Nicollet-Central Streetcar

[talindsay]

Come on, tell us how you really feel.

[woofner]

Must be a tough day for intelligent thought. No one seems capable of anything but childish sarcasm. At least on some other threads they'd incorporate humor.

[Andrew_F]

So you would propose closing it to through-traffic, but still keeping the parking? I've never thought of that-- how do you envision it?

[talindsay]

Sorry, you're not wrong it's just that the response was worded like this was an absurd idea. As I stated earlier, there are certainly better ways to separate pedestrians from traffic *if* the ROW isn't given to another road use; but there is a challenge with how best to handle parking. Clearly for-pay on-street parking is preferable to free off-street parking, right? And structured for-pay off-street parking meets resistance both because of its cost to assemble and because of the challenge of who builds it. So on-street parking is often a good compromise to balance the various needs - the parked cars provide a buffer for pedestrians while also addressing the parking problem, without resorting to either expensive structured parking or subsidized and poor-land-use off-street lots.

If the City chooses to take an active role in managing for-pay parking for the district, and then chooses to use the freed-up ROW for better pedestrian use then we have a win. This could probably be done in coordination with streetcar construction. But it is expensive, and it raises the question who pays for it and why. Would these businesses balk at an assessment to pay for it? Probably. Should the cost be borne by the district itself? Definitely. I'm not in love with TIF for something like this but it could be an approach that works I suppose.

This is the challenge, it's easy to talk about what *should* be done, but the pragmatic reality of bringing that about means real costs and real compromises. They should certainly consider this as the streetcar project moves forward, but my fear is that any discussion of removing parking would be to accommodate more traffic lanes rather than to improve the sidewalks.

[MNdible]

I'll toss in a bit more nasty pragmatism to note that all of Nicollet has been fairly recently reconstructed, and my understanding is that the costs we're looking at don't include a complete rebuild of the ROW. So what will actually get built will need to work within the exiting conditions, more or less.

[woofner]

I should have been more clear that the whole "on-street parking is great for pedestrians" attitude is my pet peeve because it's often used to justify the provision of ample on-street parking not as a compromise but as a default. I agree that on-street parking can be a good buffer on streets where on-street parking is in high demand. However, on streets with little or even inconsistent demand for parking, it is instead for pedestrians one of those compromises in which you get nothing. Again, on-street parking only "provides a buffer for pedestrians while also addressing the parking problem" if cars park in it and if there is a parking problem. Most of Minneapolis does not have a parking problem and the majority of on-street parking goes unused for the majority of the time.

Nicollet is a good example because the segment between 28th and Franklin clearly has demand for parking and so it does function to buffer the sidewalks from moving vehicles (so they use the continuous center-turn lane for passing at 50mph instead of the parking lane). However the segment between Lake & 40th has maybe 4 blocks with anywhere near that demand for parking, yet they're rebuilding the whole segment with two parking lanes. I guarantee that the other 6 blocks will be empty or nearly empty for most of the time, and average speeds will go up and dangerous driving will happen in those lanes. Pricing the parking will of course exacerbate the lack of parking on the empty blocks.

"So you would propose closing it to through-traffic, but still keeping the parking? I've never thought of that-- how do you envision it?"

If you're also running transit on the street, you would just have to post signs requiring a turn at each intersection exempting buses (or streetcars). This would be easy to violate, of course, but also easy to enforce. There are a number of ways you could configure it, but as Mndible notes the street was rebuilt too recently for the city to stomach major changes, so probably having slant parking on one side with parallel on the other and two through lanes would be best (as opposed to the two parallel, two through, and one continuous center left-turn lane that currently exists), and hopefully find some money for neckdowns at the intersections (certainly there will be money for curb extensions at transit stations). This would also increase the total supply of parking so may be palliative to the businesses. How's that for pragmatism?

[mulad]

I've always been pretty skeptical of the need/usefulness of on-street parking as a buffer for pedestrians. Put up some trees or bollards!

[fehler]

If you want to close Nicollet to through-traffic, just plop a huge building, say a store of some kind, right in the middle of the road and force all traffic to detour around it.

[twincitizen]

I'd be 100% ok with keeping Nicollet closed to general traffic between Lake and 29th. A mini Nicollet Mall if you will. Through traffic will continue to use Blaisdell and 1st. Buses, streetcars, bikes & taxis would be allowed through. Local traffic that wants to be on Nicollet will find a way, just as it does now. Increased automobile traffic on Nicollet would be a negative outcome of reopening the Kmart block, especially if we want the transit to speed up and keep it pedestrian friendly.

[Drizzay]

If you want to close Nicollet to through-traffic, just plop a huge building, say a store of some kind, right in the middle of the road and force all traffic to detour around it.

[orangevening]

Ok, this is my last argument for a Nicollet-Central streetcar because it seems like it has just gone in circles. Maybe making more personal will add a different perspective. I'll probably get ripped for this, but I'm not a Urban Studies major or involved with urban projects in any professional way- although I wish I was. I'm just a average Joe in this sense, although I've lived car-free for the vast majority of my adult life and have developed a huge (although amateur) interest in urban planning and transportation in general . Although I know what "ROW", and other abbreviations you folks use mean, there are concepts you guys use that are over my head.

Getting back to the topic, I live in the Kingfield neighborhood 2 blocks off of Nicollet and commute typically by bike to Downtown where I work much of the time with visitors to Minneapolis wither it be for a Twins/Vikings/ Gophers game, a major convention (like this past weekend) or just in town for the weekend to enjoy the city. In my opinion of living here on and off since 1997 Downtown Minneapolis has gotten A LOT nicer- cleaned up literally and figuratively, new restaurants, a new Guthrie and Ballpark etc. But to me the best places of Minneapolis of are outside of Downtown- like the Lakes, Sculpture Gardens, Minnehaha Falls etc. I love Minneapolis and what to show of these places to visitors. Places like the Sculpture Gardens and St. Anothney-Main are within (barely) walking distance, places like Minnehaha Falls I tell people they can take the train to (you will be surprised how many people visit the MOA via LRT). I would love to tell people to check out the great ethnic restaurants on Eat Street or NE or the view and history in St. Anthoney-Main (for the less willing to walk folks). I would love to tell them "yeah, just jump on the streetcar and look for the ____ stop". Maybe most of them won't take it, but I'm sure some will. I just can't see saying "yeah, just take that really, really nice bus there and get off on _____ stop". I'm pretty used to taking transit including buses in cities I visit and can get around fine sans cars, but the average Joe and Jane from Osseo or Ohio isn't. Taking a bus is intimating to them.

Probably get ripped for overemphasizing the need to build a streetcar for out-of-town visitors. Like I said I live not far from the starter-line route and 2 blocks from the eventual line. I would love to use a streetcar to get downtown and points along the way . Another point is that I rarely see Nicollet congested with auto traffic-I don't see a streetcar getting stuck in traffic on a regular basis. Lastly wouldn't a aBRT and streetcar have nearly the same stops at least north of Kmart - after a 13th/ Convention Center stop I see a 15th street, 18th/Stevens Square, Franklin, 24th street, 26th street and finally a 28th street stop before Lake. Maybe 2 or 3 of these could be cut out, but remember Minneapolis has big blocks and potential harsh weather. Walking 5 blocks to a bus stop is tough to justify.

[RailBaronYarr]

It may have been posted here before, but this series by Jarrett Walker is what started tipping the scales for me on streetcars vs BRT, and his premises in general about defining technology vs defining level of service really speak to me in how we design a transit system or line:

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/is- ... lete-.html

To be perfectly clear, I love trains. I love the ride quality, I love the technology, the sound, the look. To me , BRT offers a lower entry cost (even with a full build of amenities) per mile that allows a transit system to test which corridors are right for further investment.

[orangevening]

It may have been posted here before, but this series by Jarrett Walker is what started tipping the scales for me on streetcars vs BRT, and his premises in general about defining technology vs defining level of service really speak to me in how we design a transit system or line:

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/is- ... lete-.html

To be perfectly clear, I love trains. I love the ride quality, I love the technology, the sound, the look. To me , BRT offers a lower entry cost (even with a full build of amenities) per mile that allows a transit system to test which corridors are right for further investment.

Interesting article (and made me pine for Vancouver and Europe). Surprised how much one line of SkyTrain costs (probably the reason Vancouver only has a few lines). To me it makes the case that the type of transit isn't a one-size-fits all type of deal. What works for Nicollet isn't going to work University or Snelling or Hennipen [sic] or Grand. The character of the street matters choosing "slow" transit or "rapid" transit.

[RailBaronYarr]

This is the follow-up to many of the comments found in the first post:
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/str ... neity.html

As well as the response from Condon (all good stuff):
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/05/is- ... ponds.html

Regarding character of the street as a defining criteria for transit technology.. I think the bigger question is what is this corridor trying to accomplish from a transit perspective? Are we trying to connect people directly along the corridor, basically within a block or 2 of Nicollet in either direction, to local destinations a little faster? Or are we trying to connect people within a quarter mile of Nicollet to destinations that are otherwise inaccessible by foot or bike in a way that rivals traveling by car? Example being making getting from downtown hotels to Eat Street fast enough that out of towners would use transit instead of getting in their car (or renting one in the first place). Or getting people from Lake/Nicollet up to St Anthony Main in under 20 minutes.

I agree with you that saying take the ___ means more to people (residents or out of towners) if it's a rail line. The rails are a visual indicator of where the transit is. And the streetcars themselves look visually different than buses which signify what to expect. But branding (the buses having a distinct size, color, look, and feel) and top-notch stations for buses can do the same, particularly for people who live here 365 days a year.

Totally unrelated, does it disappoint anyone else that Nicollet has been recently re-done, knowing that the streetcar/arterial studies have been in the works for quite some time??

[UptownSport]

I think the bigger question is what is this corridor trying to accomplish from a transit perspective? Are we trying to connect people directly along the corridor, basically within a block or 2 of Nicollet in either direction, to local destinations a little faster? Or are we trying to connect people within a quarter mile of Nicollet to destinations that are otherwise inaccessible by foot or bike in a way that rivals traveling by car? Example being making getting from downtown hotels to Eat Street fast enough that out of towners would use transit instead of getting in their car (or renting one in the first place). Or getting people from Lake/Nicollet up to St Anthony Main in under 20 minutes.

I don't think it's necessary to make choice- Streetcars, undoubtedly, would do lots if they replaced bus line in entirety.
AND they'd allow people to drive as well- Being they have a fixed track and are narrow.

[orangevening]

Example being making getting from downtown hotels to Eat Street fast enough that out of towners would use transit instead of getting in their car (or renting one in the first place). Or getting people from Lake/Nicollet up to St Anthony Main in under 20 minutes.

Nicollet Mall congestion with local buses and taxis is the biggest reason this takes more than 20 mins. Unless aBRT goes on Marq2 it won't going though downtown any faster than a streetcar or local buses.

Totally unrelated, does it disappoint anyone else that Nicollet has been recently re-done, knowing that the streetcar/arterial studies have been in the works for quite some time??

Yes. Live right next to current construction. But I think this has been brought up in this thread.

[mulad]

I wrote a post today about how rail planning in Minneapolis seems to be upside-down. We're looking at a light-rail corridor for Southwest that's bordering on becoming heavy rail (which is defined as fully grade-separated subway/elevated rapid transit), while we're talking about streetcars along Nicollet, one of the busiest existing bus corridors in the city. How the heck is that going to work, considering we're running 3-car trains on Hiawatha after less than a decade, and that it will probably be the day-1 operating pattern for the Green Line along University?

We've really got to look at these urban routes in Minneapolis again and strongly consider a subway of some sort. It could still technically be light rail with grade crossings on the far reaches, and signaling and rolling stock compatible with the existing fleet, but it also might make sense to go for a full-fledged NYC/Chicago/DC-style rapid transit service.

Oh, and then whatever we do on the surface to improve bus transit becomes a rounding error. We can go ahead and implement arterial BRT without having to worry about whether it will be compatible with future streetcar service or not.

http://hizeph400.blogspot.com/2013/08/a ... polis.html

[orangevening]

I wrote a post today about how rail planning in Minneapolis seems to be upside-down. We're looking at a light-rail corridor for Southwest that's bordering on becoming heavy rail (which is defined as fully grade-separated subway/elevated rapid transit), while we're talking about streetcars along Nicollet, one of the busiest existing bus corridors in the city. How the heck is that going to work, considering we're running 3-car trains on Hiawatha after less than a decade, and that it will probably be the day-1 operating pattern for the Green Line along University?

We've really got to look at these urban routes in Minneapolis again and strongly consider a subway of some sort. It could still technically be light rail with grade crossings on the far reaches, and signaling and rolling stock compatible with the existing fleet, but it also might make sense to go for a full-fledged NYC/Chicago/DC-style rapid transit service.

Oh, and then whatever we do on the surface to improve bus transit becomes a rounding error. We can go ahead and implement arterial BRT without having to worry about whether it will be compatible with future streetcar service or not.

http://hizeph400.blogspot.com/2013/08/a ... polis.html

Completely agree with the tunnels. I'm surprised that Seattle is the only place where buses and LRT use the same tunnel in the US- although I think you lose something when you put buses underground. A 5th/7th street tunnel and/or a Hennipen [sic] /Lyndale/Nicollet tunnel could be used the same way, making buses much more reliable.

As for the Nicollet streetcar, not sure I understand your argument against it. Because it's a busy bus line means it won't work as a streetcar? You mention the old streetcar route in your blog, so obliviously you know the bus route currently *was* a streetcar route. The one nice thing the Kmart cut off of Nicollet did do was to keep a lot of cars off of Nicollet at least north of Kmart, so like I said Nicollet Mall is the only place I see problems with congestion for a streetcar(at least on Nicollet, I don't get up to Central all that much)

[FISHMANPET]

I think the point is that we're building to nearly heavy rail standards in the suburbs and exurbs, while in the dense urban core we can't even do dedicated guideways, we're looking at operating in mixed traffic.

[MNdible]

I think the density of the N-S bus service in south Minneapolis works against this type of argument. There are major bus routes spaced about a half-mile apart running south through the densest parts of this area, and there's nothing particularly magical about the 18 on Nicollet that makes it better than the 4 or the 6 or the 5 or the 11.

South Minneapolis was built up as a streetcar city, and so it makes sense that the distances and densities are appropriate for streetcar (or for buses).