urbanMSP

On the flip side, though, projects like Northstar and the Red Line can easily be seen as failures, easy fodder for anti-transit viewpoints by suburbanites on the bubble.

The thing about it is that it's hard to quantify the monetary costs/benefits of keeping exurban (or even suburban like Dakota) counties in vs the net political support gained to even make a comparison. Further, what's the flip? What things do exurban counties and new population centers feel the need to keep Minneapolis or St Paul "in the loop" on for optics? How much do Hennepin County leaders have a say in whether Scott or Carver or Washington approve more low density development, highway lane miles, etc? It just seems we put transit out on its own in needing regional buy-in when nothing else really does.

But of course, even within Hennepin we get the same results. Midtown would be a far better use of money per rider or TOD-supported than the last 5 miles of the Blue Line extension, for example, but it's effectively blocked by Opat and others.

As for this line, I agree that cutting it off just past 694 makes the most sense. Though I agree with twincitizen that if that's the case, the south side made a hell of a lot more sense given Tamarack Village, the State Farm campus, etc. I could reasonably see some infill (it won't be Paris, but something) in that area with a network of sidewalks/bike paths/etc. Good luck with anything in Lake "nothing less than 2 acres per lot" Elmo.

To clarify why I don't believe TOD will happen in Lake Elmo:

Hypothetical: why would any sane retailer or restaurant, even something as banal as a Starbucks, leave the successful environs of Tamarack Village on the Woodbury side to open on the ground floor of some new TOD on the north side of I-94? I just don't see it happening. Between Tamarack Village, Woodbury Lakes, and the "City Place" redevelopment (State Farm Campus) adding even more retail to the area - there will be zero to minimal demand for additional retail square footage on the north side of the freeway. No grocery stores, no coffee shops, no nothing. The existing retail areas on the south side of the freeway are already meeting that demand (prolly exceeding it TBH), so I just don't see it happening for Lake Elmo. They might get an apartment complex here, or an office/industrial building there, but mixed-use/TOD of even medium density around the station areas? No. That won't be happening, even if Lake Elmo supported building it 100% and were screaming for it.

So, Gateway planners if you're reading this: not running this on the south side of 94 through Woodbury is an epic failure. I know, local politics (and perhaps land owners) in Woodbury prevented that from happening. They decided they didn't want it*. You had to take the path of least resistance and Lake Elmo said they'd take it.
It just really blows ass that "path of least resistance" is how we plan transit in the Twin Cities.

*This particular detail hasn't gotten much airtime here on the forum, but Woodbury did in fact reject this project going through the already developed areas near Tamarack Village, etc. Once that happened, the fate was pretty much sealed.

Even with problematic segment in Washington County, this route seems much more like the Orange Line than the Red Line. Certainly, the station locations west of 694 provide access to some decent mostly walkable locations (though some are conspicuously lacking in sidewalks).

I agree that I'd rather see it on, say, Hudson Road, but is this route really that much worse than Bottineau? At least they're not aiming for some useless two-mile station spacing, like the Orange Line.

Even with problematic segment in Washington County, this route seems much more like the Orange Line than the Red Line. Certainly, the station locations west of 694 provide access to some decent mostly walkable locations (though some are conspicuously lacking in sidewalks).

I agree that I'd rather see it on, say, Hudson Road, but is this route really that much worse than Bottineau? At least they're not aiming for some useless two-mile station spacing, like the Orange Line.

Bottineau is bad too. Pretty much everything in the planning pipeline right now is bad. The only projects possibly worth a damn is maybe part of the orange line and the midtown line, which is so far out it may as well be wishful thinking at this point. Riverview could be good but it'll probably be another ten or more years out too if it doesn't get killed.

They aren't "bad." They just aren't perfect. But they will all significantly improve transit service in their areas.

Meanwhile places with a lot of transit dependent people suffer with inadequate service. Great priorities we have here, always ready to build the next park and ride for suburban commuters with cars.

Uptown has far better transit service right now than this corridor.

There are people and businesses in Uptown.

There are people and businesses here, and there will be many more.

I said before that Woodbury is underserved. I'd really really really rather that we focus on places that are already developed. It made sense 100 years ago to push out into the countryside because of cities that were densely packed, and I think some amount of postwar suburbanization was fine. But the areas that have been developed already are pretty low density. There's little need for the new development. Every new resident the Twin Cities gets over the next 20+ years could easily fit into the existing urbanized area.

How many new residents and businesses along this corridor will come from somewhere closer to the center, potentially abandoning an older but perfectly usable structure? This line is being used as an excuse to allow another round of suburbanization. With just one line flung out this distance, it's hard to imagine many new residents and workers will actually use the bus line. Buses also aren't all that fast, and in this case we're looking at running them on surface streets which will be slower than the 55-70 mph highway. Add in stops, and they'll be far slower.

Carver and Scott aren't in the CTIB, though, right? So we can be done after this and don't have to run another couple underused BRT lines way down 212 and 169?

I said before that Woodbury is underserved. I'd really really really rather that we focus on places that are already developed. It made sense 100 years ago to push out into the countryside because of cities that were densely packed, and I think some amount of postwar suburbanization was fine. But the areas that have been developed already are pretty low density. There's little need for the new development. Every new resident the Twin Cities gets over the next 20+ years could easily fit into the existing urbanized area.

They could, but you and I both know that they won't. The reality is that there will be new development in this area, one way or another. The choice we're given isn't between building near this line vs. no building, it's between building an area that is at least theoretically transit-friendly (if even for only some trips) or building an area that is completely car-dependent forever.

Let's be honest; even if this line turned south and ran straight into the heart of Woodbury, how many walk-up riders could it really attract? Most of the city doesn't even have sidewalks, much less a walkable grid. Having those residents drive to a park and ride (or a kiss and ride, as some of these seem destined to become) is still far preferable to having those cars (and their emissions) on 94 into downtown St. Paul.

There are people and businesses here, and there will be many more.

"Will be" as opposed to "are now" is exactly what's wrong with this picture.

I just wish that this group had spent 1/10th of the furor directed at SWLRT on this project instead. The main decisions that we're hating right now were made a little over a year ago but nobody cared because #3Avs3C.

As a thought experament, would a BRT line down US 169 actually be that bad of idea? Downtown Shakopee, Valleyfair, Canterbury Downs, the Park and Rides of County 21, the industrial park in the area, the big senior complex at US 169, the Golden Triangle?

Obviously won't happen though, Scott County decided they want a bunch of new interchanges instead.

As a thought experament, would a BRT line down US 169 actually be that bad of idea? Downtown Shakopee, Valleyfair, Canterbury Downs, the Park and Rides of County 21, the industrial park in the area, the big senior complex at US 169, the Golden Triangle?

Obviously won't happen though, Scott County decided they want a bunch of new interchanges instead.

Wasn't BRT on 169 recommended by the Met Council when they studied freeway BRT? I thought it was to be implemented if/when the transit sales tax was raised. Not sure how it would work out now though since Scott county decided to go it alone with their own tax and not join the CTIB.

Regional transportation funding discussion can be found here.

FTA injects $1M into Gateway transit project
*Unlocked*

http://finance-commerce.com/2015/09/fta ... t-project/