Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[Eoin_Urban]

A little off topic but what is the deal with route 83 stopping at HarMar and not continuing to Rosedale? Seems a shame to stop just short.

The quick answer is that to provide 30-minute frequencies on the current Route 83, it takes 3 bus drivers to operate the route at once. If the route was extended to Rosedale but kept 30-minute frequencies, it would take 4 bus drivers. So to extend the route to Rosedale would make the route 33% more expensive to operate. If you are interested in more of how that works, you can look up cycle time for transit service.

It would certainly make the route more useful and attract more ridership, but Metro Transit must not have felt they had enough budget to extend the route that far when they created the route in 2014 when the Green Line opened.

According to Google it would add 3 minutes to the route. I think 35 minute frequency would be worth connecting to the transit center.

I have to agree with you on that. Metro Transit has this thing for clock-based headways and it's pretty rare for them to not do them. I don't know if that's a policy decision or what. Clock based headways make it easier to not check schedules if you know the bus always comes by 8 minutes past the hour but I wonder with more transit information if that is not as important now. I've heard other transit systems routinely do oddly timed frequencies that meet their cycle. Some of the Bloomington routes used to have alternating 30-60 minute headways. I'd prefer an even 45 minute headway to 30-60. I think Route 75 used to have a 30-60 minute cycle and now has a 45-minute headway but I can't think of any others off the top of my head.

I also imagine they timed the route to connect with the Green Line 35 minute frequency wouldn't make as clean of transfers. Though when it started in 2014 with 10 minute frequency on the Green Line it didn't matter as much. The current 15 minute frequencies on the LRT lines makes everything more difficult.

[Hero]

The quick answer is that to provide 30-minute frequencies on the current Route 83, it takes 3 bus drivers to operate the route at once. If the route was extended to Rosedale but kept 30-minute frequencies, it would take 4 bus drivers. So to extend the route to Rosedale would make the route 33% more expensive to operate. If you are interested in more of how that works, you can look up cycle time for transit service.

It would certainly make the route more useful and attract more ridership, but Metro Transit must not have felt they had enough budget to extend the route that far when they created the route in 2014 when the Green Line opened.

According to Google it would add 3 minutes to the route. I think 35 minute frequency would be worth connecting to the transit center.

I have to agree with you on that. Metro Transit has this thing for clock-based headways and it's pretty rare for them to not do them. I don't know if that's a policy decision or what. Clock based headways make it easier to not check schedules if you know the bus always comes by 8 minutes past the hour but I wonder with more transit information if that is not as important now. I've heard other transit systems routinely do oddly timed frequencies that meet their cycle. Some of the Bloomington routes used to have alternating 30-60 minute headways. I'd prefer an even 45 minute headway to 30-60. I think Route 75 used to have a 30-60 minute cycle and now has a 45-minute headway but I can't think of any others off the top of my head.

I also imagine they timed the route to connect with the Green Line 35 minute frequency wouldn't make as clean of transfers. Though when it started in 2014 with 10 minute frequency on the Green Line it didn't matter as much. The current 15 minute frequencies on the LRT lines makes everything more difficult.

I'd imagine this route could be straightened enough to save those 3 minutes? Shave off the tail end? Maybe cut every other stop? Or have a bus from another route switch to the 83 at Rosedale (assuming a route that terminates at the transit center is shorter than the 83).

[Tcmetro]

Looks like meetings are back on:
Community Advisory Committee meeting tentatively Dec 4-6, 2023
Policy Advisory Committee meeting tentatively Dec 13, 2023
Station Area Planning Task Force meeting tentatively Dec 2023

https://www.ramseycounty.us/residents/r ... ngs-events

[Tcmetro]

Long awaited update. Slide presentation for the Dec 5th CAC meeting available: https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... _final.pdf

The big change is that they are looking at Kellogg for the downtown routing for the streetcar option.

There's two streetcar options. One has an exclusive lane all the way north to Grand Ave, the other has an exclusive lane north to Otto Ave.

[Bakken2016]

Long awaited update. Slide presentation for the Dec 5th CAC meeting available: https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... _final.pdf

The big change is that they are looking at Kellogg for the downtown routing for the streetcar option.

There's two streetcar options. One has an exclusive lane all the way north to Grand Ave, the other has an exclusive lane north to Otto Ave.

Option 1 is better for the streetcar, and then hopefully over time we can convert the rest to dedicated as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[daveybabymsp]

I’m a fan of option 1. The fact that the bus option can’t interline with the blue line is a pretty big downside.

[Bakken2016]

I’m a fan of option 1. The fact that the bus option can’t interline with the blue line is a pretty big downside.

Along with, we could have had aBRT in 2017, to waste all the time looking at a rail option and then go back to aBRT would be a massive waste.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tom H.]

I don't think the removal of the WB 62 to SB 5 is actually all that impactful in practice, but I imagine it will cause quite a bit of uproar for perceived loss of convenience. It really only affects people heading to the airport, and it's pretty straightforward to just switch over to 494 for that trip.

[BigIdeasGuy]

The 82nd Street Station is a win for everyone including the Blue Line. I view the elimination of WB 62 to SB 5 as a positive for the project and Fort Snelling that the residents along Dodd Road are going to scream about

The lack of interlining with the Green Line is still annoying and should have been brought up years ago, like during the construction of the Green Line years ago ideally but I'll settle for the beginning of this process. The fact that it wasn't was a failure that many parties need to admit to and take accountability for.

The shared ROW on W7 & Kellogg is going to be a mess all day. Doubly for events at the X. It's going to be hard enough to keep operations on time but during events it's going to be next to impossible.

With the shared ROW along Kellogg & W7 looking like the current option it's probably worth going back and looking at a below the bluff option and seeing if that makes any sense vs the current idea.

[mattaudio]

An old option to get rid of those tight ramps, which would be compatible with their desire to use the northern half of the lower/existing bridge deck for trains with a tight turn west of the Ft. Snelling chapel.

[thespeedmccool]

If it's not a fully dedicated LRT, I would rather this just be a bus.

Let's not waste a billion dollars and immense amounts of political capital on a streetcar please.

This project is also the evidence we need to prove that transit planning in the Twin Cities is woefully broken. The fact that the MOA station was rebuilt like five years ago and we're already planning on entirely redoing it is a policy failure. Not to mention the fact that the Green Line interlining was not considered when it was built.

We need a transit master plan so bad. Give project planning to the Met Council.

[thespeedmccool]

And to add a positive comment: the Kellogg alignment is a good idea, even if I question how it will make transfers with the Green Line more difficult.

Anyone know if the new Kellogg Bridge to the east side is being built to accommodate LRT or streetcar? I like how this new alignment opens the possibility of extending something into Dayton's Bluff.

[Bakken2016]

If it's not a fully dedicated LRT, I would rather this just be a bus.

Let's not waste a billion dollars and immense amounts of political capital on a streetcar please.

This project is also the evidence we need to prove that transit planning in the Twin Cities is woefully broken. The fact that the MOA station was rebuilt like five years ago and we're already planning on entirely redoing it is a policy failure. Not to mention the fact that the Green Line interlining was not considered when it was built.

We need a transit master plan so bad. Give project planning to the Met Council.

Honestly though we could have had aBRT in 2017, it will be a massive waste of we choose a bus. In the meantime choose option 1 to move forward with, and after a year of operations, Metro Transit will have data to show St Paul that hey we need a dedicated lane for the whole project.

Also, the rebuild of MOA Transit Station was only the interior waiting and bus bays. This would just remove the existing LRT infrastructure and connect it into the new waiting area via 82nd St, it isn't a full rebuild. But I do agree, stop letting counties plan transitways.

[Tom H.]

Honestly though we could have had aBRT in 2017, it will be a massive waste of we choose a bus.

This is fine as a retrospective analysis, but to use this as an argument that we must move forward with rail is the definition of the sunk-cost fallacy.

[COLSLAW5]

is the plan to use the Green line O & M for this project?

[Tcmetro]

For the MOA terminal I don't see why they can't just build a third terminal track where a bus bay is. The streetcar is only supposed to be 80 feet long as it is.

Moving the light rail terminal across the street is a terrible idea and doesn't seem like it will provide an improvement for transfers or mall access.

[J. Mc]

Well the way I see this the options look like;
1
- A 'streetcar' that's not actually a streetcar type service and skips the seemingly popular Watson/Tuscarora stops.
- Provides a slower ride from W. 7th to the Airport for the hundreds of Airport and MOA employees, visitors and travelers who rely on the current direct 54 service.
- Does provide a potential faster connection to the Blue Line for W. 7th riders trying to get to the VA or the Blue to DTM via MSP xfer.
- Totally misses the core of DTSP by a couple blocks where most folks going downtown are headed
- Gives W. 7th a similar hostile design as University with the removal of a parking buffer between pedestrians and traffic
- Would still probably be just as subject to the current traffic delays the 54 can run into coming out of downtown at 7 corners, plus additional potential delays from Xcel events plus any track blocking incidents.
- Would probably gentrify the stuffing out of W. 7th similar to University, so even more affordable or semi-affordable housing would be displaced thru higher property value/taxes and redevelopment to less affordable options, sending those who are likely more reliant on public transit in the corridor elsewhere.
2
- Basically the same points as 1 but with a little additional travel time to service added stops on the eastern end while still skipping the Watson/Tuscarora area. Though the additional stops at least lean a little more into actual streetcar type service.
3
- ABRT service, which is largely the same thing as the existing 54 service but eliminates the on-board fare payment delays and allows for potential thru running to other ABRT or BRT service. Plus it would spiffy up the stops with much nicer amenities.
- Adds more direct service to the very housing dense area around Shepard.
- Would not be as attractive of an option for the young professional who rents the $3000/mo apartment the streetcar gentrification could've spurred greater development of. So instead they Uber/Lyft to those two Wild games a year they might've taken the streetcar to.

It's kind of comical how much of a step back the streetcar proposal is in some ways. Sure, it's a shiny new train, not a 'nasty' bus, easier accessibility, (if you don't mind rolling or limping the extra 1/4 mile to the station in a few cases) and more permanent. (Gosh W. 7th has only had bus service running along it for decades, so better not rely on that ABRT too much! Never know when they might rip it out like that streetcar line that used to run down Fort Rd.) Yes, it'll probably get more ridership longer term due to rail bias. It just seems like this is really backwards that a potential major investment in fixed-rail transport basically produces almost-as-good service compared to a freakin' city bus.

Oh crud I totally forgot, we don't actually give two cents about the schmucks who ride this stuff or have to live with it. We just want redevelopment potential and a new toy like big brother Minneapolis and our other city friends. Well... now I just feel silly for wasting my time looking at this from my simple rider and resident perspective.

[BigIdeasGuy]

With the continued dwindling utility of this project, continued political unwillingness to piss locals off with both Riverview & Bonttineau and the cost overruns of SW I'm kinda at the point where they should just cancel any future rail projects here and just invest every penny possible into aBRT. Let that grow and if frequency can't keep up then convert to rail.

Hopefully at that point we have leaders willing to make the hard choices needed to maximize the massive investment required for rail vs just the fruitless pursuit of trying avoid making neighbors too angry by continue to make a project worse and worse.

[BigIdeasGuy]

is the plan to use the Green line O & M for this project?

A few pages back some posted that Riverview will need a separate O&M facility

[Silophant]

Looking at slide 28 of that presentation, the pink "Riverview Alignment" line continues past Union Depot station and off the edge of the map. I wonder if that's implying that the tracks would just continue down Kellogg and cut over on Lafayette to get into the newly expanded Lowertown OMF? It's about a third of a mile of non-revenue track, but that's gotta be cheaper than building a whole new OMF.