Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[Trademark]

On page 16 it said Greenway corridor as possible light rail line. Is this the CP spur vs 7th street alignment or are they talking about potentially an express MPLS to St Paul service using the Ayd Mill corridor?

[alexschief]

The reason the alignment in downtown Minneapolis can handle both the Green and Blue Lines is because of the long tail track at Target Field. East of Union Depot Station there isn't a tail track or track switches, so that's why they need to either expand Union Depot Station or have a new alignment for Riverview. If they choose a new alignment for Riverview I'm not sure it would be required to have a connection to the St. Paul OMF, or if having the connection to the Franklin Avenue OMF plus the Hopkins facility for storage would be enough. I wouldn't oppose the 5th/6th Street alignment since it could be extended somewhere east eventually, while the Green Line with its current alignment is pretty much stuck with an eastern terminus at Union Depot.

I don't know the actual design inside the Lowertown facility which may preclude this, but there's certainly no shortage of space to extend it further back if needed. You could even close and build on the extremely low-volume Prince Street if you were desperate.

Of the Union Depot Station ideas, Option 2 is interesting. There's really no need for 4th Street to have car access in front of the Union Depot, nor is there a need for the Union Depot to have such a huge entrance lawn since they never make any use of it.

[HuskyGrad]

The reason the alignment in downtown Minneapolis can handle both the Green and Blue Lines is because of the long tail track at Target Field. East of Union Depot Station there isn't a tail track or track switches, so that's why they need to either expand Union Depot Station or have a new alignment for Riverview. If they choose a new alignment for Riverview I'm not sure it would be required to have a connection to the St. Paul OMF, or if having the connection to the Franklin Avenue OMF plus the Hopkins facility for storage would be enough. I wouldn't oppose the 5th/6th Street alignment since it could be extended somewhere east eventually, while the Green Line with its current alignment is pretty much stuck with an eastern terminus at Union Depot.

The Hopkins facility no longer has any storage tracks. It is primarily a MOW and operator facility now.

[Silophant]

Yeah, the Union Depot options seem like the way to go, that way at least Central Station and a few blocks of Green Line track could be reused, rather than having two separate, parallel alignments a block apart. Additionally, I notice that the station platform, and, in Option 1, the pocket track are 180' long, which implies to me that they are indeed planning for two-car trains. Good news!

[Trademark]

Additionally, I notice that the station platform, and, in Option 1, the pocket track are 180' long, which implies to me that they are indeed planning for two-car trains. Good news!

That's a great point that I'd didn't notice!

[Tiller]

I actually laughed out loud at the "Stakeholder Priorities" slide (bc of Ramsey County). I appreciate them putting those priorities to paper for once. Also thank you City of Saint Paul for pushing for 2 car trains instead of 1 car trains? (you can make that a sarcastic "thank you" if the alternative was 3 car trains )

[BigIdeasGuy]

Not ending at Union Station with current Green Line tracks seem like they are missing they are missing the forest through the trees, clearly the station needs some adjustment but it appears that it's doable, if the powers that be are willing to use the political capital.

Look at Google Maps and transiting into the CP Spur at Montreal Way feels like it's almost so far east it's boarder line pointless. Tracks would come back out only a station or two farther down the line, would the time vs ridership vs cost comparison even make sense? Any street close to Webster, Toronto, Osceola seem to have a bigger impact on the time/ridership/cost comparison.

I'll defend the idea of having two station between St. Paul Ave & the river, they just need to be spaces out better, like one at St. Paul Ave & the other at Wordsworth. It does seem like they are moving in the right direction in regards to the river crossing & Fort Snelling which is encouraging.

I know I've mentioned multiple times but why are they still considering using 7th between the X & Grand? Smith is right there, use it!!! Restrict to LRT, emergency vehicles & pedestrians, put a station on either side of Grand & Kellogg and be done with it. It really isn't that hard or complicated. Trying to run LRT cars on W7th pre and post events at the X will be a complete & total shits how and will absolutely slow them down significantly.

[Tiller]

Trying to run LRT cars on W7th pre and post events at the X will be a complete & total shits how and will absolutely slow them down significantly.

You'd think policy makers would want to use an LRT stop at Xcel to reduce the shit show instead of making it worse. 230 people per LRT car * 2 cars per train* 6 trains per hour (10 min frequency) * 2 directions = 6720 people in one hour. Imagine those thousands of cars downtown. It doesn't work. 2 dedicated LRT lanes could carry far more attendees than they ever would as car travel lanes.

[BigIdeasGuy]

Trying to run LRT cars on W7th pre and post events at the X will be a complete & total shits how and will absolutely slow them down significantly.

You'd think policy makers would want to use an LRT stop at Xcel to reduce the shit show instead of making it worse. 230 people per LRT car * 2 cars per train* 6 trains per hour (10 min frequency) * 2 directions = 6720 people in one hour. Imagine those thousands of cars downtown. It doesn't work. 2 dedicated LRT lanes could carry far more attendees than they ever would as car travel lanes.

Fair point & I agree. I don't think there would any difference in event based ridership in running LRT on 7th vs Smith. What potential rider would say "I would take Riverview if it ran on 7th instead Smith" now I think there would be potential riders that would say "I would take Riverview but I don't want to spend 25 minutes waiting for the train then another 15 trying to get down 7th."

I was under the impression that it would be in mixed use traffic along 7th, which should be a nonstarter. That wouldn't work either.

The traffic jam that is W7 pre & post isn't the only thing that would slow down LRT but also thousand of pedestrians that also takeover Kellogg & especially Kellogg & 7th intersection. You would avoid 99% of that running down Smith.

[Tiller]

Oh i don't care if it takes 7th or Smith, like you said people would use either station. Rather, I want it to take whatever route it needs to take for Riverview to get the maximum amount of dedicated guideway.

I'd imagine they could run the event-day logistics like they do in Minneapolis. There was an article(?) at one point a while back that discussed their operations center and all the pre-staged trains, transportation management, etc planned. It sounded like a very well oiled machine.

[commissioner]

Only problem with Smith that I can see is Allina raising hell with access issues to United and Children's hospitals and the parking ramps on both sides of Smith.

[BigIdeasGuy]

Looking at Google Maps the only ramp that fronts Smith that doesn't have an entrance/exit on a different street is the Holiday Ramp at Kellogg. Which has a large surface lot right across from so space won't be the issue there if they need to leave access.

The other 3 ramps do have access on a different street which might not be ideal but would work. I think you could squeeze 1 way access to each ramp if it absolutely necessary, that would likely mean emergency vehicles driving on the tracks when needed which again isn't ideal but would work.

[DanPatchToget]

I'm not sure what thread to put this in since it relates to all of our current and future light rail lines, but I was thinking about how in some European cities I visited it was typical to have tram/light rail station platforms also used by buses. I'm not sure if any American cities do this, and I wonder with the low platforms of our light rail stations if it would be possible for buses to also use them. The East Bank Station I especially wish they had designed it to allow buses to also use it since it was an inconvenience (admittedly minor) having to walk from the station to the Coffman Union bus stop. Any segments where the track is embedded into the pavement it would be nice if buses were able to use them as well like the Washington Avenue Transit Mall, but also use the light rail stations. Relating this to Riverview there could be opportunities along West 7th and in downtown St. Paul for dual-use stations, but again I don't know if it's feasible for buses to operate on the paved segments of our light rail lines and use some of the stations. If not then I think it's a huge missed opportunity.

[Tcmetro]

The Seattle transit tunnel shared platforms between buses and rail, although they had different boarding positions. Given that Seattle and Minneapolis use the same LRVs, it's probably possible for buses to stop at rail platforms.

Portland has buses and rail on the transit mall, but the platforms are basically at sidewalk level. I believe their streetcars and buses share stops also.

[DanPatchToget]

If we could have the stations designed like this along Riverview that'd be great: https://www.google.com/maps/@57.7046231 ... 8192?hl=en

This station in Gothenburg perfectly shows what I'd like Riverview to look like along West 7th and in downtown St. Paul. Whether that's feasible from a political and engineering standpoint I don't know, but it would be nice to have it like this. Also note the raised crosswalks for pedestrians that force traffic to slow down so it's safer for people going to/from the station.

[Tiller]

There have not been negotiations with Canadian Pacific about purchasing the Ford Spur. Apparently the University of St. Thomas has a contract with CP for use of the spur, but there weren't any details about it.

What kind of interest would St. Thomas even have with the CP Spur? It's not near them (unless they have assets near it that idk about). If the contract was for Area C at the Ford Site, then I could see them wanting to use it for development.

They absolutely shouldn't be allowed to develop anything in the ROW elsewhere. Leverage for them to use for another issue with the city/county? Public officials have really been asleep at the wheel these last 8+ years by not trying to secure this ROW, considering how many potential uses it has.

This question seems to be answered by a video posted in another thread. St. Thomas wants the CP Rail Parcel in the Ford Site for an Athletic Village.

Would be great to keep some ROW open for potential future rail transit, but it doesn't look like this plan does that.

[DanPatchToget]

I get the feeling Ramsey and/or St. Paul aren’t interested in a transitway whether bus or rail on the Ford Spur considering their lack of contact with CP and not trying to block UST’s proposal. Seems to me all they want is a trail, which should be easy to build even if something like UST’s sports complex takes up a lot of the ROW.

[Korh]

There have not been negotiations with Canadian Pacific about purchasing the Ford Spur. Apparently the University of St. Thomas has a contract with CP for use of the spur, but there weren't any details about it.

What kind of interest would St. Thomas even have with the CP Spur? It's not near them (unless they have assets near it that idk about). If the contract was for Area C at the Ford Site, then I could see them wanting to use it for development.

They absolutely shouldn't be allowed to develop anything in the ROW elsewhere. Leverage for them to use for another issue with the city/county? Public officials have really been asleep at the wheel these last 8+ years by not trying to secure this ROW, considering how many potential uses it has.

This question seems to be answered by a video posted in another thread. St. Thomas wants the CP Rail Parcel in the Ford Site for an Athletic Village.

Would be great to keep some ROW open for potential future rail transit, but it doesn't look like this plan does that.

Probably just gonna be a rail trail at best.

[Hero]

Looks like they have a road connection from under the bridge to Finn. Maybe use the rail spur for a BRT?

[Tcmetro]

I listened into the Riverview Corridor Station Area Planning meeting yesterday for Grand and Kellogg. One thing being discussed is closure of 7th St in front of the Xcel Energy Center during event times, but they need to look into traffic patterns more to see if it's feasible.