Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[DanPatchToget]

For everyone who laments the mistaken alignment of SW light rail (2c was far superior - should have gone thru uptown - would have saved money (no tunnel) and improved ridership), I would urge you to NOT support a street car. Why can't this be light rail? Either build light rail, or go with ABRT. Don't pick a middle ground option that no one will be happy with.

So instead of a reasonable compromise (which I'm happy with BTW) that's pretty darn close to LRT we should just throw it away for a bus with almost no dedicated lanes?

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[angrysuburbanite]

I'm starting to lean further toward streetcar just because of the dedicated ROW (and connections to both terminals), since our region's planners doesn't realize that real BRT needs dedicated lanes, but that's a whole other argument on its own.

[thespeedmccool]

For everyone who laments the mistaken alignment of SW light rail (2c was far superior - should have gone thru uptown - would have saved money (no tunnel) and improved ridership), I would urge you to NOT support a street car. Why can't this be light rail? Either build light rail, or go with ABRT. Don't pick a middle ground option that no one will be happy with.

So instead of a reasonable compromise (which I'm happy with BTW) that's pretty darn close to LRT we should just throw it away for a bus with almost no dedicated lanes?

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

These plans do not show a project "pretty darn close to LRT."

This project isn't just not perfect, it's not even good. It's worse than current transit options in the corridor!

Don't let the good be the enemy of the worse but significantly more expensive so it feels good.

[DanPatchToget]

For everyone who laments the mistaken alignment of SW light rail (2c was far superior - should have gone thru uptown - would have saved money (no tunnel) and improved ridership), I would urge you to NOT support a street car. Why can't this be light rail? Either build light rail, or go with ABRT. Don't pick a middle ground option that no one will be happy with.

So instead of a reasonable compromise (which I'm happy with BTW) that's pretty darn close to LRT we should just throw it away for a bus with almost no dedicated lanes?

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

These plans do not show a project "pretty darn close to LRT."

This project isn't just not perfect, it's not even good. It's worse than current transit options in the corridor!

Don't let the good be the enemy of the worse but significantly more expensive so it feels good.

Cheaper doesn't equal better. If we went with that logic then our light rail system wouldn't exist. Hell, our aBRT system wouldn't exist. All of that costs money, so why do that when you can stick with the status quo for cheaper?

You're focusing way too much on the streetcar label and the small bit of mixed-traffic operation while ignoring the majority dedicated right-of-way, a new bridge with a deck for bikers and pedestrians, and service to Fort Snelling and Terminal 2 among the other benefits that are very much worth it to make this investment.

I've experienced streetcar/tram systems in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Ghent, Lyon, Geneva, Vienna, Budapest, Prague, Munich, Helsinki, Stockholm, Gothenburg, Oslo, Dublin, and Krakow. What all of these have in common is they operate in mixed-traffic for some segments, and it doesn't mean they're a useless waste that should be scrapped and replaced by buses (y'know, the thinking our region and other regions across America had through the 40s and 50s). Quite the opposite in fact, they need those trams because it would take a lot of buses to match the same capacity, and the trams are an important part of their transit systems. Riverview streetcar would be just like those.

[J. Mc]

One thing I'm concerned with on the streetcar options is we may think of street layout like this:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DCAYVE5vGAEsQNeH7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HdDkppKoGxChKe6Q6

But I don't want to actually get this due to various regulations/standards/etc:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xSgSnzK3mpT7nadJ6

In my opinion University Ave is not a place I think of for a nice pedestrian environment. Narrow sidewalks, traffic whizzing by on the curb, and an ugly light-rail ROW splitting it down the center. Despite the heavy traffic along W. 7th between downtown and 35E, it is still a fairly active pedestrian environment with tons of crossings (or jaywalking) as folks go to different businesses, exercise, etc. So I wouldn't like having a dedicated streetcar ROW splitting it down the middle if it means an environment more similar to University, only crossing at select intersections, no parked cars separating the sidewalk from traffic, etc. Yes, I realize the streetcar would be a little less invasive on infrastructure. More ped crossings can be added in on the final design, University Ave is a different corridor than W. 7th. etc. But as proposed to me it still seems like a University Ave 2.0 in some ways. If it does go forward I hope they will apply some lessons from the current Blue and Green lines.

[Trademark]

I think the big impact on the travel time is between the route between the Airport and Davern - that's easily 8-10 minutes on the streetcar and the only real difference between the 54 bus and the Riverview corridor.

Dedicated lanes would on W 7th would improve reliability but I don't think are going to have much effect on speed. The 54 bus is already really fast so it's nearly impossible to be faster than it unless you go grade separated and cut the number of stops in half.

I also don't care for the Kellogg alignment. 5th or 6th would be good streets to use in Downtown St. Paul.

Riverview is limited to 30 mph, if we used the CP spur as identified as feasible in the study from St Paul a few years back we could hit 55 mph. Or if we stayed on 7th street we could hit 45 mph like the green line. Due to the new MUTCD changes we can hit 40 mph at intersections without traffic gates unlike the 35 mph that was previously required.

A streetcar with dedicated lanes won't improve speed much but an LRT will significantly improve speed.

[Trademark]

$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.

As an East Side Resident 10 minute transfers between transit routes are not bad at all considering it will be a 5 minute average transfer time.

I'm addition we should be looking at extending Riverview up Payne/Edgerton (I don't care which one jus whichever one we can get priority on). Just because it ends in Union Depot now doesn't mean that's the end of this line.

Other alternatives could include a Gold Line rail conversion on 15-20 years or 7th street east to Oakdale/Woodbury. A route that has already been studied by Metro Transit as part of the Gateway Corridor (what turned into the Gold Line) but only assuming that traffic lanes in both directions were needed, therefore necessitating eminent domain. If you come back without eminent domain, I bet you people would be supportive and not NIMBY.

Either way, the East Side may not be served by Riverview but don't count us out forever the alignment ending at Union Depot is set up very well for an East side extension

[Trademark]

Ramsey County needs to get some love, so probably.

If I had to pick between this combined with the incoming huge flop of the Gold Line, and a $2.5 billion transit museum in downtown St. Paul, I'd maybe go with the museum. You could put a little train in the food court and ride it around .

You think the Gold Line is gonna flop? I see a lot of missing middle and density particularly surrounding Mounds, Earl, Etna, Hazel, and Sunday that's gonna be served extremely well by a fast BRT. Way better than the 63 does.

[Trademark]

As someone who's is in tune with this project, and working hard to make it better (If your interested in helping, send a DM we need more people) I have some things to say.

First of all let's be under no illusion that the streetcar line is good as currently proposed at all. Both options are trash. They will be subject to Xcel Energy Center Delays whenever there's a concert or a wild game and those delays will cascade like dominos to the Blue and Green lines respectively due to their interlining.

1 car trains are not enough for this corridor as the current 54 buses are often at crush capacity even before assuming induced demand for TOD that should occur with rail.

Streetcar on 7th street is limited to 30 mph. This is embarrassing for a line that's supposed to be a spine of our network and complete the rail triangle.

We need a major shift in what the goals of this project is otherwise it's not worth spending billions on. Look objectively at this project. This line could serve the mall of America, 2 airport terminals an extremely dense area near Davern or St Paul and 7th (with many of those people being airport employees according to Riverview outreach), a node that's rapidly growing in Lexington/7th or Montreal (if we go on the CP spur). More decent nodes with Randolph and St Clair and the area that's arguably the most lively part of St Paul which is Grand and 7th into downtown. Before even mentioning serving downtown St Paul with its numerous transit connections.

Reminder transit ridership estimates are an equation more than a real estimate. Just like the Blue Line Extension will serve more than 11k riders and both the Blue and Green lines have exceeded their estimates significantly so will this corridor especially once it gets more development induced by rail that isn't captured in ridership estimates. Also we are still waiting for a post COVID adjustment to federal formulas that will likely require a new Biden presidency. All of these estimates until that's updated should be treated as not accurate until proven otherwise.

We need to make this route great. If we build a streetcar at almost 90% dedicated lanes it still can't exceed 30 mph, it still will get stuck in traffic at the busiest points, and it won't induce significant mode share. As someone who used to live in Milwaukee, I got stuck on their streetcar for over 20 minutes because someone didn't park right. How many times does that take or you being 20 minutes delayed by concert traffic at the X before someone who has a choice says screw this I'm buying a car.

The solution has to be either fully dedicated BRT (as an extension of the Purple Line) or LRT. We cannot sacrifice on lanes. The CP rail spur is right there. The right of way is still sufficient to support light rail, and the ridership will be there.

We need to bring back the CP spur. Show that there is more than sufficient parking along 7th for businesses and commit to dedicated center lanes on 7th and take over the Eastbound lanes on Kellogg as exclusive lanes.

I've been watching these projects long enough to see how many NIMBY groups sabotage projects. Why can't we take a play out of their playbook. Not just sit back and take the alternatives given to us, but be on the offensive and demand better for completing the transit triangle, for Ramsey County, for St Paul, for our entire region.

If we just compromise and build aBRT there will not be another opportunity to build rail most likely until at least 2055+ best case scenario.

We have a new St Paul city council who is very publicly progressive, let's educate them on public transit. Once again DM me if your interested in joining the fight

[Tom H.]

One thing that bothers me with this project (and other transit projects) is how the cost of the Highway 5 bridge is being attributed 100% to this project, when in reality only a portion of the bridge reconstruction costs should be rightly attributed to this project.

According to MnDot, that bridge (Bridge 9300) was built in 1961 and is likely in need of maintenance or replacement soon strictly from a motor vehicle perspective. Additionally, I believe one of the bridge proposals would include a pedestrian / non-motorized deck (a la Washington Ave bridge at the U) which serves a distinct, albeit related, purpose to the transit function.

Despite all this, all of the bridge costs are being wrapped up in this transit project, and drivers get a free highway bridge replacement coupon that gets borne by the transit tax. (This is reminiscent to me of how the Red Line paid for the widening of Highway 77 in Apple Valley, which served a much bigger highway purpose than a transit purpose.)

I feel that if the bridge costs were properly itemized and attributed to their actual functions, the cost of Riverview becomes more palatable, even for the full LRT option.

[twincitizen]

MnDOT just completed a pretty major overhaul of the bridge in 2016, so less than 8 years ago. From a current-use perspective, I would guess it's at least another 10-15 years out from full replacement (on a normal schedule). The reported $13.8 million improvements included:
-Removal and repair of bridge decks and concrete pavement
-Replacement of guardrails and medians
-Replacement of bridge joints and approach panels
-Cleaning and repainting of bridges segments
-Improvement of drainage structures

[Wezle]

Is West 7th up for a full rebuild in the near future? I'm also curious how much of the price tag on the streetcar would need to be used for things like that too. Seeing every media headline reporting on the blue line extension using the contingency cost of $2.9-3.2 billion rather than the $2.2 billion it's expected to cost makes me skeptical about cost reporting on these projects.

[angrysuburbanite]

The news reporters have a fixation on reporting exclusively the price of these projects rather than discussing the benefits they may bring to communities that a highway expansion never will.

[DanPatchToget]

Also annoying when people take the estimated cost of a project and divide it by the route length and they assume that's the cost per mile of road or rail. There's so many things that go into infrastructure projects (utilities, equipment, labor, etc.) so it's not that simple.

[angrysuburbanite]

Agreed, it would be nice to see the cost of just the rail infrastructure, not the changes to car infrastructure. Maybe splitting the project into three phases, an MOA upgrade, the MN 5 bridge, and then the actual rail line itself could be beneficial to public perception?

[BigIdeasGuy]

I was looking at Google Maps this afternoon and had an epiphany on how to make interlining with the Green Line happen now that 5/6th are off the table.

From W7th & Kellogg-ish station you follow 7th to 6th St where you exit the street ROW cutting through the parking lot between the Catholic Charities building & St. Joseph's Lane. You use the Exchange St ROW from where it meets 9th to Cedar where the tracks can join right in front of Central Presbyterian. You can add a stop on either side of Wabasha based and use the grassy strip along the south side of the History Theater building to improve the geometry along with the street scape in front of the Fitz & Celeste Hotel.

It would add about 1200 feet of track per direction but it would avoid a lot of shared ROW and make interlining possible. Those two benefits easily outweigh the additional cost and travel time caused by the longer route

[angrysuburbanite]

I really like this concept, it would be cool if the planners had made more effort into finding interlining opportunities. I suppose you could probably email this idea to the project staff? It's not too late for a change like this, though I'm sure they would find a reason why they couldn't do it.

Part of me does wish that they held off on this project until more tangible plans come out for the DT St. Paul plan thing, where this streetcar could be integrated better into downtown.

By the way, your username is perfect here haha!

[Bakken2016]

I really like this concept, it would be cool if the planners had made more effort into finding interlining opportunities. I suppose you could probably email this idea to the project staff? It's not too late for a change like this, though I'm sure they would find a reason why they couldn't do it.

Part of me does wish that they held off on this project until more tangible plans come out for the DT St. Paul plan thing, where this streetcar could be integrated better into downtown.

By the way, your username is perfect here haha!

As far as I’m aware, St Paul wasn’t willing to close 4th St to expand the Union Depot station, that’s the biggest issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[angrysuburbanite]

I wonder what traffic counts even are on 4th St there, surely less than what some trams could carry?

[BigIdeasGuy]

I really like this concept, it would be cool if the planners had made more effort into finding interlining opportunities. I suppose you could probably email this idea to the project staff? It's not too late for a change like this, though I'm sure they would find a reason why they couldn't do it.

Part of me does wish that they held off on this project until more tangible plans come out for the DT St. Paul plan thing, where this streetcar could be integrated better into downtown.

By the way, your username is perfect here haha!

As far as I’m aware, St Paul wasn’t willing to close 4th St to expand the Union Depot station, that’s the biggest issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely not an LRT operational expert but what would prevent the Union Depot station function similarly to the Target Field Station since the Green Line opened? Both would be the terminus of 2 rail lines with an island platform