Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[DanPatchToget]

Some info from Kevin Roggenbuck regarding LRV selection: LRVs that operate partially off-wire are being considered. These would have batteries and at station stops a pantograph would be raised to charge the batteries (like the C Line's electric buses at Brooklyn Center). This would mostly eliminate the need for overhead wires, which are considered an eyesore (I personally don't mind them, but maybe it could be a way to make West 7th residents and businesses happy).

They're still nowhere near selecting the type of LRV that will be used on Riverview, so questions of 1-car or 2-car trains, partially or 100% low-floor, etc. are still up in the air at this point.

[Korh]

Some info from Kevin Roggenbuck regarding LRV selection: LRVs that operate partially off-wire are being considered. These would have batteries and at station stops a pantograph would be raised to charge the batteries (like the C Line's electric buses at Brooklyn Center). This would mostly eliminate the need for overhead wires, which are considered an eyesore (I personally don't mind them, but maybe it could be a way to make West 7th residents and businesses happy).

They're still nowhere near selecting the type of LRV that will be used on Riverview, so questions of 1-car or 2-car trains, partially or 100% low-floor, etc. are still up in the air at this point.

If they do use a battery powered LRVs I hope they at least make them be able to raise/lower the pantograph on the move. It is possible, heck I know one route in Germany that uses this for electric semi trucks.
https://youtu.be/_3P_S7pL7Yg
I've also heard discussion whether or not Amtraks new hybrid battery trains will be able to do this as well but those are still years away.

[alexschief]

Pantograph systems are superior to batteries in just about every operational aspect. If they chose the battery powered option that would be another example of this project prioritizing extremely minor local concerns over the feasibility of the entire transit service.

[thespeedmccool]

I love the idea of doing this without overhead wires. They're not so bad, but I agree they're somewhat of an eyesore and I imagine cutting them out of the project will placate a major concern for some residents and those concerned with "historical preservation."

This project still has too many problems to get my seal of approval, but this is a bonus.

[BoredAgain]

I think we should use battery trains, but then restore the "historic" power lines from the streetcar that used to run along this route. It will be strictly decorative and entirely non-functional.

[Tcmetro]

I rode the Milwaukee streetcar a couple years ago and it seemed slower under battery power compared to under wire.

[DanPatchToget]

Some notes from tonight's Community Advisory Committee meeting:
Not sure if this is new or a continued study, but they're looking at how to connect Riverview, the Ford Site, the A Line, and the Blue Line together with transit. Modes being considered include "micro-transit", fixed-route bus, and aBRT. Rail is not being considered.

There have not been negotiations with Canadian Pacific about purchasing the Ford Spur. Apparently the University of St. Thomas has a contract with CP for use of the spur, but there weren't any details about it.

The current Union Depot light rail alignment for the Green Line wouldn't be able to handle both Green Line and Riverview traffic. Additional track and/or platforms would be needed on 4th Street. Other alignments through downtown St. Paul are also being considered for Riverview: 5th/6th Streets, 7th Street (as suggested by St. Paul), and in the back of the depot in between the bus and regional/intercity rail platforms.

If the Ford Spur is (re)considered for Riverview, St. Paul requested the east end of the alignment would transition onto West 7th at Montreal Way.

Impacts of dedicated double-track across the Mississippi River Bridge with reduction of car lanes from 4 travel lanes to 2 travel lanes are being analyzed.

A trail deck above traffic on the Mississippi River Bridge is being considered, with a few possible options for connecting into Fort Snelling.

[Trademark]

Some notes from tonight's Community Advisory Committee meeting:
Not sure if this is new or a continued study, but they're looking at how to connect Riverview, the Ford Site, the A Line, and the Blue Line together with transit. Modes being considered include "micro-transit", fixed-route bus, and aBRT. Rail is not being considered.

There have not been negotiations with Canadian Pacific about purchasing the Ford Spur. Apparently the University of St. Thomas has a contract with CP for use of the spur, but there weren't any details about it.

The current Union Depot light rail alignment for the Green Line wouldn't be able to handle both Green Line and Riverview traffic. Additional track and/or platforms would be needed on 4th Street. Other alignments through downtown St. Paul are also being considered for Riverview: 5th/6th Streets, 7th Street (as suggested by St. Paul), and in the back of the depot in between the bus and regional/intercity rail platforms.

If the Ford Spur is (re)considered for Riverview, St. Paul requested the east end of the alignment would transition onto West 7th at Montreal Way.

Impacts of dedicated double-track across the Mississippi River Bridge with reduction of car lanes from 4 travel lanes to 2 travel lanes are being analyzed.

A trail deck above traffic on the Mississippi River Bridge is being considered, with a few possible options for connecting into Fort Snelling.

The fact that they're considering dedicated double track across the bridge is great news. I like the idea of a better bike connection. But a trail deck above the bridge that doesn't interfere with pantographs seems like it could get extremely expensive.

Any word on why Kellogg isn't being considered as an alignment for downtown st paul? As it could allow for an extension up 7th to arcade or payne.

As for connection to the Ford site an aBRT that starts at 50th and hwy 100 (with possible one day connection with the Dan Patch Line ). To 50th and France, The 46th street orange line station, 46th street blue line station, Thru the Ford site and st Paul avenue down to riverview would be the best option. It could also incentivize the elimination of those two really close stations consolidating Daven and Maynard with the aBRT line stopping at the other one.

[thespeedmccool]

This project is getting weirder by the day. Really have no idea what's going on here.

What does St. Thomas want the spur for? I can only hope it's to put a trail in.

It's really bad that the Green Line's current alignment can't handle even one more line. My guess is that it has to do with "unacceptable" wait times at stoplights along 4th, and if that's the case then Ramsey County needs to just put its foot down.

Aligning the Riverview along 7th actually isn't a bad idea for the long-term since it would open up extensions to the east side, but it comes with two problems: first, that it would almost definitely be a "streetcar" portion, which is unacceptable; and second, that there are then no opportunities for a direct transfer with the Green Line. I honestly bet they'll go with 5th/6th (assuming that 4th really isn't viable) and at least that option will have dedicated transit lanes thanks to the B and Gold Lines. Kellogg probably isn't an option for the long-term because of the bridge.

Love to hear that they're talking about cutting traffic lanes on the Highway 5 bridge. That would make this a full LRT from like Grand Avenue to MoA (except for that single-track segment under Fort Snelling(?))

A trail deck would almost certainly be cost-prohibitive. The better solution is to just take two car lanes and find some way to bypass the stairs on either end.

In sum, a step forward, and potentially a couple steps back. Very weird.

[Trademark]

This project is getting weirder by the day. Really have no idea what's going on here.

What does St. Thomas want the spur for? I can only hope it's to put a trail in.

It's really bad that the Green Line's current alignment can't handle even one more line. My guess is that it has to do with "unacceptable" wait times at stoplights along 4th, and if that's the case then Ramsey County needs to just put its foot down.

Aligning the Riverview along 7th actually isn't a bad idea for the long-term since it would open up extensions to the east side, but it comes with two problems: first, that it would almost definitely be a "streetcar" portion, which is unacceptable; and second, that there are then no opportunities for a direct transfer with the Green Line. I honestly bet they'll go with 5th/6th (assuming that 4th really isn't viable) and at least that option will have dedicated transit lanes thanks to the B and Gold Lines. Kellogg probably isn't an option for the long-term because of the bridge.

Love to hear that they're talking about cutting traffic lanes on the Highway 5 bridge. That would make this a full LRT from like Grand Avenue to MoA (except for that single-track segment under Fort Snelling(?))

A trail deck would almost certainly be cost-prohibitive. The better solution is to just take two car lanes and find some way to bypass the stairs on either end.

In sum, a step forward, and potentially a couple steps back. Very weird.

What east side extensions would you be in favor of if 7th was chosen?

[Tiller]

I love this new information.

Not sure if this is new or a continued study, but they're looking at how to connect Riverview, the Ford Site, the A Line, and the Blue Line together with transit. Modes being considered include "micro-transit", fixed-route bus, and aBRT. Rail is not being considered.

I still remember from years ago when they officially committed to the direct route instead of detouring through the Ford Site (which was the literal morning after the Ford Site was approved by the city). They still wanted to pursue something for the not-chosen routing, but there hasn't really been any official documentation since.

Maybe with the Ford Site finally being built out, there's more impetus to get something done. aBRT should be the easy decision to make here for all of those important transfer opportunities, existing and soon-to-be density, and for crying out loud half the stations are already there thanks to the A Line!!

There have not been negotiations with Canadian Pacific about purchasing the Ford Spur. Apparently the University of St. Thomas has a contract with CP for use of the spur, but there weren't any details about it.

What kind of interest would St. Thomas even have with the CP Spur? It's not near them (unless they have assets near it that idk about). If the contract was for Area C at the Ford Site, then I could see them wanting to use it for development.

They absolutely shouldn't be allowed to develop anything in the ROW elsewhere. Leverage for them to use for another issue with the city/county? Public officials have really been asleep at the wheel these last 8+ years by not trying to secure this ROW, considering how many potential uses it has.

The current Union Depot light rail alignment for the Green Line wouldn't be able to handle both Green Line and Riverview traffic. Additional track and/or platforms would be needed on 4th Street. Other alignments through downtown St. Paul are also being considered for Riverview: 5th/6th Streets, 7th Street (as suggested by St. Paul), and in the back of the depot in between the bus and regional/intercity rail platforms.

Are they still trying to terminate at Union Depot? Because getting to the Depot from 5th/6th, or 7th, streets would be more difficult. If we can ignore SPUD, using 7th or Kellogg in some way could still leave open a high-ridership East Side extension. They're about to rebuild the Kellogg Bridge, though maybe they could just build a second, parallel, bridge in the future. Hopefully we'll get a bunch more details soon on why 4th street won't work. Or perhaps we just need to make it a transit mall.

7th street would be a good choice, but the Green Line/Riverview transfer would suck. Literally half way between the two green line stations. The busiest transfer point for buses would be near the Xcel center, since that's the only place you could transfer between the 5th/6th st bus spines and Riverview. The N/S buses would be easier, with a station on 7th between Cedar and Minnesota being at most 1 block away from all the N/S bus routes.

Could we get dedicated lanes on 7th St? It's gotta be a question of political will. This is getting a little too close to Saint Paul's og streetcar study, when this needs to be worth the $2B we're gonna wind up spending on it. Downtown Saint Paul isn't that busy, though the business community would reflexively hate dedicated lanes anyways. The walksheds for riverview on 7th St would complement the green line nicely.

Impacts of dedicated double-track across the Mississippi River Bridge with reduction of car lanes from 4 travel lanes to 2 travel lanes are being analyzed.

Gooooooooooddddd

[Silophant]

If the Blue and Green Lines can share tracks through DT Minneapolis, and Blue and Riverview can share tracks through the airport/Bloomington, I don't understand why the tracks through DT St Paul can't be shared. Especially since there's no new OMF planned for this line (right?), they'll need access to the Lowertown OMF regardless of how they get there.

[John21]

St Thomas wants to build a hockey arena and softball field at the Ford site on the spur land.

[COLSLAW5]

I remember seeing somewhere that St. Thomas was looking at the possibility of putting a stadium on the land that is owned by canadian pacific that is actually "inside" the ford site redevelopment at the south east end.

[HuskyGrad]

If the Blue and Green Lines can share tracks through DT Minneapolis, and Blue and Riverview can share tracks through the airport/Bloomington, I don't understand why the tracks through DT St Paul can't be shared. Especially since there's no new OMF planned for this line (right?), they'll need access to the Lowertown OMF regardless of how they get there.

Downtown Minneapolis has a ton of additional infrastructure for movement of trains at the terminus. The tracks east of SPUD are narrower than standard and don't allow for two trains to pass each other.

[Trademark]

If the Blue and Green Lines can share tracks through DT Minneapolis, and Blue and Riverview can share tracks through the airport/Bloomington, I don't understand why the tracks through DT St Paul can't be shared. Especially since there's no new OMF planned for this line (right?), they'll need access to the Lowertown OMF regardless of how they get there.

Downtown Minneapolis has a ton of additional infrastructure for movement of trains at the terminus. The tracks east of SPUD are narrower than standard and don't allow for two trains to pass each other.

How was this not known until just now! If we can't use the tracks at Mall of America or in Downtown St Paul. Then maybe we need to rethink our mode. As the original benefit of rail that interlines on both ends won't exist anymore.

[Tiller]

If the Blue and Green Lines can share tracks through DT Minneapolis, and Blue and Riverview can share tracks through the airport/Bloomington, I don't understand why the tracks through DT St Paul can't be shared. Especially since there's no new OMF planned for this line (right?), they'll need access to the Lowertown OMF regardless of how they get there.

There were discussions previously about a need to make changes at the end in Bloomington too.

[twincitizen]

On the subject of redoing the track approach to MOA along 82nd St, which sounds more like a sure thing every time I hear about it (should Riverview actually happen), if you're going to spend a hundred million or more on new track with a (likely) elevated station above 82nd/24th Ave connecting into level 2 of the MOA parking ramp (with elevator/stairs down to the existing transit center), I can't help but think that it would behoove the agency to also look at options that aren't a dead-end/terminal only.

In other words, if you're going to build all new track there anyways, it seems kind of insane to not even STUDY how to extend it in the future. Extend to where*? I don't know...I kind of want to say that doesn't even matter yet. What matters is that you could extend it someday without blowing it all up...again. Gee this sounds extremely similar to the mistakes and lack of foresight with the substandard trackage east of Union Depot going into the train barn.

*I don't want to take this too OT, but even a short 3.5-mile extension (of Riverview, operationally) down American Blvd to meet the Orange Line at Knox doesn't seem like the worst transit proposal in the metro, not by a long shot. 100% surface-running tracks on existing street ROW (exclusive or shared, don't care), all within one municipality, no issues securing local/corporate/political/developer support along the route, etc.

[DanPatchToget]

On the subject of redoing the track approach to MOA along 82nd St, which sounds more like a sure thing every time I hear about it (should Riverview actually happen), if you're going to spend a hundred million or more on new track with a (likely) elevated station above 82nd/24th Ave connecting into level 2 of the MOA parking ramp (with elevator/stairs down to the existing transit center), I can't help but think that it would behoove the agency to also look at options that aren't a dead-end/terminal only.

In other words, if you're going to build all new track there anyways, it seems kind of insane to not even STUDY how to extend it in the future. Extend to where*? I don't know...I kind of want to say that doesn't even matter yet. What matters is that you could extend it someday without blowing it all up...again. Gee this sounds extremely similar to the mistakes and lack of foresight with the substandard trackage east of Union Depot going into the train barn.

Considering they didn't design Southwest LRT with a future connection with a Midtown Greenway LRT, I don't have high hopes that they would design a new MOA station in a way that allows a future extension.

The reason the alignment in downtown Minneapolis can handle both the Green and Blue Lines is because of the long tail track at Target Field. East of Union Depot Station there isn't a tail track or track switches, so that's why they need to either expand Union Depot Station or have a new alignment for Riverview. If they choose a new alignment for Riverview I'm not sure it would be required to have a connection to the St. Paul OMF, or if having the connection to the Franklin Avenue OMF plus the Hopkins facility for storage would be enough. I wouldn't oppose the 5th/6th Street alignment since it could be extended somewhere east eventually, while the Green Line with its current alignment is pretty much stuck with an eastern terminus at Union Depot.

[Tcmetro]

Community Advisory Committee 2-17-22 Presentation: https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... tation.pdf

Policy Advisory Committee 2-24-22 Presentation: https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... tation.pdf