Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[Tiller]

I will personally beg MNDOT to allow Highway 5 to go down to two lanes so Riverview can have dedicated ROW across the river.

Like someone mentioned upthread, we need to make like a dedicated neighborhood group/lobbying group for this. Highway 5 needs to go down to 2 lanes.

[seanrichardryan]

Let's organize!

[thespeedmccool]

Let's organize!

Honestly, if one assembled a broad "Get MNDOT to support transit more" I would join.

[mamundsen]

Is this down to 2 lanes for the entire length river to Downtown??? It should be!

I’m still wishing this was interlined with the Purple as MOA to White Bear Lake.

[StandishGuy]

Ridership projections of 12,000 per day and costing $1+ billion is pathetic. I believe the Gold Line has projections of around 10,000 per day for BRT at a cost of $530+ million. There have got to be more impactful transit improvements that can be done with such large amounts of money. ABRT has flaws like not having dedicated right of way, but at least it costs a fraction and has been shown to make a meaningful impact on the quality and speed of bus routes.

IMO investments of anywhere near $1 billion should result in ridership numbers of 25,000 per day or more, which is itself meager compared to world-class transit systems. The transit mode share in the MSP region is tiny and I fear Riverview isn't going to meaningfully move the needle.

[thespeedmccool]

There's an argument that the Riverview corridor is ultimately flawed in concept regardless of mode. Of the three legs of the triangle, it is incredibly obviously the weakest.

I like mamundsen's thought: fold this in with Purple Line planning as a future extension to Purple. Make it as much dedicated BRT as possible, but there's inherently less pressure for dedicated ROW for a bus than a train.

Another thing the Gold Line has that Riverview doesn't is the improvement for riders/the transit dependent. The eastern suburbs basically do not have transit at all today. Gold Line is planned to be the spine for a new local bus network. Riverview is a billion dollar replacement for a presently reliable bus corridor.

In any event, a billion for adeeply flawed line with 12,000 daily riders and little added value in terms of connectivity or improved service is terrible. Back to the drawing board.

[Tcmetro]

I think that Riverview should be a train line. Downtown St. Paul, Airport, and MOA are all strong nodes to connect.

I just think that the Riverview line should be implemented with fewer compromises than what's been presented so far.

[Trademark]

I think a small single track section isn't the end of the world as long as there's dedicated right of way throughout.

[DanPatchToget]

Ridership projections of 12,000 per day and costing $1+ billion is pathetic. I believe the Gold Line has projections of around 10,000 per day for BRT at a cost of $530+ million. There have got to be more impactful transit improvements that can be done with such large amounts of money. ABRT has flaws like not having dedicated right of way, but at least it costs a fraction and has been shown to make a meaningful impact on the quality and speed of bus routes.

IMO investments of anywhere near $1 billion should result in ridership numbers of 25,000 per day or more, which is itself meager compared to world-class transit systems. The transit mode share in the MSP region is tiny and I fear Riverview isn't going to meaningfully move the needle.

According to this the Gold Line ridership is projected to be 6,550 by 2040. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.d ... e-FY22.pdf

I usually take ridership projections with a grain of salt, and I expect Riverview will be at least slightly higher than 12,000 during its first year of operations.

[Oreos&Milk]

Some notes from the CAC meeting tonight that I'm typing out while they're fresh in my mind from the meeting:
-both MOA and the city don't want Riverview included with the existing grade crossing at 24th Avenue & Old Shakopee Road considering the already long wait times with the Blue Line
-two options are being considered for relocation of the light rail station at MOA, both are next to 82nd Street & 24th Avenue, one is an at-grade station (Option 1) and one is an elevated station (Option 2)
-both options would have four tracks and two platforms, one platform for Riverview and one platform for the Blue Line
-Option 1 has a pedestrian skyway across 24th Avenue to connect to the existing transit station and MOA
-Option 2 has the platforms above 24th Avenue, and there would be access to the existing transit station and MOA
-the existing Highway 5 tunnel under Fort Snelling must be used, no widening of the existing tunnel or a brand new tunnel through there
-two options are being considered for Riverview using the existing tunnel, both include keeping four lanes, the first option has mixed-traffic operation across the bridge and trains operating in the middle lanes, while the second option has single-track dedicated ROW operation for Riverview on the north side of the bridge and tunnel
-both options would include removing the ramp from westbound 62/55 to airport-bound Highway 5 and filling in that land
-the first option would require trains to cross airport-bound Highway 5 at-grade, so traffic and/or railroad crossing signals would be installed
-the second option would have a single-track segment for half a mile or three-quarters of a mile

For MOA Station I like Option 2 the most. According to the presentation the travel time from 28th Avenue to the bus platforms at the transit center would be slightly shorter than the existing alignment, but the amount of walking between the elevated light rail platform and the transit center would be longer (I believe it was 44 seconds of walking with the existing alignment vs 2 minutes of walking with Option 2).

For the Highway 5 Tunnel I like the second option, though if it were up to me it would be double-track dedicated ROW and two car lanes. However, the single-track segment is very short, and I'd rather have dedicated ROW than trying to shoehorn trains with cars on that bridge and tunnel.

Here's the packet for the 10/21 PAC meeting, with visualizations for everything described above: https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... tation.pdf

Gotta say, I am relieved to see the MOA station plans actually make a ton of sense and they eliminated all the bad options. My biggest source of relief is that all options (1, 2, 4 and 8) would serve both Riverview and the Blue Line, making it clear they are not considering separate train platforms for each line. Clearly there must be some push from MOA and/or the owner of the vacant / state fair parking lot to abandon the current trackage around that property. I think it's completely understandable that I expected the worst here (e.g. building a new platform for Riverview, but keeping the Blue Line on the current trackage & platform in the transit center, etc.)

I think that’s actually a good idea keep blue line on its existing track and build part of the riverview MOA station, then when that lot gets developed MOA can help to not pay for it as well. They just got a fancy upgrade on that station! It’s connected directly into the MOA now and now we’re talking about building it outside of the parking ramp and making riders climb stairs to a skyway and then cross the street? Yikes! It’s making it completely worse again..

No let MOA get a plan in place to develop that lot into a skyway connected segment of the mall the old southwest anchor can be a development connection into the MOA while also having a connection directly to the transit station. THEN the station investment would be worth its weight in gold!

Imagine how sad waiting for a train would be during the winter cold.. on a cold windy elevated station outside overlooking a crumbling parking mostly empty parking lot.. yea.. sure the trains layover and you can wait inside the train but still.. it’s better to hold off until that lot is developed and at grade might be best could even build above it as well. Doubt they would but would be nice to have better protect from the elements like the green line extension terminus will.

[commissioner]

Didn't Metro Transit try this exact design when the Blue line was first proposed and got shot down by the FTA? Why can't it end at the existing mall station?

[Mdcastle]

The stated reason is more trains crossing 24th would degrade intersection operations too much.

IRC the original concept was for the Blue Line to end in the MOA. The Mall originally said no because they were afraid of park and hiders using their ramps, so we got the skyway proposal, then they changed their mind and we got what we have today.

[tmart]

The stated reason is more trains crossing 24th would degrade intersection operations too much.

IRC the original concept was for the Blue Line to end in the MOA. The Mall originally said no because they were afraid of park and hiders using their ramps, so we got the skyway proposal, then they changed their mind and we got what we have today.

And I think that's also how we ended up with the pointless 28th Avenue Station just a quarter-mile from the mall and a quarter-mile from Bloomington Central. Had to have a separate, public ramp next to the enormous, mostly-empty private ramps.

It seems like in a better alternate universe we would've just paid the mall to let some of the excess capacity in their ramps serve as park-and-ride for the LRT. That could've been a win-win-win: the mall turns dead weight parking into cash; Metro saves money on construction; and the Blue Line would be better with a more direct route, fewer redundant stops in Bloomington, and a better integration into the mall.

I'm guessing the planning environment in the late 90s was still very much "more parking == better" though.

[twincitizen]

The stated reason is more trains crossing 24th would degrade intersection operations too much.

IRC the original concept was for the Blue Line to end in the MOA. The Mall originally said no because they were afraid of park and hiders using their ramps, so we got the skyway proposal, then they changed their mind and we got what we have today.

And I think that's also how we ended up with the pointless 28th Avenue Station just a quarter-mile from the mall and a quarter-mile from Bloomington Central. Had to have a separate, public ramp next to the enormous, mostly-empty private ramps.

It seems like in a better alternate universe we would've just paid the mall to let some of the excess capacity in their ramps serve as park-and-ride for the LRT. That could've been a win-win-win: the mall turns dead weight parking into cash; Metro saves money on construction; and the Blue Line would be better with a more direct route, fewer redundant stops in Bloomington, and a better integration into the mall.

I'm guessing the planning environment in the late 90s was still very much "more parking == better" though.

And yet, despite all of the mall's best efforts (/s I think they put up a couple of cheap signs), if you go to the Mall before/after a Vikings home game, you see crowds of people walking around the mall in their Vikings jerseys who are clearly park&riding from the Mall, and not 28th Avenue Station.

[Tom H.]

...you see crowds of people walking around the mall in their Vikings jerseys who are clearly park&riding from the Mall...

Something tells me it wasn't that kind of park-and-hider they were worried about.

[BigIdeasGuy]

In an ideal world everything south of 494 should be up for discussion and rerouting. The current route has ended up being an inefficient mess that has been caused by the need to put on band aid after band aid from short sided and narrow minded decision after decision. If you asked 100 area stakeholders to draw an ideal route & stations from 494 to MOA literally zero of them would have drawn what we currently have.

The only real way to fix it is by starting over, I'm not sure what the ideal result is but almost anything has to be better than what exists right now.

[DanPatchToget]

The stated reason is more trains crossing 24th would degrade intersection operations too much.

IRC the original concept was for the Blue Line to end in the MOA. The Mall originally said no because they were afraid of park and hiders using their ramps, so we got the skyway proposal, then they changed their mind and we got what we have today.

And I think that's also how we ended up with the pointless 28th Avenue Station just a quarter-mile from the mall and a quarter-mile from Bloomington Central. Had to have a separate, public ramp next to the enormous, mostly-empty private ramps.

It seems like in a better alternate universe we would've just paid the mall to let some of the excess capacity in their ramps serve as park-and-ride for the LRT. That could've been a win-win-win: the mall turns dead weight parking into cash; Metro saves money on construction; and the Blue Line would be better with a more direct route, fewer redundant stops in Bloomington, and a better integration into the mall.

I'm guessing the planning environment in the late 90s was still very much "more parking == better" though.

Bold of you to think the planning environment isn't like that now. [looks at Gold Line]

[HiawathaGuy]

In an ideal world everything south of 494 should be up for discussion and rerouting. The current route has ended up being an inefficient mess that has been caused by the need to put on band aid after band aid from short sided and narrow minded decision after decision. If you asked 100 area stakeholders to draw an ideal route & stations from 494 to MOA literally zero of them would have drawn what we currently have.

The only real way to fix it is by starting over, I'm not sure what the ideal result is but almost anything has to be better than what exists right now.

I think it's important to realize that things won't be starting over. First, we can't even get money to extend Northstar to St. Cloud or anything else at the State level because of the Republicans in the Senate. Without a change there, any discussion of starting over is moot. Second, the developer of Bloomington Center Station, McGough, spent millions of their own money to embed the rail through the property, which they are still working to build out. Third, US Rep. Martin Sabo helped secure $43m additional federal dollars for the MOA connection as it stands today. Don't get me wrong, can it be improved, yes. Should it be improved, yes. But I don't think it's as horrific to the overall line's success. Riverview does present new challenges and maybe something will happen to allow the planned station to be made better. But changing anything from 494 to MOA aside from where the line ends, won't be happening anytime soon.

[DanPatchToget]

We could've had another station added between MOA and Terminal 2. The Hiawatha Line was designed with a future station at 75th Street called "Northwest Airlines Station". Five stops in just Bloomington (the Northwest Station is just across the border but I'm counting it) would make the Blue Line incredibly slow.

If the MOA platforms do get relocated for Riverview, I wonder if there will be any willingness to consider closing the 28th Avenue platforms, and park & riders can walk to either MOA or Bloomington Central (both a 5-6 minute walk from 28th). Maybe add a canopy covering the walkway between 28th and Bloomington Central so the walk isn't as bad during rain/slow.

[Oreos&Milk]

The stated reason is more trains crossing 24th would degrade intersection operations too much.

IRC the original concept was for the Blue Line to end in the MOA. The Mall originally said no because they were afraid of park and hiders using their ramps, so we got the skyway proposal, then they changed their mind and we got what we have today.

And I think that's also how we ended up with the pointless 28th Avenue Station just a quarter-mile from the mall and a quarter-mile from Bloomington Central. Had to have a separate, public ramp next to the enormous, mostly-empty private ramps.

It seems like in a better alternate universe we would've just paid the mall to let some of the excess capacity in their ramps serve as park-and-ride for the LRT. That could've been a win-win-win: the mall turns dead weight parking into cash; Metro saves money on construction; and the Blue Line would be better with a more direct route, fewer redundant stops in Bloomington, and a better integration into the mall.

I'm guessing the planning environment in the late 90s was still very much "more parking == better" though.

Well said transit riders usually park during business hours and mall shoppers usually park in the evenings .. not rocket science to see the low overlap could benefit the mall plus those commuters could easily become shoppers or be included into the mall visitors numbers.

The MOA lost a great opportunity to better fill mostly empty parking lots in the mornings as I even recall a story about how shoppers will judge the store ( in this case the mall)by how full the parking lot is with cars.

Same reason why they want a water park they want more people passing through those doors.

I would say maybe someday the mall will expand outward that far that it will eventually be combined into the MOA footprint.. might be a fantasy, given all the set backs on expansion projects but I think it’s definitely within reason to see it in linked together in some proposal.. not counting the Amazon phase 2 pitch..