urbanMSP

I think for PR and public acceptance they should list the bridge cost separately.

We’ve seen how much bridges and tunnels have the highest likelihood to explode coasts. Continuing of lumping the entire project in one lump sum is doing damage to public approval of expansion of mass transit.

Similar to how headlines of a street reconstruction will include sidewalks or bike trails, with one huge price, fuels a backlash against sidewalks and trails.

Messaging competence about costs to the public just has a big gap between policy makers and the casual public.

I consider myself very much pro rail transit but I'm left scratching my head at what this project hopes to accomplish with a modern streetcar sharing ROW for a good portion of a route that's predicted to take almost 45 minutes end to end. A speed limit of 25-30mph? This feels like you're getting the same benefit as an aBRT route for 5-10x the cost. I think either go grade separated LRT or just do aBRT.

I'm curious just how much of the $2.1 billion comes from the bridge construction however.

I consider myself very much pro rail transit but I'm left scratching my head at what this project hopes to accomplish with a modern streetcar sharing ROW for a good portion of a route that's predicted to take almost 45 minutes end to end. A speed limit of 25-30mph? This feels like you're getting the same benefit as an aBRT route for 5-10x the cost. I think either go grade separated LRT or just do aBRT.

I'm curious just how much of the $2.1 billion comes from the bridge construction however.

I agree that the project as currently designed leaves a lot to be desired. We can and should push for better though. This project is not set in stone yet. We can get fully dedicated lanes. We can have a curb and close grade crossings to allow the train to go above speed limits for cars, and above 35 mph when it's not crossing the street.

At the very least I want to see the mixed traffic lanes be built in a way that allows easy conversion to fully dedicated in a hopefully more pro-transit future

What ever happened to connecting the Fort Road bridge to Shepard Road instead of W 7th?

I think it's worth noting the $2.1 billion dollar budget includes replacing the bridge over the Mississippi with a new bridge which is certainly a big part of that number

That said if this thing can't get into a completely dedicated ROW and interlined with the Green Line for that number aBRT is the way to go. If you don't have those 2 parts of the project what additional utility does rail provide that aBRT doesn't bring a fraction of the cost?

The Met Council still needs to communicate who and why made the short decision that prevent the interlining with Green Line

aBRT would have 0% dedicated ROW. Even though the whole streetcar route wouldn’t have dedicated ROW there’s still the possibility of converting the mixed-traffic segments later, especially if they go with Option 1.

I would like to see both the cost of the bridge and the cost of the new shared Blue Line/Riverview infrastructure separated out.

The project would definitely look better, though that ridership number still hurts.

Why is there currently an operating rule to only allow one train in a tunnel at a time? (Referencing slide 27 in the Riverview Corridor presentation.)

For those curious, during the CAC meeting yesterday it was said that the cost in 2033 dollars for the new Mall of America Station and Highway 5 Bridge would be approximately $100 million and $240 million, respectively.

Maybe it was just me, but the presenters seemed to talk more highly of Streetcar Option 2 than Streetcar Option 1. I do see benefits of Option 2, but to me it's a deal breaker with the side-running and mixed-traffic operation. Someone brought up concerns over parked cars blocking the tracks, and one of the presenters responded saying they would ensure the street is designed to prevent that from happening, but that doesn't give me a lot of confidence. Having been to cities where trams/streetcars have existed for a century or more they still have conflicts with motorists including parked cars. Trucks loading/unloading for businesses is a fair point that might favor Option 2 over Option 1, but I would hope they study ways to mitigate that in Option 1 instead of just going with Option 2. Option 1 having less street crossings along West 7th than Option 2 was also discussed, but is it not possible for Option 1 to have more crossings? It wouldn't be as many crossings as there are today, and it probably still wouldn't be as many crossings as Option 2, but just enough crossings where the streetcar under option 1 wouldn't be perceived as a division of West 7th.

How about we just don't build a streetcar and build light rail

How about we just don't build a streetcar and build light rail

Agreed, but if we can only choose one of the streetcar options then I'd say Option 1 because it has the best chance to be converted to 100% dedicated right-of-way later on. From the meeting last evening, it sounded like the main or only reason Option 1 has mixed-traffic operation in downtown is because St. Paul requested it.

Train length is another issue... Will these stations only be built for 1-LRV trains?
Hiawatha was built with some 2-LRV platforms but with a pathway to extend those platforms (happened within a few years).

How about we just don't build a streetcar and build light rail

Agreed, but if we can only choose one of the streetcar options then I'd say Option 1 because it has the best chance to be converted to 100% dedicated right-of-way later on. From the meeting last evening, it sounded like the main or only reason Option 1 has mixed-traffic operation in downtown is because St. Paul requested it.

I wonder if the now-more-progressive city council might reconsider that. Sounds like that may be the political pressure point to push if we want this to be a real transit improvement.

Train length is another issue... Will these stations only be built for 1-LRV trains?
Hiawatha was built with some 2-LRV platforms but with a pathway to extend those platforms (happened within a few years).

I think the current plans show one-car long stations, which would more-or-less preclude any future "easy" LRT conversion.

The op expense of a non-automated train, the capacity of a big bus. Will this one be stuck behind a Toyota Matrix like the renderings of the one-time Nicollet-Central streetcar plan in Minneapolis?

The Met Council still needs to communicate who and why made the short decision that prevent the interlining with Green Line

I can't remember where I read it (buried in some document or post). But, the challenges cited with Green Line interlining had to do with the steep approach on 5th st ending in a mid intersection location that would be challenging for switches. Also, the current Union Depot Station would need to have two new tracks added which would block access to a business on the north side and make the slope in front of the Union Depot head house non-ADA compliant. They were struggling to figure out how that would fit in that area.

The Met Council still needs to communicate who and why made the short decision that prevent the interlining with Green Line

I can't remember where I read it (buried in some document or post). But, the challenges cited with Green Line interlining had to do with the steep approach on 5th st ending in a mid intersection location that would be challenging for switches. Also, the current Union Depot Station would need to have two new tracks added which would block access to a business on the north side and make the slope in front of the Union Depot head house non-ADA compliant. They were struggling to figure out how that would fit in that area.

Why would Union Station need two new tracks installed?

That seems totally unnecessary. There are definitely other interlining LRT systems in this country that don't need four tracks to do it. If you told me there was a need for a third track, maybe I could see that for operational reasons, but I can't think of why four whopping tracks would be needed.

Notably, there are not four tracks at Target Field, where this very same system has two services interlining. There's storage space past the last platform, sure, but Union Depot has that too, a whole maintenance facility's worth. I'm perfectly willing to buy the junction at 5th and Cedar being challenging, but needing a four-track station in addition to sucessfully interline is a little suspicious.

Now that I think about it, the Denver Union Station LRT platform managed three interlining services pre-Covid with just two tracks and some storage space past the end.

Train length is another issue... Will these stations only be built for 1-LRV trains?
Hiawatha was built with some 2-LRV platforms but with a pathway to extend those platforms (happened within a few years).

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.

Train length is another issue... Will these stations only be built for 1-LRV trains?
Hiawatha was built with some 2-LRV platforms but with a pathway to extend those platforms (happened within a few years).

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.

Train length is another issue... Will these stations only be built for 1-LRV trains?
Hiawatha was built with some 2-LRV platforms but with a pathway to extend those platforms (happened within a few years).

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