urbanMSP

https://www.twincities.com/2024/12/27/s ... th-street/

So begins the process for what will most likely be a half-a***** bus rapid transit project.

Here's the same article on Yahoo, not behind PP's paywall: https://www.yahoo.com/news/st-paul-mndo ... 00923.html

It's interesting they mention trying to get some of the funding from Ramsey County's transit sales tax. AFAIK, none of the other ABRT lines have used that funding source. I believe they have been mostly funded by a combination of state bonding, federal grants, and Met Council's budget. In the case of Riverview though, Ramsey County may have to put up some money due to the shortened timeline of needing to have funds lined up before MnDOT's street reconstruction, not being able to secure federal grants that quickly, etc.

This quote from Rafael Ortega is maddening. What a pompous asshole.

Ortega, who chairs the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority, said Ramsey County could be a partner in whatever new concept unfolds, but the county is no longer in the lead.

“I think they need to come together, put up a plan, get community input and make it work,” said Ortega. “At that point, we’d be willing to work with them. I haven’t seen any plans. Have you?”

New concept released, public input meetings planned.

https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/publ ... h-corridor

Presentation:
https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/fi ... Public.pdf

PiPress: https://www.twincities.com/2025/03/11/n ... lic-input/

I mean what are we even doing here, 8 years and $450 to $550 million for what amounts to a aBRT route with some dedicated lanes. I never wonder why people oppose transit funding when they are presented with idea like this

BigIdeasGuy wrote: March 12th, 2025, 7:52 pm I mean what are we even doing here, 8 years and $450 to $550 million for what amounts to a aBRT route with some dedicated lanes. I never wonder why people oppose transit funding when they are presented with idea like this

Closer to half that. That number includes a 40% contingency.

I would've preferred rail, but the political winds are so strong in this region, it'll never happen. I guess I'm happy: For 15% the cost, we can get 70% of the benefits of rail.

More than that though, I'm happy that there are people trying to develop a vision (any vision) for St. Paul, Twin Cities transit, etc. after a bad year.

The proposed bus access changes around the 34th/494 interchange are interesting. I would assume other services going that way to serve the Airport (I.e. 495, 686) could also use that access.

If they build along that segment of the CP spur I would prefer to see two stations that align with the existing stops on W. 7th instead of one. a Ranklin station would cover access to jobs at Pearsons and others, plus walkup from a few apartment complexes, and a Glen Terrace station would cover the Crosby Pointe and Highland on the Park complexes as well as some other potential employment places. (Granted I'm looking at the basic line map and not a detailed plan yet so perhaps the two proposed are enough.)

At this point just get it done.

If it's not going to be rail or fully dedicated ROW, I don't see the point in spending more than $100 million on this. Arterial BRT or keep the 54.

J. Mc wrote: March 12th, 2025, 8:35 pm The proposed bus access changes around the 34th/494 interchange are interesting.

Interesting that the reconfiguration of this interchange to a DDI with LRT in the middle not only made LRT service less reliable than before, apparently it failed to create positive conditions for the 54 as well. IIRC, that was a MAC-funded project, but still...

I feel like we need to break out what the cost of a road rebuild alone will be. This needs to be done either way and I can only imagine it is at least 30% of the cost of this project. This is a similar length to the gold line with massively less bus only infrastructure and they are saying it is going to cost the same?

Is the diversion onto the CP spur just an excuse to buy it with transit money?

Presumably, that's the reason. Which is unfortunate because the area between 35E and Sibley Plaza is the area with the least likelihood for traffic congestion for buses.

But, to be less cynical, one large benefit is that it better serves the neighborhood south of W 7th which hugs the bluff on the north side. There's nothing on the north side of W 7th in the mile between St. Paul Ave and Montreal Ave. So using the rail spur provides a much better experience vs getting off a westbound bus at the base of a bluff with zero amenities, then having to cross a busy high-speed street.

mattaudio wrote: March 13th, 2025, 7:32 am Interesting that the reconfiguration of [494/34th Ave] to a DDI with LRT in the middle not only made LRT service less reliable than before, apparently it failed to create positive conditions for the 54 as well. IIRC, that was a MAC-funded project, but still...

Absent a more detailed route map, it looks like they propose a new westbound-only exit off MN-5 directly to American Blvd in front of the Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center. That routing should mostly be able to use existing highway infrastructure (using the westbound 5 to eastbound 494 loop lanes), except for the last short stretch where the busway will need to pass under the EB 494 onramp from 34th Ave.

It does seem contradictory that they want to spend tens of millions of dollars(?) for MOA-bound buses to bypass delays at the 34th Ave interchange, but still want that same bus to make 3 stops in South Loop before getting to MOA. Especially for a St. Paul-led project (at least in this phase), why do they particularly care if westbound buses take 3 minutes longer between the airport and MOA? Surely the rapid bus project could open without that improvement, which is well outside the scope of rebuilding West 7th. Make it make sense!

COLSLAW5 wrote: March 13th, 2025, 8:42 am I feel like we need to break out what the cost of a road rebuild alone will be. This needs to be done either way and I can only imagine it is at least 30% of the cost of this project. This is a similar length to the gold line with massively less bus only infrastructure and they are saying it is going to cost the same?

Gotta be at least $100 million to completely rebuild West 7th from end to end, just for the road project and not including bus stations, communications infrastructure, etc.

page 7 of the presentation has a pretty well shown drawing of that new ramp. seems like really minimal work

I wonder if the bus overpass and the CP Spur are in there in part to be cut when people understandably raise their eyebrows at the project cost without significantly compromising the line. The overpass especially is an absurd alternative to just, like, installing signal priority to make sure the one westbound bus that comes through in 10 minutes gets a green.

I do like that this answers the "what happens to the shiny new Smith Ave Gold Line station in 2027 when the Gold Line no longer goes there?" question though.

Edit: Oh, I had been interpreting the 34th Ave bypass as a whole new flyover over the 494 mainline. Looking closer, it'd actually be following the existing WB Hwy 5- EB 494 ramp under existing bridges, only requiring a new bridge for the 34th Ave- EB 494 ramp. That's not as bad, though that seems like it doesn't need to be a grade seperation at all? It's an on-ramp, not a freeway yet, it can have a stoplight that turns red for ~30s every ten minutes.

I just noticed that there are no Ramsey County logos on the presentation. I suspect Saint Paul & Metro Transit are going about this in a strategic manner to draw Ramsey County back in as a major funding partner. St. Paul of course has no money for any of this, aside from perhaps owning/maintaining the multi-use trails. Maybe the right way to think about this project is that it's ABRT+, with just enough + to bring Ramsey County back to the table to fund a good chunk of it since they are sitting on a pile of transit money accumulated over the past decade.

I wonder if some of the dedicated transit ROW was kinda only included to make this project qualify as a "transit guideway project" under Met Council guidelines, rather than funding it like an ABRT line. Given the short timeline in which to plan and fund this project (MnDOT starts construction on West 7th in 2028-29 unless delayed), I can't imagine they are trying to line up an FTA funding match. Unlike ABRT lines which are funded almost entirely by Met Council & state funds, a transit guideway project would typically receive up to 50% of its funding from the county, with the balance coming from the feds & Met Council. Assuming this project is getting $0 from the FTA, I'm curious who's picking up the tab. Including some dedicated guideway in Hennepin County is likely intentional, to bring their transit $ to the table. What do we suppose MnDOT & Metro Transit do if Ramsey County refuses to fund this project?