urbanMSP

I guess it makes sense to keep them in the mix, but I can't see them lasting against standard electric LRVs. Especially since this would hopefully interline with existing electrified LRT on both ends.

Reading through that, I get the distinct impression that both Councilmember Thune and that Fort Rd citizens organization don't want anything that would disrupt the "status quo"...

Dave Thune retired from the city council and has been replaced by Rebecca Noecker, so we don't have to consider his opinion as carrying any more weight than any other resident in the city any longer.

And thank God for that.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

A bit more material has been uploaded to http://riverviewcorridor.com/, though nothing particularly groundbreaking (more detailed, for those who missed the last set of meetings). Take note of the upcoming meeting dates, of course, to help counterbalance Thune's nuttiness.

Agenda packet for April 14th PAC meeting:

http://riverviewcorridor.com/wp-content ... -FINAL.pdf

Not much new information except identification of "Pinch Points".

Alon Levy with an smart post about airport transit.

https://pedestrianobservations.wordpres ... onnectors/

I'm not sure the concepts in Alon Levy's post are fully applicable here. In particular, the way he's writing makes it sound like he's referring in particular to transit lines that have the airport as a termini. Sure, Riverview would serve the airport, but its terminus would be MOA.

Relating this to the Blue Line, it should be noted that in 2013 (most recent year I have available), the Lindbergh Terminal station had the 2nd highest volume of boardings on the Blue Line, beat only by the Nicollet Mall station. And the Humphrey Terminal station had the 5th highest volume.

Have to agree with Froggie on that. The route that moves people between the densely populated & transit dependent neighborhoods along West 7th and MOA (destination for jobs and transit connections) the fastest is the best choice. In this case that also happens to be the same route that goes through the airport.

I don't know if this was really the main argument of Levy's post or not, but generally speaking for most cities, a direct airport connection is often not the best choice. Running a metro line near the airport, then connecting airport to metro station with a short rapid transit shuttle (preferably automated and free) is often the better choice. Miami is probably the best example of how to do this correctly. I don't think I would actually change how we did things here with the Blue Line, but for many cities the people mover connection option is probably smarter than expensively shoehorning/complicating/slowing your metro system to touch the airport directly.

We essentially do have a people mover to the terminal. The station is only "at the airport" in that it is technically on MAC land.

EDIT: One could argue that Humphrey is more direct I suppose.

I thought I posted this earlier, apparently not. I don't think we should count ridership at each of the airport stations the same way we count other stations given the fact that service between them is free and acts as an airport-centered park and ride between terminals. That's not to say this isn't a side benefit of the Blue Line having served both Terminals. See my comments in the Improving Metro Transit Urban Bus Service thread for number of people in South Minneapolis with jobs in the MOA/MSP area. Even after 10 years, it's pretty damn small; comparable to the numbers people claim shouldn't be served by simply improving South Minneapolis local route crosstown bus service anchored by a downtown St Paul job center.

I'm not arguing the airport and MOA aren't important destinations, or even that they don't have a lot of decent paying jobs for low- and middle-income residents of the areas served by the Blue Line and Riverview routing. Just that it's maybe not the best argument to counter the notion that rail-to-airports isn't motivated mostly by middle and upper income people who "fly a few times a year and wish for better airport transit, without thinking very hard about the costs and benefits." (Alon's words)

The next two sentences of his post lay out the Blue Line pretty well IMO: "An airport connector appeals to a very wide section of the population, and may be very cheap if we divide the cost not by the number of daily users but by the number of unique annual users. Hence, it’s easier for politicians to support it, in a way they wouldn’t support an excessively costly subway line connecting a few residential neighborhoods to the city." Okay, we're not really talking about subways in M/SP. But the Blue Line was built before the obviously-better Green Line (ridership, racial equity, you name the metrics, it's better) for a reason. A longer tail of people use the Blue Line infrequently, but sum up for fairly high daily ridership. Sure, there are jobs at MSP and we justified extending to MOA for a few more. But consistent daily riders to those destinations weren't the motivating political factor. Providing a one-seat, high-quality ride for business and leisure travelers to downtown, plus a long-tail of Minneapolis residents who could catch it to the airport or downtown events is the vision that sold people.

If MSP itself pays for those rides, even if the people directly using it don't, that ridership is paid for and thus "counts". Just like students who have passes, or people who get metro cards from their employers.

Is it worth noting that people really hate taking luggage on buses? Even the special bus for the M60 to LaGuardia was always awful (though I never rode the SBS).

But the Blue Line was built before the obviously-better Green Line (ridership, racial equity, you name the metrics, it's better) for a reason. A longer tail of people use the Blue Line infrequently, but sum up for fairly high daily ridership. Sure, there are jobs at MSP and we justified extending to MOA for a few more. But consistent daily riders to those destinations weren't the motivating political factor. Providing a one-seat, high-quality ride for business and leisure travelers to downtown, plus a long-tail of Minneapolis residents who could catch it to the airport or downtown events is the vision that sold people.

These are all valid points, but the Blue Line also had a much easier time with its ROW thanks to MN-55 and the former railroad while the Green Line ran into issues all along the route (UMN, University Ave businesses, the state capital, MPR). I suspect that plays at least as large a role as the airport's broad appeal in bumping up the Blue Line.

Is it worth noting that people really hate taking luggage on buses? Even the special bus for the M60 to LaGuardia was always awful (though I never rode the SBS).

For what it's worth, "bus" is nearly meaningless in this case. Airport shuttles to car rental lots or even hotels are almost always loud, stinky diesel buses (or short buses). People use them a LOT. The difference, obviously, is that there's ample space to store luggage by having fewer seats and dedicated luggage racks. I imagine the A line bus interior would be pretty decent for people with luggage. I'd also note that I dislike lugging my suitcase down escalators to subway stations and through the obnoxious turnstyles, but when I'm traveling I make do.

But the Blue Line was built before the obviously-better Green Line (ridership, racial equity, you name the metrics, it's better) for a reason. A longer tail of people use the Blue Line infrequently, but sum up for fairly high daily ridership. Sure, there are jobs at MSP and we justified extending to MOA for a few more. But consistent daily riders to those destinations weren't the motivating political factor. Providing a one-seat, high-quality ride for business and leisure travelers to downtown, plus a long-tail of Minneapolis residents who could catch it to the airport or downtown events is the vision that sold people.

These are all valid points, but the Blue Line also had a much easier time with its ROW thanks to MN-55 and the former railroad while the Green Line ran into issues all along the route (UMN, University Ave businesses, the state capital, MPR). I suspect that plays at least as large a role as the airport's broad appeal in bumping up the Blue Line.

Politically too, the Blue line was easier. It was a cheap enough project then that Hennepin county could pay for the bulk of it on their own, and it was completely within their territory. No CTIB needed. Plus, it touched the two biggest cities in the county, one of which was a suburb, so it wasn't just a MPLS project. If St. Paul was in the same county as Minneapolis, the green line would have probably gone first, but we'll never know.

If St. Paul was in the same county as Minneapolis, the green line would have probably gone first, but we'll never know.

Actually, we can chalk the Green Line not being first up to a 1992 pocket veto from then-Governor Arne Carlson which would have authorized design, construction, and funding for what is now the Green Line.

http://focus.mnsun.com/2016/04/30/meeti ... -corridor/
Two walking tours of the CP rail spur this May:

The first meeting will be 5-7 p.m. Wednesday, May 11, at St. Luke Lutheran Church, 1807 Field Ave. in Saint Paul. The walking tour portion of the evening will follow alongside the CP rail spur between Edgcumbe Road and Cleveland Avenue.

The second meeting will be 5-7 p.m. Thursday, May 19, at Sholom Home, 740 Kay Ave. in Saint Paul. The walking tour will follow alongside the CP rail spur between Otto Avenue and Tuscarora Avenue.

Over dinner time? Really?

Build up an appetite.