Green Line / Central Corridor construction thread (archive)

[talindsay]

I saw several people using the median walkway area east of the East Bank station around lunchtime today. There were about 6 people eating lunch, 2 or 3 sitting on benches reading, and a few walking along it. I think that the eastern "amenity area" will be much more successful than the western block, due to all the restaurants nearby. It was nice to see it being utilized today.

I look forward to using it when I eat at Bun Mi, which has very limited seating. It should be really great to sit outside and eat lunch except when the stinky old buses go by

[talindsay]

Looks like the Green Line is getting hourly service all night long. Cool!

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1 ... 482&type=1

This is great news but I do wonder if they're going to have enough time to do necessary routine maintenance with this schedule. I suppose the MOW crews will generally be working on one track or the other, not both, and the train spacing is so wide that it shouldn't be a problem to route both directions onto the other track around work areas, but it will definitely represent a commitment to a more complex work environment for MOW work. We'll see how it goes - hopefully they remain committed to it. Also, hopefully they'll add in some overnight service on the Blue Line.

[MSPtoMKE]

That is exciting to hear about the owl service on the Green Line. 24 hour service on rail lines is actually very rare. In the US, the only systems I know of with 24 hour service are the New York Subway, PATH, and the Red and Blue Lines in Chicago.

EDIT: I can't vouch for the accuracy, but here is a very short list of rail services with 24 hour service:
http://mic-ro.com/metro/24h.html

[FISHMANPET]

SEPTA (Philadelphia) is going to start service again soon. MBTA (Boston) is running until 3AM now, and it looks like service there starts a bit before 5:30, so that's darn close.

[mulad]

Still worth knowing if the 16 will continue late at night or not. The plan for that route had been for it to run every 20 mins most of the day, but have its western terminus by TCF stadium (not going to downtown Minneapolis). It is/was supposed to extend into downtown during the overnight hours.

While I like the idea of 24-hour service for LRT, more potential stops are better for riders when frequency is low -- particularly in the middle of the night when traffic isn't a problem. Well, maybe that won't be an issue when/if they finally get NexTrip up and running for LRT.

But the problem I always had with the late-night bus service is that some people would not realize that they should wait in a different location...

I'm a bit conflicted, but if they have the ability to try late-night LRT service, then they definitely should do it.

[Suburban Outcast]

This is great to know especially now many people can take the train after last call. Worst case scenario, they can always just use the buses during maintenance times. I have a feeling though that sooner or later this idea is going to get flak once somebody gets beat up or mugged while riding or at a station at that hour.

I'm just being a Debbie Downer though.

[froggie]

As I understand it (please correct me if you have better info), the only MTA lines (NYC subway) that are 24 hours are those with multiple tracks. Rationale being that they can shut down 2 of the tracks in order to do work on the other two.

DC Metro shuts down at night (Midnight-5AM on weeknights) as that's when WMATA does the bulk of their track maintenance.

Relating this to the Twin Cities, it's theoretically possible that Metro Transit could run trains 24 hours if they were to single-track during the night, as long as the overnight maintenance work wasn't such that involved crossovers or other things requiring both tracks.

[MSPtoMKE]

As I understand it (please correct me if you have better info), the only MTA lines (NYC subway) that are 24 hours are those with multiple tracks. Rationale being that they can shut down 2 of the tracks in order to do work on the other two.

The whole system has 24 hour service, although express services tend to not run in the overnight hours. Really, having more than 2 tracks is not as helpful in providing 24 hour service as one might think. If you are performing work on local tracks, then all the local stations along that segment would not be able to be served. The express tracks are usually in the center, and local stations usually are side platforms on the outsides. If you need to do work on the express tracks, they generally are out of use overnight anyways. They do sometimes shut down a local track in one direction, and run express in that direction for a short distance, then have people double back.
Here is the late night New York Subway map:
http://web.mta.info/maps/night_map.pdf

I don't know how much overnight track maintenance is done here, and how much is done during the weekend segment shutdowns. It seems like with hourly service, you ought to be able to function with one track for a relatively short segment.

[Silophant]

Looking at the Blue Line schedule, looks like there's only about a two-hour gap between the last train of the night and the first of the morning anyway. I don't know how much track maintenance can get done in that two-hour period, so if it's normally done during the weekend shutdowns, hourly service all night long would be a matter of adding one more 3am trip.

[mulad]

In the worst case, the trains could run single-track everywhere up to the crossovers nearest to the point where they meet. If the 41-minute schedule we've previously seen is accurate, the trains will probably meet around Fairview Avenue. There's one set of crossovers over between the Raymond and Fairview stations, and another pair between the Snelling and Hamline stations. If work needed to be done on the section where the trains meet, then trains going in one direction would probably just have to be delayed by 5-10 minutes in order to make them meet somewhere else.

Of course, there's the problem of communicating this to passengers at any station that doesn't have an island platform, since it would be easy to be in the wrong spot. In reality, it would be best to only run single-tracked on the segment that's getting work done, which allows more flexibility with timing.

Alon Levy had posted this about 24x7 operation with overnight maintenance. I guess the Copenhagen Metro does that, and they have 20-minute service in late-night hours: http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress ... d-transit/

[FISHMANPET]

And they do it without express/local tracks like NYC does.

[Tcmetro]

Chicago, PATH, and PATCO also manage 24 hr service with 2 tracks. LIRR also provides 24h service.

[mulad]

Seems like they've been running more or less fully-scheduled service for daytime hours (before 7am to 4-5 pm) since Tuesday, at least over in downtown St. Paul.

The train signal timing is pretty horrible in downtown St. Paul right now -- the LRVs have had to stop at every single block whenever I've seen them. Hopefully that will change in the next month and a half. Along 4th Street at the intersections with Jackson and Robert, the pedestrian signals aren't even on in the same direction as the train when the train signal is "green" (vertical bar). Things work slightly better at Sibley since a left turn from 4th would send you in the wrong direction, so cars, trains, and pedestrians all share the same phase of the signal. It's fine for trains heading west from Union Depot station to simply wait their turn, but eastbound trains should really be able to trip the signal somehow or ride a wave into the station.

At Jackson (which is a southbound one-way where lefts from 4th are legal but rights are not), I think they should just reorder the signal cycle. Right now it seems to go in the cycle of Jackson -> 4th (car + ped) -> 4th (train only), but it would be better to have it as Jackson -> 4th (train + ped) -> 4th (car + ped).

Virtually the same thing seems to be going on at Robert street, though that's a two-way roadway.

Then there's the intersection at 4th & Minnesota, where the train makes a 45-degree turn. The turn actually makes it so pedestrians could get walk signals on 3 sides of the intersection as a train is going through. I haven't had a chance to sit through a cycle there to say what's best other than allowing that. It's an intersection where 4th changes between a one-way and two-way, and Minnesota is a one-way.

Roughly the same is true at Cedar & 5th (though both streets are one-way) -- pedestrians could have the walk signal in 3 directions as trains are going through. This intersection also has a separate left-turn lane for southbound traffic from Cedar onto 5th. While traffic engineers typically don't like to have a dedicated left turn signal when there's only a single through lane and a single left-turn lane, having a specific left-turn signal here would make it easier to allow the train to pass through unimpeded.

Both of those intersections also have weird zig-zag paths for pedestrians trying to turn the corner of the block where the Central station is located -- you're officially supposed to zig in toward the center of the block, cross the tracks at a right angle, then zag out again, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen. Most people just walk straight and ignore the path that they're supposed to take.

Anyway...

Like 4th & Sibley, 6th & Cedar doesn't have a left-turn conflict, so road vehicles, pedestrians, and trains can all share the same phase. However, unlike 4th, Cedar is a busy street for buses. It actually seems to get held up more than it should -- 6th Street is often devoid of traffic, while people sit waiting to cross. This intersection also seems to have gotten an annoying delay between the end of the "don't walk" phase for pedestrians and the end of the green/yellow phases for cars (on the order of 10-12 seconds, which is typically plenty of time to cross). 6th is an oversized street for the amount of traffic it carries -- it would be a great area to widen the sidewalks and reduce the time it takes for pedestrians to cross too.

There are a couple of goofy signals just for cars/trucks using the parking structures on the east side of Cedar between 5th and 7th. For some reason, the Town Square building (between 6th & 7th) more or less has a full set of red/yellow/green traffic signals, while the Alliance Bank building (between 5th and 6th) seems to just have symbolic "train approaching" signals, trusting the drivers a bit more. I suppose we'll see how they perform, but I like the Alliance Bank building approach better. Also, my bus had gotten stopped mid-block at the new lights by Town Square this morning, mere feet from the bus stop where I usually exit the bus. I think a lot of folks were pretty surprised that we stopped where we did -- it didn't look to me like any cars came out, but I may have missed them.

7th Street feels like the busiest east-west route through downtown St. Paul, aside perhaps from Kellogg (which the Green Line doesn't hit). Left turns are allowed from Cedar onto 7th, so there has to be an extra phase for the train. There isn't a dedicated left-turn lane, so again, I'd probably suggest an order of 7th -> Cedar (train + ped) -> Cedar (car/bus + ped).

I don't have much specific to say about the intersections north of this point. The one at Cedar and 10th is pretty weird (where 10th comes from the east to cross the tracks -- not the other, unsignalized 10th on the west side). I don't have any specific thoughts on it other than saying that the pedestrian crossing on the east side of Cedar here should have been set at an angle (the overall right-of-way widens significantly because Cedar is two-way north of this point).

Fortunately, once the trains get past 12th, they have a dedicated right-of-way until getting around to the north side of the capitol at MLK Jr Blvd / Park Street.

[FISHMANPET]

Relevant to stupid signals on the Green Line:
https://streets.mn/2014/04/25/counterpro ... nsit-mall/

[nate]

Thanks for the detailed analysis, mulad. I'm still in "ooh, look, a train!" mode when I see one, so I haven't really paying attention to how they operate.

Part the goal of this testing phase has to be optimizing the light cycles to make sure trains run smoothly, right? I can't imagine anything more frustrating than waiting at 5 stop lights in 5 blocks on the way into St Paul.

[Mdcastle]

I've not been to downtown St. Paul for a couple of years so I haven't seen the signals in person, but I will comment.

In theory it should be possible to give "Walks" three directions at once (I take it vehicle traffic is either all stopped when a train goes through), and people that install the stuff do have a job to do, but it should be noted it's a bit more complicated than checking a "light walk symbols when train present" box on a computer. Traffic controllers are still usually programmed by a LCD screen / keypad on the controller rather than a computer, and certain outputs of a controller are by default wired to certain indications in the cabinet. You'd use the pedestrian "overlap" outputs, assign these to what phases you want, reassign them to outputs that have a physical connection (ped overlaps don't have a default physical output so you have to move them in software to something else, and rewire the cabinet. It's possible with all the extra phases for trains and whatnot they're maxing out even a modern cabinet and don't have enough outputs or load switch positions for another ped output.

I've not heard about "not liking" a left turn arrow with only two lanes. It's used all the time on three lane roads or two lane roads with turn lanes. But I'm not sure about using one here, would it be to stop left turning traffic if there was a train while allowing through traffic to continue. I'm not sure if St. Paul is following the new "no green balls for left turn lanes" rule that Mn/DOT and the counties have implemented (and Minneapolis apparently hasn't), but this might be a place to make an exception, although a flashing yellow arrow has been used in other jurisdiction to emphasize the need to yield to pedestrians.

[ProspectPete]

Is anybody concerened that pedestrians could be at risk crossing University to get to the platforms? I know its part of the design, but a button to push like waiting for a crosswalk which might light up an LED sign alerting drivers might save a life. Very low cost saftey feature as well.
Ive seen a couple of times where a car in the left stops for a ped crossing from platform to the curb, thus blocking the view of the cars going by in the rigth lane. The ped is kind of "set up" if they or the drivers arent paying attention.

[LRV Op Dude]

Green Line train operated into downtown Minneapolis today.

[exiled_antipodean]

Is anybody concerened that pedestrians could be at risk crossing University to get to the platforms? I know its part of the design, but a button to push like waiting for a crosswalk which might light up an LED sign alerting drivers might save a life. Very low cost saftey feature as well.
Ive seen a couple of times where a car in the left stops for a ped crossing from platform to the curb, thus blocking the view of the cars going by in the rigth lane. The ped is kind of "set up" if they or the drivers arent paying attention.

This. Is a big problem. But it's just a specific example of Minnesota drivers largely not stopping at the pedestrian crossings they're legally meant to.

[mulad]

Eh, maybe. I tend to think University is better now than it had been. Cars stop for me more frequently now. I've actually been kind of amazed at how timid many other folks seem to be, though. I may be reacting differently than others. The actual road surface is narrower in most places now (really just 2 lanes rather than two official lanes plus a wide parking area), so there's probably less risk now than there had been before.

My bigger problem with the pedestrian crossings is that they were only built on a single side of each intersection, like this (sorry, you'll have to click to the "Overhead" view under "Sat" since this is showing up with the 45-degree imagery):



That's not too bad if you happen to be walking along the west side of the cross street (or east side at some other intersections), but it's annoying if you're walking on the opposite side of the street. It's much like building a road or bridge with a sidewalk just on one side -- a modest cost-saving measure that only serves to impede pedestrians.

The modest zig-zag just to go "straight" across is a bit annoying too, but I think pretty much everyone had the image in their head of someone accidentally ending up in the path of a train because of a narrow median space between the tracks and the road. This zig-zag arrangement makes that much less of a problem. But would it have broken the bank to put them on both sides of the intersection, or perhaps have the zig-zag go toward the center of the former intersection rather than away from it, so pedestrian crossings on both sides could share the segment across the tracks?

I hope that's something that can be changed a few years down the line...