Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
Bakken2016
Block E
Posts: 17
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Bakken2016 » October 9th, 2017, 9:17 pm

Bakken2016 wrote:
October 9th, 2017, 8:54 pm
Tcmetro wrote:
October 9th, 2017, 4:57 pm
I like the idea also, but I think realistically it won't be changed as it will confuse riders. I think they should consider ditching the color scheme and adopt simple numbers (1,2,3,4,etc.) for the LRT and BRT lines.

I was looking at some of the materials, and it seems that they are only considering mixed traffic for a small part of this line. They really should try to get dedicated lanes at the stations and major intersections, at least, and build out for two-car trains.
Yea I was told at the info session that about 80% will be dedicated right out of way, and like you said a small portion will be mixed traffic.

I like the color system, it is much easier for a customer to distinguish the METRO system from the regular route system.
Screenshot 2017-10-09 22.15.58.png
Yea as shown above all the light blue is dedicated transitway
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1475
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby talindsay » October 10th, 2017, 8:11 am

To me, this plan makes an awful lot of sense given current ridership, as long as they design it so that dedicated use can creep in to the shared segment as ridership patterns evolve.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4533
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby David Greene » October 10th, 2017, 8:46 am

My biggest concern is limiting the consist size. They need to design for expansion to at least two, preferably three LRVs. That doesn't mean closing intersections now, but designing things so that closing intersections in the future won't require a ton of reconstruction.

jtoemke
City Center
Posts: 44
Joined: March 5th, 2015, 8:04 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby jtoemke » October 10th, 2017, 11:08 am

Random thought - does anyone else think if this were built with mixed right of way, and some people saw they could drive on the tracks, that in places along the Green Line they might also think they can drive on the tracks. I know there's the 4" gradual curb but still.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4533
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby David Greene » October 10th, 2017, 11:44 am

People already do drive on the Green Line tracks.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2628
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 10th, 2017, 11:56 am

One thought on consist size (even though it's my preference to build/plan for 2-3 car LRVs):

What if we took the European tram approach in planning for this line (or others!) where headways of single LRVs are more in the 3-5 minute range rather than 2-3 car trains every 10 minutes. 10 minutes basically all day/evening isn't an absurdly long wait time for transit, but it's not exactly great, either. 3 car trains are great for capacity and not impacting light timing sequences and therefore vehicle LOS, but I think transit riders would be better served by lots of trains. Maybe the answer is "both," with better frequencies as the first solution to capacity and longer trains as the second?

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4533
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby David Greene » October 10th, 2017, 12:00 pm

Good idea. How small can we make the headway on the shared segment with the Blue Line? The Blue Line is limited due to the shared segments downtown, so you'd need a schedule that takes the constraints of two different shared segments into account. Then add in our Midtown inlining dream. :)

alexschief
City Center
Posts: 33
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby alexschief » October 10th, 2017, 3:05 pm

At least part of the way is dedicated ROW. But the part of the route that most needs dedicated ROW is also the smaller part that is shared. I accept that this is a battle we're not likely to win in the near term, but I think it's important (as others have mentioned) that this route be built in such as a way as to be open to further expansion, full dedicated ROW, and full three car trains. I hope they don't try to get cute over the "streetcar" and try to differentiate this too much from the LRT. I'd like to see the same stock, same station design, etc. Just run shorter trains if you need to.

It is frustrating to have to settle for a half loaf on this corridor. But as long as there's a possibility of getting a full loaf in the future, when concerns about a few parking spaces don't come before commute time for thousands, then we ought to take it.

DanPatchToget
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 190
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby DanPatchToget » October 10th, 2017, 4:45 pm

I'm hoping as well that they just use the same LRVs on Riverview, but just one or two car trains. Much easier operationally and establishes commonality in the light rail fleet. Although I wonder if the trains on Riverview will require flashing hazards and turn signals as I've seen on other tram/streetcar systems. I believe the so called "wig wags" on our Type 2 trains are where the hazards/turn signals usually are.

SkyScraperKid
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 127
Joined: May 14th, 2016, 1:41 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby SkyScraperKid » October 10th, 2017, 4:46 pm

David Greene wrote:
October 10th, 2017, 11:44 am
People already do drive on the Green Line tracks.
Yea, they should paint the tracks red downtown to help discourage drivers from driving on them.

Bakken2016
Block E
Posts: 17
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Bakken2016 » October 11th, 2017, 8:38 am

DanPatchToget wrote:
October 10th, 2017, 4:45 pm
I'm hoping as well that they just use the same LRVs on Riverview, but just one or two car trains. Much easier operationally and establishes commonality in the light rail fleet. Although I wonder if the trains on Riverview will require flashing hazards and turn signals as I've seen on other tram/streetcar systems. I believe the so called "wig wags" on our Type 2 trains are where the hazards/turn signals usually are.
Hopefully they will due to having to share tracks with the Blue and Green Line!

gopherfan
City Center
Posts: 27
Joined: January 15th, 2013, 5:09 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby gopherfan » October 11th, 2017, 4:56 pm

Bakken2016 wrote:
DanPatchToget wrote:
October 10th, 2017, 4:45 pm
I'm hoping as well that they just use the same LRVs on Riverview, but just one or two car trains. Much easier operationally and establishes commonality in the light rail fleet. Although I wonder if the trains on Riverview will require flashing hazards and turn signals as I've seen on other tram/streetcar systems. I believe the so called "wig wags" on our Type 2 trains are where the hazards/turn signals usually are.
Hopefully they will due to having to share tracks with the Blue and Green Line!
From the Siemens website! 'Siemens S70 streetcar can connect service with a full-scale S70 light rail system, linking city and region without the need to change trains.'

http://w3.usa.siemens.com/mobility/us/e ... 20vehicles
Streetcar
https://www.siemens.com/content/dam/web ... -sheet.pdf
LRT
https://www.siemens.com/content/dam/web ... -sheet.pdf

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 2961
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: 9Marq

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Silophant » October 11th, 2017, 8:44 pm

Right. Atlanta's streetcars, at least, are the same basic model as our Type II LRVs, just slightly shorter (79' vs 94') and without the couplers. We'll see, I guess, but I certainly hope that we'd just get more full-length LRVs rather than mess around with having two different vehicle types sharing tracks.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2628
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 12th, 2017, 8:05 am

...which drive different maintenance requirements, and could have different operations characteristics (max speed, braking capacity, etc that impact driver training), and might even drive infrastructure choices (e.g. optional tighter turning radii) that preempt having an LRV use the tracks. The $ savings of using the streetcar vs the LRV can't be worth it.

alexschief
City Center
Posts: 33
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby alexschief » October 12th, 2017, 12:31 pm

I've written enough already about this project so that people know my views.

I think this LPA choice was pretty inevitable. I think that it's at least okay that this project is mostly dedicated ROW. But as I said above, I think that the part that is mixed is exactly the one part which most needs dedicated ROW. I think that transit advocates really can't forget what happened here and resign ourselves to this inferior transit project. Business owners should not be determining the city's transit priorities. ACME Comedy Club thought an apartment building would ruin their business, and they're still around. The crazy Taste of Love landlord on Cleveland Avenue though that bike lanes would kill businesses and lead to sex shops. Now, there are new restaurants opening along Cleveland. Business owners do not actually know how their customers get to their door. They are not professional planners, they are not transportation experts, and their views, while important, should not be given veto power over transportation policy.

There is absolutely no reason why the few imperiled parking spaces along West 7th should've taken priority over transit on this corridor, and yet they did. As the study group's conclusion heads to the Met Council, advocates need to keep pushing for more transit priority in this area, and at minimum, must demand that the corridor be built in a way so that the streetcar ROW can be converted quickly and cheaply to dedicated ROW in the future. As this forum has discussed, there also needs to be synergy between Metro Transit's LRT fleet and this line. This is transit, not an amusement park ride nor a development vehicle. People should have every reason to see the line as indistinguishable from the blue and green lines.

Ultimately, I look forward to a future when there is greater consensus towards the importance of better transit and that business owners don't reflexively oppose it, but welcome it. For now, I'd settle for not designing in a way that forecloses improvements in the future.

And as much as I am frustrated by this LPA, I do hope that this line and the Midtown line get formally put in line by the Met Council as soon as possible. So much attention is being paid to suburban routes right now, with two suburban LRT and two suburban BRT routes moving towards construction. But the inner cities are still woefully underserved. The priorities of the next two Mpls and Stp mayors should be to bring these next two projects to the formal planning stage.

User avatar
Tiller
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 742
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tiller » October 12th, 2017, 1:24 pm

They are going full-bore on having a separate study to figure out the Ford Site's transit, continuing where Riverview left off to save time. Tolbert amended the LPA recommendation to put in a bunch of specific dates and deadlines for various tasks to be accomplished with studying Transit between Sibley Plaza - 46th St. Ramsey County was on board so I suppose we'll see the start of a separate but related study soon (beginning in 2018, to be finished by sometime in like 2019) while Riverview continues forward with the environmental analysis.

Are there any relevant examples of [successful] transit lines that are only like 3.5 miles long? I can't think of any important routes existing or in planning in the Twin Cities that are that short aside from some of the streetcars Minneapolis is dinking around with (which are of questionable utility for transportation purposes). Even the 2 Bus is twice as long, and that serves a lot of dense destinations close-in to downtown Minneapolis. If this were to be just being Sibley-Ford-46th St, then that would force a lot more transfers compared to interlining it with some other more useful service.

alexschief
City Center
Posts: 33
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby alexschief » October 12th, 2017, 3:31 pm

Tiller wrote:
October 12th, 2017, 1:24 pm
Are there any relevant examples of [successful] transit lines that are only like 3.5 miles long?
Totally. Montréal has an entire subway line that runs for three stops. Vancouver has a three stop airport spur. New York's S train runs between Grand Central and Times Square. Philly's Broad Street Line has a three stop spur into Chinatown. There is plenty of precedent, but the Ford Site spur doesn't really have the density or importance to demand it. Any Ford Site line would of course have to run well beyond just that route (e.g. to Midway).

tmart
Block E
Posts: 6
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby tmart » October 12th, 2017, 6:20 pm

I can't really speak to the other examples, but Montreal's Yellow Line is a pretty bad comparison. Montreal is an island in the St. Lawrence River, and that line terminates on the South Shore of the river. It may not be a long distance on the map, but it's a very long psychological distance, and tons of commuters coming from South Shore suburbs funnel onto that line as the best alternative to dealing with bridge traffic.

DanPatchToget
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 190
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby DanPatchToget » October 12th, 2017, 7:16 pm

I'm hoping for ABRT on the current Route 46 between 50th & France and Sibley Plaza. It could use the Ford Spur as a dedicated segment between the Ford Site and West 7th.

tmart
Block E
Posts: 6
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby tmart » October 13th, 2017, 8:06 am

Bakken2016 wrote:
October 9th, 2017, 9:17 pm
Screenshot 2017-10-09 22.15.58.png

Yea as shown above all the light blue is dedicated transitway
So am I correct in looking at this map and reading that the shared ROW portion is actually the four-lane portion, and not the three-lane portion? Satellite images suggest everything north of Goodhue has four lanes, which seems to line up with the end of the shared lane portion. If so, that's a bit surprising but encouraging.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests