Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
User avatar
Tiller
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 642
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tiller » March 4th, 2017, 4:02 pm

Vagueperson wrote:
March 3rd, 2017, 7:28 pm
Do any of you see major barriers or benefits to extending the Riverview corridor up East 7th to around Arcade Street? This would encompass the proposed first line of a St. Paul streetcar network. It would hit Metro State, which is just out of reach of the Gateway Corridor and might not be the route choice of the Rush Line.
It would add about 1.5 miles depending on the route.
If this was a thing that happened, It'd probably be a good idea to extend it the extra .5 mile to just south of the rail ROW to allow for a transfer to the Rush Line for those heading further north. 2 miles and 4 stations shouldn't cost too much. The short bridge over 94 and retrofitting/replacing the 7th St Bridge (or building a new small one adjacent to it) would probably be the most costly portions of it.

On another note, I recall there being a note from the St Paul streetcar study website:

"The City has completed work on the Streetcar Feasibility Study at this time. The City Council's resolution supporting the results of this study also directed that the Starter Line not be studied in more depth until the Ramsey County-led Riverview Corridor Study has made a recommendation."

Given what we know about the likely outcomes for the Riverview and Rush lines at this point, what might St Paul do with their streetcar study? Build a link similar to what Vagueperson mentioned, from Lowertown up E 7th St (which would overlap with the route 54 extension)? Maybe a new starter line on Payne Ave or Grand or something?

Vagueperson
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 162
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 7:13 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Vagueperson » March 4th, 2017, 11:39 pm

Streetcars on Payne Avenue please! We'll need a new City Councilmember first. Rice Street would also be a great corridor and has a friendly council member already.

I agree that extending Riverview up for a connection to Rush makes sense. I was thinking that could happen at Arcade/Phalen. However, it seems you're suggesting it could happen at Earl. Currently Earl is not a suggested stop for the Rush Line, however it was of interest to Mike Rogers a while back. He thought that a stop at Earl would be good in order to have a bus connection between the Rush Line and the Gold Line at Earl and Hudson (Earl also has a traffic light at Maryland and could be designed to have a straight shot up to Lake Phalen). Unfortunately, Earl is above grade at both Phalen and 7th streets and doesn't seem like a great development spot.

As for Riverview on East 7th, Commissioner McDonough responded to the suggestion with "We are talking about it." I take that as a good sign. I have a great deal of respect for Commissioner McDonough.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby twincitizen » March 10th, 2017, 8:12 am

Jesus, they aren't going to make a route decision until September http://www.startribune.com/riverview-co ... 415827704/

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1457
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby talindsay » March 10th, 2017, 8:29 am

Seriously though, no reason to rush. The CTIB disbanding documents show Ramsey taking 70% of the cost (local match?) and Hennepin taking 30%; with Hennepin basically committing singlehandedly to pay for both Southwest and Bottineau, it's going to be a while before they can afford this one, and I know the CTIB at least was mulling doing this one without a federal grant. Even if it ends up being under $1B total (which is totally reasonable), that makes for a huge chunk of change right after the county's paid almost $1B each to Southwest and Bottineau. And Ramsey probably isn't in a rush to spend $700m themselves.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby twincitizen » March 10th, 2017, 9:58 am

True, there is no real reason to rush now, with the pending breakup of CTIB, not to mention the uncertain future with federal funding for transit. But on the other hand, this Alternatives Analysis was supposed to be complete a year ago.

My main criticism is that they should have separately studied the river crossings first, then started the full-scope AA. RCRRA is just lighting money on fire and holding pointless additional public meetings while they struggle to come to a decision on this. I would love to hear the backroom actual politics on this (i.e. which route does Commissioner Ortega support, which route does Commissioner McLaughlin support, etc.) because that is ultimately a huge factor in the decision on these LRT routes (e.g. Bottineau, Southwest)

User avatar
Tiller
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 642
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tiller » April 4th, 2017, 12:21 pm

Does anyone have some information on this?
False information distributed about Riverview Corridor Project
On April 1, 2017, a third-party, not associated with the Riverview Corridor Transit Study, distributed information on official-looking letterhead advertising a public meeting on April 1 and stating the Riverview Corridor route had changed. There was not a meeting scheduled for Saturday, April 1 and the information in the flyer was false.

It has come to our attention that some neighbors acted on the information and attempted to attend the falsely advertised public meeting. The Riverview Corridor Transit Study team has gone to great lengths to seek meaningful public participation in our work to improve transit connections in Saint Paul. We value the time people choose to contribute to this work and take your ideas and concerns very seriously. We seek to be respectful of your time.
(quote from the Riverview website)

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby twincitizen » April 4th, 2017, 3:10 pm

I saw that too. Crazy.

Unrelated, but I never realized how drawn out the timeline for this project was. Project documents (which are more likely to be "best case" than "worst case") have construction starting in 2023 and the line opening in 2026 at the earliest. That's a damn long time!

Assuming Ramsey County will actually select a route and mode by the end of 2017 (as they are supposed to), they're planning for the project development and engineering process to take 5 years ('18-'22)? Mind you, this line is magnitudes shorter and simpler than Southwest (which at this point has taken a similar length of time, but that's with >2 years of unplanned delays). It's almost as if they know this thing is going to get hung up in court, etc. and want to be realistic from the get-go. That or the lengthy schedule has something to do with Ramsey County's funding ability. Recall, this line was to be up to 80% funded by CTIB, with less federal support than previous lines. Even with a sales tax increase (if CTIB manages to split), it will take Ramsey County some time to be able to fund this project. I suppose one benefit of the drawn out timeline is that we'll (hopefully) have a Democratic President by the time a federal grant agreement would happen (2022ish). On the bright side, Riverview's timeline is so lengthy that a one-term Trump administration is unlikely to cause it any delays!

Vagueperson
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 162
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 7:13 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Vagueperson » April 4th, 2017, 10:31 pm

The flyer was clearly an April Fool's joke. Maybe they should have spelled it out at the bottom for folks, but I imagine most of those who were duped didn't read the whole thing anyhow.

Vagueperson
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 162
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 7:13 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Vagueperson » April 4th, 2017, 10:34 pm

twincitizen wrote:
April 4th, 2017, 3:10 pm
Recall, this line was to be up to 80% funded by CTIB, with less federal support than previous lines. Even with a sales tax increase (if CTIB manages to split), it will take Ramsey County some time to be able to fund this project.
I read that the senate passed a bill to increase CTIB taxing ability, so if CTIB stays there's the possibility of getting more tax money AND keeping Dakota's contributions. Maybe some self-funding would be possible after all.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby twincitizen » April 13th, 2017, 10:34 am

From Facebook: "Riverview PAC meets at 9 AM this Thursday, April 13 at Union Depot. Feel free to stop by to listen to study updates and discussion of the Most Promising Alternatives and Preliminary Concepts! Public comments are heard at the end of each meeting."

EDIT: whoops that was this morning. Here's the packet: http://riverviewcorridor.com/wp-content ... 170413.pdf

^Just me or are the packet links not working?

cooperrez
Landmark Center
Posts: 202
Joined: October 2nd, 2014, 10:46 am
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby cooperrez » April 14th, 2017, 10:22 am

Thought about the street car option for this project or other street car lines, maybe Greenway line, using this technology someday here in Minneapolis/St. Paul:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/12/technol ... _tech_pool

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4303
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby David Greene » April 14th, 2017, 2:01 pm

cooperrez wrote:
April 14th, 2017, 10:22 am
Thought about the street car option for this project or other street car lines, maybe Greenway line, using this technology someday here in Minneapolis/St. Paul:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/12/technol ... _tech_pool
I don't think that makes sense for new construction, only for use on existing tracks that don't have an OCS or other electricity supply. It should be more efficient to use electricity to directly drive the train rather than use electricity to split water, then use the resulting hydrogen to recreate water, which requires the use of more electricity to gather oxygen from the air (and purify it?).


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: karlshea and 2 guests