Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

A decent way to sell it to the 6th district folks is to point out how much more expensive it is to build highways in the metro than anywhere else in the state. SWLRT won't reduce congestion but it will slow the need for metro highway expansion. That's more road dollars for Greater MN.

If possible, it would be good to point out that the dollars going to SWLRT aren't available for roads so it is not taking funding from roads.

[RailBaronYarr]

Ignoring whether it's good policy to shift dedicated MnDOT spending away from the metro to outstate roads (or if outstate residents would even believe the claim that SWLRT with 34,000 riders in 2040 will take enough drivers off the roads to meaningfully reduce future road spending needs in this quadrant of the metro)... The dollars the state would have used for SWLRT would have absolutely been available for roads. The GOP explicitly proposed using general fund dollars and bonding for roads, and a very common (if hypocritical, IMO) conservative position is that general fund money is okay to spend on infrastructure (as long as it's infrastructure trucks and Real Americans can drive on). The local funding option (raising Hennepin County's bonding authority, or a sales tax) could also have been spent on county roads, which many people (Jeff Johnson and anyone who votes for him!) believe is a much better investment than that method/amount being spent on transit.

Maybe instead of just repeating the stuff I read/hear every day from folks across the state, it's better to just ask why, in 45+ years of planning rail lines in this region/state, there hasn't been a *single* competent leader who could unite more of the metro and state around transit as an ideology/wise investment? Maybe that can be said for the current Blue and Green Lines, but I dunno.

[MNdible]

In my anecdotal experience, there are a lot of outstate people who broadly "get it" -- to assume they're a lost cause because they live out in the sticks is demeaning. And the opening up of our first two (hugely successful) LRT lines has made the sales job even easier, I'd argue. I could tick off about a dozen people I know from outstate who have done a complete 180 on LRT after coming down to the metro and using the system. As compared to 15 years ago, and even to 5 years ago, a governor can now take the actual facts on the ground and point to the very clear benefits that a system provides -- and a lot (certainly not all, but we don't need all) of outstate constituents will agree that a robust metro transit system needs to be a part of the broad statewide discussion about transportation.

But Dayton has failed to do this, or more accurately has failed to even try to do this.

[David Greene]

^ Spot on.

[RailBaronYarr]

Look, I'm not trying to demean anyone, even people in outstate districts. This isn't a brush applied to everyone. There are obviously people who get it, some who vote GOP - and some people who don't get it but vote DFL. And yeah, 2014 had awful voter turnout, particularly among young people. But most GOP districts outstate are *solidly* GOP to the point that I really have a hard time believing (to the extent that metro area transit's part in peoples' perception of a quality statewide transportation system that helps our economy is even #10 on the list of what people care about) that enough people could be swayed by a solid argument re:SWLRT process/politics to swing those districts back to DFL... AND that the new politician in league with a new DFL majority in all branches of state government would be willing to vote for major transit funding changes given that opportunity (see: 2012-2014).

This isn't a knock on any individual district or politician or person. We have a problem in this country understanding what transportation is, what are the reasons we fund it in different ways, what it does, and how it interacts with land use and other public infrastructure. We're chronically bad at building transit cost-effectively in this country. We're bad at messaging it - look at any project across the country and where does "congestion relief for drivers" rank in the list of benefits. There are a LOT of great, smart, dedicated people out there pushing for a lot of transit projects of varying worth (IMO!), but a lot of it is swimming upstream against decades of road projects and low density zoning/resulting built form and resistance to meaningful land use and transportation reforms. We've got metro area DFL leaders cheerleading giant bridges to rural Wisconsin and Corridors for Commerce programs building new freeways in north metro cornfields.

Not to be too snarky, but I just don't think we're a nation at a tipping point where a few competent liberal governors or minds moved will put us over the edge into a transit planning and funding revolution.

[David Greene]

While that may be true, doorknocking is a huge opportunity to start pushing a different narrative. Especially this year, where people are particularly fed up with politics as usual. People seem to be more open to different ideas and visions.

I'm following Anne Buckvold's campaign (http://www.buckvoldforhouse.com/) in 13A partly because she's kind-of-family (my cousin's cousin) but also because she's pushing a different vision of transportation than probably most people in that district have been thinking about. She wants to finish Northstar, yes, but she was also a strong supporter of SWLRT at the capitol and has been talking about it a bit on the campaign trail as people bring it up. She's found exactly what MNdible describes: plenty of people in the district understand the benefits of SWLRT, even if the tangible-ness of much of it is lacking. She's taking that and pushing the conversation toward statewide transportation solutions that work for everyone.

Under "Issues" her top item is "Transportation," which is pretty usual for a legislative candidate.

Even if she (or any other transportation-aware candidate) doesn't win, advancing the conversation is important. It will make the people in office that much more pressured to get something done for the good of the state.

Look, this isn't going to fix things overnight or in one election. But we've got to start somewhere.

[intercomnut]

Visualization of the upcoming Type III light rail vehicles.

Biggest difference is that the seats in the center section will all face each other, increasing capacity.



I've always hated the four-person rows, where you're knocking knees with the person across from you.

This also allows people using wheelchairs to move across the entire car, instead of being limited to the section they board first.

[grant1simons2]

This makes a lot more sense

[talindsay]

Also, a new sleet-cutter pantograph added to lead the actual power pantograph, for improved winter performance. I wonder if that's a Minneapolis-only thing, based on operations here specifically, or if it's something that's done on other systems and that we're finally getting. I haven't seen it before, but then I haven't looked for it before either.

[EOst]

They should do the same thing with the 2-seat benches directly adjacent to the "C" car in cars A and B. The second seat, wedged in next to the clear barrier, isn't practically usable.

[Silophant]

Yeah, those low-legroom seats are awful.

I wish they would have gone for 150' LRVs to be run in pairs instead of 100' ones to be run in triples (triads?). You could still have the ability to run smaller trains off peak (though the Green Line seems to run 3 cars basically all the time) but be able to wedge a few dozen more people in a train after events.

Looks like it's too late, though. Since the order is for 27, with an option for 50 more, I assume that will take us not only through the Blue Line extension, but Riverview as well.

[mattaudio]

Are there any 150ft LRVs with two articulations on the market? And would that combination of length between bogies be able to navigate our system? There may be a technical reason for that, otherwise indeed 150ft vehicles would make sense.

[EOst]

The Purple Line in Maryland will have 136' cars built by Urbos. Not quite 150', but not so far off either.

[Silophant]

Additionally, Wikipedia says that the S70s used in Portland are single-ended. They're still shaped the same on both ends, but have a curved row of seats instead of a cab at one end. That would work just fine for our system as well.

[intercomnut]

Additionally, Wikipedia says that the S70s used in Portland are single-ended. They're still shaped the same on both ends, but have a curved row of seats instead of a cab at one end. That would work just fine for our system as well.

If they need to de-couple a car during service (due to maintenance needs or for evening service), that could be a problem. I'm curious how Portland handles that.

[FISHMANPET]

In Portland they always run as a married pair. They never run single car operations, or for that matter three car operations.

[intercomnut]

In Portland they always run as a married pair. They never run single car operations, or for that matter three car operations.

So if we want to run at max capacity and retain operational flexibility, we need bi-directional train cars.

[talindsay]

Yeah, those low-legroom seats are awful.

I wish they would have gone for 150' LRVs to be run in pairs instead of 100' ones to be run in triples (triads?). You could still have the ability to run smaller trains off peak (though the Green Line seems to run 3 cars basically all the time) but be able to wedge a few dozen more people in a train after events.

Looks like it's too late, though. Since the order is for 27, with an option for 50 more, I assume that will take us not only through the Blue Line extension, but Riverview as well.

The order with the Green Line had options extending the total series II to 99 cars, and we only ever got fifty-some (sorry, I don't know the number off the top of my head like I used to). At the time that order was put in the plan was to provide Green Line, Blue Line's additional needs, and Green Line extension all with series II.

I'd say the chances are fairly good that Blue Line Extension will actually get in under the options on this order, but even that isn't any kind of guarantee. Certainly there's no way Riverview would actually happen under this order.

Final note though is that 27 cars means two-car trains. I'm curious how they think that's going to work with through-routing along the Green Line. I think they're going to actually need to double the Green Line fleet - somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 cars - which means they'll need to come up with funds for another dozen or so train cars here.

Does anybody know if Series III will be electronically compatible with Series II? Recall that Series I and Series II are mechanically compatible, so a II can haul a I into the maintenance yard if needed, but they can't run together in service. My guess is that II and III would be able to interoperate since they're both Siemens S70 designs, but it would be a good thing to confirm.

[FISHMANPET]

In Portland they always run as a married pair. They never run single car operations, or for that matter three car operations.

So if we want to run at max capacity and retain operational flexibility, we need bi-directional train cars.

Not necessarily. The yard would just have to be a little more careful about how they build carsets (assuming they have the track geometry to allow it). Instead of allowing three cars to mash up any ol' way, you'd just have to make sure there's a cab at the front of the carset, and a cab at the back. And if that train is going to go from a 3-car train to a 2-car train, make sure it's setup in such a way that when the 3rd car is peeled off that there will still be a cab at both ends of the train. This would also disallow single car trains, though I don't know if those are ever really used in our system anymore.

It's all theoretically possible, but I'm not sure how much more complicated it would make yard operations, compared to the benefit of a few extra seats that would only really be beneficial on a handful of trips in the morning and afternoon.

[HuskyGrad]

Visualization of the upcoming Type III light rail vehicles.

Biggest difference is that the seats in the center section will all face each other, increasing capacity.



I've always hated the four-person rows, where you're knocking knees with the person across from you.

This also allows people using wheelchairs to move across the entire car, instead of being limited to the section they board first.

These appear to be based on the Portland S70 Type 5. Hopefully they have the extra toe room at the seats by the doors as well.

Additionally, Wikipedia says that the S70s used in Portland are single-ended. They're still shaped the same on both ends, but have a curved row of seats instead of a cab at one end. That would work just fine for our system as well.

If they need to de-couple a car during service (due to maintenance needs or for evening service), that could be a problem. I'm curious how Portland handles that.

The Portland S70s have a control unit located under a cover that allow operators to reverse the vehicle. Only Type I through III are used in single car configuration. If there's an issue with a Type IV or V, they remove both from service. The Portland network as a few more opportunities to turn a train around within the downtown area. The MT system only allows for this movement within the OMFs.