Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 965
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tiller » November 11th, 2015, 3:39 am

My thought exactly. Just by reading through the documents that were posted so far, I think they are not at the stage of actually doing any cost-benefit analysis yet. As soon as we have some numbers and dollar signs to talk about, CP Spur+W 7th St hybrid alignment will look much attractive. (I am actually not even sure if that hybrid alignment is being considered as an alternative. The universe of alignment reads to me like, if you choose 7th St or CP Spur, you stick with it the entire way.)
This is how the recent docs for both Riverview and Rush read to me. I wasn't around/paying attention when SWLRT/Bottineau were at roughly this stage of planning, so I'd like to ask those of you who were, how does the route picking process from back then compare to now?

More specifically, is it likely that once we have things like ridership forecasts/cost forecasts/station locations that we can get at least one hybrid alignment on the table (has this happened with previous lines)?

Edit: Also, if light rail were to be routed and/or relocated to the SPUD concourse, how would that affect use of the lowertown OMF? Since we seem to build one with each line, I guess it would only be affected if we moved the Central Corridor's terminus to the concourse. Would doing so then require we run trains into the back of the OMF, and reverse the OMF's internals? How politically [un]acceptable would the cost to re-route the end of the Green Line be?

kellonathan
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 180
Joined: July 8th, 2012, 12:25 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby kellonathan » November 11th, 2015, 11:19 am

(I am not super familiar with the routing process for other transit routes, but this is just a generalized description of how projects often progress.)

When a project is at a super-beginning stage, where people casually float around ideas for alignments with different ideals and visions, planners (or often outside consultants) will gather all the suggested alternatives but won't do much in terms of actual analyses. Stakeholders will review those suggestions and rule out "well, that's clearly not gonna fly" kind of suggestions and commission the study for the alternatives that are left on the table. Hybrid routing looks very plausible on the map to me, so I really doubt that the staffs or their consultants haven't thought of that option yet. They should be aware of those. But if no one brings up that idea to the table, that's what public comment periods and meetings are for, supposedly. It should also be noted that when we go past the 'point of no return' in terms of the alternative analysis and project progress in general, it's quite difficult to alter the project to accommodate new ideas without significant project delay. (#neverforget3c)

My impression so far is that they are focusing more on the trunk route (main portion) right now so there hasn't been much work done in terms of downtown routing.

That being said, I would personally like to see Riverview entering downtown from the W 7th St and running on 5th St so it could be interlined with Green Line at Central station. True LRT Triangle!
Jonathan Ahn, AICP | [email protected]
Personal thoughts and personal opinion only. May include incomplete information.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby David Greene » November 11th, 2015, 12:42 pm

That being said, I would personally like to see Riverview entering downtown from the W 7th St and running on 5th St so it could be interlined with Green Line at Central station. True LRT Triangle!
That would be great for LRT but it would really mess up auto traffic. 5th has a direct ramp off 94 and lots of people use it to turn into the Lawson ramp and/or get to St. Peter and points east. Not to mention there's already a bus lane there. The area from about Roy Wilkins to Wabasha gets pretty congested in the morning. I just don't think routing down 5th is gonna fly.

We could of course always cut diagonally through Rice Park and head down 4th! :o

Mikey
Landmark Center
Posts: 262
Joined: January 6th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Location: Gunflint Trail
Contact:

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Mikey » November 11th, 2015, 1:33 pm

It would require converting 6th St to two-way traffic, at least to Robert. Probably kill on street parking too. West 7th from Randolph to Smith is the real battle

But, to paraphrase Jeff Goldbloom; "cars will find a way"
Urbanist in the north woods

kellonathan
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 180
Joined: July 8th, 2012, 12:25 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby kellonathan » November 11th, 2015, 3:41 pm

Now I wonder how downtown routing analysis has been done with Hiawatha Line on 5th St (Mpls). I should look up some of those old planning documents---I recall looking at the original plan calling for LRT running on 4th St instead of 5th St.
Jonathan Ahn, AICP | [email protected]
Personal thoughts and personal opinion only. May include incomplete information.

MSPtoMKE
Rice Park
Posts: 496
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 8:15 pm
Location: Loring Heights
Contact:

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby MSPtoMKE » November 11th, 2015, 6:59 pm

But, to paraphrase Jeff Goldbloom; "cars will find a way"
I believe the quote is "Cars, uh, find a way."
My flickr photos.

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1218
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Mdcastle » November 12th, 2015, 6:57 am

Is a new bridge realistically possible, or are people just drawing fantasy lines on a map?

My own opinion is LRT down 7th or the RR ROW to the Mall of America. Any benefits to ending at a random spot in South Minneapolis aren't as great as a one seat ride to the airport, mall, and the huge park and rides. We ended the Blue Line at the mall by way of the airport, not some random spot in Highland Park or a roundabout way to downtown St. Paul, and if we're building light rail to Eden Prairie and Brooklyn Park we shouldn't be settling for anything less for the third leg of the "iron triangle".

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby RailBaronYarr » November 12th, 2015, 8:22 am

That would be great for LRT but it would really mess up auto traffic. 5th has a direct ramp off 94 and lots of people use it to turn into the Lawson ramp and/or get to St. Peter and points east. Not to mention there's already a bus lane there. The area from about Roy Wilkins to Wabasha gets pretty congested in the morning. I just don't think routing down 5th is gonna fly
5ht St between W 7th and St Peter has been repeatedly cut down to one travel lane over the past year or so, and things managed just fine. St Peter to Wabasha is really the only block in all of downtown that gets congested in my experience, and that's mostly due to delivery vehicles double parking and whatnot (which is a thing we want, but could probably be handled by shifting delivery times, etc). Traffic volumes on 5th are 6,300/day between 7th and St Peter, and 7,800 east of there. 6th St goes between 5,300 and 8,000 in the other direction (and is waaay overbuilt through the CBD as a 3-lane one-way, cars speed by me at the bus stop on Cedar every day). It's really not crazy to imagine 5th being converted to a narrow one-lane for cars with LRT running next to it. 6th is converted to a two-way, which could be configured in many ways depending on the priority of parking, bus lanes, etc - maybe even go with a reversible lane for AM/PM peak., just like Cedar St in St Paul and 5th in Minneapolis. My bigger concern would be how to handle the bus traffic along 5th for that stretch since parking access would be on the left but ideally buses would stay on the right for boarding.

froggie
Rice Park
Posts: 418
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 6:52 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby froggie » November 12th, 2015, 9:31 am

When I envisioned my downtown St. Paul concept, I concluded that a single eastbound lane on 5th and converting 6th to two-way would be workable. However, the buses along 5th would have to be moved off, as it'd be better to have the LRT along the south side of 5th and there'd be no room for bus stops between the traffic lane and the LRT pathway.

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1636
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby HiawathaGuy » November 12th, 2015, 10:50 am

When I envisioned my downtown St. Paul concept, I concluded that a single eastbound lane on 5th and converting 6th to two-way would be workable. However, the buses along 5th would have to be moved off, as it'd be better to have the LRT along the south side of 5th and there'd be no room for bus stops between the traffic lane and the LRT pathway.
Why can't buses and trains use the same lanes? Like they do through the U of M?

seanrichardryan
IDS Center
Posts: 4092
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby seanrichardryan » November 12th, 2015, 11:06 am

They don't use the same lane, it's a transit only lane adjacent to the tracks.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby FISHMANPET » November 12th, 2015, 11:11 am

They do drive on the tracks between Church St and Walnut St.

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1636
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby HiawathaGuy » November 12th, 2015, 11:28 am

I'm just saying that other cities in the US have lanes that are used for their light rail and buses, oftentimes in the downtown core. Seattle's tunnel, Denver, San Francisco, Portland all come to mind. It would seem that in extreme situations, it would be beneficial. Which I think could be done on 5th in St. Paul.

In a perfect scenario, the Downtown East station should have been used for both trains and buses, with the entire stretch being a transit spine - for rail and buses, with signal priority. Making the contra lane on 4th obsolete, or having it be a 2 way road - or where it could be placed on a diet, more realistic. But maybe there are operational limitations? Using rail platforms for buses in some locations, but not others... Just seems like something that could/should be solved in the future.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2430
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby EOst » November 12th, 2015, 1:22 pm

Making the contra lane on 4th obsolete, or having it be a 2 way road - or where it could be placed on a diet, more realistic.
I'm pretty sure I've read that MT agreed to lose the contraflow lane on 4th. Maybe for a protected bike lane?

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6385
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Riverview Corridor

Postby twincitizen » November 16th, 2015, 2:35 pm

Keep in mind, they have said they will be considering a hybrid LRT/streetcar (also known as a tram outside of North America) that could run in mixed traffic on West 7th. So I think Froggie is onto something there. You're probably in the right ballpark of where to make the transition from rail ROW to street-running as well, in the general vicinity of the Schmidt brewery.

Politically, I doubt that St. Paul would give up lanes (or on street parking), let alone MNDOT (it still carries MN-5 after all...which is dumb). Not to mention, a long section of the roadway in question has already gone on a road diet, and is now 3 lanes. It only goes back up to 4 lanes east of Goodhue (more or less, at Mancini's).

While running on-street from Randolph all the way into downtown would obviously be slower than staying in the rail ROW, keep in mind that St. Paul also studied streetcar on W 7th out to Randolph. This could be a two birds with one stone situation. While it would make for a significantly slower transit line, it would have much higher ridership by running through a dense area, even in mixed traffic. It would prevent St. Paul from building a separate streetcar line, which is certainly a regional benefit.
God I love being right: http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... ust-dont-m
Some committee members said the solution might come via some sort of hybrid system. [Wagenius] said there are streetcars that can run on the same tracks as current light rail trains and at greater speeds. “There’s a difference between the tool and what you choose to do with it,” Wagenius said. McLaughlin said a streetcar-type vehicle could run amidst traffic on West 7th and therefore not require removal of parking. It could then move to separated tracks and run at higher speed once it reaches the river. The Blue Line, for example, makes frequent stops downtown and then picks up speed and stops less frequently as it gets closer to the airport.
Big props to Wagenius and McLaughlin for seemingly being on the same page here, though ultimately their opinions won't matter as much as Ramsey County's CTIB reps. Interesting that Callaghan pulled two quotes from prominent Minneapolis/Hennepin folks, not Ramsey/St. Paul.

One aspect that I'm skeptical of is staying on West 7th the entire route instead of switching over to the RR corridor between Randolph and Davern (as seen on Froggie's maps upthread). Please correct me if I'm interpreting that incorrectly, but it kinda sounds like all considerations of using the RR corridor are pretty close to being dropped, largely for economic development reasons. Not the end of the world though - speed-wise, I'm not sure that using the RR corridor between Randolph & Davern would be THAT much faster than W 7th anyways. Over that 3.1 mile stretch, I doubt the running times would diverge by too much, especially since the RR corridor alternative would need to exit and re-enter 7th Street at those endpoints.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4487
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Silophant » November 16th, 2015, 3:53 pm

So... This is going to be like the Midtown study, where the plan is to use our standard LRVs (well, Type III or IV versions, by the time this is built) but insist that they're called streetcars?
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6385
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby twincitizen » November 16th, 2015, 4:13 pm

If this does share tracks with Blue under the airport, then yeah you probably do need LRVs than can do 55MPH. Unless there are smaller streetcar/trams capable of those speeds, which I don't doubt. The biggest decider of vehicle choice is likely going to be how large of stations you can build on 7th. Is a single 90' LRV still too big? There are also ~70' LRVs, correct? That vehicle would offer higher capacity than an articulated bus.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby RailBaronYarr » November 16th, 2015, 4:29 pm

I like using the RR ROW south/west of Randolph because beyond 35E it actually provides *better* economic development potential given the geography there. Time savings may be marginal (but still non-zero), but it also makes getting the line built more politically possible if they don't figure out what to do about traffic that uses W 7th from the river to reach I-35E.

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1364
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby acs » November 16th, 2015, 4:52 pm

screw the cars, if we want meaningful capacity and travel time upgrades over the 54 enough to justify a billion dollar price-tag this has to be LRT all the way. A streetcar won't get us there and while it might make Mancini's happy the Met Council Transportation committee has shown no willingness to support streetcar funding (hint hint W. Broadway people). The green line should have put to bed concerns about transit vs on-street parking.

User avatar
VacantLuxuries
Foshay Tower
Posts: 973
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby VacantLuxuries » November 16th, 2015, 4:56 pm

While I agree that LRT would be the best choice for the long run, St. Paul is throwing a lot of parking tantrums lately. I'd hate to see such an obvious connection abandoned because some people can't bear to park around the corner when they go to Mancini's.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlexBeck08 and 5 guests