Riverview Corridor B̶u̶s̶ S̶t̶r̶e̶e̶t̶c̶a̶r̶ Bus

[twincitizen]

MnDOT is interested in turning back West 7th to city or county ownership. It could be that just the portion east of 35E gets turned back or possibly the whole corridor from downtown all the way to the bridge.

Would this involve re-routing MN-5 onto Shepard Rd? This has always felt like such a simple swap, but I'm sure there's some historical or legal reason why it can't happen. (Hopefully, as a state highway, Shepard Rd could be put into a state of good repair, which it clearly is not as a city street.)

It wasn’t a big point of discussion, but I would guess probably not. My guess is if MnDOT were to turn back all of West 7th to the county or city after rebuilding it, they’re not going to take ownership of another street, especially one in such dire need of reconstruction. Furthermore, I don’t think turning Shepard Rd into more of a highway is consistent with St. Paul’s vision and plans for the river. I assume St. Paul would prefer to someday rebuild Shepard as a slower, “parkway style” street.

[Silophant]

My understanding is that the sticking point with rerouting MN-5 onto Shepard is that Shepard doesn't have a full interchange with 35E, just the southern half of a diamond. I guess a turnback would include just officially truncating it at the Mississippi River Blvd interchange at the east side of the bridge?

[Mdcastle]

No historical or legal or reason. In fact at least at one time, the goal was to have trunk highway correspond to principal arterials / NHS segments. Shepard / Warner east of 35E is both, 7th is neither. Besides inertia and needing to negotiate, problems are:

1) There's not really any momentum for moving the direct connection from the bridge from 7th to Shepard, despite there being underutilzed land available to do so.

2) Despite it's current condition, about 20 years ago St Paul's vision for Shepard seems to have shifted to be more like some quaint idyllic parkway rather than as a major state highway designed to serve the needs of people in cars. Back in the 80s there was even a plan for an interchange at Chestnut.

[twincitizen]

For those that haven't been thinking about how to rework this area for a decade or more, we have an old thread with links and maps (both fantasy and from an actual study): viewtopic.php?t=466

Even with the shift in the vision for Shepard Rd (parkway, not highway), it still makes perfect sense to rework the roads in this area, both to remove some vehicle traffic from 7th and to build out a street grid for future development of all the vacant & underutilized land around here.

[J. Mc]

https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetin ... nfo-1.aspx

The New W 7th Corridor Concept overview and engagement summary presentation for the 5/12/25 Transportation Committee

- Overall it appears there's decent support for this concept
- A new multi-use trail conversion of the CP spur seems to be another 'carrot' to leverage support for more dedicated guideway BRT improvements vs. ABRT = no trail
- The final slide touches on the need to make some decisions quickly given some of the related project deadlines.

[MSPtoMKE]

Assuming that the Purple Line gets built in some form, it seems like it would make a lot of sense to combine this with it, instead of having both end at Union Depot.

[J. Mc]

Assuming that the Purple Line gets built in some form, it seems like it would make a lot of sense to combine this with it, instead of having both end at Union Depot.

As long as both are running in mostly dedicated ROW and total end to end travel time isn't too much I agree. I'd just hate to see service get kneecapped on one 'line' due to routine delays piling up on the other.

Another issue with this corridor as a BRT that really needs to be addressed during planning is the bottleneck at MSP Silver Ramp GTC. The bus stop area there in current form is really struggling to accommodate 54-wb, 54/M-eb, 495, 686L/X, BluBu-sb, BluBu-nb, Airport shuttle bus, and Delta Flight Crew. That's eight different services potentially arriving within minutes of each other in a designated bus stop area designed to accommodate 2 buses. It may be as simple as moving the Delta shuttle over to a designated stall in the diagonal spots to free up curb capacity for a separate designated stop area for the R line (or whatever it'll be). Something should be done though.

[twincitizen]

No news regarding the current plans, but Ramsey County Board took action to reallocate the $730 million in county funds planned for Riverview Streetcar to other projects, and the West 7th corridor was not included.

PiPress article: https://www.yahoo.com/news/ramsey-count ... 00838.html
Board action on Transit and Transportation Investment Plan: https://ramseycountymn.legistar.com/Leg ... 351331D3F0

It seems Ramsey County is not planning to participate in the new 7th Street corridor project, or at least not yet. As I mentioned before, the County's logo is not found anywhere on the new plan materials. That's pretty alarming!

I assume Ramsey County still has sales tax dollars allocated to the Purple Line project, which is not officially dead. That project transitioned from county-led to Metro Transit several years ago and currently lacks support from Maplewood for either routing (Bruce Vento ROW or White Bear Ave). It remains to be seen what Metro Transit will decide to do with the Purple Line...it seems to be in limbo with no updates since Maplewood withdrew support last year. If Purple Line is formally withdrawn, then I suppose it is possible that Ramsey County could allocate some transit sales tax dollars to the West 7th project, but the vibe I'm picking up is that they don't seem keen to do so.

I'm sure the Ramsey County Board members still support making transit improvements in the West 7th Corridor, but I don't understand what exactly they're trying to pull. Do they think the project is going to proceed with only MnDOT, Met Council, and city funding, so they're just stepping back and saying "not our job"? The staff at Metro Transit and St. Paul are very clear that they hope the County comes back to the table. It's all very weird. This corridor is a huge regional priority and the new plans are effectively "defederalized". So why is Ramsey County seemingly backing away from the corridor entirely?

[BikesOnFilm]

$150 million going to RiversEdge, which is cool.

Also a sum for transit signal priority implementation. Too much to hope that some of that would be on the Green Line?

[MNdible]

...the vibe I'm picking up is that they don't seem keen to do so.

I'm sure the Ramsey County Board members still support making transit improvements in the West 7th Corridor, but I don't understand what exactly they're trying to pull. Do they think the project is going to proceed with only MnDOT, Met Council, and city funding, so they're just stepping back and saying "not our job"? The staff at Metro Transit and St. Paul are very clear that they hope the County comes back to the table. It's all very weird. This corridor is a huge regional priority and the new plans are effectively "defederalized". So why is Ramsey County seemingly backing away from the corridor entirely?

I think they got their feelings hurt, after they worked so hard on the Riverview and nobody appreciated that. So know they're going to take their money and spend it elsewhere.

Didn't Hennepin County also have a significant chunk of money dedicated for Riverview (not because very much of it exists in Hennepin County, but because they were the ones with money to spend)?

[blo442]

Reallocating $250 million to interchange improvements. Ramsey County really said "my way or the highway".

[BigIdeasGuy]

I guess I'm missing what everyone wants Ramsey County to do? Try again and spend another 10 years and millions of dollars trying to rework a plan that they were already told no on? They tried to get something positive done but were told no by the community & partners, okay, so they moved on and reallocated the money.

If someone else was able to pull off a plan politically they could tell them pound sand but in the mean time it would irresponsible to just let funds sit around collecting 1% interest on the hope someone else is able going to get a new plan in place.

[twincitizen]

What I want Ramsey County to do is pledge to fund at least 40% of the capital costs of the new BRT project. That's it. MnDOT will still be funding the bulk of the road work, and the project becomes more of a reconstruction than simple mill & overlay. Saint Paul would be funding the non-transit aspects of the project like the trail. Met Council would be funding or seeking federal funding for the buses. With the entire project estimated to cost $450-550 million, it's entirely reasonable to expect that Ramsey County would chip in say $200 million of the (at least) $730 million they were planning to put towards the streetcar.

The fact of the matter is that without Ramsey County's participation in this project, it's going to be downgraded to Arterial BRT instead of (at least partially) being guideway BRT. If Ramsey County doesn't agree to bring their transit sales tax funds to the table, MnDOT is going to proceed with a mill & overlay of West 7th in a few years, and Metro Transit will have scramble just to get infrastructure for future ABRT stations included in that project. No acquisition of the Ford Spur ROW, no trail, fewer transit advantages, slightly slower trip times.

The vision that St. Paul and Metro Transit have put together in a short amount of time is really impressive, and some decisions need to be made very quickly or the plan falls apart. Ramsey County is being weird about it and not saying why they aren't participating! These partner agencies are not the reason the streetcar isn't happening. MAC might've helped kill the streetcar, but the main reason is the costs were way out of control for something that didn't make a trip to the airport any faster.

Edit: Board Action for June 10 meeting with some documents that may be of interest. Lots of public comments from pissed off West 7th residents who feel betrayed after participating in the streetcar public input process for years, only for the county to slap them in the face. https://ramseycountymn.legistar.com/Leg ... s=&Search=

[BikesOnFilm]

Arterial BRT would be fine, though. And if we can do that for $50m, I don’t blame Ramsey County for not seeing the point in spending $250m on a slightly fancier bus.

[twincitizen]

Arterial BRT would likely be closer to $100 million, not including MnDOT's mill & overlay project costs. So it's still going to wind up costing upwards of $150-200 million. I'd rather see the larger investment in this corridor that's closer to a full reconstruction, reworks some complicated/unsafe intersections, and also builds a critical regional trail connection along the rail ROW.

[angrysuburbanite]

I think packaging it as a “corridor improvement project” rather than just “a BRT line” would do better in terms of publicity since this plan benefits all modes of transportation in the corridor.

[twincitizen]

Some bad news:
On June 10 the Ramsey County board passed their spending plan unanimously without dedicating any funds to West 7th. My view is that this action was largely staff-driven, not a political directive coming from the board. The Public Works Director basically said "this is a state road with an ABRT line and a city trail project, and we don't fund that". That's technically true, but it still feels like a big slap in the face to transit riders and the West 7th community. The sales tax proceeds being rededicated to county road projects was originally dedicated to transit corridors, and the county was previously going to spend over $700 million in this corridor. It's the county's fault that Metro Transit was prevented from opening the B Line on West 7th a decade ago. They reiterated that they weren't ruling out, and the plan can be amended. Bottom line, if the county does contribute to West 7th BRT, I expect it will be miniscule, like 10% or less. Meeting video has been added: https://ramseycountymn.legistar.com/Leg ... s=&Search=

Some good news:
The transportation bill authorized Met Council to loan MnDOT up to $250 million total for construction of bus rapid transit on Central (F Line) and West 7th.

Subd. 2a. Use of funds; Metropolitan Council; loan authorizations and requirements; coordinated corridor projects.

(a) For purposes of this subdivision and subdivision 2b, the following terms have the meanings given:

(1) "corridor projects" means roadway improvements and trunk highway construction and reconstruction in coordination with the following projects: (i) the F Line bus rapid transit project in coordination with marked Trunk Highway 65, also known as Central Avenue, and marked Trunk Highway 47, also known as University Avenue; and (ii) the Riverview Corridor, also known as the West 7th bus rapid transit project, in coordination with marked Trunk Highway 5, also known as West 7th Street; (2) "loan agreement" means the contractual and promissory agreement between theMetropolitan Council and the Department of Transportation authorized under this subdivision; and (3) "project agreement" means the planned and final design of a corridor project.

(b) From the sales tax revenue allocated under subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (2), and subject to the requirements of this subdivision and subdivision 2b, the council may authorize up to two loans in an amount up to $250,000,000 total to the Department of Transportation to advance corridor projects to ensure the trunk highway's compatibility with planned bus rapid transit investments along the route.

(c) A loan authorized under this section must be repaid in full by June 30, 2040, or ten years after construction begins, whichever is later.

(d) Funds from any loan authorized under this subdivision may be used for the costs of predesign, design, engineering, and environmental analysis. The council and the Department of Transportation may use the loan funds for right-of-way acquisition and construction only upon joint submission of a project agreement to the chairs and ranking minority members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over transportation finance and policy. A project agreement must provide a proposed design analysis to ensure: (1) the construction and reconstruction plan for the trunk highway is compatible with future transit and roadway investments along the route; and (2) safe and accessible facilities for all modes of travel along the entire corridor.

(e) At least 30 days prior to executing a loan agreement, the council must submit a copy of the loan agreement to the chairs and ranking minority members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over transportation finance and policy.

(f) Authorization to enter into a loan agreement expires on June 30, 2030.