urbanMSP

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.

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

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.

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.

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

^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.

Ugh, forgot about the three-lane portions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yea as shown above all the light blue is dedicated transitway

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.

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.

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.

People already do drive on the Green Line tracks.

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?

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.