urbanMSP

^probably actually.

Guys we need to get a tunnel built through St Paul.

Guys we need to get a tunnel built through St Paul.

Without any stations, because who wants to go to St. Paul?

St. Paul already has a transit tunnel, disused and filled in at one end. KSPB!

St. Paul already has a transit tunnel, disused and filled in at one end. KSPB!

And tracks even!

And...Cossetta joins the list of the boycotted.

Shocker. They've been vocal this entire time.

Taking a look at nate's proposal, there's one big problem: given the grades and distances necessary, Wabasha would be blocked at 5th...there's not enough distance between Cedar and Wabasha to get an LRT into a tunnel without blocking Wabasha.

Important question: why are we even talking about light rail (segregated/exclusive ROW) through this section? Hasn't the assumption all along been that if LRT is chosen to run on West 7th, that it would be essentially a mixed-traffic streetcar through this stretch?

Or has the "hybrid/tram" option been superseded by full-spec LRT? If so, why exactly? That's a PR nightmare that easily could've been avoided by promising mixed traffic operation, at least through these couple of blocks closest to downtown (i.e. pretty much the only place along the entire corridor with a parking crunch)

It may be politically difficult to get full LRT, but I find it extremely hard to believe the CTIB would be willing to fund a $1billion streetcar line (ditto the feds). Remember that little caveat in the CTIB long-term funding plan? 60% of Riverview (if LRT is chosen). Someone in these meetings needs to stand up and bitch slap these planners back into reality or this is gonna end up like another Robert Street corridor; dead.

Planners don't pick the route or mode. They provide the data and studies, eliminate the options that are truly unworkable, and somewhere along the way the politicians (mostly county, but also city in this case) step in and put their weight on the scales. The option that has viable (backroom) political support is the one that advances.

It sure seemed like some form of a hybrid option(s) was separating from the pack, but it's hard to tell now with this opposition group heating up. Like who even knows...are they just opposed to exclusive ROW light rail that would consume parking, prohibit left turns, etc.? Are they ok with mixed traffic operations in this stretch? Or are they just fundamentally opposed to any change of any kind? If it's the latter, then yeah it's possible they're going to kill this project.

It sounds like the full-spec LRT is their biggest concern, and that they would prefer a bus option, with the hybrid approach having kept this in mind, being the compromise option.

are they just opposed to exclusive ROW light rail that would consume parking, prohibit left turns, etc.? Are they ok with mixed traffic operations in this stretch? Or are they just fundamentally opposed to any change of any kind?

The impression I've gotten is the first and third. Some may be okay with mixed-operations, but not many.

Whatever is built, I feel it needs to be compatible with the LRT that already exists on the ends of the line. It would be very good to use the existing tunnel through the airport, though I suppose I'm less concerned about using existing tracks in downtown St. Paul, since pretty much any downtown routing has some difficulty or another.

I just keep thinking about how MnDOT funneled $3.3 billion in roadway funds just last year -- still substantially more than we've spent on LRT & commuter rail for the entire existence of Metro Transit. I mean, if you sit back and look at this corridor as a highway planner, it's obvious that it's worth connecting downtown St. Paul to the airport and MOA. It's just a matter of doing it in the right way.

Of course, that's been the big failing of highway planners. A lot of the decisions they've made for intercity travel have been alright, but things went awry in cities, where too much stuff was bulldozed to make way for freeways or even just widening of regular city streets. There must still be dozens of buildings getting torn down each year across the state to add more lanes.

In cities, more money has to be spent in order to limit right-of-way impacts on the neighborhoods, but federal funding rules have not done a good job of accounting for that. A grade-level line similar to the Green Line would probably cost around $600-$700 million, since only 6 or so miles of track need to be added. However, the Green Line only had the absolute minimum amount of grade-separation applied to it, for crosssing I-35W, the Mississippi River (on an existing but rebuilt bridge), MN-280, and I-94/I-35E in downtown St. Paul.

It's clear that we didn't include as much grade-separation on that line as would have been desirable, especially in comparison to SWLRT which has a couple miles worth of bridges. This is something that can be corrected on Riverview, though I won't go so far as to say that we must do it, just that it's a really, really important option to consider.

The main alternative to adding bridges or tunnels is just removing lanes from the street, up to and including conversion of some stretches into transit malls. After all, we should be focusing on preserving buildings and the places where people gather, and not where their cars go. I think it would be great if West 7th near Xcel and Cossetta's was sort of a plaza space with a station running through it. A couple other commercial nodes would also make sense for that sort of conversion, like near Western Ave and St. Clair Ave, and Randolph and Osceola, which is a fairly awkward intersection anyway (though a line using the Ford Spur could have already branched off by that point).

PAC Agenda for June 23rd meeting is up with more details on the CP Rail route to the ford site.

http://riverviewcorridor.com/wp-content ... 160623.pdf

I have map a google map with the routes that have been presented so far. A few parts did require some squinting and guess work so may not be completely accurate.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1C82RT ... sp=sharing

The distance between stations for the West 7th alignment is really bothering me. The gap between one at Otto Ave and another at the northeast corner of the Sibley Plaza area is 1.8 miles. The Mickey's Diner stop of the 54 doesn't get much activity, though I can't help but notice there's some potential for a path up the hill to the Highland Aquatic Center and Circus Juventas. A few blocks further northeast, the bus usually stops at Albion Avenue.

There is another station near Lexington parkway that I have just added. The detailed images show no station but the overview image does which is why I missed it.

If the hybrid rail option were to be chosen for this corridor, given any applicable regulations, as well as the technical feasibility, would it still be possible to through route a High speed rail line from MSP>St Paul>Minneapolis in this corridor?

There was some limited talk on sharing a river crossing, but not of the usability of the corridor itself. I'd venture a guess that a Riverview hybrid LRT would use a retrofitted HWY 5 bridge, and that the HSR would be a new, parallel bridge. What would running HSR (at least to the degree allowed by the given geometry and other conditions) between MSP and St Paul look like with the given Hybrid Rail route we now have?

Are there any ways in which Riverview should be built as to allow this aforementioned HSR connection?

(This could go in either thread, but this is more about trying to leave a space for HSR while building riverview.)

wait, is it really realistic to think this corridor may eventually have aBRT, LRT, and HSR? Or is the aBRT LRT an either or kinda situation?

Either-or, I think. If LRT is built along West 7th, It'll replace the buses in the corridor entirely. If it's built along Shepard, the West 7th buses would probably stay, but wouldn't likely get aBRT upgrades unless we got to the point where that was just the standard bus infrastructure and all routes got it.