urbanMSP

It was also mentioned somewhere that the express buses currently on Bielenberg Dr would use the dedicated lanes, so that's probably on their wishlist too. They could also be trying to avoid running past the SFHs on Tamarack Rd or something like that.

1. Could be related to the history of this line and why it was planned to go through Lake Elmo over Woodbury in the first place (before Lake Elmo reversed course). I don't know the exact details as it was pretty early in the Alternatives Analysis, but something along the lines of Woodbury (and perhaps the owner of Tamarack Village) not wanting the bus mucking up existing traffic on Radio, affecting private property, etc. A Woodbury route always made more sense than Lake Elmo, so there was probably good reason (at the time) that planners were effectively left with "choosing" the Lake Elmo route. I always felt the decision to go with the Lake Elmo route over Woodbury was kind of sudden and underreported in the press, so I just assumed they got a hard "no" from Woodbury elected officials and/or Tamarack Village.
2. Could be something to do with Tiller's comment about Woodbury wanting the new bridge.
3. Could also be that planners (and WashCo politicians) are overly obsessed with having dedicated BRT busway for nearly the entire route. By crossing I-94 on a new bridge and then going down Bielenberg Drive, perhaps the plan is to reconstruct the street and have shoulder running buses or something (even though that is completely unnecessary on these overbuilt arterial stroads)

I actually meant that they'd build a new bridge bridge to cross 94.
My idea is that instead of turning westbound, after heading south from the Inwood Ave station on 3rd St N, they would continue that over 94 (via a new bridge, to Hudson Rd., then turn into Tamarack Village. This would mean no Radio Drive impacts, and there's even plenty of room in the roundabout in Tamarack Village for station placement.

Sure this still sends a bus off of a dedicated busway for a bit, but I would think it'd have a lot more successful ridership numbers than heading westbound along Hudson Blvd. N. on the north side of 94, before going over 94 on a new bridge to head down Bielenberg Dr. to the Tamarack Station stop near the old Hartford Life redeaux.

Would the bus line technically be in Lake Elmo if it was routed 4th Street to Inwood Ave./Radio Dr. and across I-94 to Tamarack Village?

Nope that's still Oakdale, though Radio/Inwood(CR-13) is the border between Oakdale & Lake Elmo in that area. As insane as Lake Elmo government is, I doubt they'd have much input on the bus running on CR13 as long as no stations are in Lake Elmo. Though of you're building a new bridge, yeah it would need to be west of 13.

Stanton prefers the new Woodbury route to the original but said it is still a waste of money.

“I would like to see them start over,” she said.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/09/27/gr ... 1475072326

There's an open house on the Gold Line tomorrow (Oct. 5) from 5-7 pm.

Envision Event Center
484 Inwood Ave N
Oakdale, MN 55128

http://www.woodburybulletin.com/news/go ... ine-routes

Somewhat related to the Gold Line...

Shopping centers in Woodbury, Oakdale will get a pedestrian bridge link
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... get-a.html

Unfortunately, when you read the article you see that the space on Radio Dr currently used by peds is becoming another lane of traffic. BOO!

Apparently the concept of this ped bridge has been around for a couple years now, having gone through Met Council's regional solicitation back in 2014. There are some maps in this doc: https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... ounty.aspx

Aside from the fact that it won't serve Radio Drive (including Tamarack Village, "City" "Place", or the existing Guardian Angels P&R / Oakdale Village), the new preferred route is actually not terrible. It's the shortest, simplest, most direct option of the new route concepts they were choosing from.

http://thegatewaycorridor.com/wp-conten ... tsheet.pdf

Revised route offers development potential http://finance-commerce.com/2016/10/rev ... potential/

As the forum's Woodbury expert, I can support this new route. It is leaps and bounds better than the previous Lake Elmo routing along the freeway. Serving Radio Drive directly (see previous post) would be better, reaching thousands more retail and office jobs, but going down Bielenberg to Woodbury Village / Theater P&R will be quicker, cheaper, and run in semi-exclusive ROW most of the way. Going down Radio Drive would add a lot of running time and almost certainly mean running in mixed traffic for the Radio portion of the route. Perhaps in the future, a local route serving those Radio Drive jobs could connect to the terminal at Woodbury Theater P&R.

The station location at Woodbury Theater (which the Met Council has owned for several years) offers a location that is within .25-.5 mile to the hundreds of nearby apartments and jobs, with potential for more intense redevelopment of that shopping center in the future. Built in the early 1990s, it is definitely aging and overparked in many places. The shopping center also has the benefit of being owned by a single entity (excluding some smaller outbuildings, banks, etc.) If there is demand for mixed-use infill and the owner is interested, it's a pretty good place for it.

Here's a thought: Combine this new routing with proposed Red Rock BRT routing... Have it get on 494 south at Valley Creek, then exit Bailey Road to get to Newport Transit Station / Hypothetical TOD, then south on 61.

The only station this would miss on Red Rock would be Lower Afton, an existing park-and-ride with no transit-oriented land use. The drivers who would park there could easily park in Newport, Woodbury, or elsewhere instead depending on their freewayshed.

The shopping center also has the benefit of being owned by a single entity

How is a single monolithic property owner a good thing for redevelopment? If anything, wouldn't that be a barrier? Think about the best urban neighborhoods in the Minneapolis area, and elsewhere... Small lots, plenty of owners. Antifragile.

If this routing is so much better, it really makes you wonder what would have happened had Lake Elmo pulled out. For once NIMBY's did us all a favor.

I hope this can help out Dayton's Bluff. I see a lot of areas that could be revitalized. Bates and Hudson for example.

http://www.woodburybulletin.com/news/go ... y-councils

I really have to applaud the staff on this project for moving the "replacement routing" forward so quickly.

New routing drops cost by $65MM, down to $420MM total. Still a lot of money for probably ultimately disappointing results (low ridership, meager amount of subsequent development), but Washington County could certainly spend their money in worse ways.

Now projected to open in 2023.

http://www.startribune.com/gold-line-bu ... 413783993/

Washington County earmarked $2.5MM while complaining about it.

Has anyone done a fantasy map of local bus service changes to get people to the Gold Line? I'm up by Ward 6 Restaurant and wondering how I could get to a Mounds Boulevard station, physically separated by Swede Hollow. Additionally I'm wondering if some feeder buses could connect the proposed Rush Line stops with proposed Gold Line stops.

Maybe the 54 extension can connect a bit from the Rush Line's Arcade station and the Gold Line's Mounds Blvd station, but the proposed 54 stop right now is at York, I believe.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1waWea ... sp=sharing

If you're just trying to get to the Gold Line (and not that particular stop), the easiest route with the current bus structure would probably be to catch the 74 to Sunray at Arcade/7th, right? Definitely not the greatest way to get around.

probably would be easier to ride into downtown and transfer.

Probably 64 into downtown and transfer, which isn't horrible but definitely out of your way, especially if you're going east.