Nicollet Mall

[Silophant]

Yeah. You can do some seriously convenient transit when you're willing to spend the money on deep-bore tunnels. And they're driverless, even! Maybe eventually...

[Minnekid]

You guys proved me wrong, DC is more dense now than MInneapolis, but I can't say anything on how it was before. Atlanta is the best proof. That being said, the NIMBYS screw us over. All those minnesotans will think a subway is outrageous anywhere outside of downtown, and downtown isn't large enough to build a subway.

[FISHMANPET]

MARTA was built 30 years ago in anticpation of future growth. WMATA was built because DC wanted to be a world class city. And things are more expensive today. If MARTA were built today it would be surface light rail (or maybe not even built, the standards are a lot higher, and maybe current models would predict that MARTA wouldn't do that great).

We're not building subways anymore in this country, except for NYC. LA has a subway system, but the new lines they're adding our surface LRT. Washington's Silver line is almost entirely above ground. I have no doubt that 30 years ago we could have gotten a tunnel (in the 60s or 70s people were talking about subways seriously) but today the environment is much trickier. Things are more expensive, and there's less money to go around.

[min-chi-cbus]

Don't give up explaining it; just admit you're wrong. Because you are.

Okay asshhole, now I'm going to explain it thoroughly....just for you!

Currently we have one line running through downtown along the "Hiawatha Corridor". The "Central Corridor" will make for line #2, and that also runs down 5th Street downtown. Both of these existing lines -- the Blue and the Green -- will be doubled with two additional extensions: the "Southwest Corridor" and the "Bottineau Corridor". Assuming that we do not extend the Blue and Green lines and run the SAME number of trains as we did prior to the expansion of each (each extension will have their own fleet of vehicles that will be added to the network), we'll be adding one ride per extension per period of time (e.g. let's say every 15 minutes), or:

1 ride for Hiawatha (existing)
1 ride for Central
1 ride for Southwest
1 ride for Bottineau


If all four extensions have trains that leave at the same time from the terminus that's furthest away from downtown (i.e. MOA, Eden Prairie, StP, and Brooklyn Park) and they all arrive at downtown at the same time coming from opposite directions, there will be 1-2-3-4 trains on 5th Street when today there would be just 1 train, for any given scheduled departure. If we added three extensions to the system but kept the fleet of rail vehicles the same, then I can see why traffic downtown wouldn't increase, but I don't think that's the case.

Somebody please explain to me why this is incorrect, above and beyond simply telling me that I'm wrong.

[Tyler]

I think FISHMANPET explained it well enough on the last page.

[min-chi-cbus]

four lines routing through the street between the DTE and North Loop stations, depending on where the trains stop for each route. If there was a train headed West and one headed East on the Green Line, and a train headed North and one headed South on the Blue line, theoretically they could all be on 5th St. at the same time.

This is already true (or will be, once CCLRT is up and running) - there can be EB & WB Greens + NB & SB Blues, all at the same time DT, without the extensions. Adding the extensions only changes the origins and destinations of these trips, not the total throughput in the bottleneck.

I suppose that's true, except the two extensions will invariably increase the total # of trains on the network at any given time, thereby doubling the chances of downtown congestion (or are we adding the route but not the trains, and having existing departure times twice as far apart to compensate for the added mileage?).

[MNdible]

I'm not super-familiar with the MARTA system, but I know that a big chunk of Atlanta was basically built one level above grade due to the railyards in the area. While some of the system is actually tunneled, I believe that a good chunk of the grade separation through downtown takes advantage of this historical quirk.

Also, transit funding in the 1970's was a whole different ball of wax.

[min-chi-cbus]

I'm gonna chime in on the train thing...

The number of trains going through Downtown per unit of time won't double. It may increase by a few at peak times, but it won't double. Right now a train goes from the Mall of America to Target Field and it stops, has its layover, and turns around. When there are more lines, instead of having a layover it will just keep going. There will be more trains on the line at a single time yes, but that's because there will be more track. Blue line and green line trains will still come every 10-15 minutes.

Starting the green line will double the frequency of trains on the shared portion of tracks, but the extensions to those lines won't.

Now if MetroTransit starts running both lines with 5 minute headways, then yes, there will be more trains going through downtown. But as it stands the headways won't be changing significantly.

Again, your point is correct IFF we don't add trains for each and every extension, Blue or Green. For St. Paul, we double the # of trains on the total network, even though every train added is on the Green line "Central Corridor" extension. When we add the Southwest Corridor extension to the Green Line we'll be adding proportionally more fleet to serve that extended area, not spread out the existing fleet amongst the added Green Line track.

[Aville_37]

What's the big hoo-ha about a subway? First - not likely going to happen anytime time soon. Also - can't we just be happy we are finally getting light rail/possible street cars. People hate the skyways because they take people off the streets - well - hello! So would an underground transit system - then people will want to start to want to build an underground city like Montreal that would not only complete with retail on the street level - but in the skyways as well.

[Aville_37]

Also - enough with the hostility/name calling and be respectful of people's ideas that differ from yours or go somewhere else to be passively aggressive.

[Tom H.]

This is my last response to this train congestion argument.

The total number of trains on the line at any given point is irrelevant to congestion through the bottleneck; headways (or, conversely, frequency) determines the congestion level through the downtown bottleneck.

For example: in 2015 conditions (with Blue and Green Lines), headways will be something like one train per 5 minutes through the bottleneck, down from one per 10 minutes with just the Blue Line. Adding the two extensions will increase the total number of trains on the lines at any given point, but the headways will not change appreciably, and thus congestion will not either.

A wise man reconsiders his position when literally every other person disagrees with him.

[Tyler]

Again, your point is correct IFF we don't add trains for each and every extension, Blue or Green. For St. Paul, we double the # of trains on the total network, even though every train added is on the Green line "Central Corridor" extension. When we add the Southwest Corridor extension to the Green Line we'll be added more fleet to serve that area, not spread out the existing fleet amongst more track.

The Green line is not an extension, it's an independent line. When you see a train downtown, it will be a green line train or a blue line train. The extensions are just that, extensions. That same green or blue line train will simply continue on southwest or bottineau. So the one blue line train will simply become a blue/orange(or whatever) line train. Which is why the extensions won't increase downtown congestion.

At this point, it either makes sense to you or it doesn't. Let's not derail this thread any more.

[talindsay]

four lines routing through the street between the DTE and North Loop stations, depending on where the trains stop for each route. If there was a train headed West and one headed East on the Green Line, and a train headed North and one headed South on the Blue line, theoretically they could all be on 5th St. at the same time.

This is already true (or will be, once CCLRT is up and running) - there can be EB & WB Greens + NB & SB Blues, all at the same time DT, without the extensions. Adding the extensions only changes the origins and destinations of these trips, not the total throughput in the bottleneck.

I suppose that's true, except the two extensions will invariably increase the total # of trains on the network at any given time, thereby doubling the chances of downtown congestion (or are we adding the route but not the trains, and having existing departure times twice as far apart to compensate for the added mileage?).

Sorry, everybody's trying to explain this and it's not sinking in, but I'll give it a go: the number of trains downtown will NOT BE AFFECTED by the extensions. Currently trains run every 7.5-10 minutes on the Blue Line; the operating plan for the Green Line calls for the same interval. That means there will be trains every 3.75-5 minutes in each direction downtown.

When the extensions happen, the operational spacing of trains - 7.5-10 minute headways on the Green and Blue lines - will NOT CHANGE. Now, if demand eventually increases it might eventually be raised, but certainly within the foreseeable future that's not going to happen, and the operational descriptions for both extensions do not call for it. That means the number of trains on 5th Street downtown NEXT YEAR will be the same as in TEN YEARS even if both extensions get built. There will be about twice as many trains running at any given time, but there will also be about twice as many miles of track, and the headways will explicitly stay the same. So there will be no increase in volume downtown.

This reminds me of discussions about how crops get the same amount of sunlight with or without daylight saving time.

[David Greene]

Somebody please explain to me why this is incorrect, above and beyond simply telling me that I'm wrong.

Because we will have the same numert of terminuses after the extensions are built as we will have when Central opens. It does not matter where those terminuses are located. The common segment between them will see the same frequency of trains as long as headway is maintained at planned levels.

We'll have more vehicles but those vehicles will be spread out over more area. It's not correct that we will be adding more trips in a given time period. The headways will remain the same.

[RailBaronYarr]

Nick/etc, please move some of this to an appropriate thread (future transit or something)

Yeah. You can do some seriously convenient transit when you're willing to spend the money on deep-bore tunnels. And they're driverless, even! Maybe eventually...

Well, I think the point is that costs are much lower in almost every European country but the UK. Half of the Copenhagen line was below ground, the other half elevated (not cheap, either). Including stations, the cost for their system per mile is $149m in 2013 dollars (http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14076659/Compar ... _Costs.pdf).

Things are more expensive, and there's less money to go around.

Just for reference, the Copenhagen metro cost roughly 60% of the DC Metro in $2002, with a similar % tunneled (and that report shows many other recent projects with similar per-km costs at 50%+ underground). Things are more expensive because of other reasons, which we should be actively looking at eliminating in the US to get high quality intra-city transit for the price we're currently paying for at-grade LRT.

What's the big hoo-ha about a subway? First - not likely going to happen anytime time soon. Also - can't we just be happy we are finally getting light rail/possible street cars. People hate the skyways because they take people off the streets - well - hello! So would an underground transit system - then people will want to start to want to build an underground city like Montreal that would not only complete with retail on the street level - but in the skyways as well.

I doubt an underground city would evolve given the infrastructure/built environment existing downtown, but I guess I wouldn't put it past us. The point of a subway (or any grade-separated transit) is to move people efficiently over large distances and allow them to finish the 0 - 0.5 mile journey on foot to wherever they're going. People like them because they can be driverless, they're much faster than any at-grade transit, and can carry sh!tloads of people.

I guess my take is that it's really too bad that we can find $700m for a bridge connecting rural land to low-density sprawl, have leaders push for a $300m I-94 expansion to St Cloud, and even consider a $200m 3 mile streetcar line that doesn't really reduce travel time or increase frequencies... but the idea of tunneling a few key lines is out of the question in this country.

[mullen]

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/st ... 82771.html

[woofner]

Sorry to continue the OT orgy, but I'd like to clarify MNdible's point about the MARTA system. The east-west line does take advantage of the existing grade separation, but the north-south line is deep-bore in the center and in fact has some very deep stations, Eastern Bloc style. MARTA also used tokens when I rode in 2005 or so (can't remember if any Eastern Bloc metros still do so).

Also I'd like to point out that the bus tunnel that we had in mind for Nicollet Mall was a cut-and-cover tunnel, to take advantage of the street reconstruction. A deep-bored tunnel could be built at any time, really.

Regarding the proposals, I kind of doubt that most of the cool shit will happen, even down to the level of raised intersections but especially the City Center park. As was mentioned above, if public works is unwilling to maintain fountains and clocks, why would they maintain fire pits? If public works only allows zebra crossings in certain locations, why would they allow raised crossings (which are not allowed on State Aid routes, by the way, which is most of the downtown cross streets)? So what is the point of all this? To pretend that we're a world class city because the guys who did the high line picked out the pavers for our main street?

[Minnekid]

Regarding the proposals, I kind of doubt that most of the cool shit will happen, even down to the level of raised intersections but especially the City Center park. As was mentioned above, if public works is unwilling to maintain fountains and clocks, why would they maintain fire pits? If public works only allows zebra crossings in certain locations, why would they allow raised crossings (which are not allowed on State Aid routes, by the way, which is most of the downtown cross streets)? So what is the point of all this? To pretend that we're a world class city because the guys who did the high line picked out the pavers for our main street?

I'm not sure about this statement, yes they did not take care of Peavy Plaza whatsoever, but Nicolett [sic] mall was a revolutionary idea when it first came out. We also got a heating system under our sidewalk when it was built, also very impressive at the time. The money was spent at the time, I don't see why it won't be spent right now. The city is wanting to reverse the mess up it had of no parks in downtown, and it is starting to do so with the park proposed by the dome. The park at the guthrie (yes slightly not downtown) and the potential park across from the library.

Also, what are the true benefits of a Streetcar. I used to think they were cool and a great idea, but after talking to my Dad, who was from Russia, it started to make me think. He said there was the metro (he liked), busses (somewhat liked) and street cars (hated). He said he hated them since they were slower, noisy, and uncomfortable. I understand new streetcars take away the last two factors, but they are still slow. So what are the true benefits?

[Silophant]

They have a smoother ride than buses, which can be very jerky. They're also more permanent, due to the investment in rails, which in theory make Transit-Oriented Development more likely. I tend to agree, however, with the view that the large stations of an Enhanced Bus system would probably do this as well. Also also, they tap into this region's rail bias, which is fairly large. People who would never stoop to riding buses are perfectly happy to ride the Blue Line.

[Minnekid]

I guess but they take up a large amount of space, but go about 20-30 mph max. A bus takes up the road only when it is there, not at all times because of the rails, and can go faster in areas that permit it to.