Riverview Corridor Not Streetcar

[BikesOnFilm]

I think when the solutions boil down to "we need to merge county governments" or "we need the legislature to write our transit plans," it's effectively saying the same thing as "this isn't going to get done."

Like I don't particularly like being a pessimist on this but of those two plans, getting the legislature involved in regional planning is the only one I can actually see happening. And if we went down that road, we'd need some new transit champions in the legislature who aren't personally angry over SWLRT to ensure what came out the other side doesn't permanently ensure BRT for every route, no matter whether rail is justified or not.

[mattaudio]

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.

This would be quite the way to turn MN red in a hurry. Large portions of the suburbs/exurbs would revolt before tolerating more regional governance with Minneapolis or St. Paul.

More importantly, it would eliminate the marketplace of ideas in local governments. For example, would Richfield have much of a restaurant scene if not for its neighbor to the north handing over the policy reigns to SEIU and other labor activists?

If we're going to try and reduce government inefficiency, there should be an easier pathway for tiny local governments and units to merge with their neighbors.

To bring this back to Riverview- it's a St. Paul project. Very few people outside of St. Paul are/were going to fight for it. If St. Paul won't fight for it and drive a consensus, why do we think a unified metro government would?

[thespeedmccool]

This would be quite the way to turn MN red in a hurry. Large portions of the suburbs/exurbs would revolt before tolerating more regional governance with Minneapolis or St. Paul.

More importantly, it would eliminate the marketplace of ideas in local governments. For example, would Richfield have much of a restaurant scene if not for its neighbor to the north handing over the policy reigns to SEIU and other labor activists?

If we're going to try and reduce government inefficiency, there should be an easier pathway for tiny local governments and units to merge with their neighbors.

To bring this back to Riverview- it's a St. Paul project. Very few people outside of St. Paul are/were going to fight for it. If St. Paul won't fight for it and drive a consensus, why do we think a unified metro government would?

I'd argue most people don't know what the Met Council is and wouldn't know to care what governance mode the metro uses. What they do care about is whether there will be transit service near their house; which government delivers or fails to deliver that service is immaterial to most. A middle ground to going full regional governance would just be taking away the county's authority to plan "regional systems" like housing, transportation, parks, etc. but leave them with judicial and human services and other stuff.

The marketplace of ideas that local governments have created is largely a policy failure. That marketplace has propagated single-family zoning as far as the eye can see, passive segregation, car-dependent culture, and a fragmented regional planning model. The local government marketplace of ideas had produced mostly bad ideas.

The state does have a pathway for local governments to consolidate, and for a while outright encouraged it, but it's rarely used (most commonly when a township dissolves into a nearby city). The passive incentive to consolidate (economies of scale) has not been enough to convince people that consolidation is worth it (mostly because people aren't aware of the multitude of problems local fragmentation has created, and lots of people are weirdly obsessed with the idea that their suburb is a unique haven and all others are bad.)

My argument that a regional effort would've been more likely to succeed rests on two key points: First, Ramsey County wouldn't have funded it alone; and second, it helps nullify the argument that "the community" should be the final arbiters of regionally significant projects. A regional plan for LRT could have the power to excite and get people engaged with a broad vision, not obsessed with the minutiae of the planning in their neighborhood.

Also, I'd argue that very few people were willing to fight for Riverview because they decided on streetcar as a cost and political capital saver. I doubt a regional body with greater resources and a regional transportation vision would've decided to pivot to streetcar, but Ramsey County, with limited resources and ultimately seeing transit as a growth generator, had to pivot.

[angrysuburbanite]

Ultimately I think that the "Modern Streetcar" mode choice doomed this project from the start--it allows for too much "wiggle room" on aspects like ROW, station spacing, etc. I know I have said in the past that I support(ed) Riverview (it's better than nothing), but it seems like as a region we aren't ready for it yet. I'm hoping it does eventually resurface as full-on LRT in the future, but I'm not holding my breath, especially if aBRT is chosen.

I can tell a lot of us (myself included) are a bit bummed since--regardless of if the streetcar was a good idea or not--it does not reflect well at all on the future of new rail projects or the health of our municipal planning. There are a lot of improvements to be made in that respect and have already been touched on above. However, we still have so much to look for in the next decade and I still think our region will still have one of the country's better transit systems. And honestly, I'm cool with just the extended Blue and Green Lines for now--it's still an impressive system that didn't exist a mere 20 years ago. Just trying to bring some positivity in here!

[Nick]

It's too bad that there's not really any particular champion for the transit system at present. Clowning on McLaughlin et al on Twitter a decade ago was fun (how embarrassing!) but at the moment I can't really think of anyone prominent in charge of anything who cares about how stuff is going. I didn't agree with the vision back then, but at least there was some thinking behind it beyond just getting more funding to pay staff to go to meetings.

[twincitizen]

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!

I'd go a step further and wager that Ramsey County spent more money on planning Riverview from 2014-2024 than the entire original B Line would have cost to build in 2015, state and federal funds included.

The A Line was built for $27 million in 2015. I'd guess the B Line on West 7th would have been +- $5 million of that figure. aBRT project costs have increased quite a bit since then, with the new B Line on Lake/Marshall at $65 million and the D Line $75 million, though those routes are longer and involve more construction.

I'd be pretty shocked if Ramsey County somehow spent less than $30 million planning and engineering the streetcar project over the course of 10 years.

*edited to reflect that Ramsey County began the Riverview Corridor study in 2014, not 2017 as I'd thought. 2017 was when they picked modern streetcar as the mode and began planning that specific project, but the study kicked off in late 2014 / early 2015 right after they killed the original B Line. One source says the West 7th B Line budget was $28 million. Another unique thing about the A Line and original B Line was that they were funded almost entirely by state and federal sources. The Counties (via CTIB) weren't involved...I think Met Council was to chip in $5 mil on each line but that was it.

Here's a link to Met Council's action to cancel the B Line on West 7th at Ramsey County's request, somehow this doc is still online: https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetin ... bined.aspx

[MNdible]

It's too bad that there's not really any particular champion for the transit system at present. Clowning on McLaughlin et al on Twitter a decade ago was fun (how embarrassing!) but at the moment I can't really think of anyone prominent in charge of anything who cares about how stuff is going. I didn't agree with the vision back then, but at least there was some thinking behind it beyond just getting more funding to pay staff to go to meetings.

I know that governors don't get into the minutiae of LRT design, but it's crazy to me that we've had DFL governors since 2011, and they haven't lifted a finger to support or promote these projects. I'm thinking especially of when there were difficult political decisions to be made on the green line extension -- had Dayton stepped up and said something like, "I know that there are some people (wealthy contributors to DFL politics) who won't like all of these decisions, but this project is really important for the metro region and the state as a whole. So let's do it right."

Just think of the impact Jesse Ventura had on getting the blue line constructed. It's sad that there hasn't been better DFL leadership on this, and I mean that in the literal sense of leading the public along towards a greater good that might not be immediately evident.

[twincitizen]

Looking forward and given that MnDOT's reconstruction of Hwy 5 / West 7th is coming up in 2027-2028, my best guess is that Metro Transit will pivot to building aBRT on West 7th to coincide with that major roadwork. I can't really guess what it will be called though...maybe the Purple Line, assuming that project doesn't die on the vine as well. Even though it's not a dedicated guideway, the route certainly has the regional significance to get a color.

As far as impacts to other aBRT routes already in line for construction as identified in the Network Next plan, I assume the F and G Lines will proceed as planned since those are moving along and also tied into planned/funded road projects. I think we'll see aBRT stations built on West 7th as part of MnDOT's project, because it would be absolutely unthinkable not to do so. I think we'll see aBRT running on West 7th before the planned H Line on Como Ave.

But before aBRT on West 7th can move forward, a couple of pretty big procedural things need to happen. For one, Met Council will need to amend the transportation policy plan (TPP) to change the preferred mode from streetcar to bus. Met Council is currently drafting the 2050 TPP, with public input currently being taken online and a public hearing coming up on 9/25. The draft plan shows the mode as streetcar, and I assume that will be changed before Met Council adopts the 2050 TPP by the end of this year. For this to go smoothly, it would probably be ideal for that to all get taken care of before the 2025 legislative session even begins. At least we have the new transit sales tax and (hopefully?) won't have to go begging the legislature to fully fund the project, but I'd guess the legislature will still have to approve funding for this route in some capacity. I'd guess that aBRT on 7th needs to be absolutely locked in by the end of 2025 to have station infrastructure built as part of MnDOT's 2027-28 roadwork.

For more about the TPP, check out: https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... -Plan.aspx

[mattaudio]

Years ago when the Lake Street corridor was studied, it was decided that both ABRT (B Line under construction) and streetcar could be pursued, and the choice wasn't one or the other. Critical to this is obviously that they're in separate corridors even if only a block apart. Even though the Midtown Streetcar is some sort of on hold or dead, ABRT is happening.

So why wasn't that same approach considered for Riverview? Other than the river bridge, they could have pursued both ABRT on 7th and LRT in a parallel CP Rail or even Shepard Rd corridor.

Edit: Also, what happened to the vision to connect the Fort Road bridge to Shepard Road rather than W 7th? I thought the Lexington Pkwy/Elway extension to Shepard, a project now complete, was a blocker for that project to create access to/from northbound I-35E. W 7th between Davern/Sibley Plaza and 35E could be much nicer and more transit-friendly if more traffic displaced over to Shepard.

[Wezle]

I don't think that West 7th has the density or ridership numbers to justify both BRT and LRT compared to Lake Street. The 54 has less than half the ridership of the 21 from what I can see, can't find exact numbers though.

[Tom H.]

I know that governors don't get into the minutiae of LRT design, but it's crazy to me that we've had DFL governors since 2011, and they haven't lifted a finger to support or promote these projects. I'm thinking especially of when there were difficult political decisions to be made on the green line extension -- had Dayton stepped up and said something like, "I know that there are some people (wealthy contributors to DFL politics) who won't like all of these decisions, but this project is really important for the metro region and the state as a whole. So let's do it right."

DFL governors, including the current one, always seem rather hesitant to seem too metro-focused and I think they've sidestepped LRT and transit as a result.

[BikesOnFilm]

IIRC Walz was a big part of the reason the Blue Line Extension finally stopped pretending that BNSF was just about to call them back and agree to sharing their property for the original line routing, after years of them saying "No, we definitely are not going to do that."

Not exactly standing up and being a project champion, but it certainly got the project moving in a positive direction again.

[thespeedmccool]

I know that governors don't get into the minutiae of LRT design, but it's crazy to me that we've had DFL governors since 2011, and they haven't lifted a finger to support or promote these projects. I'm thinking especially of when there were difficult political decisions to be made on the green line extension -- had Dayton stepped up and said something like, "I know that there are some people (wealthy contributors to DFL politics) who won't like all of these decisions, but this project is really important for the metro region and the state as a whole. So let's do it right."

DFL governors, including the current one, always seem rather hesitant to seem too metro-focused and I think they've sidestepped LRT and transit as a result.

I'd also argue that Dayton and Walz have actively, but not vocally enough, supported transit and LRT specifically.

Dayton told MPRB to get over it's concerns with the Green Line Extension, and Walz has included Blue Line Extension funding in his proposed capital budgets.

The problem isn't that they haven't supported these projects, but that they aren't their projects. They're the counties' projects, and there's little to no incentive for a governor to take on political heat to support a controversial project they can't meaningfully impact.

That's why these projects need to be planned by a region-wide state agency. Then, some elected officials people can name and blame would be accountable for delivering projects (and no, county commissioners are not nameable; I'd guess no more than 15% of people know who their commissioners are.)

Man, I sure do wish we had one of those regional, politically accountable bodies with transit expertise. It would be great if one of those could plan transit projects.

[EOst]

So why wasn't that same approach considered for Riverview? Other than the river bridge, they could have pursued both ABRT on 7th and LRT in a parallel CP Rail or even Shepard Rd corridor.

People fixate on the CP spur and Shepard, but both of those are only viable south of Randolph where West 7th is already wide enough for dedicated ROW rail. North of Randolph, where things start to get tight on West 7th, you have a sheer cliff separating the rail corridor and Shepard from the neighborhood all the way through downtown. Running LRT down there would be repeating everything that people here criticize about SWLRT.

[mattaudio]

North of Randolph, where things start to get tight on West 7th, you have a sheer cliff separating the rail corridor and Shepard from the neighborhood all the way through downtown. Running LRT down there would be repeating everything that people here criticize about SWLRT.

In a world where there was ABRT on W 7th, and/or possibly Randolph-W 7th, the urban segment of W 7th north of randolph would still be supported by other means. Presumably with a transfer available at W 7th/Randolph where the CP Ford Spur is a half block away.

I don't think it would be the worst thing to run down the cliff. Lots of options.
* Elevator/station at the northern end of the Smith Ave high bridge?
* Station near Eagle Street for the new development near the river bottoms with some sort of access to River, Center via the western side of the River Balcony?
* Cut north on Western Ave with a W 7th Mancinis-area stop then run along the 35E or Smith Ave corridors into downtown?
* Go down the cliff further then cut a portal into the cliff under Smith Ave with a mile of underground tunnel to reach downtown?

[twincitizen]

Can we maybe take a few weeks to mourn/celebrate the death of the streetcar project and discuss the near-term prospects for aBRT before immediately indulging in make believe transit projects?

[BikesOnFilm]

I don't think it would be the worst thing to run down the cliff. Lots of options.
* Elevator/station at the northern end of the Smith Ave high bridge?
* Station near Eagle Street for the new development near the river bottoms with some sort of access to River, Center via the western side of the River Balcony?
* Cut north on Western Ave with a W 7th Mancinis-area stop then run along the 35E or Smith Ave corridors into downtown?
* Go down the cliff further then cut a portal into the cliff under Smith Ave with a mile of underground tunnel to reach downtown?

LRT or streetcar, W 7th or Shelard, I don't think it matters. Finding a way across the river that doesn't tunnel under Ft. Snelling, doesn't build a new bridge, and apparently can't affect airport bound traffic even slightly to avoid the ire of the MAC, is the real problem. And I don't think there's an answer here that works.

Even crossing up to Ford/46th to try and connect to the Blue Line near Minnehaha would create the new/old problem of giving the MPRB veto power over the project and nothing short of a deep bore tunnel would satisfy them.

[BigIdeasGuy]

The most workable solution to the "how do we cross the river" issue would appear to be to advocate to the current MAC Commissioners why transit is good along with pushing who ever is Governor to appoint people to the MAC that support transit going forward

[J. Mc]

The most workable solution to the "how do we cross the river" issue would appear to be to advocate to the current MAC Commissioners why transit is good along with pushing who ever is Governor to appoint people to the MAC that support transit going forward

Cleaning up the light-rail and getting it to a state of respectability to where the MAC PD doesn't have to dedicate several officers to patrolling the station areas and removing problem individuals who ride in to the Airport facility on it with no legitimate business there would go a long way. The unisex disability restroom installed in the new Silver Ramp transit center had to be permanently shut after repeated vandalism, overdoses and prostitution. A few other public restrooms in the adjacent blue/red ramps have also been locked due to similar issues. MAC PD and Airport Fire regularly respond to medical emergencies at the T1 light-rail station. I can't speak for the whole Airport but at least where I work the light-rail has an extremely negative reputation among employees. Some of my coworkers have been assaulted or robbed on there. Employees who do not have their own car and used to take the Blue Line now get rides from friends, or have switched to different shifts so they can ride during the day when it's safer, or have since bought a car to get around instead. I've also noticed a trend in recent years of Airport workers taking the 54 between MOA and T1 instead of the light-rail. Though that could also be due to the 54 just being faster. IIRC MAC PD also started jointly patrolling the Blue Line shuttle with MTPD this past year in response to assaults on airline staff riding between T2 parking and T1.

Regional transit network cohesion is probably not going to be a high priority for the MAC so long as they're dealing with complaints from their tenants and customers stemming from stuff directly linkable to the existing rail service.

To be clear, I'm not trying to knock on any of the improvements that have been made to the light-rail in recent months. I know there's been a lot of work going on and getting it back to a real desirable asset for everyone is the goal. Unfortunately though, the negative reputation gained in the last few years is going to take a while to repair.

[at40man]

So why wasn't that same approach considered for Riverview? Other than the river bridge, they could have pursued both ABRT on 7th and LRT in a parallel CP Rail or even Shepard Rd corridor.

People fixate on the CP spur and Shepard, but both of those are only viable south of Randolph where West 7th is already wide enough for dedicated ROW rail. North of Randolph, where things start to get tight on West 7th, you have a sheer cliff separating the rail corridor and Shepard from the neighborhood all the way through downtown. Running LRT down there would be repeating everything that people here criticize about SWLRT.

I think that “problem” is a non-issue. There are buses running along W 7th that could feed the line, so a couple “missing” stations is difficult for me to buy. I’d rather have a direct and relatively quick rail link to downtown St Paul where I can transfer to my final destination, as opposed to a glorified street tram trying to be all things to all people but not doing any of the things particularly well.

Unless I’m misinterpreting what you identify the issue is here…?