Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[thespeedmccool]

How do you know Metro Transit and the Met Council are against it? Seems to me they support it, or are at least neutral.

Sorry if I was unclear. I do not know that, but I wish they would come out against it. That said, I'm confident that the Met Council probably has more reservations with Riverview than with any other transitway in development (given its interfacing with the Blue/Green Lines.)

[thespeedmccool]

This is not a "streetcar to Bloomington", this is light rail that will have short segments of mixed-traffic operation in St. Paul. Where exactly those segments will be and how long they will be, I don't know, and I wish the planners were more clear on that.

I was also the impression that the vast majority if not the entirety of the streetcar from the Mississippi to downtown St. Paul would be in mixed-traffic operation along West Seventh, and that the only separated portions would be south of the river. It's especially frustrating because there's enough ROW to do true LRT (given a reduction of West Seventh to one lane in each direction.

[Bakken2016]

This is not a "streetcar to Bloomington", this is light rail that will have short segments of mixed-traffic operation in St. Paul. Where exactly those segments will be and how long they will be, I don't know, and I wish the planners were more clear on that.

I was also the impression that the vast majority if not the entirety of the streetcar from the Mississippi to downtown St. Paul would be in mixed-traffic operation along West Seventh, and that the only separated portions would be south of the river. It's especially frustrating because there's enough ROW to do true LRT (given a reduction of West Seventh to one lane in each direction.

Yeah, actually most of West 7th will be dedicated ROW, its that part near the Xcel Energy Center that will be in mixed traffic...

[alexschief]

This is not a "streetcar to Bloomington", this is light rail that will have short segments of mixed-traffic operation in St. Paul. Where exactly those segments will be and how long they will be, I don't know, and I wish the planners were more clear on that.

I was also the impression that the vast majority if not the entirety of the streetcar from the Mississippi to downtown St. Paul would be in mixed-traffic operation along West Seventh, and that the only separated portions would be south of the river. It's especially frustrating because there's enough ROW to do true LRT (given a reduction of West Seventh to one lane in each direction.

Yeah, actually most of West 7th will be dedicated ROW, its that part near the Xcel Energy Center that will be in mixed traffic...

Which, again, is the area where dedicated right-of-way is most needed.

[Bakken2016]

I was also the impression that the vast majority if not the entirety of the streetcar from the Mississippi to downtown St. Paul would be in mixed-traffic operation along West Seventh, and that the only separated portions would be south of the river. It's especially frustrating because there's enough ROW to do true LRT (given a reduction of West Seventh to one lane in each direction.

Yeah, actually most of West 7th will be dedicated ROW, its that part near the Xcel Energy Center that will be in mixed traffic...

Which, again, is the area where dedicated right-of-way is most needed.

I don't disagree, maybe some public pressure on Ramsey County could be beneficial.

[tmart]

Yeah, like many folks here, I've tried hard to keep an open mind about the "streetcar" thing but I really don't see how you can justify spending a billion or more on a project with single-car trains, low frequencies, single-track sections, mixed-traffic operation on a highway, or some of the other glaring weaknesses that have come up in this planning. And it's a shame, because they're like 90% of the way to a great project, but the unwillingness to commit to fixing those last critical details is going to ruin it--whether that means they give up, or they follow through with building lousy transit, there are no good outcomes down this path.

Re: the highway segment specifically I find it particularly absurd that they aren't willing to consider reducing car traffic on the bridge. Highway 5 already dumps you out onto a city street (W 7th) just after the crossing, and that city street is going to have capacity reductions anyway. The bridge will not be the limiting factor on car traffic even if it goes down to 1 lane each way. The only exception to that is that there are on/off-ramps at Sheppard between the bridge and the end of the freeway. But if the key question is seriously "do we want reliable operations for our very expensive new train, or do we want an extra queuing/merging lane to make it slightly easier for drivers using Sheppard" and they come down on the side of the latter, that logic is just really hard for me to wrap my head around.

[DanPatchToget]

-two options are being considered for Riverview using the existing tunnel, both include keeping four lanes, the first option has mixed-traffic operation across the bridge and trains operating in the middle lanes, while the second option has single-track dedicated ROW operation for Riverview on the north side of the bridge and tunnel

I am going to become the Joker.

One of the reasons I hate that Riverview is called a streetcar is because people seem to assume the entire route will be a slow and mixed-traffic mess like the streetcar failures around the country. This is not a "streetcar to Bloomington", this is light rail that will have short segments of mixed-traffic operation in St. Paul. Where exactly those segments will be and how long they will be, I don't know, and I wish the planners were more clear on that. However, for now I remain optimistic this will be an upgrade over the 54, which is already close to aBRT standards besides not having off-board fare payment. Single-track on a short stretch isn't optimal but not the end of the world either. I've seen tram routes in Europe with single-track and/or mixed-traffic operations that still perform well.

I think the reason people assume it will be a streetcar to Bloomington is that it is a streetcar to Bloomington.

If it's "light rail except with single-track and mixed-traffic segments in the most congested areas" then that's not light rail, that's a streetcar. The most congested areas are where dedicated right-of-way is the most important. The most congested areas are where dedicated right-of-way is the most important. The most congested areas are where dedicated right-of-way is the most important. Ramsey County doesn't get partial credit for having a train that runs on its own right-of-way only in the areas where it would move at free flow speeds anyway.

If you're going to spend $2B on a transit line, it needs to meaningfully outperform a bus. A one-car streetcar will offer only a minor increase in capacity, no significant increase in travel time, and potentially significant deterioration in reliability vis-a-vis the already quite successful #54 bus. Either do it right or don't do it at all. Every month that Ramsey County advances work in this bad direction is money and time wasted.

I know no one will use this term but I'm going to consider Riverview a tram, because that's what it is, a European-style tram where some segments have dedicated ROW and other segments are in mixed-traffic. Very common on tram lines in Europe, including Oslo where I've had a lot of experience with their tram system. Is it perfect? Definitely not, but good luck trying to cram all the people who use those trams into buses, especially during peak travel time. They almost ripped up their entire tram system in the 70s but cancelled that plan, and I think they dodged a bullet with that (too bad our streetcar system didn't have a similar story).

These potential plans for single-track and mixed-traffic segments is the reality in our car-first society, and I'm looking at it as which options presented to us are the best from a transit standpoint. We can certainly pressure MnDOT, Ramsey County, etc. to give more to Riverview, but I'm not going to have the mindset of Riverview 100% LRT or bust. People are attracted to the cheaper cost and few minutes quicker travel time of BRT, but let's not pretend MnDOT and Ramsey County won't try to water it down so that it too has to operate in mixed-traffic.

[alexschief]

I've lived in Oslo too. Let me put it in those terms. This is a Trikk project in a T-Bane corridor.

If you're going to spend $2B on a project, it is not good enough to throw up your hands and say, "ah, lots of people drive, alas." You need to get it right (or else, don't build it). If you start with the notion that transit is a second-class mode of travel then you will never get a first-class transit system. Simple as that.

A bad train is not better than a good bus. This is not an urban-themed amusement ride. This is a project that will serve real people with real places to go. It should be the best that it can be. That means being willing to make reasonable trade offs, like taking a bit of road space from parking and traffic and giving it to a train so that it doesn't get routinely delayed.

[DanPatchToget]

Keep in mind almost the entire T-Bane system started as trams/interurbans. I believe at least one route originally operated in mixed-traffic, but they definitely all had short trains and crossed streets at-grade. Through several decades they were grade-separated and upgraded to T-Bane/Metro standards (except the route to Frognerseteren).

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming your definition of getting it done "right" for Riverview is 100% dedicated ROW and double-track light rail. I would absolutely support that, but the powers that be (MnDOT, Ramsey County, etc.) do not seem to be interested. I do think we need to put pressure on them to make as much of the route dedicated ROW and double-track as possible, but I don't think we should take an all-or-nothing approach.

If you think the current concept for Riverview is a "bad train" then that's your choice, but for now I see it as a good enough train replacing a so-so bus.

[BigIdeasGuy]

Can we go all the way back and figure out who made the decision that the Fort Snelling Tunnel can't be widen or rebuilt and why that decision was made? That seems to be the fundamental underlying problem with all the challenges that we are looking at right now. What possible justification could they have to make the that call the so fundamentally hampers what was a promising and beneficial transit line?

Yes traffic/pedestrians around the X were always going to be an issue, SMITH AVE IS RIGHT F&*R$(^ THERE USE IT, W7th businesses were going bitch endlessly about parking but solvable, speed vs ridership on W7th vs RR ROW but both worked. But running this in mixed traffic or signal tracked between Fort Snelling & where ever could very easily end in disaster for both cars and Riverview. Like zero benefit to either side. If those are truly the only two options make it aBRT and force the person who declared that the tunnel can't be widen to ride endlessly.

[DanPatchToget]

Can we go all the way back and figure out who made the decision that the Fort Snelling Tunnel can't be widen or rebuilt and why that decision was made? That seems to be the fundamental underlying problem with all the challenges that we are looking at right now. What possible justification could they have to make the that call the so fundamentally hampers what was a promising and beneficial transit line?

Yes traffic/pedestrians around the X were always going to be an issue, SMITH AVE IS RIGHT F&*R$(^ THERE USE IT, W7th businesses were going bitch endlessly about parking but solvable, speed vs ridership on W7th vs RR ROW but both worked. But running this in mixed traffic or signal tracked between Fort Snelling & where ever could very easily end in disaster for both cars and Riverview. Like zero benefit to either side. If those are truly the only two options make it aBRT and force the person who declared that the tunnel can't be widen to ride endlessly.

One or more Native American tribes said the tunnel can't be widened because it would disturb a sacred landscape that's already been significantly altered by the highways. Keep in mind I'm paraphrasing, but that's what I recall from the CAC meeting yesterday as to why Riverview must use the existing tunnel.

[Trademark]

Can we go all the way back and figure out who made the decision that the Fort Snelling Tunnel can't be widen or rebuilt and why that decision was made? That seems to be the fundamental underlying problem with all the challenges that we are looking at right now. What possible justification could they have to make the that call the so fundamentally hampers what was a promising and beneficial transit line?

Yes traffic/pedestrians around the X were always going to be an issue, SMITH AVE IS RIGHT F&*R$(^ THERE USE IT, W7th businesses were going bitch endlessly about parking but solvable, speed vs ridership on W7th vs RR ROW but both worked. But running this in mixed traffic or signal tracked between Fort Snelling & where ever could very easily end in disaster for both cars and Riverview. Like zero benefit to either side. If those are truly the only two options make it aBRT and force the person who declared that the tunnel can't be widen to ride endlessly.

One or more Native American tribes said the tunnel can't be widened because it would disturb a sacred landscape that's already been significantly altered by the highways. Keep in mind I'm paraphrasing, but that's what I recall from the CAC meeting yesterday as to why Riverview must use the existing tunnel.

Ya that's the explanation I've heard for awhile on this. If we have a short single track section we can survive that. But not a short single track and one car trains and running in mixed traffic.

If this project only cost $500 mil to build the conversation would be different. But spending a ton of money for a project that is flawed only gives ammo too for all of the anti transit folks who have plenty right now with southwest tunnel and cost overruns, blue line having to start over because they couldn't negotiate with the railroad, red line, Northstar, and ridership declining due to covid.

[Tcmetro]

The tunnel seems like a big compromise. Keep in mind that the Riverview line is sharing tracks with the Blue Line on one end and the Green Line on the other. Delays can (and likely will) cascade between the lines, and that would only be worse with single-tracking and/or mixed-traffic operations. If it ends up running one-car trains, then the capacity improvements won't be so great either.

I'm also not a fan of the new light rail terminal at 24th and 82nd. I get the need if Riverview is built, but the slower train v.s. the walk makes it a wash, while also exposing transit riders to the elements and making bus transfers more difficult. Also, having the light rail station with the staircase directly into the mall is a big part of why the Blue Line is so popular.

The biggest problem with Riverview is that it is trying to fix the #54, which doesn't have a lot of problems to begin with. It's pretty fast, doesn't encounter much traffic congestion, and is manageable operationally at the 10-15 minute headways that it runs.

If the goal is to use the Riverview line as a development tool, it might be better to just build a streetcar, keep and upgrade the #54 bus, skip the Green and Blue line Interlining issues, and save a ton of money on the bridge rehab, tunnel portal, and new mall train terminal.

[Silophant]

No one will ever admit this officially, but I'm pretty sure the goal is to prove that St Paul is also a big city with a train from downtown to the airport, just like Minneapolis. The goal of having the train be useful is a distant, distant second.

[DanPatchToget]

Well this would be the completion of the so-called "Iron Triangle." As for possible failures of Riverview fueling the anti-transit folks, they're always going to complain, especially if it's rail-based transit. The Blue Line soared through ridership projections and then people complained that the ridership projections were low-balled on purpose. Whether that's true or not I don't know, but beating ridership projections should be celebrated instead of nitpicked.

We definitely have different standards when it comes to the 54 bus. To me it's not terrible, but not great either. Dealing with traffic congestion in downtown and the airport, there was the time my driver got lost navigating road construction detours, and one time the bus skipped the airport stop for some reason (and yes the airport stop was definitely open). With rail on Riverview the route will be predictable and easy to understand. Reliability is of course the big question, but worst case scenario if (key word if) the reliability is poor I'm sure there will be a lot of pressure to fix it. The price tag has been mentioned several times, and I'm sure the planners are aware that if we're going to spend that kind of money then the reliability has to be good.

[twincitizen]

Speaking of, what is the price tag up to these days? Obviously, not building a new river crossing (or messing with the Fort Snelling “tunnel”) helps by not adding an extra 200-300 million to the budget. Ramsey County’s small sales tax collections (relative to Hennepin) can only accommodate so much. There has to be a breaking point where they simply can’t afford the local match on this.

[alexschief]

As a reminder to everyone, these were the "Differentiating Criteria" between LRT and Streetcar in the initial Riverview report. This is a screenshot directly from the mode selection:



Not a single one of these "Criteria" has anything to do with transit. The primary consideration behind this $2 billion transit project from the beginning has been how it could impact private car owners the least.

[tmart]

I'm about as big a booster of rail as a mode as you'll find, but this project has so systematically eliminated all the advantages, other than aesthetics and comfort, that it really does feel like we're just getting aBRT at 20x the cost.

The capacity being limited to single-car trains in particular really takes away one of the biggest arguments in favor of rail; it will barely beat an articulated bus. Mixed-traffic running in the most critical spots is an unfortunate adaptation of the worst aspects of our BRT practices. And what's worse, I haven't seen anything credible suggesting this is being engineered in a way that would make it easy to fix those flaws later, like an alignment designed for later conversion to transit-only, or platforms designed to allow for future lengthening.

These potential plans for single-track and mixed-traffic segments is the reality in our car-first society, and I'm looking at it as which options presented to us are the best from a transit standpoint. We can certainly pressure MnDOT, Ramsey County, etc. to give more to Riverview, but I'm not going to have the mindset of Riverview 100% LRT or bust. People are attracted to the cheaper cost and few minutes quicker travel time of BRT, but let's not pretend MnDOT and Ramsey County won't try to water it down so that it too has to operate in mixed-traffic.

I've held out hope that we'd see a good option emerge eventually, but of everything we've seen so far the most compelling is the "no build" alternative. If we're pouring $1-2 billion into transit then let's build either one A+ project (like the Blue Line) or like a dozen B- projects (like the A Line), but let's not spend A+ money on one B- project. The opportunity cost is just too high.

[StandishGuy]

Pre-pandemic the Green Line had ridership exceeding 40,000 and the Blue Line had 30,000 per day- all with 3-car trains. What kind of ridership is projected with a single-car Riverview Streetcar? It sure doesn't sound worth 1 billion let alone 2 billion.

[DanPatchToget]

I believe on the CAC presentation it showed the current ridership projection is 12,400 average weekday. Previously it was 20,000, but they used a new ridership model from the FTA.

I emailed Kevin Roggenbuck, who's a senior transportation planner for Ramsey County, about train length and a couple other questions I thought of at the end of the meeting.

1) Q: Is Riverview planned to have only 1-car trains? If yes, will the platforms be able to be extended to handle 2- or 3-car trains later on? I know the existing platforms for the Blue and Green Lines can handle 3-car trains, but this question focuses on the new station platforms that would be built for Riverview.

A: The choice of streetcar vehicles has not been made yet but it will be driven mainly by the projected peak period ridership and vehicle cost. We want to purchase the right size streetcars to meet the forecasted demand. The platforms will be sized so the streetcar will fit and we will try to be located so they have room to expand.


2) Q: Are there plans to reroute Highway 5 to Shepard Road so highway traffic isn't using West 7th?

A: There are no plans to reroute Hwy 5 to Shepard Road as part of the Riverview project. Years ago, Saint Paul and MnDOT were exploring ways to reconstruct the interchange with Hwy 5 and Mississippi River Boulevard/Shepard Road to move more of the through traffic to Shepard Road, but the study never progressed very far. MnDOT, Saint Paul and Ramsey County are discussing jurisdictional transfer of Hwy 5/W. 7th Street. It is possible that Hwy 5 in Saint Paul becomes either a city street or county road, and that could change the design, cross section and speed of the road in the future.


3) Q: Are the options for the Bloomington and Bdote/Fort Snelling alignments set in stone, or is there a possibility of them being modified? If they can be modified, would there only be small changes or is there still the possibility of major changes to those options?

A: We presented the best two alternatives for the MOA/Bloomington end of line and Bdote/Fort Snelling river crossings to the CAC. The project team looked at alternatives that would follow Hwy 5 west of the Hwy 55/62 interchange, alternatives that connected to the Fort Snelling Blue Line station along some of the local roads in the area and alternatives that would widen the tunnel to accommodate two tracks. The alternatives that made it through the review process are still kind of rough and will need to be refined. I would say that small changes are more likely than major ones, but if you have a new idea, please share it with me and I will pass it along to the rest of the project team.


Keep in mind that if the current schedule is correct, we have at least 7 years before construction on this begins. They haven't yet decided on how much of the route will be mixed-traffic vs. dedicated ROW and double-track vs. single-track, as well as how long the trains and station platforms will be. If you want to continue being doom and gloom about this project go right ahead, but for now I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.