Nicollet-Central Streetcar

[UptownSport]

Rode a streetcar in Prague. It seems to work okay. Also in Germany and they seemed really good.

time for monorail, then?:-)

[mullen]

i don't think it's a joke. the joke is BRT. people prefer rail. i ride the crappy 18 bus every day. it's not a joke to portland, seattle, cincinnati, st louis, etc etc.....it's also a proven economic development engine. go tell cincinnati it's not an economic development godsend. the only people in that city who oppose their starter streetcar line are tea party morons.

i've been to portland also and loved all of their rail...including the streetcar. ridden trams in europe also. the manchester UK tram is awesome. and I think the funding scenario the city has come up with is innovative.

[RailBaronYarr]

Look, I've already admitted I prefer rail. The Twin Cities (and most of the US) certainly has a rail bias. I also know that aBRT with the amenities like a streetcar means you need the political will to not let the project get de-funded or make tradeoffs in amenities if costs increase, whereas with a streetcar the technology dictates a minimum level (ie confidence in 'quality of experience'). But let's stop using a transit technology to determine the type of service you can get between bus and rail. Frequency, speed, station layout and placement, number of riders per vehicle, even what powers the vehicle can all be the same between a bus and a streetcar. Ok, capacity for streetcar is more with ease to add another car if demand dictates, but I could argue if that's the case you may be at the point where higher speed rail under a capped tunnel along the same corridor may then be justified with local service on the street. Buses and streetcars can both be mixed traffic or receive dedicated lanes and signal priority to enhance speed.

I've seen enough examples of true BRT that drive development. Why wouldn't we be fine with a dedicated lane BRT with articulated buses along Nicollet and all the way up Central (much longer than the starter streetcar line at a combined cost of $110M according to the Arterial Study). If' it's even mildly successful at increasing mobility, seeing transfers to CC Green/Blue, or driving development, we should then talk about some rail format along the corridor. BRT could be implemented much quicker, giving benefits sooner as well.

I'm sure this exact conversation has been had roughly 3-4x on this very thread, so I'll stop. Question, do any planners with MetCouncil or city/county staff ever check this thread to bounce ideas back to their teams? Nick, I know you work for the city, just curious if ideas ever trickle up.

[VAStationDude]

Well said RailBaron. I would add that cost cutting in the streetcar could result in fewer cars than needed to maintain any thing resembling useful frequency. I believe this is part of the problem in Portland.

The Portland streetcar is eblematic of what's wrong with American streetcar technology. Unlike French and German trams (which are closer to LRT than street cars) streetcars have low capacity and share ROW. Minneapolis won't have one way pairs like Portland and has longer blocks so any Minneapolis train is bound to be a little faster than Portland's.

People definately prefer rail in exclusive ROW. Blue Line has been such a hit because of the comfort and speed offered by LRT. Streetcars offer neither speed or comfort advantages over LRT.

There's nothing innovative about diverting general tax dollars that would have come in regardless of streetcar away from police, fire, public works, parks, schools and various county functions to a mariginally useful train. Minneapolis and Saint Paul have been lighting money on fire for decades and streetcar TIF is just a new wrinkle.

[mattaudio]

I think it's fine if streetcars share ROW on parts, but I agree it should have some dedicated ROW to help things move along. Careful engineering and moving congestion points off the corridor would help the streetcar run faster.

One great opportunity for a streetcar would be to close off Hennepin between the Virginia Triangle and 26th, and on Garfield Ave from 26th to a terminus just beyond Lake where this is already pedestrianized. Then we could have two lanes southbound from 26th to Lagoon to facilitate westbound flows from 26th to the west side of Calhoun. The rest would be slip lanes or woonerfs for local business access and street parking. A dedicated two-way bicycle connection next to the dedicated streetcar ROW. And plazas around streetcar stations on the smaller triangles such as Hennepin and 24th, 22nd and Franklin.

[FISHMANPET]

The Siemens cars we're buying for LRT right now are used as Trams in many European cities. Also, Portland is required to "Buy American" which means they're stuck with the only domestic street car manufacturer, Oregen Iron Works, and they're terrible. Not only are they unreliable, and apparently give a crappy ride, they're also over a year late on delivery, which is why the service is so bad at times.

[helsinki]

The Portland streetcar is eblematic of what's wrong with American streetcar technology. Unlike French and German trams (which are closer to LRT than street cars) streetcars have low capacity and share ROW. Minneapolis won't have one way pairs like Portland and has longer blocks so any Minneapolis train is bound to be a little faster than Portland's.

Many German trams share ROW with automobile traffic and do just fine. An example from Munich: http://www.michaeltaylor.ca/trams/germa ... ich-mt.jpg.

I think the opposition to shared ROW rests on shaky assumptions about driver behavior (ie that drivers will obstruct the trams and slow them down). The US is an intensely rules-based society, nowhere more so perhaps than in our traffic laws. Drivers are generally paranoid about parking by hydrants, getting caught by speed-cameras, and the like (as they should be, when traffic laws are abused as a revenue source for governments disingenuously opposed to raising revenue in a way that has their fingerprints on it: ie, taxation). The notion that such scrupulous behavior would be thrown out the window because streetcars are a novelty doesn't ring true. Even if drivers do behave poorly (parking in a way to obstruct the tram, for instance), they will promptly be towed, the word will get around, and they won't do it anymore. I fail to see how this is a genuine issue.

Streetcars offer neither speed or comfort advantages over LRT.

Although streetcars are generally slower than LRT, I think the comfort factor depends primarily on the angle and frequency of turns and is not determined by the differences between the two rail modes. The Blue Line LRT doesn't turn a lot, so it's not necessary to hold on tight very often. Because the Nicollet/Central alignment is very straight, however, (and the grade is more or less flat) this really won't be an issue; the ride will be quite smooth. Either way, streetcars should be compared with buses, not LRT (against which streetcars are, in my view, superior in both respects).

[mulad]

The Siemens cars we're buying for LRT right now are used as Trams in many European cities. Also, Portland is required to "Buy American" which means they're stuck with the only domestic street car manufacturer, Oregen Iron Works, and they're terrible. Not only are they unreliable, and apparently give a crappy ride, they're also over a year late on delivery, which is why the service is so bad at times.

...which kind of loops around to why the city was trying to pay for this on its own at one point a few years back. Well, I'm not sure if they really thought about this explicitly, but if the city can avoid using federal dollars, then they won't be restricted by Buy America strings that come attached to that money. Aside from the vehicles, there has also been a problem that there's only one manufacturer of proper tram/streetcar rails in the whole world (which have a little "u" groove on the side of the typical I-beam shape to help with skinny bike tires and whatnot), and they aren't in the US either -- though I think the FTA was looking at making an exception for that. Last I heard, manufacturing volumes are so low (relatively speaking) that they only do one run a year.

But anyway, I agree that Portland's streetcar is not the exact model to follow because it's slow, not very frequent, and operates in a one-way loop for much of the route (though that's partly a side-effect of Portland's tiny block sizes). With its disadvantages, you'd expect it to not be very busy, but it carries more riders per mile as the Hiawatha LRT does (though I'll have to double-check whether they're measuring the distance as single-track distance or double-track...).

[mattaudio]

Even if drivers do behave poorly (parking in a way to obstruct the tram, for instance), they will promptly be towed, the word will get around, and they won't do it anymore. I fail to see how this is a genuine issue.

I don't think the issue will be people blocking the streetcars due to bad parking, double parking, etc. My concern is the same one that impacts buses today... during peak periods, buses are stuck in congestion along with all vehicles. We need a fine-grained solution to this on a corridor and block level. Maybe there can be dedicated bus lanes during rush hour, or maybe dedicated space to store right-turning cars at some intersections (or a dedicated signal phase during peak periods to avoid right-turn and pedestrian conflicts).

Although streetcars are generally slower than LRT, I think the comfort factor depends primarily on the angle and frequency of turns and is not determined by the differences between the two rail modes.

Agreed. The issue isn't really streetcar vs. bus, but more about lateral movement and acceleration. On my local bus, it's constantly slamming on the brakes, starting fast to get into traffic, and lurching out of the traffic lane to bus stops along the curb. It's very unpleasant. Before I moved to the city, I would often take an express route that was operated by a coach bus primarily on freeways. It was not stopping and starting constantly, and its acceleration/deceleration was much more controlled and predictable.

I actually preferred an hour on that coach bus than a half hour on my local bus on Bloomington Ave. Why? First, I would not feel sick at the end of the ride. Second, it was so smooth, I could actually be productive. I could put on some music and take a nap, or I could pull out my work laptop and get in a billable hour if it was a busy week.

As Jarrett Walker always points out (and he's correct in theory) these factors are not mode-specific. Things like bus bulbs to prevent lateral jarring movements and smoother starts/stops would help make local bus service more comfortable. We've already come a long ways in our fleet with quieter buses and lighting that's less harsh. These small changes are never talked about by the average rider, but these are real amenities even if people can't fully describe how they add up to a comfortable ride.

Pragmatically, the reason why a certain ride quality is equated with a certain mode is obvious. With light rail (or streetcar, to a degree) you cannot skimp on the factors that create a comfortable ride. The resulting quality is predictable because it's in the nature of the mode. And while we can match the quality of service and the soft product on buses, the reality is that these things always lose out when expenses need to get cut or lanes need to get restricted. See Red Line BRT.

The best approach would be if we could create an aBRT standard that must be met within a certain tolerance. Such as 85% of stops must not require lateral movement. Or acceleration is maxed out at a certain rate. This is just as important in defining a standard of service as specifying a frequency. But we also need a standard of service for "color lines" in the regional transit network. See Red Line BRT.

[VAStationDude]

New tram lines/systems like new Munich lines and French systems in Strasbourg and Grenoble have fairly minimal share traffic areas. Some of the older lines do share lanes but cities in Europe and Toronto are separating traffic from trams. This is in constrast to what is proposed in Minneapolis.

Even the quickest tow, especially if the improperly parked car is close the the car in front and back is going to take at least twenty minutes. A bus can just go around. Ditto for broken down vehicles. One poorly parked car out of the thousands that will continue to park along the proposed streetcar route each week can really mess up a streetcar system for hours.

I meant to write "Streetcars offer neither speed or comfort advantages over bus." which I stand by. The hilly curvy areas of the Portland streetcar route were the worst as far as ride comfort. The straight, flat areas along 10th and 11th were not great either.

Again, what mobility gains will we see for our $200 million? A few more tourists and suburbanites taking occassional short transit trips? People from the city taking their kids on it as a novelty ride? $200 million buys many many more miles of aBRT and serve people who live here and use it as part of their daily lives.

[woofner]

Things like bus bulbs to prevent lateral jarring movements and smoother starts/stops would help make local bus service more comfortable.

This is why I support enhanced bus over streetcar. The City of Minneapolis policy is for bump-outs to be built at all corners - except transit stops. This has led to the passenger discomfort described above, as well as travel time delays and dangerous conditions at stops (Helsinki, you know that American drivers regularly ignore tons of traffic laws, one of which is the prohibition against turning right around stopped transit vehicles).

However, they have showed willingness to make exceptions for enhanced bus and streetcar. I agree that streetcars are the ideal final form for some of our most heavily used routes, but we have some basic problems to fix first.

[mattaudio]

If there's off-board fare payment, wouldn't that significantly shorten dwell time at stops? Wouldn't that significantly reduce congestion buildup behind a bus stopped at a bus-bulb? Also, if we had far-side stops and better coordination between buses and stoplights, it seems there could be a way to stop the buses on the far side while traffic is stopped at a red light on the other side of the intersection. Lots of ways for nuanced improvement here.

[RailBaronYarr]

I think to the pragmatic points mattaudio has made, if we have the balls to demand full amenities for a BRT vs Streetcar (with some of the fine-grain standards he discussed), why wouldn't we choose BRT over streetcar? Define the level of service - comfort, frequency, capacity, etc that is to be demanded of a corridor and evaluate the costs required by mode to get said level. This coordination is what is missing between MetCouncil and Minneapolis in this particular case (and more broadly, I'd say). Both MC and Mpls decided on a mode and particular facilities and ran studies of their own to find costs and resulting level of service, along with how they'd play out with existing auto traffic and bus operations. Not a good approach, IMO. Define a hierarchy of service (Colored Lines, Named for Rapid (or whatever) with a meaningful number behind it, and then all other local routes) and define what this means for frequency, coverage, station amenities, etc etc. Pick the technology that is appropriate from a cost/ROI perspective

As for dedicated ROWs, I'm obviously a huge fan. I think it's the only way to guarantee frequency and speed along the entire corridor to ensure potential riders know exactly when/how often the next vehicle will arrive. I'm not opposed to mattaudio's fine-grained approach, but I think it makes things confusing for all parties involved (drivers, peds, bikes, etc) who use the corridor at different points. However, I'm not sure why w dedicated lane in this case wouldn't be appropriate. AADT counts at points along Nicollet between Lake and 94 are roughly 10k. The current (slow, congested) buses have 13,600 riders in total per day. Yes, this includes all the way down to 66th, but it shows the magnitude of people riding a relatively poor service bus to get downtown. If you could maintain one lane of car traffic (albeit removing left turn lanes) in exchange for transit that is more frequent and at hte very minimum 20% faster (the study said 20% without dedicated lanes or signal priority), I would imagine the tradeoff would be worth it.

[FISHMANPET]

AADT counts at points along Nicollet between Lake and 94 are roughly 10k. The current (slow, congested) buses have 13,600 riders in total per day. Yes, this includes all the way down to 66th, but it shows the magnitude of people riding a relatively poor service bus to get downtown.

What I'm getting out of this is that Hennepin should be dedicated to transit and cars should be second class citizens (opposite of how it is on most other roads) because more people are using the transit than there are people driving (Even though I just looked it up and see that the average occupancy of a car is 1.5 persons, so those 10k cards could potentially be carrying 15k people, I'd be curious to see what it is on this road specifically).

But if it's the case that transit is moving more people on this stretch than cars are, then I have no problems taking lanes away for traffic for dedicated ROW for transit.

[mattaudio]

American drivers regularly ignore tons of traffic laws, one of which is the prohibition against turning right around stopped transit vehicles

Good news! There's an engineering solution to allow cars to turn right without interference from buses in the right-most lane... double-width right turn lanes! http://goo.gl/maps/O70PB

Nothing says pedestrian friendly like a crosswalk that covers nearly 150 feet and 11 lanes of traffic. It's done on the Red Line, so it must be good!

[mattaudio]

But if it's the case that transit is moving more people on this stretch than cars are, then I have no problems taking lanes away for traffic for dedicated ROW for transit.

This is the rationale behind HOV/HOT lanes as well... that the lane can actually carry more people than other lanes, even if it looks like it has less vehicles. This is counter-intuitive to the majority of the public and people are wildly skeptical of it. Not sure how politically palatable it would be. But in terms of actually moving people, I think there's a good case to be made for dedicated transit lanes on Hennepin or Nicollet.

[FISHMANPET]

I'd bet you'd get a lot of support for improved bus service from residents along Hennepin, and a lot of dissent from people in St Louis Park that can't rush through Uptown on their way home.

[RailBaronYarr]

Jarrett Walker talks about that a lot - public perception gets pretty negative, pretty fast when you turn a street lane into bus-only. Because it sits empty most of the time (even 5 minute headways would mean you don't see a bus 90% of the time). A local example - people ignorantly complaining about the failure of the Hiawatha line, ignoring that its daily ridership is roughly equivalent to the number of vehicles traveling on 2-3 lanes of 55 right next to it. Yes, cars carry an avg of ~1.59 people, I understand. But the total corridor ridership on Nicollet vs vehicles was an exercise to show how pent-up demand for fast transit is along the stretch. The public (officials) should be talking about the most efficient use of space to move people. I don't think urban streets like Nicollet and Hennepin having 2 lanes for cars with buses sharing space meets that definition.

[RailBaronYarr]

I'd bet you'd get a lot of support for improved bus service from residents along Hennepin, and a lot of dissent from people in St Louis Park that can't rush through Uptown on their way home.

Lucky for them, they're getting no less than 3 LRT stations, each with their own park & ride, with the fastest trip time to downtown via the trail through the woods.

[UptownSport]

Yes, close Hennepin to auto traffic. I'll get e memo right out for that one, too.

Random question, would you prefer HCMC psych ward or Bellevue?