Riverview Corridor Not Streetcar

[Tcmetro]

Repeat of 2002 where the Riverview Line BRT plan was abruptly canceled - although that was partly because of a major funding shortfall.

Shortsighted of them to not proceed with any improvements at all or some kind of phased approach.

[BigIdeasGuy]

Whelp I guess aBRT is it, I've been pretty outspoken about my broad disappointment for the current route but it's still rough to see this cancelation of a corridor that really should have been rail based. Hopefully, but probably not, this decision leads to a few positive outcomes like Metro Transit aBRT's this route and every other route where it's justifiable and leaders to step back and reflect and review the planning planning process locally and create a new process that leads to better projects for all everyone not just to make the loudest voices quieter.

[thespeedmccool]

We need a region-wide LRT proposal, funded by the legislature or a regional government. It's insane to put it on counties to plan these on their shoestring budgets.

It's really hard to convince people along West Seventh who go to the airport like twice a year and never go downtown (because no one does anymore) that they needed or wanted Riverview. At the moment, Twin Cities light rail mostly goes nowhere.

A regional plan would make it much easier to say "this project isn't just about taking you downtown, it's about connecting you to the region." A lot harder to deny the utility of a system vs. each individual piece of that system.

Anyway, good riddance Riverview. A $2 billion streetcar for worse service than a bus deserves no place in current transit planning. This always should've been LRT, and could only ever generate tepid support from pro-transit folks as a streetcar.

What a predictable waste of time and money. Consultants got their payouts, at least.

Next up: the Purple Line becomes an aBRT project twenty years after it was originally proposed as commuter rail to Hinckley.

[angrysuburbanite]

What a waste! This was one of the most promising and obvious rail corridors. The only silver lining is that maybe it will be resurrected as true LRT many years down the road, but that seems unlikely. It's a miracle we even have any LRT to be honest.

[UrbanMPLS]

We need a region-wide LRT proposal, funded by the legislature or a regional government. It's insane to put it on counties to plan these on their shoestring budgets.

This 1000%.

Something like Seattle would be great. Do I agree with all their routing and mode choices? No. Is it still taking too long? Absolutely.

But it’s happening. And after 30ish years they’ll have built out an entire regional rapid transit network comparable to Boston, Chicago or Philadelphia.

[BikesOnFilm]

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.

We did grapple with it. We created a code of conduct with legal teeth and decriminalized fare enforcement so that it can be done by non uniformed officers.

We're only in year one of having that program in place, created three years after the pandemic deteriorated the perception of safety and reliability in the system. Meanwhile, unserious people were saying things like this about transit for the entire twenty years we've had an LRT network. If Ramsey truly decided to walk away from investing in this corridor for a second time over this of all things, shut down the Purple Line planning too because they're clearly not serious enough about transit to be a reliable planning partner.

They can start getting on the planning priority list again when they prove their commitment to transit, preferably by finally giving the Green Line signal priority on University.

[Wezle]

Agreed with a Seattle model. It's not perfect, but it's tens of billions in funding allocated for a comprehensive network of pretty solid light rail with Sound Transit. We already have sales tax going towards transit, add on a car tabs and rental car tax (like Seattle) and we can go from there.

[Crystal Wood]

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.

It looks like objections from the airport (over losing a lane in their direction on the bridge) were the final straw: https://www.startribune.com/after-at-le ... /601139705

Even if it wasn't the reason for cancelling it, I was never comfortable with spending that much money for service that would be slower than the bus we already have (albeit not by much). I hope that money ends up getting spent on other transit improvements.

[Korh]

With this and the Minneapolis streetcar system being all but mothballed into the aBRT system I'm pretty sure the only streetcars that will be running 20 years from now will still be the excelsior and como-harriet ones (and at this point I might argue one of those might get a tiny extension before a new one is built)
That being said, am I sad a rail project got cancelled, yes.
Am I surprised, not really since quite a few people who normally support these projects where divided over it being a streetcar instead of a LRT which ment only a little opposition was needed.
I'm actually more annoyed because correct me if I'm wrong but in the old aBRT plan this was supposed to be the B line and would of been built around 2016 but Ramsey county wanted a streetcar and blocked that from happening

[Silophant]

Sure was! There's some discussion of it on the very first page of this more than ten year old thread.

[StandishGuy]

Meh. Good riddens. I love rail transit, but this was not a good project. After traveling to Oslo, Norway and Copenhagen, Denmark this summer, I really see that this region is too sprawling, car-oriented and low-density to warrant true rapid transit services. There are only a few areas within Minneapolis and St. Paul where population densities and concentration of destinations make rail a sensible option. Population growth in the central cities has nearly come to a halt if not having declines. Plus downtown St. Paul is no longer as much of a destination after the pandemic. We need to figure out how to get the center of the region growing again, build back ridership on the existing bus/ LRT system and slow sprawl on the fringes of the region before . taking on questionable transit projects like Riverview. I used to be skeptical, but the ABRT lines have proven to be very successful and way more cost effective. Let's get an ABRT route in this corridor speeding up trips for people in the area rather than spending billions to slow things down.

[angrysuburbanite]

If aBRT is chosen here there will never be more transit upgrades in the Riverview Corridor. Politicians see it as a replacement for a rail-based service, not a stop-gap for future rail service.

[J. Mc]

With the Riverview shelved, now the question is how soon can we get 10 minute frequency on W. 7th either with the 54 (as proposed in the Network Now Draft) or re-badging as a Rapid Bus line? Network Now draft has 2027, and MNDot's W. 7th resurfacing and streetscape improvements were originally targeted for 2027-2028. Perhaps just a few years and they're be some notable improvements?

Meh, at least they stopped before the project got diluted down to this:

NFTA Metro 1066 by J. Mc., on Flickr

[DanPatchToget]

For anyone who supports transit, the cancellation of the Riverview Corridor is nothing to celebrate. This was purely a victory for NIMBYism, and if we always gave in to NIMBYism we'd never be able to improve our transit system.

For those who think arterial BRT will do the job better, well, I suppose it could get done sooner, but it'll never be as good as rail. For those who think it'll be an opportunity to get full LRT on this corridor, don't hold your breath on that. With West 7th getting a rebuild, the Ford Spur sooner or later becoming a trail, and the fact that a somewhat mixed-traffic streetcar was apparently too much to ask for, I'd say the next opportunity for rail on this corridor will be when millennials are in retirement homes based on our track record of spending years, decades even, and paying out millions of dollars to consulting firms just to do absolutely nothing. Won't stop me from making maps and thinking about what I'd like to see for Riverview, but I know it'll be labeled fantasy whereas in countries who actually care about transit it would be interpreted as commonsense.

Regarding the suggestion for a region-wide planning of our transit system, I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm not sure it would be better than our crappy system of planning projects now. I have a feeling there would never be a full agreement from every community on what our transit system should look like, and NIMBYism would still get in the way.

As a member of the Riverview Corridor CAC, I can't help but feel my time and energy were wasted, and I don't feel proud to be a resident of our region right now. We always talk about being progressive and wanting change for the better, but in my view we do a lot of talking and very little doing. The Riverview Corridor can be added to the long list of examples (technically added for a second time, since this isn't the first time a transit upgrade was proposed for this corridor only to get cancelled).

Call me a pessimist or whatever, but based on our track record of making transit improvements reality, as well as the culture whether real or perceived around transit, I just don't think the Twin Cities will ever have a good transit system. It'll always be lackluster except for some niche areas like if you're traveling a short distance in the urban core or going to the U of M while classes are in session.

Every time I'm traveling on Route 54/Riverview aBRT and get stuck in traffic, squished in my seat because there's too many people on the bus, have a rough ride because it's pothole season, or have to take a complicated detour because it's road construction season, I'll be saying "we could've had rail instead of this."

[daveybabymsp]

Is there any way the west 7th/airport/moa corridor could be included in the scope of the initial purple line build out? Or would it have to be built as an extension at this point?

[thespeedmccool]

As someone who forcefully argued that streetcar was the wrong option for Riverview, it's really disappointing to see the likes of Saura Jost and Melvin Carter already advocating for BRT. Better than nothing, but we have a clean slate now and an opportunity to push for real LRT.

This should be a political issue in the upcoming local elections. Win on a pro-LRT platform, and you've got a very convincing argument that the anti-LRT NIMBYs already lost. Instead, we 'study' corridors, pretending that a multi-year consulting and public relations gig will produce a more logical result than the reasonable consensus of a dozen Met Council bureaucrats.

Let's beat NIMBYs at the ballot box, then these planning processes can be formalities for pleasing the feds and not opportunities for NIMBYs to kill the logical transit option.

[thespeedmccool]

Is there any way the west 7th/airport/moa corridor could be included in the scope of the initial purple line build out? Or would it have to be built as an extension at this point?

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised to see Purple cancelled at this point too; that project has been getting watered down and languishing in consulting for years too.

Another corridor that if we had the courage to do it without the feds, we could have LRT, but at the mercy of their formula, Purple will never be more than a fancy bus.

[daveybabymsp]

Is there any way the west 7th/airport/moa corridor could be included in the scope of the initial purple line build out? Or would it have to be built as an extension at this point?

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised to see Purple cancelled at this point too; that project has been getting watered down and languishing in consulting for years too.

Another corridor that if we had the courage to do it without the feds, we could have LRT, but at the mercy of their formula, Purple will never be more than a fancy bus.

Agreed that current purple line situation looks bleak. I was wondering if they could strengthen the case for both corridors by combining them into one true BRT line. On the other hand, you could get a similar outcome by scrapping both and just aBRTifying route 54 and not giving it a color. This would be a bummer if it meant both routes got significantly less dedicated ROW, but I imagine it being a lot easier politically.

[BikesOnFilm]

Regarding the suggestion for a region-wide planning of our transit system, I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm not sure it would be better than our crappy system of planning projects now. I have a feeling there would never be a full agreement from every community on what our transit system should look like, and NIMBYism would still get in the way.

This is where I'm at too. We can't have a regional plan like Seattle's because Seattle's regional plan doesn't spend half its time handwringing about making sure Tacoma gets to be just as important as Downtown Seattle. And SeaTac doesn't torpedo plans because they're more concerned about their parking revenue than regional connectivity.

Hell, if you want to see how well it would work, just look at how the CTIB did. Or how much of our LRT network avoids the populated neighborhoods of Minneapolis as soon as possible to reach suburbs. Or how Minneapolis felt they needed to fund their own streetcar system because they knew full well the regional planning bodies would never approve a rail project that started and ended without touching another municipal border.

It's worth mentioning - in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, Dallas is the hub of the DART LRT system, and Fort Worth just has one "hybrid" commuter train from their downtown to the airport. We don't have to be hamstrung to this idea that we need two regional hubs just because 100 years ago Minneapolis and St. Paul were equally important, but I don't think Minnesota is ready for that conversation.

[thespeedmccool]

Hell, if you want to see how well it would work, just look at how the CTIB did. Or how much of our LRT network avoids the populated neighborhoods of Minneapolis as soon as possible to reach suburbs. Or how Minneapolis felt they needed to fund their own streetcar system because they knew full well the regional planning bodies would never approve a rail project that started and ended without touching another municipal border.

I would argue the problem with CTIB wasn't its lack of vision (in fact, a lot of the projects that are currently languishing are CTIB-era in their origins) but its governance model.

The counties are bad, and they all wanted their own pet projects. No offense to the suburban counties, but they mostly don't deserve guideway transit. CTIB was dominated, however, but the suburbs jockeying for their piece of the pie and county commissioners who couldn't see that urban transit service would benefit their commuter drivers as well.

When I say we need a regional plan, I mean a plan developed by the legislature or the Met Council, not one cobbled together from the seven counties' plans. That's part of why the 'council of governments' model of Met Council reform is such a bad idea: it would take what killed CTIB and make it the Met Council.

The metro counties probably shouldn't exist anymore, and there should probably be one metropolitan county, but no one's ready for that conversation yet.