Riverview Corridor Not Streetcar

[DanPatchToget]

I remember quite a bit up thread someone mentioned the tunnel can't be widen either without significant opposition from the native community as they view the cliffs as sacred. So if you can't go around, over or under you have to work with what you've got

I continue to think this project should be shelved until the political will is there to make an rail effective transit line. In the mean time aBRT it and through run it with the Rush Line and we live to fight another day for a better project.

It's already taken an inexcusably long time to get to a mostly dedicated right-of-way streetcar. If they switch back to aBRT then I don't see any kind of rail happening for Riverview in our lifetimes based on the current political environment and our country's tendency to be extremely slow with doing infrastructure projects, especially ones involving transit. It'll be much easier to upgrade a rail service when the rail service already exists.

[mister.shoes]

I still think it makes most sense to do a dual level bridge with a nice MUP and dual LRT on an upper level, with existing TH-5/Shepard Rd traffic underneath. This would eliminate MAC’s lane concern too.

Unfortunately, this would have the tracks run straight through the Historic Fort Snelling parkland which would lead to significant scrutiny.

Streetcars used to run through fort snelling at grade. Bring them back and include a stop for those interested in visiting the site.

[thespeedmccool]

I remember quite a bit up thread someone mentioned the tunnel can't be widen either without significant opposition from the native community as they view the cliffs as sacred. So if you can't go around, over or under you have to work with what you've got

I continue to think this project should be shelved until the political will is there to make an rail effective transit line. In the mean time aBRT it and through run it with the Rush Line and we live to fight another day for a better project.

It's already taken an inexcusably long time to get to a mostly dedicated right-of-way streetcar. If they switch back to aBRT then I don't see any kind of rail happening for Riverview in our lifetimes based on the current political environment and our country's tendency to be extremely slow with doing infrastructure projects, especially ones involving transit. It'll be much easier to upgrade a rail service when the rail service already exists.

I don't think an upgrade from streetcar to LRT is "easy" in any sense. It's probably a near-total reconstruction to build LRT in this corridor whether you start with BRT or streetcar. If anything, streetcar might delay LRT in this corridor even more than BRT by increasing the sunk costs of tearing it up. There probably won't be LRT in our lifetimes in this corridor if they start with streetcar.

This project should pivot to LRT or BRT. There's a reason transit experts increasingly dismiss streetcar in most contexts. Either find the money in the couch cushions to build real rail with LRT or deliver the same service on the cheap with BRT.

[DanPatchToget]

I remember quite a bit up thread someone mentioned the tunnel can't be widen either without significant opposition from the native community as they view the cliffs as sacred. So if you can't go around, over or under you have to work with what you've got

I continue to think this project should be shelved until the political will is there to make an rail effective transit line. In the mean time aBRT it and through run it with the Rush Line and we live to fight another day for a better project.

It's already taken an inexcusably long time to get to a mostly dedicated right-of-way streetcar. If they switch back to aBRT then I don't see any kind of rail happening for Riverview in our lifetimes based on the current political environment and our country's tendency to be extremely slow with doing infrastructure projects, especially ones involving transit. It'll be much easier to upgrade a rail service when the rail service already exists.

I don't think an upgrade from streetcar to LRT is "easy" in any sense. It's probably a near-total reconstruction to build LRT in this corridor whether you start with BRT or streetcar. If anything, streetcar might delay LRT in this corridor even more than BRT by increasing the sunk costs of tearing it up. There probably won't be LRT in our lifetimes in this corridor if they start with streetcar.

This project should pivot to LRT or BRT. There's a reason transit experts increasingly dismiss streetcar in most contexts. Either find the money in the couch cushions to build real rail with LRT or deliver the same service on the cheap with BRT.

I don't see how a streetcar that has mostly dedicated right-of-way would be more difficult to upgrade than a mostly mixed-traffic aBRT where you'd be starting from scratch switching to rail. Plus isn't West 7th due for reconstruction soon? If so then it's going to be torn up anyway, and that's an important opportunity to take advantage of for rail, whereas with aBRT there will be no interest for a very long time in tearing up West 7th again for rail.

As much as people like to think BRT can be a step towards eventual conversion to rail, I can't think of any examples around the country where this has actually happened. The closest example I can think of is in Ottawa, Canada. Even Los Angeles Metro's G Line (formerly Orange Line), despite having dedicated right-of-way for the whole route and strong ridership, is still a bus and conversion to rail may take another couple decades (if it ever happens).

[Bakken2016]

It's already taken an inexcusably long time to get to a mostly dedicated right-of-way streetcar. If they switch back to aBRT then I don't see any kind of rail happening for Riverview in our lifetimes based on the current political environment and our country's tendency to be extremely slow with doing infrastructure projects, especially ones involving transit. It'll be much easier to upgrade a rail service when the rail service already exists.

I don't think an upgrade from streetcar to LRT is "easy" in any sense. It's probably a near-total reconstruction to build LRT in this corridor whether you start with BRT or streetcar. If anything, streetcar might delay LRT in this corridor even more than BRT by increasing the sunk costs of tearing it up. There probably won't be LRT in our lifetimes in this corridor if they start with streetcar.

This project should pivot to LRT or BRT. There's a reason transit experts increasingly dismiss streetcar in most contexts. Either find the money in the couch cushions to build real rail with LRT or deliver the same service on the cheap with BRT.

I don't see how a streetcar that has mostly dedicated right-of-way would be more difficult to upgrade than a mostly mixed-traffic aBRT where you'd be starting from scratch switching to rail. Plus isn't West 7th due for reconstruction soon? If so then it's going to be torn up anyway, and that's an important opportunity to take advantage of for rail, whereas with aBRT there will be no interest for a very long time in tearing up West 7th again for rail.

As much as people like to think BRT can be a step towards eventual conversion to rail, I can't think of any examples around the country where this has actually happened. The closest example I can think of is in Ottawa, Canada. Even Los Angeles Metro's G Line (formerly Orange Line), despite having dedicated right-of-way for the whole route and strong ridership, is still a bus and conversion to rail may take another couple decades (if it ever happens).

I'm inclined to agree with DanPatch. The proposed streetcar option have almost completely dedicated ROW, changing the portion with mixed use is just a future lane restriping project. The streetcar continues to be the best way forward for this corridor to have dedicated ROW transit.

[Wezle]

https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetin ... rview.aspx

New presentation to the Met Council transportation committee. Includes a breakdown of the estimated cost of a roadway and bridge reconstruction as a part of the streetcar. Looks like the plan to decide on whether or not they go forward with streetcar or aBRT will be decided at a policy advisory committee meeting on October 3rd.

[Bakken2016]

https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetin ... rview.aspx

New presentation to the Met Council transportation committee. Includes a breakdown of the estimated cost of a roadway and bridge reconstruction as a part of the streetcar. Looks like the plan to decide on whether or not they go forward with streetcar or aBRT will be decided at a policy advisory committee meeting on October 3rd.

Streetcar Option 1 or bust!

[DanPatchToget]

"Public questions investing in public transit when safety and security issues continue to dominate."

Hmm, so by that logic we should consider taking away MnDOT's funding for roads because of crashes, DUIs, road rage, etc.? Anyway...

I'm also really hoping they go with Streetcar Option 1. Contrary to what some may believe this isn't a vanity project so St. Paul can say they have a train to the airport, this is something that has taken a lot of time (too much time in my opinion), and to spend all that time and money just to go back to a bus that's slightly above what Route 54 is now would be an absolute shame and embarrassment, and if Ramsey County and St. Paul truly care about transit they'll prioritize streetcars over cars and street parking.

Terminal 2's expansion should send a clear message to the people deciding which mode Riverview will be that Terminal 2 has and will continue to have more passengers and workers going to/from there, and they want a service that doesn't require having to transfer at Terminal 1.

[Oreos&Milk]

https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetin ... rview.aspx

New presentation to the Met Council transportation committee. Includes a breakdown of the estimated cost of a roadway and bridge reconstruction as a part of the streetcar. Looks like the plan to decide on whether or not they go forward with streetcar or aBRT will be decided at a policy advisory committee meeting on October 3rd.

If it remains a streetcar and is built does that mean instead of having our version of a Chicago Loop.. we would have our own version called the.. Minnesota Triangle?

I can see the marketing for it now... The Minnesota Triangle - Connecting places that matter! Downtown St. Paul , Downtown Minneapolis , and the food court at THE MALL! God Bless America!

[angrysuburbanite]

You joke but that kind of branding would probably help solidify transit (or at least rail transit) as part of the Twin Cities culture, just like the Loop did in Chicago. In Chicago, riding the L downtown seemed to be something most tourists wanted to do because it was integral to the culture and identity of the city, but around here it is not quite there yet. With some clever marketing like your Minnesota Triangle idea it might begin to catch on as the premiere way of traveling when visiting the Twin Cities.

[mattaudio]

I hear St. Paul Port Authority calls this the Golden Triangle...

[kellonathan]

Ramsey County announced today that they're ending all work and cancelling all future meetings for the Riverview Corridor project. RIP.

[Anondson]

Oof. Big win for anti-transit.

[BikesOnFilm]

Hopefully there'll be more information on what lead to this abrupt decision than the "Lots of people had strong opinions" statement on the website.

[Nick]

So how much money did they spend on planning to not build a train? Hopefully not more than the local match would have been for the original B Line. Whoops!

[COLSLAW5]

https://www.ramseycounty.us/residents/r ... w-corridor

What a freaking waste. This is so disappointing and just another thing people will point to about government waste on public transportation projects.

personally, I feel like this needs to be a rail corridor for 1) better visibility for people visiting the cities, people trust trains more than busses and 2) it would connect St Paul directly to terminal 2 something a bus won't do

[Wezle]

Disappointing. It was a tricky proposal no matter what. Not a terribly popular project in the eyes of the public and may have done extra harm (on top of SWLRT spending issues) to the perception of rail transit in the Twin Cities for how much it was going to cost. Hopefully there will be a new, less compromising rail project that's able to take its place. Would have been nice to see, can't deny that.

Hopefully this will be the wakeup call for there to be a more comprehensive plan in place for light rail transitways rather than the piecemeal approach we've been largely operating on.

[Silophant]

Welp, time to dust off those Greenway streetcar/LRT plans.

[daveybabymsp]

Guess we will only have a blue and green line for a long time now. I hope the blue line extension keeps moving forward at least. What other corridors even make sense? Greenway seems like it will face similar challenges with ROW constraints. Hard to imagine rail getting proposed on central in the next decade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UrbanMPLS]

The second reason piece of community feedback they cited (after construction impacts) was safety and security concerns.

While I’m sure there are some fear mongering nimbys involved, I do think this is something transit advocates need to grapple with. If your system is safe, orderly and generally pleasant, people will want it in their neighborhood. If it’s not, people won’t. I have to think the deteriorating conditions on light rail over the last five years hurt this project.