Green Line LRT

[Wedgeguy]

Sounds like the City would have to be a major player to get a new station built. They basically own the land that would have to be annex to widen the station.

MSFA owns the parking ramp and land. I don't think the City has any 'real' influence at this point... if they still owned the property, perhaps.

I still wonder why a tunnel beneath the tracks wouldn't be an option. Allowing for both mass amounts of people to use it on game days, as well as people wanting to transfer. I'm fine with a bridge too, but think it needs to be more than just a conduit for the masses leaving the stadium. Otherwise it'll be a sparsely used bridge most of the time.

After reading the documents it seems like the city own the property, but I forgot that this ramp was one of the ramps that the city sold a few years back and the MFSC bought it from Atalus after some contentious negotiations.

[lordmoke]

Somehow, someone on Reddit managed to get a shot of the electrical failure happening yesterday:
https://i.imgur.com/886HmRc.jpg

The whole thread, which also has video and several other images:
http://www.reddit.com/r/TwinCities/comm ... in_on_the/

[bubzki2]

Rode from Warehouse/Hennepin all the way to 10th St. (DT St. Paul) in 39 mins today during rush hour. Very smooth with only extended stoplight waiting at Snelling and Lexington. Something is working here.

[VAStationDude]

A couple days back I got on an east bound train at Robert Street at 5:01pm. As the train sat at the station for a minute I started to get slightly annoyed at the delay until I remembered east bound trains are scheduled at 5:02pm.

I rode west from Robert yesterday and it moved pretty well except for at MLK/Park and Rice Street. We made it through Lexington Parkway just fine but the timing clearly favors north south auto traffic. There were very minor backups on Lexington Parkway but University traffic was backed up past Oxford and Dunlap. The train and through auto traffic need more time but we know St Paul engineers are more concerned with autos spewing off 94.

[nate]

The MLK/Park - Rice - Marion stretch is a reliable 1-2 minute delay. Otherwise, things seem to be moving in the right direction.

[Ottergoose]

Here's a photo from a few nights ago when we got a few rounds of nice, soaking rain - great conditions for photography.

[twincitizen]

Anyone heading to Open Streets next weekend? I'd almost go just to watch pedestrian behavior around the train when cars aren't part of the equation. Also, I haven't ridden since June 14, so I'm due.

[Nick]

Mostly agree with a_t_c_c, my only quibbles would be the thoroughly debunked talking point that the Green Line is slower than the buses it replaced. The Green Line is faster than both the 16 and 50 streets. End to end time should not be the only metric.

Quibble quibble: Does anyone else feel like "well, no one rides it end to end" isn't a satisfying reply to "the line runs slower than it was supposed to"? If it's slower than it's supposed to be, it impacts everyone who rides it from any station, whether it's Nicollet Mall to Snelling or West Bank to the Capitol.

[nate]

Depends on the context.
Are we talking about how great it would have been if it was tunneled/elevated/running along I94? Then the justification makes sense. The best time a fully grade separated line with the same number of stops could make would be, say, 35-40 minutes. Since people primarily are not travelling end to end, those time savings would not justify the massive costs.

Are we talking about th 65 minute end to end time when the line first opened? Then yes, it was a ridiculous statement, because the line was clearly not functioning as intended. Even short trips were far longer than necessary, and connecting bus routes and the Blue Line were effected.

There really has been a major improvement in how the line functions during the last couple weeks. It's usually on schedule, and I would say my ride from Lexington to Central has gone from an average of 17-18 minutes to 13-14 minutes. It's amazing what those 3-4 little minutes can do to your perception of the time spent on the train.

[Nick]

Are we talking about how great it would have been if it was tunneled/elevated/running along I94? Then the justification makes sense.

Good point. I mostly meant travel times.

[VAStationDude]

I rode the line from the Capitol to downtown east today. It was three minutes late leaving rice but made up two minutes on university and arrived one minute behind at prospect park. The only excessive waits were at Rice and Pascal. Dale, Lexington and Snelling weren't as awful as they've been in the past. Crossing 280 was surprisingly quick. I think with more work end to end could realistically come down two or three more minutes especially if Park/MLK, Rice and Chicago are improved.

[FISHMANPET]

Mostly agree with a_t_c_c, my only quibbles would be the thoroughly debunked talking point that the Green Line is slower than the buses it replaced. The Green Line is faster than both the 16 and 50 streets. End to end time should not be the only metric.

Quibble quibble: Does anyone else feel like "well, no one rides it end to end" isn't a satisfying reply to "the line runs slower than it was supposed to"? If it's slower than it's supposed to be, it impacts everyone who rides it from any station, whether it's Nicollet Mall to Snelling or West Bank to the Capitol.

Just wait until SW opens, and the end to end time is an hour and a half!

It's silly to say "who cares if it's slower than it was supposed to be, people aren't going to ride the whole length" because their shorter trip is still longer. But then people say 48 minutes scheduled end-to-end is "too long" aren't trying to make a comment about how the signal time is bad, they're saying Target Field to Union Depot in 48 minutes is a long time ~when they could drive~ it in 20 or whatever minutes. But we didn't build the line to get people exclusively between Union Depot and Target Field, we built it to connect all the points in between. So you can pretty easily tell where the root of that commentary comes from. It wouldn't matter if it took 40 minutes or 40 seconds end to end, those people wouldn't be happy.

In summary:

[Tcmetro]

I rode the 94 line for the first time post-Green Line this week, and my midday bus was quite full. By no means is this a good measure of ridership, but it shows that quite a bit of riders find the express bus to be of more use than the light rail for travel between the two downtowns. I'd certainly like MT to look into whether or not to expand the hours and frequency of the express bus.

[mplsjaromir]

I am waiting to see ridership from the Fall Semester. If it's low then I'll agree that that the decision process is flawed. In reality I believe that'll show the line is useful, not only that but one of the most used in this country and will affect how new lines are evaluated. That'll be the legacy, more urban lines that need signal preemption.

[Scott Wood]

Depends on the context.
Are we talking about how great it would have been if it was tunneled/elevated/running along I94? Then the justification makes sense. The best time a fully grade separated line with the same number of stops could make would be, say, 35-40 minutes. Since people primarily are not travelling end to end, those time savings would not justify the massive costs.

Does that time factor in higher speed limits on a grade-separated line, and possibly a more direct underground route near the capitol?

Even so, a reliable 35 minutes would be a significant improvement over an unreliable 48 minutes. Travel time still matters for shorter trips (you even mentioned how much a 3-4 minute difference affected your perception of the ride), and are longish trips really that rare? E.g. Downtown Minneapolis to the Capitol, or Downtown St Paul to the University, or full length rides when the 94 isn't running? Plus, reliability can significantly affect waiting time, missed connections, etc. which aren't dependent on length of trip.

Whether the costs would be justified depends on just how massive they are -- was there any study of it, or was it just dismissed as unreasonable? I'd have thought that at least grade-separating short stretches with high cross traffic (e.g. at Snelling), similar to what the Blue Line does at Lake and Franklin, would have been worth evaluating.

[ECtransplant]

people say 48 minutes scheduled end-to-end is "too long" aren't trying to make a comment about how the signal time is bad, they're saying Target Field to Union Depot in 48 minutes is a long time ~when they could drive~ it in 20 or whatever minutes.

I've never owned a car and I think 48 minutes end to end is too long. Major transit investments should be built with grade separation.

[FISHMANPET]

The green line barely squeaked in under finding limits as is, where were we gonna find piles of money for grade separation, even at only a few places.

Sure it'd be faster grade separated, but I've never seen that idea stated along with any idea how to pay for it.

[Tcmetro]

It would be ridiculously expensive to grade separate the Green Line, especially if it provided the same access with stations located every 1/2 mile.

The problem is somewhat logistical. Better priority of lights needs to be provided for the trains. On this account, there is some improvement.

The design feels over-engineered at times as well. University feels a little calmer as a result of the LRT, but it is still pretty wide. I don't know how possible a 1-lane in each direction configuration would have been, but it would have been nice to have some larger sidewalks, maybe some bike lanes, and better crosswalks at station areas. There are also too many lights along the Washington Ave Mall portion. This would be the best candidate to go without traffic signals, IMO.

As for the bus restructure, I think Metro Transit handled it extremely well. I don't have too many firsthand accounts of the system post-Green Line, but the routings are simpler and many neighborhoods have a lot better service. St. Paul is used to having pretty bad bus service, so it may take a while before people start using it. I think MT made a mistake with the 94 line (as I've stated countless times). The 94 bus needs to be a frequent and reliable downtown-to-downtown connector, as that is a role that the Green Line certainly has no business fulfilling.

Despite the shortcomings, the Green Line has been fairly well executed. It has created a momentum for changes in Saint Paul, and hopefully the same successes will be brought to other LRT corridors around the metro. It certainly is a paradigm for very good (maybe not the best) modern urban transit.

[MinnMonkey]

I also think the perception that people shouldn't use the Green Line for downtown to downtown flawed. For me personally, I live downtown Minneapolis and before the Green Line opened I would get to downtown St. Paul maybe once a year. Since it opened I have taken it to downtown St. Paul at least 6 times. I have been to downtown St. Paul more times in the past 3 months, than in the past 6 years solely because of the Green Line.

I have lived in Minneapolis for 25 years and have only taken the 94 bus once.

I think a lot of people (including our transit planners) have no idea how strong the rail bias truly is.

[MinnMonkey]

I wish I could find the link, but I read ridership numbers for the Green Line and the 16/50/94 bus.

Pre-Green Line:
16/50/94 buses - 500,000 riders per month

Post Green Line
Green Line - 1,000,000 riders per month
16/94 buses - 150,000 riders per month

Keep in mind these numbers are from memory so they may not be 100% accurate. If someone can fine the link, feel free to correct my numbers.