Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[thespeedmccool]

They haven't yet decided on how much of the route will be mixed-traffic vs. dedicated ROW and double-track vs. single-track

I'll have to take the opposing stance and say that this makes me feel pessimistic. Unless West Seventh becomes a county/city road in the next couple of years, there's a decent chance MNDOT denies Riverview dedicated ROW for the entire route in Saint Paul.

It should be dedicated ROW LRT or aBRT. Anything in between those two options is paying too much for not enough return.

[Bakken2016]

So as someone who sits on the Station Area Planning Taskforce, it has been reiterated to us that a good portion of the project will dedicated ROW. I think before making too many judgement calls, lets see how the engineering for the project comes out, cause right now most of us are grasping at straws about this project.

[alexschief]

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.

Given that these are some of the most crucial decisions on any project, the fact that they are being coy about them this far in is reason for despair, not hope. They might yet change course, but we shouldn't pretend not to see where this project is headed. This far through the process it has been extremely clear so far that the primary concern regarding mode has been reducing the impact to private car travel. If it becomes clear at a later date that the needs of transit riders are being prioritized, then I will be more optimistic.

And a reminder that 90% of this route could be dedicated right-of-way, but if the only mixed traffic sections are the only parts of the corridor with heavy traffic, then it's as good as useless. The dedicated right-of-way is most needed where space is most constrained. Going to keep repeating that and repeating that.

It's like saying, "most of the game the Twins played well," and then ignoring that Alex Colome blew a four run lead in the ninth inning.

[Mdcastle]

7th Street is not a principal arterial, so Mn/DOT would gladly give it to the city of St. Paul or Ramsey County if they asked for it and didn't demand money or a reconstruction project in exchange for taking it.

[Tiller]

Its been mentioned a couple times that Riverview will share tracks with the green and blue lines.

"two options are being considered for relocation of the light rail station at MOA, both are next to 82nd Street & 24th Avenue, one is an at-grade station (Option 1) and one is an elevated station (Option 2)
-both options would have four tracks and two platforms, one platform for Riverview and one platform for the Blue Line"

But to what extent do they plan on sharing tracks with the blue line? Since it sounds like they're going to try and avoid doing so.

[DanPatchToget]

Its been mentioned a couple times that Riverview will share tracks with the green and blue lines.

"two options are being considered for relocation of the light rail station at MOA, both are next to 82nd Street & 24th Avenue, one is an at-grade station (Option 1) and one is an elevated station (Option 2)
-both options would have four tracks and two platforms, one platform for Riverview and one platform for the Blue Line"

But to what extent do they plan on sharing tracks with the blue line? Since it sounds like they're going to try and avoid doing so.

It's easier to have four tracks and two platforms at an origin/terminus station with trains coming/going every 5 minutes in each direction. East/north of MOA the Blue Line and Riverview would share tracks and stations.

[DanPatchToget]

Regarding the concern over single vehicles being used on Riverview, it's important to keep in mind that it wouldn't necessarily mean the capacity is similar to an articulated bus. Budapest uses trams that are 184 feet long and have a total capacity of 397 people. That's approximately 86% of the capacity of a 2-car Siemens S70 train.

Also there are tram/streetcar/light rail vehicles with a 100% low-floor design, whereas our existing light rail fleet is 70% low-floor.

[Bakken2016]

Its been mentioned a couple times that Riverview will share tracks with the green and blue lines.

"two options are being considered for relocation of the light rail station at MOA, both are next to 82nd Street & 24th Avenue, one is an at-grade station (Option 1) and one is an elevated station (Option 2)
-both options would have four tracks and two platforms, one platform for Riverview and one platform for the Blue Line"

But to what extent do they plan on sharing tracks with the blue line? Since it sounds like they're going to try and avoid doing so.

Basically it would share tracks between MOA and Fort Snelling, and then Central Station to Union Depot for sharing with the Green Line.

[Korh]

Knowing how other projects go, if the people in charge think its far enough along it takes something really big to change the plan, cough* blue line extension cough*.
I think the Riverview is still in the engineering and pre-environmental phase of work so maybe there's still a chance to fix some of the more glaring issues, but I'm not holding my breath

[Silophant]

Regarding the concern over single vehicles being used on Riverview, it's important to keep in mind that it wouldn't necessarily mean the capacity is similar to an articulated bus. Budapest uses trams that are 184 feet long and have a total capacity of 397 people. That's approximately 86% of the capacity of a 2-car Siemens S70 train.

Also there are tram/streetcar/light rail vehicles with a 100% low-floor design, whereas our existing light rail fleet is 70% low-floor.

That's possible, I suppose, but Riverview isn't even slated to get its own OMF, is it? I'll eat my hat if they don't just buy another half-dozen S70s for this.

[DanPatchToget]

Regarding the concern over single vehicles being used on Riverview, it's important to keep in mind that it wouldn't necessarily mean the capacity is similar to an articulated bus. Budapest uses trams that are 184 feet long and have a total capacity of 397 people. That's approximately 86% of the capacity of a 2-car Siemens S70 train.

Also there are tram/streetcar/light rail vehicles with a 100% low-floor design, whereas our existing light rail fleet is 70% low-floor.

That's possible, I suppose, but Riverview isn't even slated to get its own OMF, is it? I'll eat my hat if they don't just buy another half-dozen S70s for this.

Can the existing facility in St. Paul handle additional vehicles, or could it be expanded to accommodate more? If not then I expect they would need to build another storage facility somewhere, but in theory maintenance could be done at the St. Paul or Franklin Avenue facilities.

Will Siemens even be continuing to build the S70/S700 by the time we're ready to order trains for Riverview? I wouldn't be surprised if they have a new type of vehicle being manufactured.

[Trademark]

Is there any organizations that's trying to meaningfully push back on the neutering of this project. I don't know anything about organizing, but I think enough of us here know what this project shouldn't be. And could have our voice be heard and get more people to pushback on Ramsey county.

[twincitizen]

Some notes from the CAC meeting tonight that I'm typing out while they're fresh in my mind from the meeting:
-both MOA and the city don't want Riverview included with the existing grade crossing at 24th Avenue & Old Shakopee Road considering the already long wait times with the Blue Line
-two options are being considered for relocation of the light rail station at MOA, both are next to 82nd Street & 24th Avenue, one is an at-grade station (Option 1) and one is an elevated station (Option 2)
-both options would have four tracks and two platforms, one platform for Riverview and one platform for the Blue Line
-Option 1 has a pedestrian skyway across 24th Avenue to connect to the existing transit station and MOA
-Option 2 has the platforms above 24th Avenue, and there would be access to the existing transit station and MOA
-the existing Highway 5 tunnel under Fort Snelling must be used, no widening of the existing tunnel or a brand new tunnel through there
-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
-both options would include removing the ramp from westbound 62/55 to airport-bound Highway 5 and filling in that land
-the first option would require trains to cross airport-bound Highway 5 at-grade, so traffic and/or railroad crossing signals would be installed
-the second option would have a single-track segment for half a mile or three-quarters of a mile

For MOA Station I like Option 2 the most. According to the presentation the travel time from 28th Avenue to the bus platforms at the transit center would be slightly shorter than the existing alignment, but the amount of walking between the elevated light rail platform and the transit center would be longer (I believe it was 44 seconds of walking with the existing alignment vs 2 minutes of walking with Option 2).

For the Highway 5 Tunnel I like the second option, though if it were up to me it would be double-track dedicated ROW and two car lanes. However, the single-track segment is very short, and I'd rather have dedicated ROW than trying to shoehorn trains with cars on that bridge and tunnel.

Here's the packet for the 10/21 PAC meeting, with visualizations for everything described above: https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... tation.pdf

Gotta say, I am relieved to see the MOA station plans actually make a ton of sense and they eliminated all the bad options. My biggest source of relief is that all options (1, 2, 4 and 8) would serve both Riverview and the Blue Line, making it clear they are not considering separate train platforms for each line. Clearly there must be some push from MOA and/or the owner of the vacant / state fair parking lot to abandon the current trackage around that property. I think it's completely understandable that I expected the worst here (e.g. building a new platform for Riverview, but keeping the Blue Line on the current trackage & platform in the transit center, etc.)

[Bakken2016]

I think the Single Track Dedicated at Highway 5 would be the best option, I can't imagine the mixed ROW being safe at all!

[thespeedmccool]

I will personally beg MNDOT to allow Highway 5 to go down to two lanes so Riverview can have dedicated ROW across the river.

[twincitizen]

-both options would include removing the ramp from westbound 62/55 to airport-bound Highway 5 and filling in that land

Ok I'll bite - how will folks get to the airport from the 62/55 corridor in the Mendota Heights area? Anyone coming from further out should just use 494 to 5, but in that immediate area across the river, they're also going to be pushed to 494 to reach the airport?

I suppose one option would be to de-freeway the 62/55 commons through this whole stretch along Fort Snelling. But if you're doing that, you might as well dismantle what remains of the partial cloverleaf interchange and completely rethink the area. That all seems unlikely considering that across the river, MnDOT will probably eventually want to make 62 (old 110, you're welcome) a freeway, or at least remove a signal or two.

[DanPatchToget]

They didn't go into details but they said there would be a replacement for that ramp.

[Trademark]

-both options would include removing the ramp from westbound 62/55 to airport-bound Highway 5 and filling in that land

Ok I'll bite - how will folks get to the airport from the 62/55 corridor in the Mendota Heights area? Anyone coming from further out should just use 494 to 5, but in that immediate area across the river, they're also going to be pushed to 494 to reach the airport?

I suppose one option would be to de-freeway the 62/55 commons through this whole stretch along Fort Snelling. But if you're doing that, you might as well dismantle what remains of the partial cloverleaf interchange and completely rethink the area. That all seems unlikely considering that across the river, MnDOT will probably eventually want to make 62 (old 110, you're welcome) a freeway, or at least remove a signal or two.

Maybe an interchange at 13 and 494 could help.

[Trademark]

Also it's crazy to see that precipitous of a drop in ridership estimates. 12,000 for a 2040 projection of the corridor is extremely low. I wonder how much greater it would be if it was light rail. Especially since they noted in there that the amount of dedicated ROW would impact the ridership numbers.

[alexschief]

https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... tation.pdf

• Perceived benefit of rail transit is treated differently in current model and depends on amount of dedicated guideway

Good grief.