Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
mamundsen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 863
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby mamundsen » October 5th, 2017, 9:51 pm

IMG_6342.PNG
This is the LPA, right? Modern streetcar on 7th/ hwy 5.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

gopherfan
City Center
Posts: 36
Joined: January 15th, 2013, 5:09 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby gopherfan » October 5th, 2017, 10:15 pm

Vagueperson wrote:
October 5th, 2017, 6:35 pm
I can't picture how this gets to DT StP. Can anyone post a map of the suggested route?
What about something like this? The pink link to the Blue Line might make the most sense, but the salmon routing over to St. Paul could be an alignment option https://drive.google.com/open?id=11DK8- ... sp=sharing

Image

mamundsen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 863
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby mamundsen » October 5th, 2017, 10:31 pm

Oooh. Was Vagueperson asking how the hypothetical midtown got to DT St Paul? I was confused. I'd love to see the map that took midtown the route that was mentioned up a few. Basically west lake to Sibley Plaza.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4592
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby David Greene » October 5th, 2017, 10:57 pm

Not sure whether this should be moved to the Midtown thread, but here goes.

How many riders on the 21/53 ride from between Uptown and Hiawatha to east of Hiawatha? Back when I used to ride it regularly, the major transfer points seemed to be Chicago, University and to a lesser extent, Hiawatha. Does it make sense to through-route Midtown along East Lake/Marshall or is a transfer acceptable? The latter would allow different modes. I'm not sure how well rail would work east of Hiawatha.

The Midtown AA reported that rail + aBRT was the best option. The aBRT could through-route to Marshall and the rail could through-route to 46th/Ford Site/Riverview. Of course the AA only looked at the segment between SWLRT and Hiawatha.

User avatar
Tiller
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 751
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tiller » October 5th, 2017, 11:15 pm

You'd have to beef up/grade separate more of the planned trackage near downtown. The Midtown Corridor Alone (which would be 1/5 of a Hopkins-St Paul LRT line, at 4 miles in length) would have 10k riders/day (from the Midtown study), half of Riverview. The other 16 miles should easily have an additional 10-20k ridership.

If 20k ridership can justify $1B in investment, then after spending $250M on the Midtown segment and $350M on the 46th St - Ford Site - Sibley Plaza segment, there's be $400M leftover to pay for further grade separation above what Riverview alone could call for.

Ex: If at-grade mixed-traffic rail along W 7th for Riverview costs $100M/mile, and a cut & cover tunnel needed for both lines to interline here costs $300M/mile, then the difference between the two ($200M/mile) would be covered by the second line, and they'd just build the tunnel for both.

The route in gopherfan's post (the 21 bus) should definitely be aBRT along its entire length, even though atm Metro Transit only plans on upgrading it to Snelling, instead of all the way to downtown St Paul.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1485
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby talindsay » October 6th, 2017, 6:08 am

Wow, reality left this post a while ago. How about midtown fantasies move elsewhere and this thread stick to the actual Riverview project?

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2660
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 6th, 2017, 8:05 am

There's a fine line between fantasizing about different routings for an unfunded Midtown line (which, should also occur in that thread).. and a relatively germane discussion about the needs for this exact line if something like a Midtown extension were to happen. I think the LPA is drastically short-sighted in running a mixed-use streetcar for the length of W 7th (the overwhelmingly likely scenario, given how the TAC/PAC are responding to neighborhood concerns) given the easy/obvious/cheap win of an extended Midtown. Grade separation may be a drastic conversation (we haven't even grade separated LRT lines through downtown Minneapolis), but a decision about mixing in traffic, station design, etc will be major barriers to using this corridor for anything other than a single tram car/LRV every 10 minutes.

alexschief
City Center
Posts: 46
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby alexschief » October 6th, 2017, 8:11 am

mamundsen wrote:
October 5th, 2017, 9:51 pm
IMG_6342.PNG

This is the LPA, right? Modern streetcar on 7th/ hwy 5.
Not entirely sure if the route needs so many stops on the western end. Feels as if you could remove stops at Homer, Maynard or Davern, and possibly Historic Fort Snelling (does it need two stops?). I understand the costs for a streetcar tunnel to meet the blue line tunnel are likely prohibitive, but it's a bit of a bummer that this slow boat needs to make that slight jog north to meet the blue line, instead of heading straight to the airport.

Just two more examples of this route being slowed down unnecessarily, I think. There is so little concern for riders in this process, it's breathtaking.

mamundsen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 863
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby mamundsen » October 6th, 2017, 8:18 am

Alex, An added benefit of going to Fort Snelling is that is a large park and ride.

tmart
City Center
Posts: 39
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby tmart » October 6th, 2017, 10:48 am

The other benefit is simply that the historic Fort itself is not actually very accessible from the Fort Snelling P&R station. It's about a mile walk on roads without sidewalks. A link between the two makes good sense.

Anyone have insight into what options we'll have if we build the thing in mixed traffic and regret it later? Obviously going underground would basically be starting from scratch for the segment in question, but what about an LRT conversion? It seems at the very least that converting a traffic lane to a dedicated streetcar lane should be trivial, would get decent improvements, and might encounter less local opposition after a streetcar is up and running and carrying lots of new customers to local businesses.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3000
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: 9Marq

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Silophant » October 6th, 2017, 11:50 am

I don't think converting a mixed-traffic lane to dedicated lane would be difficult at all, and that's really the only redeeming factor for me. I'm more worried that, since the intent is use single LRVs, that they might not leave space at the stations to be able to eventually extend up to full-length platforms, even if they do eventually get dedicated ROW.

Online
EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2059
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby EOst » October 6th, 2017, 12:19 pm

Converting mixed-traffic lanes to dedicated lanes would be very difficult in the three-lane portions.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2660
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 6th, 2017, 1:25 pm

^That was my thought as well. My brain is cluttered, so I don't remember which options they liked from this document in each W7th segment. To Silophant's point, there are two major cost buckets of future changes- extending the platforms for longer trains, and converting mixed traffic lanes to dedicated lanes. The latter isn't that expensive assuming all signal work is done at the outset, just some barriers where need and better signage? The challenge is political. Except for the 3-lane concept, which would be a lot of new trackwork and moving curbs/stations.

Given the layouts of most of the side-running concepts, I think it's not crazy to say a platform could be extended along the sidewalk with little disruption or cost (tracks stay in the same place). Most side-platforms have an additional sidewalk outside the platform, so you're only running up against the political challenge of losing more parking - of course this assumes the stations are located such that a longer platform would be in a place where closing a side-street isn't a problem, which are frequent thanks to W 7th being at a diagonal.

This is why I like the center-running design better, even if it's shared use to begin with. You can extend platforms down the middle of the street with the curb staying in the same spot. This also allows all side-street corners to keep their access. Initial design matters, since building a longer platform means a new track approach unless you curve them out in the initial design. Side running, even with dedicated lanes, will get held up by turning or parking cars, center-running (when dedicated) won't. The only downside is we only get parking on at most one side, and we lose left turn lanes. So, we all know which one they're gonna go with.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3000
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: 9Marq

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Silophant » October 6th, 2017, 1:44 pm

Ugh, forgot about the three-lane portions.

Korh
City Center
Posts: 35
Joined: March 8th, 2017, 10:21 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Korh » October 6th, 2017, 9:12 pm

The only issue I see with the Midtown LRT is that if it uses the trench there's a good chance that they'll have to tear up the greenway which will probably piss of a awful lot of people who would under normal circumstances support it.

DanPatchToget
Landmark Center
Posts: 202
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby DanPatchToget » October 6th, 2017, 11:02 pm

Enough with the Midtown Corridor. There's already a thread on it, go discuss it there. This is about Riverview.

Anyways, what will Riverview be named? The glorified bus on Cedar Avenue/Highway 77 got a color, so I think Riverview deserves a color.

Online
Bakken2016
Metrodome
Posts: 60
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: Windom South

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Bakken2016 » October 9th, 2017, 8:29 am

DanPatchToget wrote:
October 6th, 2017, 11:02 pm
Enough with the Midtown Corridor. There's already a thread on it, go discuss it there. This is about Riverview.

Anyways, what will Riverview be named? The glorified bus on Cedar Avenue/Highway 77 got a color, so I think Riverview deserves a color.
I am under the impression from the attending one of the info sessions, that it will be part of the METRO system and receive a color. I would love if they renamed the Red Line to a different color, and give Red to the Riverview.

tmart
City Center
Posts: 39
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby tmart » October 9th, 2017, 4:51 pm

I like the Red Line idea as well--it would make conceptual sense to have the three additive primary colors making up the main rail triangle, with the fancy feeder bus lines stretching out into the suburbs using complimentary colors.

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1152
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tcmetro » 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.

Online
Bakken2016
Metrodome
Posts: 60
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: Windom South

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Bakken2016 » 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.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amiller92 and 2 guests