Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3935
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby seanrichardryan » October 24th, 2016, 8:49 pm

Why do they even have seats? Would some type of bench make more sense?
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

User avatar
Nathan
IDS Center
Posts: 4001
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Nathan » October 25th, 2016, 7:30 am

Seriously? The Minnesota safe distance bubble would be in serious violation with benches.

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1565
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby HiawathaGuy » October 25th, 2016, 7:53 am

talindsay wrote:Does anybody know if Series III will be electronically compatible with Series II? Recall that Series I and Series II are mechanically compatible, so a II can haul a I into the maintenance yard if needed, but they can't run together in service. My guess is that II and III would be able to interoperate since they're both Siemens S70 designs, but it would be a good thing to confirm.
Series I are Bombardier, Series II are Siemens - which is why the trains do not work together. Series III, because they are also Siemens, shouldn't have any issues with connectivity. The Series III cars look identical to the Series II cars in the presentation.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1553
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby talindsay » October 25th, 2016, 9:01 am

That's what I would expect, but has anybody stated this? Note that there's no inherent reason Bombardier and Siemens cars couldn't work together, but they don't. My guess is that interoperability with existing rolling stock was a requirement this time, and that's why only Siemens responded to the bid; but I would like to confirm that.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4760
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » October 25th, 2016, 11:27 am

talindsay wrote:Note that there's no inherent reason Bombardier and Siemens cars couldn't work together, but they don't.
I'll take issue with that statement. It's likely there is all kinds of proprietary communication going on over those links and even if the protocols were open, adapting one manufacturer's protocol to another is not a simple task. There's little benefit (to Siemens and Bombardier) to paying that cost. In fact it's likely a negative benefit, as Siemens probably just sold a bunch more vehicles to MT because they don't work with Bombardier's.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1553
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby talindsay » October 25th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Again, no *inherent* reason. Those are extrinsic business reasons, but not inherent. They both chose not to follow a compatible standard, and nobody required either of them to do so or to license the other's methods in order to ensure compatibility. Given that the physical layer is compatible, the communications layers are completely solvable - but nobody was paid to solve that problem, and neither company wanted to do it just because.

Scottie
City Center
Posts: 36
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:04 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Scottie » October 25th, 2016, 1:23 pm

Has anyone seen any info on if the new layout will include more bike racks? The type II's decreased the number of bike racks from 4 to 2 when they reconfigured the handicap seating areas.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4760
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: RE: Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby David Greene » October 25th, 2016, 4:46 pm

talindsay wrote:Again, no *inherent* reason. Those are extrinsic business reasons, but not inherent.
Just like there's no inherent reason for multiple cell providers, no inherent reason for multiple microprocessor architectures and no inherent reason for multiple search engines.

All of these things, including LRT incompatibilities, are inherent because we live in a capitalist society. Half the battle of being an engineer is internalizing that and approaching things you want to get done from that angle.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1565
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby HiawathaGuy » October 27th, 2016, 1:02 pm

talindsay wrote:That's what I would expect, but has anybody stated this? Note that there's no inherent reason Bombardier and Siemens cars couldn't work together, but they don't. My guess is that interoperability with existing rolling stock was a requirement this time, and that's why only Siemens responded to the bid; but I would like to confirm that.
Confirmation:
"Production of the light rail vehicles will begin in early spring 2018 after the Met Council awards the second stage of the contract to build the cars, which will be able to be paired with cars currently in service on the Green Line."

Met Council approves $118 million contract for SWLRT vehicles
http://www.startribune.com/met-council- ... 398846511/

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1553
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby talindsay » October 27th, 2016, 1:19 pm

Well that's good news. They're not really a Type III, it seems - more like a Type IIA. But I guess that distinction isn't worth making.

pwm94
Block E
Posts: 9
Joined: January 27th, 2015, 10:54 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby pwm94 » October 27th, 2016, 11:03 pm

To answer the question about bike racks:

"They will provide level boarding with room for four wheelchairs and two bicycles per vehicle."

https://content.govdelivery.com/account ... ns/16e0baf

intercomnut
Rice Park
Posts: 406
Joined: April 23rd, 2015, 1:04 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby intercomnut » October 28th, 2016, 6:34 am

pwm94 wrote:To answer the question about bike racks:

"They will provide level boarding with room for four wheelchairs and two bicycles per vehicle."

https://content.govdelivery.com/account ... ns/16e0baf
Lame.

Qhaberl
Foshay Tower
Posts: 805
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Qhaberl » November 16th, 2016, 1:38 pm

I have been reading a lot about the Southwest light rail. I have also been looking at the engineering documents. When they start construction on the light rail, will they also be rebuilding the bike path next to it. Do they have to reconstruct the bike path as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

karlshea
Metrodome
Posts: 93
Joined: July 14th, 2014, 10:28 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby karlshea » November 25th, 2016, 8:29 pm

First bid package about to be released, and there's a contractors meeting on Dec 5:

http://politicsinminnesota.com/2016/11/ ... ail-route/

karlshea
Metrodome
Posts: 93
Joined: July 14th, 2014, 10:28 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby karlshea » December 8th, 2016, 12:23 am


Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3824
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby Silophant » December 8th, 2016, 7:52 am

Man, is it too late to change "W 21st Street Station" to "Kenwood Station" or even "Hidden Beach Station"?

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby min-chi-cbus » December 8th, 2016, 11:01 am

Cool (big) files!

I can't garner at this point how likely it is that this project and/or Bottineau be sidetracked/cancelled due to imminent GOP opposition and eventual takeover. I mean, there are some major players with a stake in the game that typically saddle up to the GOP (e.g. UnitedHealth Group) that would want to see this thing through, yet all I ever hear from the GOP is how they're going to disinvest in rail, disinvest in sustainable transit/design, and block current DFL efforts in doing so.

TroyGBiv
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 624
Joined: July 6th, 2012, 10:33 pm

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby TroyGBiv » December 13th, 2016, 3:23 pm

It is amazing to think about how many more daily riders this line would have had if it continues up the Greenway through the Uptown and Lyn-Lake and up Nicollet... I sat in on a lot of the Whittier meetings about alignment (Blaisdell, Nicollet, 1St) and there were really a mess. Even the hyper pro transit resident can be NUMBY's... Very disappointing.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby VAStationDude » December 13th, 2016, 3:36 pm

It's funny how people didn't want blocks long open rail cuts as permanent defining neighborhood features.

The goofy half baked Nicollet alignment will live forever in the hearts of people who wouldn't have had to fund, build or operate it.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Postby FISHMANPET » December 13th, 2016, 4:18 pm

I would submit that all alignments between downtown and West Lake station are bad. They're just bad in different ways. People that say that one is perfect while the other has all these flaws just have blinders on. They're all bad! But for better or worse we should really have some kind of transit out to the SW suburbs, if we could just teleport the train from West Lake to Target Field Station that would be ideal.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest