.
From east to west, the map shows
a new North-South street breaking up the superblock from Charles Avenue to the end of Capp Road
a second new North-South street breaking up the second superblock from Territorial to Capp Road.
These streets are circulatory in nature, and designed for access to properties in a redeveloped site.
From south to north, the map shows in blue
Territorial extending to Transfer Road, through the old Amtrak station, across Railroad tracks, and into Minnehaha Avenue. Traffic calm to suit.
Ellis Avenue extending to Hampden Avenue
Wycliff Avenue extending to Transfer Road
These streets should achieve the aims of an extended Pierce Butler Route without running rough through the St. Anthony Park neighborhood. In particular, by directing traffic toward Vandalia and Territorial, and thus to freeways, it should reduce through traffic in other areas and stray trucks on streets that should be more pedestrian and transit oriented.
The most famous Pierce Butler was a founding father and US Senator from South Carolina. An apparently unrelated Pierce Butler was the first Supreme Court justice from the state of Minnesota, after earning his chops as a lawyer for the James J. Hill interests (Jame McClure writes about him on the web at Saint Paul Historical). It is this second Pierce Butler (one of many) for whom the Pierce Butler route (map) in St. Paul is named. The Pierce Butler route runs south of the east-west railroad mainline through St. Paul, complementing Energy Park Drive to the north. It progresses from Transfer Road, home of the classic mid-late twentieth century future-to-be-restored Midway Amtrak station that served Twin Citizens for decades, below Snelling Avenue, terminating at Minnehaha Avenue just shy of Dale Street.
It serves primarily industrial land uses, with some abutting residential.
As far as I can tell, this eastward extension has not been moved forward in six years.
There is a dream (I dare not call it a plan, since it doesn’t rise to that level of officialness) to extend it westward to connect with Granary Road in Minneapolis through the St. Anthony neighborhood. The concept is to run it along the Railroad tracks, on Capp Road, connect to or parallel Robbins Street through the Community Gardens on the north side of Robbins Street, under Mn 280 to Granary Road. On first blush from a transportation perspective, this seems a logical route. It doesn’t take any houses, it increases connectivity so traffic can be more dispersed, and gets “wandering” trucks off of more obviously residential streets.
The St. Anthony Park neighborhood opposes this. People garden in the local community gardens (though surely these gardens could be re-sited). Local politicians have said “Pierce Butler Route will not be extended into St. Anthony Park.” If politicians were perfect forecasters or highly powerful or unflinchingly ethically who were in office forever, we might take them at their word, however as community groups have long realized, fighting a line on a map is a forever war. Once it is built it is not easily unbuilt. But while still unbuilt, that is a more easily reversed decision.
Yet, the western extension of Pierce Butler makes little sense from a freight distribution perspective. Granary Road/Pierce Butler would not interchange directly with Minnesota 280 in any case, the interchange spacings are too tight. Instead traffic would be routed north to Energy Park somehow (e.g. circling back to Raymond Avenue or across railroad tracks) or south to the intersection at Territorial Road, which they can do now (and could do better if Territorial were eventually extended to Transfer Road).
Going further west, Granary Road would run into Saint Anthony Main, bypassing Dinkytown, and not directly intersect with I-35W either, requiring local streets for the connection. While Saint Anthony Main is a lovely place, it is no longer a freight destination. None of which is to say a Granary Road for the circulation of vehicles in the neighborhoods of St. Anthony Park and the University of Minnesota wouldn’t be valuable, and better access to Saint Anthony Main from Saint Anthony Park in Saint Paul is not of itself a terrible idea, but not one justifiable from a freight perspective.
The industrial/distribution center neighborhood immediately to the east of St. Anthony Park (the West Midway Industrial Area) is still economically active. To extend Pierce Butler would likely require taking at least one building between Capp Road and Transfer Road (or skirting around it very circuitously). Building the Pierce Butler route to serve trucks by destroying one of the buildings the trucks serve is right out of an O Henry story: The Gift of the Magi.
While I don’t ride it as a regular, I have on occasion* found myself on the number 2 bus. It offends my sensibilities as a transportation planner. It runs along Franklin Avenue from near Hennepin Avenue S to the University of Minnesota and then runs along 8th St SE to Hennepin Avenue SE. Each of the tails is sensible enough, no one really rides from one end to the other. The problem is the zig-zag in the middle.
This route has had essentially this structure since before the Green Line (actually before the Blue Line). A transit historian could tell us when it started, as it clearly does not exactly follow any one streetcar line, instead it circumlocutes. So from Franklin it does a ~120 degree turn and goes up Riverside Avenue to pick up the Fairview Riverside campus (M-Health) and Augsburg College. It does another ~120 degree turn when It stops at the West Bank Station, and then runs along Washington Avenue to East Bank, turns at Oak Street and then again at University Avenue/4th Street which is essentially a third 120 degree turn. It crosses the same line of longitude 4 times. It then turns at 10th Avenue.
Imagine we removed all this zigging and zagging and zegging. Instead it would turn at 20th Avenue, picking up the other side of Augsburg College, coming within 2 blocks of Fairview University, and then to the West Bank. Anyone traveling to East Bank could transfer to the Green Line or a Campus Connector, It would proceed across the 19th Avenue/10th Avenue Bridge and resume its route. This would shorten the route by a couple of miles in each direction. It would be less convenient for some riders, but more convenient for others. More importantly, because the route was shorter, more runs per day could be achieved on this or other routes. No coverage would be lost. Franklin still has the 67 bus (see below). Riverside still has the 7 bus. Washington Avenue still has the Green Line. University Avenue still has the 6 bus.
I am sure there were reasons the bus ran this way. They might have made sense at the time. I am sure there are reasons the bus still runs this way. They make less sense now. Someone will school me in the comments.
The number 67 bus, which I take more often, though by no means daily, generally to get to the Franklin LRT, but sometimes in the other direction to get to St. Paul if I don’t want to take the LRT (since the travel time is almost identical) also offends my sensibilities, though to a much lesser amount. It was created along with the Green Line (replacing the number 8 bus), and has been modified since. I have more sympathies for the planners in this case, since it is a low volume route in these parts and needs to hunt for passengers. It runs east from downtown St. Paul along Minnehaha and Thomas Avenues, and then University and Franklin Avenues. So far so good. It follows Franklin across the River to Riverside and turns on Riverside, presumably to pick up the very same Fairview Riverside Medical / M-Health complex and Augsburg College as the number 2 bus, and then turns down the curvaceous 26th Avenue S back to Franklin Avenue, terminating at the Franklin Avenue LRT. This detour is not long in the scheme of things, and only crosses the same line of Longitude 3 times. From a far distance it looks like a pimple. But from the point of view of the passenger, I could get off the bus, walk to the next stop on Franklin Avenue, and get back on again. If it went up Riverside to Cedar-Riverside station, I would understand the detour more. Recognizing this would leave only the 2 bus – above serving Franklin, and I just said don’t do that, I would keep it straight on Franklin though. Riverside still has service as well from the 7 bus, so losing the 67 won’t matter much.
All of this is to say that straighter routes cost passengers extra walking access time, but save them both in-vehicle time and waiting time (since shorter routes can have higher frequency for the same resources). All of which seems like a good trade-off given our current position.
Minnesota 280 was first opened in 1959, an element of a freeway network that was not fully realized. It was designed before Interstate standards became standard. It is an important route, providing access from I-94 west-bound to I-35W northbound, a link that is otherwise missing from the network. Wikipedia writes:
Highway 280 was authorized on July 1, 1949, but did not begin construction until 1955. It was completed between Highway 36 and Kasota Avenue in 1959 and to University Avenue (at that time, highways 12, 52, 56, and 218) in 1961. The highway was linked to Interstate 94 in 1968 upon the freeway’s completion between Minneapolis and St. Paul.
South of Como Avenue, 280 was widened and its ramps improved in the mid-1990s. The Larpenteur Avenue/East Hennepin Avenue interchange in Lauderdale was reconstructed in 2009 to eliminate the tight, no-acceleration-lane ramps. The intersection at County Road B was also closed permanently in 2009, as were the unsignaled intersections at Roselawn Avenue and Walnut Street. With construction completed in December 2009, the signal at Broadway Street was modified to allow left turns from northbound 280, thus maintaining a stoplight for southbound 280 only, but Broadway Street traffic can now only turn right (south). Thus, 280 is now in a sense a northbound freeway only, with a single stoplight for southbound traffic.
The 2009 construction project also rehabilitated the concrete pavement between Interstate 94 and Territorial Road. The project also included replacement of the BNSF Railroad bridge on Larpenteur Avenue west of 280; placement of a new median on 280 from south of Como Avenue to Larpenteur Avenue; and noise walls along 280’s east side.
Highway 280 was originally proposed (in the 1960s) to continue farther, turning westward south of its Interstate 94 junction in Saint Paul, and then continuing west into Minneapolis as a freeway running roughly along 28th Street. The route would have continued westbound to about France Avenue South. That freeway was never built, and the ramp stubs at Saint Paul’s 94/280 junction were removed in the early 1980s.
There are several problems.
Its first exit, going northbound is at “University Avenue”, but this really means Franklin Avenue and University Avenue and Territorial Road. The first entrance onto 280 NB after I-94 is from University Avenue and Territorial Road (via Cromwell Avenue, which functions as a one-way frontage road). This often results in spillover traffic on the short NB stub of Cromwell between University and Franklin. This is compounded by traffic signal cycles which are periodically interrupted by the Green Line, while the Green Line itself is often delayed at this intersection. When the intersection was designed, there was no LRT on University Avenue.
Its last exit, going southbound, is to Eustis Street (marked as Robbins Street on the attached figure from Google Maps, it’s not clear where one ends and the other begins). Its last entrance is from Franklin Avenue and Eustis Street (which functions as a SB frontage road), but this is complicated and split into two entrances, one which goes to I-94 EB, (merging with the left lane of Mn280 SB), and one which goes to I-94 WB (merging with the right lane of Mn 280 SB). This split is because it is so close to the highway that weaving is undesirable. However this creates a very awkward dog-leg at Franklin to I-94 EB, trucks taking this dogleg often block both directions of traffic.
When I-94 is congested for some reason (an incident, weather), cut-through traffic uses Franklin Avenue as an alternative in the Prospect Park neighborhood. There are efforts to calm Franklin, and bike lanes (and sidewalks!) have recently been added to the St. Paul side, and are coming to the Minneapolis side.
The figure shows a possible solution.
In brief, turn Territorial Road into the location of an urban diamond interchange, and close the entrance and exit ramps off of Franklin.
Two new ramps would need to be constructed: denoted “New Ramp A” and “New Ramp B” in the figure.
New Ramp A is straightforward to construct, and if old Ramps 2 and 3 are closed, should not create significant weaving problems with other entering/exiting traffic. It does require traffic that is going EB on I-94 to merge over 1 lane of traffic to reach the left lane exit, but I think there is sufficient room for this to take place (about 2 city blocks). There are other configurations of Mn 280 (like a mini C-D lane for merging traffic and traffic exiting to WB I-94, so lane changing is more controlled) that could make this work in the space available.
New Ramp B requires closing old Ramp 1. This is small loss. Ramp 1 is redundant with the ramp immediately north off of Territorial. I am not sure why both were constructed. Clearly it saves a stop sign for traffic from the south, but it imposes an awkward downramp onto an up-grade on 280, which creates acceleration problems, particularly for trucks.
The closure of old Ramps 2 and 3, entrances from Franklin Avenue to access I-94 are the greatest accessibility losses. Not that traffic cannot reach their desired destination, it can always use the next exits to the East (Vandalia/Cretin) for eastbound trips or west (Huron Boulevard or Riverside Ave/26th St S) for westbound trips, or circle around to Territorial Road. This latter option is up to an extra six blocks of distance for traffic on Franklin Avenue EB to reach I-94 EB. The others require little or no extra travel distance, but extra travel time if the freeways are free-flowing. (Likely very little extra time if the freeways are congested though). Reducing cut-through traffic does not come without costs, which is reducing freeway access for local traffic.
Old Ramps 4 and 5, which are exits from I-94 EB and WB/Mn-280 to Franklin and University would also be closed. Traffic would travel farther up Mn-280 before exiting. Traffic heading to Prospect Park south of University Avenue (and offices like the Court International Building) would thus have a longer trip. However this greatly reduces intersection conflicts at Franklin and University, which are ill-suited to the demands placed on them here.
This proposal reduces traffic on Franklin Avenue. It reduces traffic, especially truck traffic, crossing University Avenue and the Green Line LRT. It simplifies street patterns both locally and on Mn-280. While it will inconvenience some traffic, it will also change travel demands. As we re-learn repeatedly, build it and they will come, take it away and they will go. Traffic, like work, will expand to fill the space allotted it. This also points up the need to have better street grids in Prospect Park North and the industrial area southeast of University and Mn-280.
This also frees up space for a potential freeway cap on Mn-280 at University Avenue and at Franklin Avenue. I don’t think the demand is there now for such a thing, but land use markets change quickly.
The interchange of Mn-280 and I-94 is likely to be reconsidered as MnDOT considers implementing MnPASS lanes on I-94 between the cities (left exits and entrances mix poorly with center lane – express lanes without elevated structures or tunnels).
Note: In Southern California, interstates are not “I-this” or “California-that” or “route-the other”. They are “The ___”. A freeway in the LA area would be The 101, but don’t be caught dead saying “The 280” up in the Bay Area…they stick to the standard naming convention, sans the.
Imagine you had a University with two major campuses connected by an exclusive right-of-way. Imagine the University sends buses back and forth on this transitway at 5 minute intervals during peak times. Imagine the transitway carries 3,197,701 riders per year (2012 numbers via The Transit Camera). Imagine it passes by undeveloped and underdeveloped land. Imagine it cost $6,080,021 per year (ibid) to operate (and so was the most efficient bus line in the state). Imagine it was 2.2 miles long. Would it be worth upgrading?
Consider this as a possible upgrade (area map). Where the Green Line now turns at 29th Avenue to heads into Prospect Park Station, the Maroon Line’s new routing instead continues the extension adjacent to or on top of the Transitway to the St. Paul campus and Minnesota State Fairgrounds. On the West, the service continues through Stadium Village (with an opportunity to transfer to the Green (or Cyan) Line) to East Bank and West Bank stations, and then reverses. Maroon Line trains could run at 10 minute frequency, providing a net 5 minute frequency on campus between West Bank and Stadium Village when combined with the Green Line (or 4 minutes when combined with the Cyan Line and the Green Line).
The distance is about 2.2. miles. The land is already graded and ready for installation. This should be less expensive on a per mile basis than new Rights-of-Way to the far-flung suburbs through swamps, so I will go with the order of $20 million, with some additional costs for stations, since this is really basically streetcar construction with LRT vehicles, assuming the bridge needs no additional work to support the vehicle. The costs of vehicles are whatever the cost of vehicles are, about $3 million per train.
Does it save time over buses?
Probably not. The stations cost some travel time, but serve more passengers. Further if the frequencies were less than buses currently provide, waiting time increases.
Does it reduce costs over buses?
Probably not. The Blue Line presently has a higher operating cost than the UMN transitway. The Maroon Line might reduce labor costs if it can be operated in automated mode, like Light Rail Vehicles are in so many places. While not fully grade separated, it is largely an exclusive right-of-way with few at-grade crossings, so this is an opportunity to operated from a control center rather than with drivers in the vehicle.
Does it slow down buses using the Transitway?
Perhaps, but the Green Line Washington Avenue demonstrates buses can successfully share roadways with trains (as if that needed to be proven), and if there were fewer signals, all modes would be more efficient. Such a line would presumably replace the Campus Connector most of the time. New stations could have side platforms with a lane or two in-between so buses could pass rather than being blocked.
Does it increase capacity over buses?
Probably, the vehicles themselves are larger, even if operated in single car mode. One expects two-car mode most of the time.
Does it increase demand?
Probably, to the extent there is a rail bias among users of the line (admittedly mostly students who have little choice, and visitors to the University of Minnesota). It might take some trips from the #3 Bus as well, though it is not a replacement. It can also make remote parking for sports events more viable. Finally if it induces new development (as below) it will increase ridership.
Does it provide development opportunities?
One can easily imagine stations at the following
Prospect Park (say near Malcolm Avenue at Surly’s),
South St. Anthony Park (Hampden Park) (say under Mn-280),
North St. Anthony Park (Langford Park) (say Raymond Avenue at Energy Park Drive),
St. Paul campus, and
The Fairgrounds, at least seasonally. Perhaps it could be extended through or north of the Fairgrounds to meet the A-Line on Snelling.
Each of those stations is a strong development opportunity right now, with at least some developable land embedded in what are not-controversially transitional land uses (i.e. development would not necessarily be taking homes, monuments, parks, etc.). With improved accessibility to the University of Minnesota, the value of those in-between station sites would be enhanced, perhaps enough to cover the capital costs of the upgrade itself. While travel to downtown will still require a transfer (unless and until Minneapolis builds a subway and allows greater frequency), downtown is not where most people along this line want to go.
The University of Minnesota is the prime beneficiary of such a service, along with the State Fair organization and landowners at prospective station sites. If these parties put up the capital costs (value capture may play a role), and the operating costs are no worse than the current Campus Connector, this is relatively low cost upgrade worth considering.
Prospect Park North is the redevelopment of mostly industrial lands north of University Avenue at the Prospect Park North LRT station. I mentioned some of it an earlier post.
Working with some of the key actors planning the neighborhood, I organized a class project for my undergraduate students to conduct a travel demand analysis of Prospect Park North and make recommendations about changes to the Street network. That caused me to think about what the network should look like. After staring too long at maps, and making several field trips to the site with my class and by myself, I came up with the following sketch. Note many of these roads are already driveways or parking lots (or would be if the site were to get developed in an ad hoc fashion), so the network should reduce the amount of space devoted to the movement of vehicles compared to unplanned piecemeal construction. Below are a series of possible network connections plus commentary for the Prospect Park North neighborhood.
These are mix-and-match proposals. Ideally, perhaps, all will be built. Certainly they cannot all be built at once. They can be reconfigured over time (two-way -> one-way or back again; on-street parking or none) depending on needs.
6th Street SE Extended (“Elevator Road”) (shown in Blue) is a one-way pair (with 5th Street if constructed) or a two-way street connecting on the west end with the existing 6th St. SE, and on the east end with Granary Road, and the same termination issues (see #8 below). This street is also valuable for providing access to stadium events.
5th Street SE and 5th Street SE Extended (“Brewery Street” / “Brewery Boulevard”) (shown in Purple) connects on the west end with 6th Street SE, and is the Eastbound part of a one-way pair with 6th Street (Elevator Road), if both are constructed. On the east end, it connects to Eustis Street, and thus provides access to Mn-280 NB (via Territorial Road) and I-94 EB (via Franklin Avenue) and WB. There are several extensions (existing 5th to Eustis), and connecting existing 5th with existing 6th by winding through existing structures. There is enough room for a narrow road (perhaps 2 lanes with sidewalks), hence the suggestion as part of a one-way pair with 6th. Further, given Eustis is one-way, the flows are likely to be asymmetric in any case. In addition to daily circulation, this street is valuable for exits from stadium events.
Green 4th/Territorial Road/Territorial Road extended. (shown in Green) The new construction here is north of the existing Single Family Home neighborhood on SE 4th Street, through mostly vacant land, though there will likely need to be a taking of a building at the intersection with Malcolm, where it ties into the newly reconstructed “Green 4th Street”. This also requires reopening a private road north of KSTP/Hubbard, and replacing parking for both KSTP and The Pavilion on Berry Apartments.
Prohibit large trucks on the section of Malcolm between 4th and University. With any combination of Territorial, 5th, 6th, and Granary Road available. along with Eustis (SB) and Westgate (NB), trucks have alternative East-West movements through the site to reach major regional routes that don’t require crossing LRT tracks here.
Extend Eustis as a Frontage Road to Granary Road / 6th Street Extended (Elevator Road)
Construct new bridge connecting 23rd Avenue SE and with 24th Avenue SE across the Railroad tracks (rename Huron Boulevard for Street continuity) (shown in Brown). This is the most logical rail crossing, as it provides more direct access to I-94. Oak Street is an alternative, but creates more through traffic on local streets.
Preserve University of Minnesota Transitway. Add call/stops at Prospect Park LRT station and at Bedford Avenue. Consider allowing traffic from Granary Road and/or 6th Street Extended to share Transitway Bridge over Railroad tracks in order to reduce construction costs.
Granary Road (shown in Red) is the northernmost East-West Street. It is to be a two-way street. Its western termination (from the point-of-view of the project) is in the “Dinkytown Ditch”, whereupon it proceeds to St. Anthony Main district, with possible tie-in to I-35W. Its easternmost termination is either
Energy Park Drive (enabling connections to Mn-280)
the University of Minnesota Transitway (and sharing Transitway Bridge over Railroad RoW)
Cromwell Avenue extended (to the delight of residents of South Saint Anthony Park neighborhood in St. Paul)
25th Avenue Extended (to Granary Road)
29th Avenue Extended (to 5th and 6th Streets). This is tricky with the LRT and existing structures.
30th Avenue Extended to Harris Machinery buildings redevelopment
Malcolm Avenue Extended to Granary Road
Bedford Street Extended to Granary Road, intersecting 5th and 6th.
Westgate Drive Extended to Granary Road/6th Street.
New Road connecting Huron Boulevard Bridge with Kasota Ave. SE.
The photostream of my site visit is at Flickr here. This is a multi-jurisidictional issue, as the map covers both Minneapolis and St. Paul, with many individual property owners. The whole point of planning is that costs can be reduced and benefits enhanced if people coordinate their actions in advance. Here is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that.
You can read more about the official plans and the dreamers’ dreams at these links:
Imagine arriving at the Mall of America light rail station and seeing trains for both downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul, and not waiting 20 years until the Riverview Corridor is built.
When the Hiawatha Line (today’s Blue Line) opened in 2004, it had service every 7.5 minutes (8 trains per hour). [As of this writing, Wikipedia still thinks it does]. Today it has service every 10 minutes (6 trains per hour). In exchange service was transformed from to 3 car instead of 2 car trains. Most transit riders I know would prefer the more frequent service. (Most auto users of course prefer fewer trains, as that means less problems at traffic signals.)
When the Central Corridor (today’s Green Line) was proposed, it was to have “16 trains per hour“, i.e. service every 7.5 minutes in each direction. Today it has service every 10 minutes. The bottleneck, we are told, is downtown Minneapolis, where the lines come together, providing train service every 5 minutes.
However most users of the Green and Blue Lines are not going downtown. Many are going to other destinations along the line. That is what keeps them in business. In fact, many riders transfer from the Green Line to the Blue Line (and vice versa) at Downtown East.
Suppose in addition to today’s service MetroTransit provided one more service, let’s call it the Cyan Line*, running from St. Paul to Bloomington, requiring very little additional construction, and no additional train cars (if we are willing to reduce the number of cars per train), that did not further congest the critical points in downtown Minneapolis.
MetroTransit could add about 3 trains per hour (one more train every 20 minutes) with no additional cars if each train went from 3 car to 2 car length, for a total of nine trains per hour (9*2 = 6*3). Alternatively, they could just buy more cars. (To achieve the “High-Frequency Network” designation, there would need to be 4 trains per hour in each direction, though since the lines already have service, I am not sure this is required).
To achieve this, MetroTransit would need to construct the small section illustrated in the figure (map). This Wye Junction would take very little land in Currie Park, and quite possibly no buildings. Some park land would need to be replaced. (I see some nearby surface parking that would be suitable, if not land bridges/interstate lids/freeway caps.)
What the Cyan Line service (shown in figure 2) achieves is not so much direct access from St. Paul to Bloomington, which would be a very long trip (on the order of an hour), but direct access for other Green Line origins (destinations) like the University of Minnesota to Blue Line destinations (origins) like South Minneapolis, the Airport, and the Mall of America.
Shorter distance trips on the same line (e.g. from Lake Street to the VA, from Snelling Avenue to downtown St. Paul) would also see increased service. Once eastbound on the Green Line at West Bank, it changes from Cyan to Green Line designation since they share a common destination. Once southbound on the Blue Line it changes from Cyan to Blue Line designation .**
As we know, transit is a positive feedback system. Cut back the service, and ridership drops. Lose more riders, cut more service. This works in both directions. Add service, ridership increases. Ridership increases justify more service. Over the long run, land use patterns change.
How much will this cost? I don’t know, but this is in practice a really short section, I am guessing on the order of $10 million in initial construction. Additional costs for trainsets and labor as needed. The Minneapolis-St. Paul region needs to be more creative about the services provided. I am suggesting build the Wye and run 3 Cyan Line trains per hour for a few years. If it works, expand it. If in fact long distance trips from Bloomington to St. Paul are using it, it provides justification for the Riverview Corridor. With a Riverview Corridor, the Cyan Line could be extended along that new track (with additional Wyes where the Riverview meets the Green and Blue lines, respectively), and be transformed into a Circle (or in this case, Triangular) Line. If not, the region has lost very little.
* Many of the more common colors are spoken for, Cyan is the mixture of Blue and Green.
** Granted stopping at both West Bank station and at Cedar-Riverside Station is not ideal, it is no worse than what happens at much less used stations in Bloomington.
Risk severity in transportation network analysis is defined as the effects of a link or network failure on the whole system. Change accessibility (reduction in the number of jobs which can be reached) is used as an integrated indicator to reflect the severity of a link outage. The changes of accessibility before-and-after the removing of a freeway segment from the network represent its risk severity. The analysis in the Minneapolis – St. Paul (Twin Cities) region show that links near downtown Minneapolis have relative higher risk severity than those in rural area. The geographical distribution of links with the highest risk severity displays the property that these links tend to be near or at the intersection of freeways. Risk severity of these links based on the accessibility to jobs and to workers at different time thresholds and during different dayparts are also analyzed in the paper. The research finds that network structure measures: betweenness, straightness and closeness, help explain the severity of loss due to network outage.
According to the US Department of Education (reported in wikipedia), the University of Minnesota has (Fall 2013) 63,929 students, ranking 19th in the US. Of course, many of those larger schools are for-profit, non-residential, cater to part-time students, or college systems. Among “peers”, (land-grantish research schools) larger schools include Arizona State, Central Florida, Ohio State, and Maryland.
Alternatively, the Twin Cities campus is the 9th largest public university in the US by enrollment, with 48,308 students (undergraduate about 34,500), falling several places, and several thousand students from 2009, when it was 4th.
There are numerous economies of scale to be had from a larger school (i.e. costs rise sub-linearly with the number of students because the delivery of education has a large fixed cost component like buildings and chairs and lectures and software and administration), and the evidence about quality of education with size of school (and even to an extent size of classes) is mixed (though everyone seems to like smaller classes better). (The evidence about student satisfaction tends to favor small elite liberal arts schools with a lot of hand-holding, land grants like the University of Minnesota will never compete in that market). These economies of scale should lower per pupil costs. Rankings like US News favor small class sizes, but also favor large universities.
Clearly the University of Minnesota rejects more students than it accepts (it has a 44% acceptance rate). If it just one year raised that to 88% several things would happen. First there would be more students (though it is not clear enrollees would double, more than double, or less than double, since rejected students might be more or less likely). Second, because it lost some of its exclusivity, fewer top tier students would apply. Many faculty would similarly find alternatives – not wanting to deal with the headaches twice as many students brings, though I imagine teaching slots would be filled with the glut of PhDs on the market in most fields. Class sizes would undoubtedly increase, but more classes could be offered. [After World War II, Georgia Tech, which saw an influx of GIs, expanded its night school, so that there would be a full second shift of courses]. Yet the quality of the University would on average drop.
Trends working in the opposite direction of increasing campus size include MOOCs, encouraging more online, distance learning. Getting those to work well has been difficult, and they are yet to be mainstream. Moreover a seldom-stated purpose of university, keeping students out of the labor market and in a semi-protected environment between home and the harsh cruel world cannot be accommodated with MOOCs. Demographics also move against rapidly expanding university size overall. However any one university should be able to increase market share, both with domestic and international students. Another purpose of university, providing a mixing bowl for organization of individuals into groups and couples, requires in-person attendance.
However if this were done more gradually but intentionally, with an aim of attracting more and better students, it should be possible to grow the campus to 100,000 over a decade or two.
From a physical perspective, the campus has significant room to grow, especially to the North East, but also infill and intensification to the south-east, north, and on West Bank. Even more growth is possible on the St. Paul campus, which abuts the largely underutilized State Fair Grounds.
My guess is doubling enrollment would require far less then twice as much new classroom space, about a doubling of dorm and residential space, a bit less than doubling of graduate student offices and labs and faculty offices – less assuming many of the new teaching responsibilities would be borne by adjuncts rather than regular faculty.
Around campus, business would boom. New apartments, with ground floor retail and restaurants would fill in any of the empty parcels of Stadium Village and Dinkytown and West Bank.
Transit ridership to campus would more than double, since the capacity for cars on campus would decrease significantly (all those new buildings will use up surface parking lots, reason itself to support an expansion, pedagogy be damned) while total travel demand in terms of trips to campus rose.
Such a change would challenge Boston’s 250,000 students (not sure how this was calculated, must be “Greater Boston”) as the lead college town in the US. According to city-data, Boston’s college population is 14.6% of the total. The City of Minneapolis has 11.3%, near the top for large cities. Increasing enrollment by 50k students would increase the share of the City’s population in college by up to 12% (depending on where they lived, the maximum assumes they all live in Minneapolis proper), putting Minneapolis at about 23%. Clearly much of Boston’s attractiveness to college students is the surfeit of students already there. We don’t really operate in that league here yet.
If we think of college as a temporal port, just as immigrants from Europe used to land mostly in New York, and occasionally disperse from there, immigrants from youth land in college, and disperse slowly from that point. This should greatly increase innovation, as the region’s engine of growth scaled up and the region attracted boatloads of Generation Z/Post-Millennials to its lake shores.