Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[Tcmetro]

Interesting, I was not aware of those requirements for street running units.

[DanPatchToget]

All the more reason to do 100% dedicated ROW then.

[DanPatchToget]

I recall that they are looking at using the smaller 80-foot long Siemens LRV and I would imagine that the stations would be designed for that. In my opinion, they should at least use the 90-foot version for interoperability.

Agreed. It would be absolutely foolish not to use the same exact LRVs we use on the Green Line and Blue Line today. Yes a new OMF will be needed for Riverview, but Riverview will connect with the Blue Line, and if the new OMF is located near the existing OMF for the Green Line then the two could be connected.

If they go Streetcar with shared lanes they are required to be lighter and would therefore be required to be shorter per the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) so they would look like these https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/ ... -sheet.pdf

Thinking about this more I have a few questions.

1) Since Riverview wouldn't operate on the national railroad network wouldn't it be following the Federal Transit Administration's guidelines?

2) Do buses and other authorized vehicles still drive on the tracks on the Washington Avenue Transit Mall? If so is the Green Line exempt from the lighter rolling stock requirement because only certain vehicles are sharing the ROW with the Green Line?

3) Whether lighter rolling stock is needed or not for Riverview, I'm assuming Riverview's vehicles would need turn signals for operating in mixed traffic, which I don't think our existing LRVs have, so I'll reiterate my stance of just doing 100% dedicated ROW.

[Tcmetro]

Both options assume mixed traffic operations north of Grand, and it sounds like the push is for less dedicated right of way, not more.

[DanPatchToget]

Both options assume mixed traffic operations north of Grand, and it sounds like the push is for less dedicated right of way, not more.

I'm well aware of the mixed-traffic operations being proposed, and as I mentioned earlier in the thread Ramsey County planners seem to be leaning towards the option with less dedicated ROW (they're more than welcome to prove me wrong on that though). However, with the money needed to build this, and all the time that's been spent and will be spent studying this to death, I would think the city and county could also spend time looking at the positives and negatives of making Riverview 100% dedicated ROW.

[thespeedmccool]

Both options assume mixed traffic operations north of Grand, and it sounds like the push is for less dedicated right of way, not more.

If that's the case, this should be shelved for aBRT.

I know I'm a broken record on this, but this project sucks. Way too much money for worse transit is not something Ramsey County, transit riders, or anyone can afford or should endorse.

[StandishGuy]

Around $2 billion is far too much money for a service that is anticipated to draw fewer than 12,000 daily riders. By comparison the Blue Line currently is drawing 20,000+ riders daily and had well over 30,000 riders pre-pandemic. The Green Line is creeping up on 30,000 daily riders and had ridership topping 50,000 daily riders at some points pre-2020. Heck the current, slow #21 bus along Lake Street has more than 10,000 daily riders and should rise significantly when converted to ABRT. Do the Plannerss, policy-makers and citizen participants ever discuss the low ridership projections and high cost during meetings?

I get the desire to connect MOA, the airport and downtown St. Paul, but this corridor just doesn't seem to have the density or ridership potential to warrant expensive rail transit. I've been surprised and impressed with the ABRT routes and it seems odd that the streetcar concept remains a thing.

[DanPatchToget]

Keep in mind the $2 billion is in 2033 dollars, not today’s dollars.

Since we’re building LRT to the southwest and northwest suburbs, I don’t see why West 7th doesn’t deserve LRT.

[angrysuburbanite]

That ridership number seems suspect to me.

Stupid question: does the length of the train have to do with the projected ridership numbers? Running a 2-car train or one of those super long European cars could maybe increase the projected ridership number? I have no idea how that stuff is calculated.

[MNdible]

I'm not advocating for this project, but I'll also note that this budget number includes the new MN-5 bridge and a reconstructed and vastly improved MOA station (that will benefit the blue line).

[mattaudio]

The last docs show a significantly modified MN-5 bridge, right? Additional columns, like the Green Line added to the Washington Ave bridge, plus a second deck above. But not a new bridge.

[MNdible]

The presentation says it's a new bridge, and the drawings appear to show piers in different locations than the existing.

[StandishGuy]

$2 Billion is a lot of money even in the future... 2033, and the projected ridership is pretty low relative to the cost. And, to be honest I'm not a huge fan of either the Green or Blue Line extension routes past Hopkins and Robbinsdale. The original B Line ABRT route would be up and running right now providing significantly better transit service if it wasn't for the obsession with a rail line. Instead, the Route #54 riders will continue to have mediocre service waiting a decade+ for possibly slight better service on a streetcar.

To be clear, I very much support rail transit and believe we need to expand it in the metro... just to places that make sense with ridership. There's got to be other corridors that have higher ridership potential and/or cost less to build. Geez, Copenhagen build an automated metro with underground stations for a similar cost drawing more than 100k riders daily. A single-car, mixed-traffic train that doesn't even speed up the trip at a cost of $2 billion is crazy.

[pannierpacker2]

$2 Billion is a lot of money even in the future... 2033, and the projected ridership is pretty low relative to the cost. And, to be honest I'm not a huge fan of either the Green or Blue Line extension routes past Hopkins and Robbinsdale. The original B Line ABRT route would be up and running right now providing significantly better transit service if it wasn't for the obsession with a rail line. Instead, the Route #54 riders will continue to have mediocre service waiting a decade+ for possibly slight better service on a streetcar.

To be clear, I very much support rail transit and believe we need to expand it in the metro... just to places that make sense with ridership. There's got to be other corridors that have higher ridership potential and/or cost less to build. Geez, Copenhagen build an automated metro with underground stations for a similar cost drawing more than 100k riders daily. A single-car, mixed-traffic train that doesn't even speed up the trip at a cost of $2 billion is crazy.

Another problem with choosing LRT over aBRT for the 54 route is that such changeover negatively impacts the East Side. Route 54 today currently goes up 7th/Arcade/Maryland effectively travelling through the heart of the Eastside. Switching that to an LRT line that ends in downtown necessitates a transfer to a bus to continue to access the east side. While the 64 route (or maybe someday the Purple Line) is supposed to continue that access, no one is a fan of transfers. In addition to this, many airport travelers come through the city during non-peak times meaning they are waiting in downtown St. Paul during the middle of the night.

[Tcmetro]

The Riverview Corridor meeting slides for next week are up. They focus on the Arterial BRT option which would be similar to the 54 bus. It is modeled to have 8,000 riders per day in 2040 at a cost of $121 million and a 40 min travel time. Obviously this is much cheaper as it is mixed-traffic and would utilize the existing MOA station and the under construction downtown St. Paul stations. It also wouldn't require the Mississippi River bridge project.

The slides also discuss the placement of an OMF for the streetcar and parking impacts. They also seem to expect the new ridership model to shift the mixed-traffic streetcar option to have more riders.

There's also a segment on the economic development impacts. The streetcar is expected to generate $843 million in real estate value from 2033 to 2050, while arterial BRT would only generate $336 million in value from 2030 to 2050.

https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... _final.pdf

https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... 240222.pdf

[thespeedmccool]

The Riverview Corridor meeting slides for next week are up. They focus on the Arterial BRT option which would be similar to the 54 bus. It is modeled to have 8,000 riders per day in 2040 at a cost of $121 million and a 40 min travel time. Obviously this is much cheaper as it is mixed-traffic and would utilize the existing MOA station and the under construction downtown St. Paul stations. It also wouldn't require the Mississippi River bridge project.

The slides also discuss the placement of an OMF for the streetcar and parking impacts. They also seem to expect the new ridership model to shift the mixed-traffic streetcar option to have more riders.

There's also a segment on the economic development impacts. The streetcar is expected to generate $843 million in real estate value from 2033 to 2050, while arterial BRT would only generate $336 million in value from 2030 to 2050.

https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... _final.pdf

https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... 240222.pdf

5% of the cost for 70% of the ridership?

I'll take the aBRT please.

[DanPatchToget]

The Riverview Corridor meeting slides for next week are up. They focus on the Arterial BRT option which would be similar to the 54 bus. It is modeled to have 8,000 riders per day in 2040 at a cost of $121 million and a 40 min travel time. Obviously this is much cheaper as it is mixed-traffic and would utilize the existing MOA station and the under construction downtown St. Paul stations. It also wouldn't require the Mississippi River bridge project.

The slides also discuss the placement of an OMF for the streetcar and parking impacts. They also seem to expect the new ridership model to shift the mixed-traffic streetcar option to have more riders.

There's also a segment on the economic development impacts. The streetcar is expected to generate $843 million in real estate value from 2033 to 2050, while arterial BRT would only generate $336 million in value from 2030 to 2050.

https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... _final.pdf

https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... 240222.pdf

5% of the cost for 70% of the ridership?

I'll take the aBRT please.

Keep in mind that’s 2019 ridership data.

As an occasional user of Route 54, it already pretty much is aBRT. It’s time for a real upgrade.

Also having recently tried out the existing Highway 5 bridge on my bike, that thing needs to be replaced with something actually built for bikers and pedestrians.

[COLSLAW5]

Damn I think that this is honestly a really hard call. On one hand aBRT is much cheaper and provides a marginally faster service and likely would be implemented much sooner. But on the other a Street Car has the better potential draw people from from the airport to take transit especially since it connects to terminal 2 directly and rail bias. Also looking at their review of potential property tax income the Street Car would be $507 million higher than the aBRT.

Also would the street car be up for federal funding? I am always for more ways for Minnesota to pull back more of its federal tax revenues to the state

[Tcmetro]

That $507 million would be incremental real estate value. It's hard to say what the actual property tax generated would be but they are typically about 2% of value - so roughly $10 million per year.

[DanPatchToget]

Did anyone attend last evening's CAC meeting? I was on a plane so couldn't. Just curious of the discussions that took place.