Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[alexschief]

I made a mental health decision to stop caring about this project years ago because I had said my piece and it was clear how this effort would ultimately end up. Still, plenty of people have good reason to be frustrated about the years that were wasted on an obviously infeasible plan.

However, people should not make the same mistake that this project's political backers made of seeing a rapid bus line as something that would preclude later rail investment. In fact, the reverse is true; a successful rapid bus line would strengthen the case for a rail line in the future by demonstrating and growing ridership in the corridor, which would then be reflected by stronger scores in the federal capital investment grand process.

Had the original B Line aBRT opened in this corridor years ago, Ramsey County would be closer to realizing its dream of Riverview rail than they are today. Unfortunately key decision makers were both poorly advised and poor advocates, doubling down on this insane plan to spend $3 billion dollars on a project that would've decreased service resilience and increased transit travel times, and never ever was going to get funding from the FTA.

How many BRT lines in this country have been converted to rail? It would take decades, if ever, for a Riverview (a)BRT to be converted to rail. It's not like the stations that are built for (a)BRT can easily be used by trains as well.

You're getting caught up in the terminology.

Just about every successful rail investment in the US was first served by a successful high-frequency bus line, whether or not it had any fancy branding attached to it. It's true that, should they build aBRT Stations along West 7th, then Ramsey County/Metro Transit may have to eat some cost ($10 million, say) when a rail line is built. But were that the case, nobody would cry about it because they'll have just won a $1.5 billion dollar grant from the federal government in large part because that aBRT investment was what made Riverview competitive in the first place.

Ramsey County saved millions in order to lose billions, a classic penny-wise and pound-foolish strategy.

(Moreover, you're probably only going to waste half of your station curbs because you could easily then move your Riverview aBRT route onto Randolph when your Riverview rail starts operating.)

[DanPatchToget]

I made a mental health decision to stop caring about this project years ago because I had said my piece and it was clear how this effort would ultimately end up. Still, plenty of people have good reason to be frustrated about the years that were wasted on an obviously infeasible plan.

However, people should not make the same mistake that this project's political backers made of seeing a rapid bus line as something that would preclude later rail investment. In fact, the reverse is true; a successful rapid bus line would strengthen the case for a rail line in the future by demonstrating and growing ridership in the corridor, which would then be reflected by stronger scores in the federal capital investment grand process.

Had the original B Line aBRT opened in this corridor years ago, Ramsey County would be closer to realizing its dream of Riverview rail than they are today. Unfortunately key decision makers were both poorly advised and poor advocates, doubling down on this insane plan to spend $3 billion dollars on a project that would've decreased service resilience and increased transit travel times, and never ever was going to get funding from the FTA.

How many BRT lines in this country have been converted to rail? It would take decades, if ever, for a Riverview (a)BRT to be converted to rail. It's not like the stations that are built for (a)BRT can easily be used by trains as well.

You're getting caught up in the terminology.

Just about every successful rail investment in the US was first served by a successful high-frequency bus line, whether or not it had any fancy branding attached to it. It's true that, should they build aBRT Stations along West 7th, then Ramsey County/Metro Transit may have to eat some cost ($10 million, say) when a rail line is built. But were that the case, nobody would cry about it because they'll have just won a $1.5 billion dollar grant from the federal government in large part because that aBRT investment was what made Riverview competitive in the first place.

Ramsey County saved millions in order to lose billions, a classic penny-wise and pound-foolish strategy.

(Moreover, you're probably only going to waste half of your station curbs because you could easily then move your Riverview aBRT route onto Randolph when your Riverview rail starts operating.)

Route 54 is already a successful high-frequency bus line, and upgrading it to (a)BRT in the near future isn't going to save money for a longer term upgrade to rail. In fact it would be more expensive because of inflation.

[StandishGuy]

For those who are advocating for the streetcar option, what makes it superior to ABRT/ BRT? It seems that speed, reliability and capacity are limited by the decisions already made like mixed right-of-way service, lack of signal priority and the choice of two car trains. Beyond "rail bias" and the potential for a smoother ride, what makes the streetcar worth billions more?

IMO it seems like St. Paul, Ramsey County, etc. are unwilling to make decisions that would make the streetcar not only better than the bus, but faster and more reliable than driving. It's demonstrated by the Green Line which is painfully slow and runs along a bleak University Avenue streetscape.

[DanPatchToget]

I'll let my article on Riverview answer that: https://streets.mn/2022/11/09/riverview ... streetcar/

[mattaudio]

I'm curious what's better...
- "Streetcar" LRVs in mixed traffic, lack of signal priority, and other hobbling factors BUT with dual-track ROW
- Traditional LRT-spec with minimized grade crossings, TSP or railroad signals, 3+ LRV trains, and strategic grade separation BUT with significant single-track segments.

[kellonathan]

I would say, the second one (more dedicated ROW + grade separation w/ single tracking) is much better than the mixed traffic double-track option. Once you have a reliable and predictable service, you can rely on the sidings to maximize your service level.

Ottawa's Line 2 (Trillium Line) comes to mind. They essentially (used to) run 15-min service on mostly single-track alignment.

[Hero]

What ridership mark would Riverview BRT need to hit for a LRT conversion? The D line is already at half the Blue line's ridership and I haven't heard anything about converting the D line to rail. Personally I'm in favour of a Riverview BRT since ridership of the 54 is less than half of route 5. If I remember correctly route 54 has roughly the same ridership as route 14 which I don't believe is in consideration for a rail or brt upgrade that I know of.

[alexschief]

I'm curious what's better...
- "Streetcar" LRVs in mixed traffic, lack of signal priority, and other hobbling factors BUT with dual-track ROW
- Traditional LRT-spec with minimized grade crossings, TSP or railroad signals, 3+ LRV trains, and strategic grade separation BUT with significant single-track segments.

In a vacuum where your choice is locked in stone, you'd choose the second option. In the reality in which we live, you'd choose the first, because it's much much much easier to ban cars from a lane and update signals than it is to redo the design to build a second track.

Changing policy is quick and cheap, changing concrete is expensive and slow.

What ridership mark would Riverview BRT need to hit for a LRT conversion? The D line is already at half the Blue line's ridership and I haven't heard anything about converting the D line to rail. Personally I'm in favour of a Riverview BRT since ridership of the 54 is less than half of route 5. If I remember correctly route 54 has roughly the same ridership as route 14 which I don't believe is in consideration for a rail or brt upgrade that I know of.

I'd say that if you can get the models to show 20-25k weekday riders, then you might be able to justify a project costing upwards of $3 billion based on rider per capital dollar comps with other FTA-funded projects.

But it's not really about what ridership the aBRT gets, it's more that you are hoping that the aBRT spurs increased development.

[Hero]

Is development alone enough to create the desired ridership? From what I can tell bus connections really add to ridership. For example, 46th st station has significantly more riders than Cedar Riverside despite the density advantage. Unfortunately west 7th runs parallel to the river so I'm not expecting a lot of bus transfers.

[Tiller]

We should honesty strengthen the North-South bus routes in that part of Saint Paul. Once Riverview is actually built, then they all could connect all the way south to Riverview!

[Hero]

I don't see much room for north/south routes in the area. 35E basically blocks most north/south roads. Victoria crosses 35E north/south but for whatever reason ends just north of 35E. To the west of 35E I see a mile and a half with almost no north/south roads. Maybe bring the A line down Snelling to connect with Riverview but I feel that would be a major downgrade from following Ford Parkway.

[MNdible]

35E sits at the base of a giant bluff line for most of its route through west St. Paul, and that's what is and has historically blocked the north-south routes.

[Tiller]

We've got the 87, the 83, and the 65 Buses! All three of them connect to the greenline and travel further north. The 83 and 87 buses already connect with W 7th, while the 65 bus stops short of it. All of them would be more useful if they connected to Riverview and if they were more frequent!

If one day Dakota County (aka south of the River) were to have it's bus network reformed and reworked like Houston did - into a useful grid of local bus service - instead of the minimal coverage mess it has right now, maybe there could be connections across the Smith Ave, 35E, and Mendota bridges from the south. But that's nothing but a fantasy today.

[Tcmetro]

The CAC & PAC meetings that were scheduled for this month have been pushed back to "late summer".

[Hero]

We've got the 87, the 83, and the 65 Buses! All three of them connect to the greenline and travel further north. The 83 and 87 buses already connect with W 7th, while the 65 bus stops short of it. All of them would be more useful if they connected to Riverview and if they were more frequent!

If one day Dakota County (aka south of the River) were to have it's bus network reformed and reworked like Houston did - into a useful grid of local bus service - instead of the minimal coverage mess it has right now, maybe there could be connections across the Smith Ave, 35E, and Mendota bridges from the south. But that's nothing but a fantasy today.

I could see people on those north/south routes transferring to get to the airport or MOA but if they are going downtown St Paul I'd imagine they would transfer to the Green or B line (21) or routes 74 or 63 instead of taking Riverview.

The road layout and density south of the river doesn't look good for transit. I'd imagine increasing frequency in St Paul would pay much larger dividends than extending these routes south of the river. With the possible exception of the commercial area near 494/35e.

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.

[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.

[Tiller]

I could see people on those north/south routes transferring to get to the airport or MOA but if they are going downtown St Paul I'd imagine they would transfer to the Green or B line (21) or routes 74 or 63 instead of taking Riverview.

That's true in terms of the end points, though ofc transit is also about serving all the places between the end points, too!

Those crosstown routes just aren't as useful/reliable right now due to their limited frequencies and spans of service. Beefing them up would boost all of the E-W transit routes that intersect them, and Riverview would be a great anchor for them all.

A positive feedback loop of network effects!!

[twincitizen]

The CAC & PAC meetings that were scheduled for this month have been pushed back to "late summer".

Can anyone with an insider's view provide a sense for how seriously they are considering a "better bus" alternative? Since the onset of this study in 2017, it's been pretty clear that the Ramsey County Board was all-in on rail. Bus alternatives were never seriously considered, at least not any more than the bare minimum level of consideration required by an alternatives analysis. Hell or high water, Rafael Ortega was going to get rail on West 7th.

I'm picking up this faint sense that the pandemic has perhaps shifted things back towards...reality... and Ramsey County may be more open to moving ahead with BRT in the corridor. Look, I want rail here as much as anyone, but this line was always going to carry an enormous price tag relative to its potential ridership. I'm wondering if post-pandemic updated ridership projections, combined with astronomical costs of a river crossing, have made it apparent that this project has little hopes of receiving a strong rating from the FTA, so they are kind of quietly reintroducing the bus alternative. Any truth to that?

[Tcmetro]

MnDot is also pushing forward with the W 7th St access changes and repaving, and said that Riverview would have to rebuild everything if they go through with the streetcar. I would also imagine that the complexity of reconfiguring the 5/62 interchange is a huge obstacle.

The better bus alternative was brought up at the most recent Station Area Planning meeting, which is interesting because in my mind it is the most minor of the different committees. The other meetings have been pushed back which suggests to me that some major decisions or modifications are being ironed out before bringing forward to the public.

[Hero]

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.