Riverview Corridor Streetcar

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
alexschief
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1140
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby alexschief » October 10th, 2017, 3:05 pm

At least part of the way is dedicated ROW. But the part of the route that most needs dedicated ROW is also the smaller part that is shared. I accept that this is a battle we're not likely to win in the near term, but I think it's important (as others have mentioned) that this route be built in such as a way as to be open to further expansion, full dedicated ROW, and full three car trains. I hope they don't try to get cute over the "streetcar" and try to differentiate this too much from the LRT. I'd like to see the same stock, same station design, etc. Just run shorter trains if you need to.

It is frustrating to have to settle for a half loaf on this corridor. But as long as there's a possibility of getting a full loaf in the future, when concerns about a few parking spaces don't come before commute time for thousands, then we ought to take it.

DanPatchToget
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby DanPatchToget » October 10th, 2017, 4:45 pm

I'm hoping as well that they just use the same LRVs on Riverview, but just one or two car trains. Much easier operationally and establishes commonality in the light rail fleet. Although I wonder if the trains on Riverview will require flashing hazards and turn signals as I've seen on other tram/streetcar systems. I believe the so called "wig wags" on our Type 2 trains are where the hazards/turn signals usually are.

SkyScraperKid

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby SkyScraperKid » October 10th, 2017, 4:46 pm

People already do drive on the Green Line tracks.
Yea, they should paint the tracks red downtown to help discourage drivers from driving on them.

Bakken2016
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1019
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Bakken2016 » October 11th, 2017, 8:38 am

I'm hoping as well that they just use the same LRVs on Riverview, but just one or two car trains. Much easier operationally and establishes commonality in the light rail fleet. Although I wonder if the trains on Riverview will require flashing hazards and turn signals as I've seen on other tram/streetcar systems. I believe the so called "wig wags" on our Type 2 trains are where the hazards/turn signals usually are.
Hopefully they will due to having to share tracks with the Blue and Green Line!

gopherfan
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 129
Joined: January 15th, 2013, 5:09 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby gopherfan » October 11th, 2017, 4:56 pm

I'm hoping as well that they just use the same LRVs on Riverview, but just one or two car trains. Much easier operationally and establishes commonality in the light rail fleet. Although I wonder if the trains on Riverview will require flashing hazards and turn signals as I've seen on other tram/streetcar systems. I believe the so called "wig wags" on our Type 2 trains are where the hazards/turn signals usually are.
Hopefully they will due to having to share tracks with the Blue and Green Line!
From the Siemens website! 'Siemens S70 streetcar can connect service with a full-scale S70 light rail system, linking city and region without the need to change trains.'

http://w3.usa.siemens.com/mobility/us/e ... 20vehicles
Streetcar
https://www.siemens.com/content/dam/web ... -sheet.pdf
LRT
https://www.siemens.com/content/dam/web ... -sheet.pdf

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

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Silophant » October 11th, 2017, 8:44 pm

Right. Atlanta's streetcars, at least, are the same basic model as our Type II LRVs, just slightly shorter (79' vs 94') and without the couplers. We'll see, I guess, but I certainly hope that we'd just get more full-length LRVs rather than mess around with having two different vehicle types sharing tracks.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

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

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 12th, 2017, 8:05 am

...which drive different maintenance requirements, and could have different operations characteristics (max speed, braking capacity, etc that impact driver training), and might even drive infrastructure choices (e.g. optional tighter turning radii) that preempt having an LRV use the tracks. The $ savings of using the streetcar vs the LRV can't be worth it.

alexschief
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1140
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby alexschief » October 12th, 2017, 12:31 pm

I've written enough already about this project so that people know my views.

I think this LPA choice was pretty inevitable. I think that it's at least okay that this project is mostly dedicated ROW. But as I said above, I think that the part that is mixed is exactly the one part which most needs dedicated ROW. I think that transit advocates really can't forget what happened here and resign ourselves to this inferior transit project. Business owners should not be determining the city's transit priorities. ACME Comedy Club thought an apartment building would ruin their business, and they're still around. The crazy Taste of Love landlord on Cleveland Avenue though that bike lanes would kill businesses and lead to sex shops. Now, there are new restaurants opening along Cleveland. Business owners do not actually know how their customers get to their door. They are not professional planners, they are not transportation experts, and their views, while important, should not be given veto power over transportation policy.

There is absolutely no reason why the few imperiled parking spaces along West 7th should've taken priority over transit on this corridor, and yet they did. As the study group's conclusion heads to the Met Council, advocates need to keep pushing for more transit priority in this area, and at minimum, must demand that the corridor be built in a way so that the streetcar ROW can be converted quickly and cheaply to dedicated ROW in the future. As this forum has discussed, there also needs to be synergy between Metro Transit's LRT fleet and this line. This is transit, not an amusement park ride nor a development vehicle. People should have every reason to see the line as indistinguishable from the blue and green lines.

Ultimately, I look forward to a future when there is greater consensus towards the importance of better transit and that business owners don't reflexively oppose it, but welcome it. For now, I'd settle for not designing in a way that forecloses improvements in the future.

And as much as I am frustrated by this LPA, I do hope that this line and the Midtown line get formally put in line by the Met Council as soon as possible. So much attention is being paid to suburban routes right now, with two suburban LRT and two suburban BRT routes moving towards construction. But the inner cities are still woefully underserved. The priorities of the next two Mpls and Stp mayors should be to bring these next two projects to the formal planning stage.

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

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Tiller » October 12th, 2017, 1:24 pm

They are going full-bore on having a separate study to figure out the Ford Site's transit, continuing where Riverview left off to save time. Tolbert amended the LPA recommendation to put in a bunch of specific dates and deadlines for various tasks to be accomplished with studying Transit between Sibley Plaza - 46th St. Ramsey County was on board so I suppose we'll see the start of a separate but related study soon (beginning in 2018, to be finished by sometime in like 2019) while Riverview continues forward with the environmental analysis.

Are there any relevant examples of [successful] transit lines that are only like 3.5 miles long? I can't think of any important routes existing or in planning in the Twin Cities that are that short aside from some of the streetcars Minneapolis is dinking around with (which are of questionable utility for transportation purposes). Even the 2 Bus is twice as long, and that serves a lot of dense destinations close-in to downtown Minneapolis. If this were to be just being Sibley-Ford-46th St, then that would force a lot more transfers compared to interlining it with some other more useful service.

alexschief
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1140
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby alexschief » October 12th, 2017, 3:31 pm

Are there any relevant examples of [successful] transit lines that are only like 3.5 miles long?
Totally. Montréal has an entire subway line that runs for three stops. Vancouver has a three stop airport spur. New York's S train runs between Grand Central and Times Square. Philly's Broad Street Line has a three stop spur into Chinatown. There is plenty of precedent, but the Ford Site spur doesn't really have the density or importance to demand it. Any Ford Site line would of course have to run well beyond just that route (e.g. to Midway).

tmart
Rice Park
Posts: 488
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby tmart » October 12th, 2017, 6:20 pm

I can't really speak to the other examples, but Montreal's Yellow Line is a pretty bad comparison. Montreal is an island in the St. Lawrence River, and that line terminates on the South Shore of the river. It may not be a long distance on the map, but it's a very long psychological distance, and tons of commuters coming from South Shore suburbs funnel onto that line as the best alternative to dealing with bridge traffic.

DanPatchToget
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby DanPatchToget » October 12th, 2017, 7:16 pm

I'm hoping for ABRT on the current Route 46 between 50th & France and Sibley Plaza. It could use the Ford Spur as a dedicated segment between the Ford Site and West 7th.

tmart
Rice Park
Posts: 488
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby tmart » October 13th, 2017, 8:06 am

Screenshot 2017-10-09 22.15.58.png

Yea as shown above all the light blue is dedicated transitway
So am I correct in looking at this map and reading that the shared ROW portion is actually the four-lane portion, and not the three-lane portion? Satellite images suggest everything north of Goodhue has four lanes, which seems to line up with the end of the shared lane portion. If so, that's a bit surprising but encouraging.

Bakken2016
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1019
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Bakken2016 » October 13th, 2017, 9:55 am

http://www.startribune.com/advisory-com ... 450675033/

This article is so biased towards small business owners. And not actually informing the public about the project.

Bakken2016
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1019
Joined: September 20th, 2017, 12:40 pm
Location: North Loop

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby Bakken2016 » October 13th, 2017, 9:56 am

http://www.startribune.com/advisory-com ... 450675033/

This article is so biased towards the buisnesses along West 7th. It does not actually inform the project about the project and the good that it will bring.

mamundsen
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1195
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby mamundsen » October 13th, 2017, 12:57 pm

The map in the STrib article doesn't show the jog over to Fort Snelling Blue Line station and the Airport. It has Hwy 5 highlighted instead. Oops!

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1636
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby HiawathaGuy » October 13th, 2017, 3:20 pm

http://www.startribune.com/advisory-com ... 450675033/

This article is so biased towards the buisnesses along West 7th. It does not actually inform the project about the project and the good that it will bring.
I hadn't heard that they planned to burrow under Fort Snelling before either - which the article states, besides mentioning the new adjacent Hwy 5 bridge across the Mississippi. I'm cool with that, seems far less disruptive to the whole Fort area, since it's quite the conjected area already. I'm exciting to see more about the new bridge and tunneling.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2424
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby EOst » October 13th, 2017, 4:07 pm

Surprised they're going to pick that fight (the new bridge).

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1636
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby HiawathaGuy » October 13th, 2017, 4:43 pm

Surprised they're going to pick that fight (the new bridge).
It's a new adjacent bridge - and I'm not really sure why it would be a fight? The existing bridge can't handle the weight, and even if it could, I don't see how trying to convert it to 1 car lane in each direction, like the UofM bridge, wouldn't be a bigger fight to pick!

tmart
Rice Park
Posts: 488
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Riverview Corridor (Alternatives Analysis)

Postby tmart » October 13th, 2017, 5:15 pm

The Friends of the Mississippi River generally put up opposition to any new river crossings--even a bridge for the Midtown Greenway adjacent to the existing rail bridge got the axe. But they might get away with it here since nobody could conceivably argue this stretch is pristine.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 54 guests