Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby RailBaronYarr » July 12th, 2016, 8:44 am

http://finance-commerce.com/2016/07/for ... s-st-paul/

It's locked, so I couldn't read it. But this is promising. Even if the Ford Site isn't served by Riverview, it's good to reserve the ROW for a potential future. Bike/ped for now would be great on the CP spur, not unlike how the Midtown Greenway can still have rail added.

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1767
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tcmetro » July 12th, 2016, 9:09 am


talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby talindsay » July 12th, 2016, 3:23 pm

If the river crossing for the Hybrid option is realistic, that looks like a pretty smart compromise - dedicated ROW for almost the whole route, but a few tight spots with shared ROW. My only concern would be whether the shared segments could be designed to still allow two-car trains. I suspect in the near future single-car trains would be plenty on this corridor, but precluding the possibility of running two-car trains would be pretty harsh.

I can just imagine the three-car Minneapolis-bound trains pulling up at the airport, then waiting for, and boarding, a single-car train to St. Paul, that would make the boosters sad.

The hybrid route's interaction with downtown St. Paul seems the most sensible. Interlining with the Green Line in DT seems the obvious choice - I've stated before why I think the backdoor entrance to SPUD is poor, and missing the opportunity to double use of the existing infrastructure and maintenance facility would just be silly. The good connection to Xcel and Rivercentre is a definite win, and the frequent spacing of stations in the W 7th bar area, along with shared ROW in that space, would probably be the best way to serve that area without disrupting it unduly. Dedicated ROW there would be great but I think the businesses would freak if the street were reduced to one lane each way without on-street parking, and I bet that's all that would fit.

The West 7th route is obviously the best from a transit perspective, as it would allow the fastest, most direct transit service to the most nodes. While I've been a fan of crossing the Ford bridge, this map demonstrates how far out of the way it goes; and adding so much shared ROW in an already somewhat-congested area, with a difficult union to the Blue Line tracks, seems like a pretty big disadvantage. But the hybrid route seems to provide pretty efficient transit with relatively few shared segments and reasonable routing, while not unduly disrupting current conditions.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4470
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Silophant » July 12th, 2016, 3:47 pm

Is that suggesting a new bridge parallel to the existing Hwy 5 bridge for the W. 7th and Hybrid options?
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby talindsay » July 12th, 2016, 3:58 pm

Looks like it. I wonder why the two options have them drawn differently, though I bet it's just because these are concepts and were sloppily done. I wonder if in fact they're hoping to do something above the current highway bridge, up at bluff level, though I suppose that would interact badly with the historic fort.

seanrichardryan
IDS Center
Posts: 4092
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby seanrichardryan » July 12th, 2016, 7:27 pm

The upstream option is less invasive to the 'original' 1840s fort than reusing the 1890s bridge abutments to the south of the current bridge. It also make an easier transition to the blue line without having to add a second bridge over the freeway. In fact, the hybrid option seems to have the fewest expensive crossings.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby RailBaronYarr » July 13th, 2016, 8:44 am

Ok, gonna kinda beat a dead horse again here, but now that there are some official documents with potentially realistic options drawn out there (and we all know how much a map with a line sticks forever)... Here's what I'd say is a good path forward:

- Build a hybrid of the CP Rail/Hybrid Riverview options now - Use CP tracks S/W of Smith but the shared section on W 7th to get into downtown. All CP Spur stations should be built to accommodate 3-car trains, but run 1-2 car trains on it on day 1 due to constraints in the shared ROW section
- Keep the option open on the RR tracks for future transit from Smith Ave into SPUD
- Eventually build Rush Line along UP entrance to the lower SPUD station, finish off tracks connecting to Riverview, interline the two
- Build Midtown Greenway rail (1-2 car trains), interline with Blue Line down to 46th. I don't care how you get over Hiawatha (go ahead and build a shared, elevated 46th St Station and let the Midtown line branch off over to come down along 46th). If this committee is "okay" proposing shared ROW on 46th St and Ford Bridge, why not for a different line. Midtown continues through Ford Site, onto CP/Riverview tracks, then uses former Riverview shared ROW along W 7th at Smith into downtown.

You're still utilizing downtown rail infrastructure to its fullest - we can't have headways <5 minutes even for that short section from Central Station to the maintenance facility anyway. You've got the ability to get Riverview/Rush trains into the maintenance facility if need be (or, an expansion could be built in the freeway armpit "behind" the existing one between the Kellogg bridge and 4th, with access to the UP tracks as well as the turnaround for the existing one). You've got a logical interline of Riverview/Rush, even if the station locations are less than ideal (they are! it's probably worth the tradeoff IMO unless we're serious about building tunnels in downtown St Paul to keep the trunk lines in the center of action). If Riverview riders really want a stop in downtown (or by the X, or whatever) worst case you transfer to the Midtown line at some point. You've got a single seat ride from Uptown/Midtown/parts of S Mpls into downtown St Paul. And, if none of the bullets beyond the first one materialize, you've still got a good Riverview Line serving downtown anyway.

minneboom
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 181
Joined: October 28th, 2015, 6:05 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby minneboom » July 13th, 2016, 8:22 pm

It would seem useful to study the options for both rail and enhanced bus options in the corridor. Each map presents only one path, instead of two paths with different modes. It would be worthy to ask the question, where does it make the most sense for rail or bus. Maybe an enhanced bus could run along W 7th and then reuse part of the CP rail as it connects with the A Line. Then it might make more sense to have more direct rail route that runs along the CP rail from downtown and shifts over the W 7th to connect with the airport.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 964
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tiller » July 30th, 2016, 9:58 pm

Did anyone make it to the TAC meeting this last Thursday? If so, was there any new information?

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1767
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tcmetro » September 5th, 2016, 5:00 pm

Meeting Packet for next Riverview meeting has some interesting info:

http://riverviewcorridor.com/wp-content ... -PART1.pdf
http://riverviewcorridor.com/wp-content ... -PART2.pdf

- A dedicated transit option on the South Side of W 7th St from Smith to 5th/6th is being considered.

- A Smith Ave Transit Mall (bus, LRT, emergency vehicle, driveway access only) is being considered between W 7th and 5th/6th.

- Third new option is a 7th/Smith couplet to reduce traffic impacts of dedicated transit.

- Options to transition from the CP Rail ROW to surface streets have been added at Smith and at Wabasha.

- Shared use lanes are being considered on St. Paul Ave (horrible choice, IMO. There isn't that much traffic on that street anyways).

- 46th St Blue Line connections are horrendous.

- 50th St tie-in looks like its a dead option. No good way get through Minnehaha Park, and it misses the connections of the 46th St terminal.

- Consideration for more graceful TH 5 crossings of the Mississippi River. I'm really hoping the idea of routing transit around the freeway ramps gets eliminated.

- The Bloomington Rd Fort Snelling option is the best looking of the options. I don't really think that a combined Riverview/Blue Line station is totally necessary though.

- A new MOA approach on 82nd St is being considered.

----

All in all, these refinements are very nice. I think that there is hope for a dedicated LRT line between Ft. Snelling and Downtown St. Paul.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4470
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Silophant » September 5th, 2016, 6:23 pm

What would the purpose be of that new combined Ft. Snelling station? Saving like, one minute for transfers vs shooting down to Terminal 1 and back? Then burning that minute back up when the Blue Line inevitably continues to stop at the original Ft. Snelling Station?
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby talindsay » September 6th, 2016, 7:27 am

The DT St. Paul options look much better than I expected. The 5th/6th pair is an obvious win. I think the Smith Avenue Transit Mall is a much better idea than switching 7th/Smith to a one-way pair with both directions of light rail south-side running from Smith to downtown, or splitting the light rail between 7th and Smith. Leaving W 7th alone isn't the best possible outcome but is more likely to go over well with the local community than anything as disruptive as the alternatives. And operationally, split-track sections should be minimized since they offer fewer options for redundancy in service without massively disrupting operations.

Running the line down closer to the river wouldn't make much sense, since it would bypass the major uses in the most pedestrian-dense segment; but if they were to do that, at least the CP option that sends the tracks back up Kellogg would provide some interesting through-routing options. I understand the Shepard alternative has to be there, but it's a nonsense option - it allows no good connections with the Green Line, bypasses everything that somebody might go to in St. Paul, and comes in on the wrong side of Union Depot.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby talindsay » September 6th, 2016, 7:41 am

Regarding the river crossing and Blue Line tie-in, I think their concepts are all too undefined to state a preference but I like the range of options they're considering. If cost were no concern, it seems clear that the TH 5 near-bridge crossing with the Bloomington Rd approach and the reconfiguration of the Fort Snelling area is the most sensible both for operations for MT and for customers trying to use the two lines. I don't know how realistic that is when one considers that one of the reasons this line seems like a slam-dunk is that it can be done relatively cheaply, but everything they're proposing down here has the possibility of exploding the costs.

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2753
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby mulad » September 6th, 2016, 9:12 am

In general, I prefer the Bloomington Ave option for the Blue Line connection in the Fort Snelling area, though I've always envisioned something "tunneling" under Highway 55/62 just a little further northeast where Minnehaha Ave loops around (it wouldn't need to be a real tunnel, probably just a cut with a set of bridges over the top). If an LRT connection followed Minnehaha from that end, you could add a new platform perpendicular to the existing one on the south end of the Henry Whipple Building's parking lot.

It would be a challenge to thread the tracks through the freeway ramps there, though there's probably a good case for removing those ramps anyway due to the tight on-/off-ramp spacing in the area. The downside is that it would mean that Minnehaha Ave on the other end would be the only way in/out for non-military folks, though that could be easily remedied by moving the fenced area to the south of Weigel Boulevard and making a connection into the small neighborhood on the south side of MN-62.

I agree that the 46th Street connection options don't make a whole lot of sense. If something goes up that way, I'd rather see the tracks aligned to go straight on 46th or have them hook in to go north (I think mattaudio was the first person to suggest interlining that with the Midtown Greenway service, whenever that appears, though it could just be an independent service running between 46th and whatever stop is nearest to St. Paul Ave & West 7th on the St. Paul side)

I'm kind of torn between option #2 and option #3 for the Shepard Road side of the Mississippi River crossing, and I'm not a huge fan of either of them. I'd like to see that whole interchange get reconstructed, and it doesn't feel like there's enough effort being put into a holistic solution for both rail and highway surfaces there.

Interesting to see how tracks could branch off to Kellogg Boulevard in downtown, though they note that there's an 83' drop between Kellogg and the CP right-of-way at Wabasha, so there's little chance of a connector between street tracks and the freight rail corridor in that spot.

The second .pdf is worth looking at too -- it contains a litany of right-of-way options for narrow spaces that we've brought up at times on here, though they often get panned by transit planners in the U.S. It's good to see so many examples put forth by a consultant, even though they have plenty of tradeoffs.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby David Greene » September 6th, 2016, 12:26 pm

The DT St. Paul options look much better than I expected. The 5th/6th pair is an obvious win.
It's not so obvious to me. It's more expensive and as you say can be operationally difficult.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby talindsay » September 6th, 2016, 1:41 pm

It's not so obvious to me. It's more expensive and as you say can be operationally difficult.
True that. If it's just the short segment of divided track that would result from a Smith transit mall or south-running on 7th though, the couple of blocks wouldn't make much difference. If they do paired-street running from the 7th/Smith junction all the way to the Green Line tracks, that would very much raise some big operational and usage issues.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby David Greene » September 6th, 2016, 7:08 pm

That's true, it does improve with the Smith transit mall. The transit mall is intriguing to me but is it problematic to take transit off the main commercial corridor? Maybe it can work well with excellent wayfinding but right now Smith feels very disconnected from W. 7th.

The other question to ask is whether 5th/6th really need to be one-ways. Both have had major lane disruptions in Lowertown and it doesn't really seem to be a problem at all. When I leave work at 4pm it's easy enough to take 6th out to 94. Nice and quick, even after a traffic lane was taken earlier this year (or was it last year?). Would it be possible to just close a couple of lanes on 6th permanently and put LRT there? It's probably harder to do on 5th due to Xcel and RiverCenter.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby RailBaronYarr » September 7th, 2016, 11:54 am

I'd say 6th St would make the most sense. It's got 2 travel lanes plus a bus lane plus parking on one side at the widest point. The stretch from the LRT tracks west carries only 8,000 cars a day, and that drops to just over 5k west of the turn at St Peter. This street really doesn't need on-street parking and I'm sure we could come up with a design that fit it all. But a one-way pair for the short stretch from Kellogg to the Green Line tracks wouldn't be the end of the world.

I'm also not wild about jaunting a block out of the way for a Smith Ave transit mall, even if you end up hitting a high concentration of jobs (though neither station location looks to really capitalize on that) thanks to the hospital there (and you presumably make the time back from the detour by removing congestion). You're a block further from the commercial street as well as all the residential going up on the SE side of W 7th. It's also important to remember that ~50% of the southern side of Smith through that transit mall is structured parking - neither pleasant to be near nor ripe for redevelopment. As others have pointed out, one of the appeals of Riverview as a project is its relatively low cost, and doing anything to change that is maybe not a great idea given the likely low ridership forecasts relative to other lines out there. With that said, I think the ROW constraints and all options looking to be "least bad" make this a good opportunity to just tunnel the damn section from Grand-ish (I could be convinced to go all the way south to St Clair) to a portal emerging at the slope on 5th or 6th in downtown. We'd be talking 3 stations underground and less than a mile of tunnel total. At the very least, it'd be nice to hear public officials explain why at-grade (potentially mixed-traffic!) transit is a good idea when we have a grade-separated freeway a few blocks NW and a access-controlled highway a few blocks SE of the W 7th corridor. What are the social, environmental, and political reasons we can't even get spot grade-separation treatments like this for transit?

All that said, I'm super pleased to see them evaluating all types of options for the different tough spots, and keeping dedicated guideways in the mix for many of them is a big win.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby talindsay » September 7th, 2016, 11:56 am

Many cities place their major transit spines one block off the main street, and the block between Smith and W 7th isn't even a long block. I can't imagine ridership declines with tracks one block off 7th.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 964
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tiller » September 8th, 2016, 11:40 am

With regards to the Ford Rd bridge, it apparently has expansion joints on it, and one of the planners' concerns is whether the bridge can handle the stresses of the expansion/contraction of the continuous welded rail relative to the bridge (bridge has expansion joints, the rail doesn't). They also mentioned the force from some sort of braking as a concern. (emergency braking? Idk, but they used some sort of modifier before "Braking".)

They'll be looking at the costs and requirements for modifying the bridge columns/arches as needed, for a potential replacement, retrofitting it in other ways, adding expansion joins to the rail, ect. as various options, though I think they'll be using a relatively high-level (likely with a generous contingency) estimate for selecting the LPA as the bridge engineering occurs at a later part of the process.

Also on another note the CP rail line has insufficient width for freight and transit closer to downtown, and there would also potentially be some grading problems.

I like the sound of a Smith Ave transit mall (the issue of ambulance access would need to be solved, having constant service interruptions would be bad), though I think the split option may be the best of meh options. What are the aforementioned potential operational problems?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Br4dM, Google [Bot] and 41 guests