Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
tmart
Landmark Center
Posts: 258
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby tmart » November 10th, 2017, 4:44 pm

I think we'll probably see something of a hybrid. I do think that Riverview will be part of Metro and Nicollet/Central won't, because of the stop spacing/capacity/frequency tests. But I could see a situation where Nicollet/Central and the aBRT lines get "promoted" and start showing up more prominently on the Metro map, perhaps with color coding (ooh, how about pastels!) but keeping their letter names.

Sorta like this map, but more abstract, in the manner of a transit map instead of a geographic map, and minus the higher-frequency traditional buses.

The real nasty trick is figuring out where the Greenway streetcar, which has lots of stops but a dedicated transitway, fits in to all this. :)

DanPatchToget
Rice Park
Posts: 421
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby DanPatchToget » November 10th, 2017, 7:06 pm

If true streetcar like the Nic/Central Line ever becomes reality I'd like to see it be designated with S and a number. So for Nic/Central it would route S1, then the next route would be S2, etc.

Metro (including Riverview and Greenway)-color
Regular buses-number
Arterial rapid bus-letter
Streetcar-S#

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4695
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby David Greene » November 10th, 2017, 8:33 pm

Midtown rail should absoluely get a color. It connects two METRO rail lines and it makes a lot of sense to extend it along SWLRT for some distance and possibly also along the Blue Line.

Lake St. aBRT would be, well, aBRT. :)

tmart
Landmark Center
Posts: 258
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby tmart » November 10th, 2017, 10:13 pm

Well, basically we have:

Nicollet - frequent stops, mixed-traffic ROW
Midtown - frequent stops, dedicated ROW
Riverview - infrequent stops, partially mixed-traffic ROW
Existing LRT - infrequent stops, dedicated ROW

Each of the three projects differs in some way (other than just vehicles and station configuration) from what we already have. Riverview is the most similar in terms of, like, the destinations it connects, while Midtown will be the most rapid, but serves more local destinations than those on the existing maps.

All these projects and their modes largely make sense given their context, but the subtle inconsistencies mean Metro Transit will have a hell of a time explaining them as part of a coherent system.

mamundsen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 976
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby mamundsen » November 11th, 2017, 11:30 am

This is kind of getting really off topic... but my two cents is that anything that is greater than Hi- Frequency should be part of the METRO system and have a color. I think the A, B, C lines should be colors and on the metro map. It sounds dumb, but think of the rail bias that exists. If they were to say that all of these lines make up the METRO I think the general public will be more and more open to using the Riverview, Rush, East Metro (Gold) lines. Similar to what was posted above. We have a GREAT system that could be even better utilized if people realized how good it is and didn't just see it as Blue and Green lines, then buses (yuck!).

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2191
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby EOst » November 11th, 2017, 11:53 am

One significant problem with including A/B/C etc. as METRO lines is station spacing on the map. Either you have to place stops/labels really, really close together (and Hiawatha stops very far apart), which doesn't look good, or you have to make yourself comfortable with a Midtown/Lake St line that looks like an S.

jebr
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 161
Joined: April 9th, 2013, 1:04 am
Location: St. Paul (Hamline-Midway)

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby jebr » November 13th, 2017, 9:25 am

mamundsen wrote:
November 11th, 2017, 11:30 am
This is kind of getting really off topic... but my two cents is that anything that is greater than Hi- Frequency should be part of the METRO system and have a color.
As long as we can also demote any line that isn't high-frequency out of the METRO system (*cough*red line*cough*)

BoredAgain
Landmark Center
Posts: 221
Joined: July 3rd, 2014, 1:38 pm
Location: Lyndale Neighborhood

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby BoredAgain » November 13th, 2017, 10:29 am

I think the main problem with this discussion is that you are all confusing "technical criteria" with "political decision making". I also wish that the two were more unified, but that is clearly not now the case.

nBode
Union Depot
Posts: 311
Joined: August 20th, 2013, 3:25 pm
Location: University of Minnesota

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby nBode » November 13th, 2017, 10:36 am

So what happens when frequencies are adjusted?

IMO, conventions should be assigned based off of what I’ll call “most-perceptible differences” i.e. what the average person understands to be different between modes. I think it makes more sense for the average person to understand: color=it’s on rails; letter=it’s a fast fancy bus (ideally with its own lane); number=it’s a regular bus

Frequencies only matter (to most) in the sense that people want transportation to be there when they need it. “The bus comes every 10 minutes” is lower priority knowledge than “the bus comes in 3 minutes and it’s the nice kind of bus”

In other words, if people are already planning to use transit, easily decoding what sort of transit they have available is more valuable. Frequency can be found pretty much anywhere else.

Another point is that frequency is not visually identifiable. I think there is a benefit to the system for the general public to be able to say “Oh look, there goes the C Line”

^I hope that made sense. this is based mostly off of lots of anecdotal/experiential evidence.

Bakken2016
Landmark Center
Posts: 274
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby Bakken2016 » December 14th, 2017, 11:58 am

The Riverview Corridor PAC voted for a modern streetcar route along West 7th St as the LPA.

User avatar
kellonathan
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 131
Joined: July 8th, 2012, 12:25 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby kellonathan » March 7th, 2018, 6:07 pm

Just in case if anyone's interested in watching the live public hearing happening at the St Paul City Council, http://stpaul.granicus.com/mediaplayer. ... 212a634f55
Jonathan Ahn | hello@jonathanahn.com
Drawing lines on maps and dreaming really hard for living.

Bakken2016
Landmark Center
Posts: 274
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby Bakken2016 » March 8th, 2018, 9:25 am

The Saint Paul City Council voted 6-0 to support the Modern Streetcar.

Bakken2016
Landmark Center
Posts: 274
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby Bakken2016 » March 19th, 2018, 11:24 am

Bakken2016 wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:25 am
The Saint Paul City Council voted 6-0 to support the Modern Streetcar.
As well Bloomington City Council and the MAC have supported it as well.

Bakken2016
Landmark Center
Posts: 274
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby Bakken2016 » June 19th, 2018, 8:48 am

Reached out to Riverview for a couple updates.

See image below
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Bakken2016
Landmark Center
Posts: 274
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby Bakken2016 » June 19th, 2018, 10:04 am

Ramsey County just approved via the update email I got, they have pushed construction back to 2028.

mamundsen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 976
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby mamundsen » June 19th, 2018, 10:47 am

2028 :shock:
WOW!!!!!

DanPatchToget
Rice Park
Posts: 421
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby DanPatchToget » June 19th, 2018, 11:09 am

Construction or opening in 2028?

Bakken2016
Landmark Center
Posts: 274
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby Bakken2016 » June 19th, 2018, 11:24 am

According to this email, construction would begin in 2028.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Qhaberl
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 622
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby Qhaberl » June 19th, 2018, 11:39 am

Why does this stuff take so long? Is it a permiting issue, or money?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tmart
Landmark Center
Posts: 258
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Postby tmart » June 19th, 2018, 11:42 am

Ten years before shovels hit the ground on an 11-mile streetcar at-grade? And that's assuming nothing goes wrong!

We have a serious problem with our process. SWLRT was proposed in 1988(!) and began planning in earnest in 2002. 16 years and counting of non-construction work. Riverview, in the very best case, will be 10 years. Is the rule of thumb one year of planning per mile?

Perhaps it's time for transit advocates to shift from pushing for individual projects, to pushing for reform that will allow these projects to get up and running under a reasonable timeframe. It's no wonder we don't have the political will for these projects when five gubernatorial terms separate the proposal from the revenue service.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: intercomnut, Tcmetro and 1 guest