That said, there is already good bus service along Nicollet, and Lake, not to mention Lyndale and Hennepin to the west of Nicollet. I love the idea of 3C, however light rail would not significantly improve transit time for these riders. A 20 minute bus ride from Lake and Nicollet downtown with heavy traffic might be cut to 5-7 minutes on LRT (guess), which is a significant time saving percentage-wise, but not in terms of overall minutes. Folks here are close enough to bike more quickly than the bus can take them, as I can attribute from having lived in this area for several years. Granted, one must be able-bodied and the winters are dicey, but it’s still a viable option for many people a lot of the time. I just wish they would call 3A what it is, as you pointed out and pull the funding from somewhere else.

The problem, as I see it, with the “C” routing (under Nicollet) is that it tries to mix two different scales and needs, and spends a lot of money to do so when other projects could better serve a greater population for, perhaps, less money. That is, it tries to kill two birds with one stone, but the stone costs a few hundred million than two stones would otherwise.

In other words, if the project took the “A” route and was supplemented by a streetcar on Nicollet and/or Hennepin and/or the Greenway it may work better. A routing up through Uptown will not be particularly more or less convenient for people who currently take the bus routes along these corridors (the 6, 4 and 18 on Hennepin, Lyndale and Nicollet, respectively) which are frequent and reliable. It will, however, cost significantly more, impact “Eat Street” on Nicollet and have an adverse impact on the Greenway, which has been a catalyst for new construction along the corridor.

In addition, the Uptown-Nicollet corridor will add time to this route, and doesn’t interface as well with the existing light rail line as the “A” route. The light rail has been extended up 5th Street and part-way around the new Twins Stadium and will host, by 2014 (we can only hope) cars from the airport and Downtown Saint Paul, which could be through-routed.

The proposal here to go along 12th Avenue and then loop around will surely add running time, as will dwell times at additional stations (six on the “C” route, three on the “A” route), a sharp curve and some number of ramps and tunnel portals. Adding five minutes will make the line significantly less desirable to suburban residents commuting downtown; the “A” route follows a flat, straight existing right-of-way and would be relatively high-speed.

Finally, the stops at Kenwood (21st Street), Bryn Mawr (Penn) and Harrison (Van White) serve neighborhoods which are not currently well-served by transit—their only connection to Minneapolis are slow, circuitous, infrequent buses. A resident of Bryn Mawr recently told me that not only does the #9 bus take 20 minute to get downtown—a trip of barely a mile as the crow flies—and it has a one-hour gap in service in the early evening. These neighborhoods are not very dense but they’re not McMansion subdivisions either; they are 1920s-era relatively walkable and if served better would see more transit use. In addition, there is ample possibility along this route for redevelopment, as well as access to lakes and parkland.

Route “C” on the other hand, provides transit to communities which already have good transit (yes, by bus, but frequent and relatively fast). Yes, many more people there already use transit, but routing what is a suburban line—and whether we should spend $1b on a suburban transit line or build an urban streetcar system in the Twin Cities would be a fine debate—through the neighborhood doesn’t really make sense. If we want to build the Southwest Corridor, we should build it for what it is, a suburban commuter corridor. It doesn’t make sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to try to serve neighborhoods which already use transit. They’d probably be happier with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of streetcars or newer and more buses.

Finally, operations might be adversely affected by the “C” routing through Uptown. The neighborhood is busy all hours of the day and night. During rush hours, trains would be crowded already from the outer suburbs but would probably get even worse at Uptown, so much so that people might opt for the good, old bus. At other times of day, in the evening especially, however, service to the outer part of the line might not necessitate operation of any more than every 15 or 20 minutes, since most of that traffic is commuter traffic. (Most bus routes which serve the line’s outer reaches are currently strictly peak hour only.) From Uptown to Downtown, however, running trains only every 15 minutes wouldn’t make sense; why take the train when you can get a bus that takes the same amount of time but comes more frequently? You’d have to compromise and either have frequent trains which ran mostly-empty in the outer suburbs or less-frequent trains which, due to long headways, didn’t capture the whole local market. Or, you’d have to have short-turn runs to Uptown or just beyond, which is confusing to riders and necessitates even more construction for switching and storage.

The transit situations in the Uptown area, as I see them, are that the buses along Lake Street are very slow and crowded, and the north-south buses could see more investment, perhaps as fixed-guideway systems. Alternative “C” does nothing to alleviate the Lake Street issue (a Midtown Greenway streetcar or LRT, particularly if properly built with a full dual track alignment, would) and really doesn’t help with much other than the Nicollet bus; it would make no sense to ride from 38th Street to Lake Street and then change to a Light Rail which ran not-much-faster in to the city. The only users of the system in the area would be those who lived within a couple blocks of the stations; if you live at 33rd and Nicollet or 27th and Lyndale, you’d still take the bus.

If we are going to build this corridor—and I think there are more worthy lines in the Twin Cities in which to invest—what I’d propose is the following:

• The Southwest Corridor should follow the current “A” routing through the lakes to connect to the current lines at the Twins Ballpark as planned.

• The Midtown Greenway should be rebuilt with a full, two-track right-of-way for streetcars/light rail, connecting with the Southwest Corridor at a transfer station at Calhoun Commons and the Hiawatha Line on the east end, with the potential to continue east to Saint Paul or south to the Airport. (The current bike path must be maintained in the Greenway.) Stops at Lyndale, Nicollet, Portland, Chicago, Cedar-Bloomington, with a run time of ~12 minutes. In addition, the area between Lake Street and 28th should be rezoned to allow for very dense development and built out, with a requirement that buildings have entrances facing on to the Greenway, which could have transit in the center and walking or biking trails on each side.

• Some investment in major north-south bus lines in Minneapolis, particularly on Chicago (5), Nicollet (18), Lyndale (4) and Hennepin (6). In the long run, these could be rebuilt as streetcar lines, but that is not as important as keeping them as high-frequency, reliable bus routes.

This would allow the Southwest corridor to serve the constituency in question (suburbanites) and better serve the current transit-users in Minneapolis. Trying to twist the Southwest Corridor in to a shape where it will portend to serve everyone will make its utility less for all.