Gold Line BRT (Gateway Corridor)

[DanPatchToget]

Is there an expected date for groundbreaking yet? If this is going to open by 2024 I would think construction has to start sometime next year.

[Tcmetro]

60% design plans open for public comment through 10/16/2020. A video of the latest changes to the plans is available on the project page.

https://www.metrotransit.org/gold-line- ... ngineering

[tmart]

The price of this thing is going up to $532M to add more parking spaces at stations, in an attempt to boost the FTA project rating.

https://www.startribune.com/gold-line-b ... 600009761/

I'm increasingly convinced this one needs to go back to the drawing board. When we're throwing parking spaces at the problem to try and get the ridership numbers to clear the bare minimum thresholds for matching funding, that's just not a recipe for good transit.

If we're spending half a billion dollars, let's tack a few stops onto the eastern end of the Green Line and offer better quality service to the first-ring spots (and maybe 3M) where the ridership potential is obvious. Or alternatively, let's build 10 aBRT lines--give, say, 3 of 'em to the Eastside to compensate--and make a quantum leap in our transit grid coverage.

[DanPatchToget]

The St. Paul Green Line facility is a major roadblock (or in this case a rail block) to extending the Green Line east, though maybe it could simply realign from 4th to Prince Street next to the Green Line facility. Then after turning onto Kellogg the Green Line could go where ever into the East Side. Or the more permanent but expensive solution of tunneling under Downtown St. Paul, which would replace the at-grade alignment. Either way I would be on board with an eastern extension of the Green Line into the East Side. I've kept an open mind to the Gold Line ever since they chose BRT for it, but east of 3M there just isn't a good way of serving that area with rapid transit whether it's bus or rail. How about Woodbury puts in serious effort to turn Woodbury Village and/or Tamarack Village from a sea of parking into mixed-use development and then we'll see about rapid transit going out there.

[alexschief]

Just a massive, massive indictment of FTA New Starts funding formulas.

Park and rides are a short term strategy, they're not a long term solution for ridership. We know what builds ridership over time, and it's housing and jobs and activities close to transit. Park and rides take up space that could otherwise be more productively used, and they put those productive uses further away from the stations.

I doubt that any Buttigeig-DOT reform would be in time to save this project from this stupid math, but I'd like to believe it might be possible.

[Silophant]

Would converting a couple lanes of 94 to MnPass, adding a 46th St-style station at Snelling (I know that the bridge was just redecked five years ago) and extending it to Minneapolis to replace the 94 juice ridership as much as these parking spaces for a fraction of the cost, or is this the same FTA math that got us 3A over 3C for SWLRT, because the couple hundred brand new riders lured in by zooming through Kenwood were considered more valuable than the couple thousand existing bus riders coming from Uptown?

[talindsay]

If we're spending half a billion dollars, let's tack a few stops onto the eastern end of the Green Line and offer better quality service to the first-ring spots (and maybe 3M) where the ridership potential is obvious. Or alternatively, let's build 10 aBRT lines--give, say, 3 of 'em to the Eastside to compensate--and make a quantum leap in our transit grid coverage.

I'd think that Ramsey County could extend the Green Line to Metro State with local funds only, fairly quickly, and meet a good portion of the need over there. Once that short extension was finished, they could then apply for a New Starts grant to extend it on to 3M, using the local cost of the extension to Metro State as the local match. They could build a large park-and-ride adjacent to the 3M station and I bet they'd meet 90% of the total Gold Line usage, while bringing much higher quality service to the core facilities on the line.

[Trademark]

If we're spending half a billion dollars, let's tack a few stops onto the eastern end of the Green Line and offer better quality service to the first-ring spots (and maybe 3M) where the ridership potential is obvious. Or alternatively, let's build 10 aBRT lines--give, say, 3 of 'em to the Eastside to compensate--and make a quantum leap in our transit grid coverage.

I don't get why rail would be higher quality except for the ability to have a one seat ride especially with the tight turns that would be required to get out of downtown

I'd think that Ramsey County could extend the Green Line to Metro State with local funds only, fairly quickly, and meet a good portion of the need over there. Once that short extension was finished, they could then apply for a New Starts grant to extend it on to 3M, using the local cost of the extension to Metro State as the local match. They could build a large park-and-ride adjacent to the 3M station and I bet they'd meet 90% of the total Gold Line usage, while bringing much higher quality service to the core facilities on the line.