urbanMSP

Between McKnight & Century Aves., 3M is the station. That makes sense from a jobs perspective and a walkshed perspective. The nearest house to the north is, what, 1/2 mile away? Biking is the only real option from single family homes, so the city should get an easement for a bikeway through the 3M campus.

Having a bridge to a large (regional?) park is a great benefit, too.

There is a giant parking lot just east of the proposed transit stop. Wouldn’t surprise me if 3M had long-term thoughts about redeveloping that and/or other parts of the campus.

A dedicated busway may just demonstrate to people that it speeds up transit, and we should have them everywhere. Today’s snowstorm is just the kind of weather that shows how good dedicated ROW is for transit.

Isn’t this what we want?

Strib article on the subject: http://www.startribune.com/maplewood-co ... 505575742/

Bonus points to 3M for having "security concerns" about connecting a hundred suburban houses to their basically-private bus stop.

Strib article on the subject: http://www.startribune.com/maplewood-co ... 505575742/

Bonus points to 3M for having "security concerns" about connecting a hundred suburban houses to their basically-private bus stop.

Love the idea of this, it really helps connect the neighborhood. 3M's concerns are ridiculous.

Bonus points to 3M for having "security concerns" about connecting a hundred suburban houses to their basically-private bus stop.

Love the idea of this, it really helps connect the neighborhood. 3M's concerns are ridiculous.

Are they afraid of city dwellers taking the bus to rob them? Jeez. Walkability & bike-ability are about dividing up these giant suburban parcels. Cities should get easements if not putting a full-on street there.

In terms of the bridge, it sounds reminiscent of a highway cap.

Update: https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites ... v03.00.pdf

They are slightly tweaking and extending the east end of the line. Woodbury Theater will still have a station, but will no longer be the terminus. The are proposing to add a surface park & ride lot about 1/3-mile west of the theater, rather than building a parking ramp at the theater site. This seems to make sense, and preserves the ability for Met Council to redevelop the theater property in the future (they've owned it for probably 10 years now).

Earlier in 2018, they also decided that the downtown St. Paul stops would be full "BRT scale" stations, rather than just "enhanced bus stops".

Despite these changes, the updated budget is still $415-439MM, which isn't far off from the $420MM estimate from 2016. Hopefully that sticks. I know this is Washington County's baby, but I could see Ramsey County get cold feet if the budget goes off the rails...it's pretty clear that Riverview is a higher priority for the County. I suppose some of that depends on the funding split between Ramsey and Washington.

I know that this line is like 5-6x the cost of the D Line and has probably 1/3 of the ridership, but I still don't *hate* it. I'm much more positive on this project than I am on Bottineau or Rush (or extending the Orange or Red Lines further south). Some of that is my Woodbury / eastside upbringing, because I am super familiar with this stretch of the metro (my dad worked at 3M for 30+ years; as a kid I snuck into a bunch of R-rated movies at Woodbury Theater, etc, etc.) But I also think this is an ok investment from a regional standpoint and helps lock in Downtown St. Paul as the heart of the east metro, and brings much needed attention to under-invested areas of Eastside St. Paul. Some of the station locations still need a lot of work (ahem, 3M), and I think there are several areas of the line where they are planning dedicated lanes that aren't really necessary due to minimal traffic congestion...there would seem to be some room for cost-savings in Oakdale & Woodbury that would be better spent on local bus connections, pedestrian & bike connections, etc.

And heck, Hennepin County / Minneapolis aren't paying for it, so y'know, not my place. If you're someone who wants better aBRT service in Minneapolis, there's really only one reason this project should catch your ire, and that's because it does compete with aBRT projects for state and federal funding, and that's frustrating. But that's a temporary problem, and once built, I think this is a worthy addition to our regional "rapid" transit network along with the Blue & Green Lines. It's probably not as deserving as some west metro projects that have higher ridership potential, such as 394 or 55 west, but it's first in line because the counties and local governments agreed to push it forward. Hennepin County has been so consumed by Southwest's drama for the last decade (and now Bottineau probably for the next decade) that it has probably set back any west metro freeway/dedicated BRT lines for a generation.

That's... a lot of station for a half mile stretch of Guider Drive.

Well, y'know, it wouldn't be LRT on rubber tires if it didn't include preposterously close station spacing at the suburban terminus.

My only problem with building a ramp west of the Woodbury Theater is it kills off the opportunity to someday extend the line farther east to the Valley Creek / Radio Dr area. Other than that, I agree that this is a worthwhile project ever since they gave up on the Lake Elmo routing

Edit: nevermind, totally spaced on the P&R west of the theater being a surface lot...

I also see they're now planning to replace the 4th Ave bridge over 694 as part of this project. The bridge need to be replaced anyways, so is this project paying for the whole new bridge or just a transit portion?

I know there’s a lot of hate for these suburban, lower density lines, and usage will indeed be lower.

But I‘m for the Gold Line BRT for all the reasons TwinCitizen says above. And I think you have to think politically—as much as urbanists might want to, you can’t just abandon every low density area that’s now a “city”. I think a broad network of BRT that covers a wide swath of the Twin Cities is a great way to start, at the same time adding lines closer to the core.

Sure, some of those urban lines could’ve been done sooner if we didn’t have transit going to Woodbury & Eden Prairie. But this way, even lower density suburbs are given a chance to jump on the transit bandwagon and encourage transit oriented development, thus starting to boost their density.

Those cities that successfully increase density could be rewarded with more frequent transit. Those cities that don’t increase density get starved of new transit development as the money gets used for denser areas with greater need.

I'm not opposed to the pattern you described, Multimodal, but I would like to see future big investments tied to more concrete expectations about density and development, such as minimum zoning within a certain radius of stations. I think the part of the Blue Line in Bloomington is all the proof we need that transit investments will not automatically lead to density/TOD/mixed use/other good things.

I'm not opposed to the pattern you described, Multimodal, but I would like to see future big investments tied to more concrete expectations about density and development, such as minimum zoning within a certain radius of stations. I think the part of the Blue Line in Bloomington is all the proof we need that transit investments will not automatically lead to density/TOD/mixed use/other good things.

The South Loop isn't great, but it isn't the worst. Better than leaving the whole area with empty fields and parking lots.

Project update: http://agenda-suite.com:8080/agenda/ram ... /37779.doc

Notable: "20% of all Twin Cities households without cars are along the Gold Line route"

Notable: "20% of all Twin Cities households without cars are along the Gold Line route"

But I thought BRT to the suburbs was going to destroy the Twin Cities?

1/21/2020 Update: https://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Tr ... -2020.aspx

FTA drops gold line ranking to "medium low", imperiling federal funding unless changes are made. Article specifically mentions bolstering the park-and-ride elements.

http://www.startribune.com/gold-line-bu ... 567764922/

The FTA changed their modeling assumptions last year in ways that put a bigger emphasis on parking. The planners are confident they can make changes that bring the rating back up without impacting the project timeline.

Does anyone know where to find the full rankings/formula online, or if this data is publicly available? I've been digging through FTA website, but to no avail.

I couldn't find a handy table that summarizes all the projects so far, but here's the list of projects in the pipeline, including Gold Line.

https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/gra ... g-projects

Update: https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites ... v03.00.pdf

Despite these changes, the updated budget is still $415-439MM, which isn't far off from the $420MM estimate from 2016. Hopefully that sticks. I know this is Washington County's baby, but I could see Ramsey County get cold feet if the budget goes off the rails...it's pretty clear that Riverview is a higher priority for the County. I suppose some of that depends on the funding split between Ramsey and Washington.

Some of the station locations still need a lot of work (ahem, 3M), and I think there are several areas of the line where they are planning dedicated lanes that aren't really necessary due to minimal traffic congestion...there would seem to be some room for cost-savings in Oakdale & Woodbury that would be better spent on local bus connections, pedestrian & bike connections, etc.

Quoting myself from last February...there does seem to be a few intersections with completely unnecessary grade separation or dedicated lanes that could be looked at for cost savings. I can't imagine the added time would impact it too much.