Riverview Corridor Streetcar

[thespeedmccool]

With the continued dwindling utility of this project, continued political unwillingness to piss locals off with both Riverview & Bonttineau and the cost overruns of SW I'm kinda at the point where they should just cancel any future rail projects here and just invest every penny possible into aBRT. Let that grow and if frequency can't keep up then convert to rail.

Hopefully at that point we have leaders willing to make the hard choices needed to maximize the massive investment required for rail vs just the fruitless pursuit of trying avoid making neighbors too angry by continue to make a project worse and worse.

Full agree. Cancel all rail planning after BLX until we can plan a whole system at once. This piecemeal approach to regional transit planning is garbage.

[DanPatchToget]

Streetcar Option 1 looks the best to me. Most of the route has dedicated right-of-way plus center-running on West 7th should help with speed and reliability. My only hope is that later on they'll give the route dedicated right-of-way through downtown since I can't see mixed-traffic operation working well, especially with big events. However, Streetcar Option 1 is still a massive improvement over Route 54 and the aBRT option.

[Crystal Wood]

Streetcar Option 1 looks the best to me. Most of the route has dedicated right-of-way plus center-running on West 7th should help with speed and reliability. My only hope is that later on they'll give the route dedicated right-of-way through downtown since I can't see mixed-traffic operation working well, especially with big events. However, Streetcar Option 1 is still a massive improvement over Route 54 and the aBRT option.

The part without dedicated right-of-way is the part that most needs it. What exactly are the "massive improvements" here, other than rail bias?

[Crystal Wood]

Honestly though we could have had aBRT in 2017, it will be a massive waste of we choose a bus. In the meantime choose option 1 to move forward with, and after a year of operations, Metro Transit will have data to show St Paul that hey we need a dedicated lane for the whole project.

That's sunk cost fallacy. Bad decisions in the past do not justify continuing to make bad decisions.

[Crystal Wood]

And to add a positive comment: the Kellogg alignment is a good idea, even if I question how it will make transfers with the Green Line more difficult.

Anyone know if the new Kellogg Bridge to the east side is being built to accommodate LRT or streetcar? I like how this new alignment opens the possibility of extending something into Dayton's Bluff.

What's good about moving the stops away from the established transit spine which also happens to be the core of Downtown, to a road on the fringe? What good is it for the vehicle to run faster if you lose all that time walking to/from your actual destination?

[DanPatchToget]

Streetcar Option 1 looks the best to me. Most of the route has dedicated right-of-way plus center-running on West 7th should help with speed and reliability. My only hope is that later on they'll give the route dedicated right-of-way through downtown since I can't see mixed-traffic operation working well, especially with big events. However, Streetcar Option 1 is still a massive improvement over Route 54 and the aBRT option.

The part without dedicated right-of-way is the part that most needs it. What exactly are the "massive improvements" here, other than rail bias?

1) 89% of the streetcar route would have dedicated right-of-way. Route 54/aBRT would have dedicated right-of-way for only 8% of the route, specifically in downtown with the bus-only lanes that are coming as part of the Gold Line and B Line, and I'm not sure those bus lanes will be able to handle the combined traffic of Gold Line + B Line + other future BRT/aBRT routes + local/express buses + Route 54/hypothetical West 7th aBRT.

2) The streetcar would have stops at Terminal 2 and the actual Fort Snelling. Terminal 2 has gotten bigger over the years and despite COVID it'll get bigger. No one traveling to/from Terminal 2 will want to use a hypothetical West 7th aBRT if they have to transfer between the Blue Line and bus at Terminal 1. Fort Snelling is an important historic site and it would be good to have easy access to it by transit, whereas today to reach it by transit it's almost a one mile walk from the Blue Line's Fort Snelling Station.

3) A streetcar can hold more people, bikes, wheelchairs, luggage, etc. than a 60-foot bus.

4) Level-boarding between platforms and streetcars, so easier for people to get on/off. aBRT platforms are slightly raised but it's not fully level between the bus and platform.

5) A new light rail/streetcar station for the Mall of America would reduce travel time in/out of there, whereas today it's incredibly slow just to get between the stations at Mall of America and 30th Avenue. Also the new station would eliminate the grade crossing at 24th Avenue.

[VacantLuxuries]

It's almost like the people studying the project are acting in good faith to improve the ride experience across as many metrics as possible.

[commissioner]

Problem I see with the end of the line station is that they are doing exactly what they tried to do with the MOA station was first designed and the feds got involved and paid for the station that's there now. Yes it's slow but it's better than hiking through the parking ramp

[Trademark]

With the new progressive city council in St Paul, there is time and potential political will to make this completely dedicated by getting rid of some parking. The Blue Line Extension is farther along than this project and just had a new alignment come out of nowhere to send it through the North Loop on 10th Ave N, making it a transitway no less, after it was previously ruled out.

We can't get into a mindset where we are limited by the alternatives presented to us. We have to think bigger. We can show up to meetings and community engagement events demanding change! We have to contact the city councilwomen, and county commissioners along this project and tell them how inefficient it would be to put the busiest part of this project in mixed traffic over the concerns of a few parked cars. Contact people we know who live around the corridor and have them show up to neighborhood meetings, and contact their representatives.

Alignments and dedicated right of way are political decisions first and planning decisions second. In order to get the outcome that we know the project needs. We have to put political pressure on stakeholders.

[Crystal Wood]

Streetcar Option 1 looks the best to me. Most of the route has dedicated right-of-way plus center-running on West 7th should help with speed and reliability. My only hope is that later on they'll give the route dedicated right-of-way through downtown since I can't see mixed-traffic operation working well, especially with big events. However, Streetcar Option 1 is still a massive improvement over Route 54 and the aBRT option.

The part without dedicated right-of-way is the part that most needs it. What exactly are the "massive improvements" here, other than rail bias?

1) 89% of the streetcar route would have dedicated right-of-way. Route 54/aBRT would have dedicated right-of-way for only 8% of the route, specifically in downtown with the bus-only lanes that are coming as part of the Gold Line and B Line, and I'm not sure those bus lanes will be able to handle the combined traffic of Gold Line + B Line + other future BRT/aBRT routes + local/express buses + Route 54/hypothetical West 7th aBRT.

2) The streetcar would have stops at Terminal 2 and the actual Fort Snelling. Terminal 2 has gotten bigger over the years and despite COVID it'll get bigger. No one traveling to/from Terminal 2 will want to use a hypothetical West 7th aBRT if they have to transfer between the Blue Line and bus at Terminal 1. Fort Snelling is an important historic site and it would be good to have easy access to it by transit, whereas today to reach it by transit it's almost a one mile walk from the Blue Line's Fort Snelling Station.

3) A streetcar can hold more people, bikes, wheelchairs, luggage, etc. than a 60-foot bus.

4) Level-boarding between platforms and streetcars, so easier for people to get on/off. aBRT platforms are slightly raised but it's not fully level between the bus and platform.

5) A new light rail/streetcar station for the Mall of America would reduce travel time in/out of there, whereas today it's incredibly slow just to get between the stations at Mall of America and 30th Avenue. Also the new station would eliminate the grade crossing at 24th Avenue.

1. Again, that doesn't matter much in places that are unlikely to be congested. The 54 already tends to be pretty fast there, and while I'm having a hard time finding travel time estimates, my recollection is that the streetcar is projected to be slower. And those Gold Line stops are positioned much better than the proposed stops on Kellogg. OTOH, I don't like the aBRT moving the Randolph stop to Toronto... I get that it's closer to Keg and Case and the artist lofts, but an EB 74 to WB Riverview transfer would require crossing 7th with no light, or walking from Randolph. Hopefully some sort of pedestrian improvement is included at least.

2. While direct service to terminal 2 would obviously be more appealing, "no one" is quite an exaggeration. As for Fort Snelling, there's a huge difference between "important historic site" and "significant driver of ridership". If it can't even justify a bus stop currently, why is it a significant consideration when considering rail?

3, 4. Yes, all else being equal, rail is nicer than buses. But all else isn't equal, and "massively better" is a stretch. What are we not able to pay for if we sink $2 billion (before overruns...) into this? How many aBRT lines is that? How long until the new service opens? And what does it do to our ability to decide later that maybe we actually do want to invest in grade-separated transit in places like downtown?

5. Fixing some of the Blue Line's mistakes would be nice, but is it "incredibly slow" on the 54 today? Versus detouring to Ft Snelling station?

[Trademark]

The part without dedicated right-of-way is the part that most needs it. What exactly are the "massive improvements" here, other than rail bias?

1) 89% of the streetcar route would have dedicated right-of-way. Route 54/aBRT would have dedicated right-of-way for only 8% of the route, specifically in downtown with the bus-only lanes that are coming as part of the Gold Line and B Line, and I'm not sure those bus lanes will be able to handle the combined traffic of Gold Line + B Line + other future BRT/aBRT routes + local/express buses + Route 54/hypothetical West 7th aBRT.

2) The streetcar would have stops at Terminal 2 and the actual Fort Snelling. Terminal 2 has gotten bigger over the years and despite COVID it'll get bigger. No one traveling to/from Terminal 2 will want to use a hypothetical West 7th aBRT if they have to transfer between the Blue Line and bus at Terminal 1. Fort Snelling is an important historic site and it would be good to have easy access to it by transit, whereas today to reach it by transit it's almost a one mile walk from the Blue Line's Fort Snelling Station.

3) A streetcar can hold more people, bikes, wheelchairs, luggage, etc. than a 60-foot bus.

4) Level-boarding between platforms and streetcars, so easier for people to get on/off. aBRT platforms are slightly raised but it's not fully level between the bus and platform.

5) A new light rail/streetcar station for the Mall of America would reduce travel time in/out of there, whereas today it's incredibly slow just to get between the stations at Mall of America and 30th Avenue. Also the new station would eliminate the grade crossing at 24th Avenue.

1. Again, that doesn't matter much in places that are unlikely to be congested. The 54 already tends to be pretty fast there, and while I'm having a hard time finding travel time estimates, my recollection is that the streetcar is projected to be slower. And those Gold Line stops are positioned much better than the proposed stops on Kellogg. OTOH, I don't like the aBRT moving the Randolph stop to Toronto... I get that it's closer to Keg and Case and the artist lofts, but an EB 74 to WB Riverview transfer would require crossing 7th with no light, or walking from Randolph. Hopefully some sort of pedestrian improvement is included at least.

2. While direct service to terminal 2 would obviously be more appealing, "no one" is quite an exaggeration. As for Fort Snelling, there's a huge difference between "important historic site" and "significant driver of ridership". If it can't even justify a bus stop currently, why is it a significant consideration when considering rail?

3, 4. Yes, all else being equal, rail is nicer than buses. But all else isn't equal, and "massively better" is a stretch. What are we not able to pay for if we sink $2 billion (before overruns...) into this? How many aBRT lines is that? How long until the new service opens? And what does it do to our ability to decide later that maybe we actually do want to invest in grade-separated transit in places like downtown?

5. Fixing some of the Blue Line's mistakes would be nice, but is it "incredibly slow" on the 54 today? Versus detouring to Ft Snelling station?

A streetcar might be around the same time if it's in mixed traffic. But we can still push for it to be dedicated. As far as the cost let's break that down a bit. If we assume that $2 billion is the cost of this project. $1 billion is coming from the feds (aBRT will not qualify for federal funding the way this project is designed). In addition, 7th st and the rest of Kellogg to Robert St will need to be reconstructed anyways. Using the cost of Shephard Rd as an estimate which is approximately $29 mil a mile for 5.3 miles, that's $153.7 million. Subtract that and you get $846 million. Compare that to aBRT at likely $100 million and that's the cost breakdown.

Where would that money come from? aBRT money would come directly out of Metro Transit's limited budget and would only replace other transit investments, whereas on the county level (who would largely be paying it with some state support) we're likely taking money from a pool that would go to road and highway funding instead.

Another big benefit of LRT that we wouldn't get with aBRT that costs a ton is making the Highway 5 river crossing ADA accessible. Due to how tight the area is, it is very difficult to retrofit ADA accessibility here and won't be cheap. I'm not gonna even pretend how much it would cost, but it would be a lot, or you just accept worse mobility for some and don't have any accessible crossings between 46th and 35E.

Not to mention the greater costs of maintenance with the wear and tear on the roads from heavier buses running on it will lead to worse ride quality and more frequent repairs. On top of the fact that buses have to be replaced more frequently than LRT.

Because aBRT would not cover street reconstruction, the pedestrian infrastructure improvements on a dangerous street we could get would be limited compared to Light Rail. Light Rail also undeniably spurs a lot more development than aBRT, bringing property tax revenue that St Paul desperately needs.

The 54 right now has capacity issues, while switching to bigger buses will help if it's successful it will encounter capacity issues again. The only solution Metro Transit is to run more buses at higher frequency and considering their major issues with retention, I don't trust Metro Transit to be able to do that. On the other hand, LRT both drives more ridership, and even though renders have shown a one-car train, we can push for 2-3 cars.

So while yes, LRT is more expensive than aBRT, it's not as significant as the price tag would first reflect. Getting 50% federal match on all these adjacent projects is crucial.

aBRT is a short term solution if it's successful (which Riverview will be) not a long term one. If we throw out 10 years of work on an upgrade, that doesn't mean that we'll get another proposal in that's better. At best we start from scratch and start a new 20 year timer. At worst, we don't get any further upgrade because Metro Transit thinks aBRT is good enough. We cannot walk away from this project, and we must push for 100% dedicated lanes.

[DanPatchToget]

With this evening's CAC meeting concluded here's some notes I took:
One of the CAC members asked about the possibility of extending the Gold Line west to the airport and Mall of America as an alternative to the streetcar and aBRT options. One of the planners responded that the idea has been tossed around, but they haven't heard any interest of doing this from the people working on the Gold Line. Instead of long transit lines being through-routed in downtown St. Paul, there's more preference in downtown and Union Depot being hubs for people to transfer between various modes and routes.

For the streetcar, Option 1 was only being looked at and was to be presented back in March. However, the city of St. Paul wanted evaluation of an alternative, and the CAC meeting was cancelled back in spring so the planners and consultants could evaluate and create what became Option 2. Since Option 1 would require permanently removing parking along most of or the entirely of West 7th, I wonder if the city prefers mixed-traffic operation so they can save as much parking along West 7th as possible and in theory (strong emphasis on in theory) the businesses along West 7th will be more open to streetcars.

One of the planners said there's been some turnover at the Policy Advisory Committee, Community Advisory Committee, people from St. Paul assisting with this project, consultants, etc. Since this process has taken so long and still isn't finished I guess people decided to move on to something else, whether it's getting tired of the work or feeling that they've contributed as much as they can to this project. The CAC was supposed to disband at the end of this year, but there's more work than expected, so the timeline of the CAC is extended. Contracts with consultants have also been extended.

[Trademark]

With this evening's CAC meeting concluded here's some notes I took:
One of the CAC members asked about the possibility of extending the Gold Line west to the airport and Mall of America as an alternative to the streetcar and aBRT options. One of the planners responded that the idea has been tossed around, but they haven't heard any interest of doing this from the people working on the Gold Line. Instead of long transit lines being through-routed in downtown St. Paul, there's more preference in downtown and Union Depot being hubs for people to transfer between various modes and routes.

For the streetcar, Option 1 was only being looked at and was to be presented back in March. However, the city of St. Paul wanted evaluation of an alternative, and the CAC meeting was cancelled back in spring so the planners and consultants could evaluate and create what became Option 2. Since Option 1 would require permanently removing parking along most of or the entirely of West 7th, I wonder if the city prefers mixed-traffic operation so they can save as much parking along West 7th as possible and in theory (strong emphasis on in theory) the businesses along West 7th will be more open to streetcars.

One of the planners said there's been some turnover at the Policy Advisory Committee, Community Advisory Committee, people from St. Paul assisting with this project, consultants, etc. Since this process has taken so long and still isn't finished I guess people decided to move on to something else, whether it's getting tired of the work or feeling that they've contributed as much as they can to this project. The CAC was supposed to disband at the end of this year, but there's more work than expected, so the timeline of the CAC is extended. Contracts with consultants have also been extended.

Thanks for the update!

[Tcmetro]

Slide deck for next week's meeting:
https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... _final.pdf

The main points for the streetcar options are:
- $2.1 billion budget
- Appx 43-45 mins running time
- 11,200 - 11,600 riders per day (depending on options)

[Trademark]

Slide deck for next week's meeting:
https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... _final.pdf

The main points for the streetcar options are:
- $2.3 billion budget
- Appx 43-45 mins running time
- 11,200 - 11,600 riders per day (depending on options)

$2.1 billion budget

[Tcmetro]

Slide deck for next week's meeting:
https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... _final.pdf

The main points for the streetcar options are:
- $2.3 billion budget
- Appx 43-45 mins running time
- 11,200 - 11,600 riders per day (depending on options)

$2.1 billion budget

Whoops!

[thespeedmccool]

Slide deck for next week's meeting:
https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/defau ... _final.pdf

The main points for the streetcar options are:
- $2.1 billion budget
- Appx 43-45 mins running time
- 11,200 - 11,600 riders per day (depending on options)

Full LRT or kill it.

[Tcmetro]

I think the big impact on the travel time is between the route between the Airport and Davern - that's easily 8-10 minutes on the streetcar and the only real difference between the 54 bus and the Riverview corridor.

Dedicated lanes would on W 7th would improve reliability but I don't think are going to have much effect on speed. The 54 bus is already really fast so it's nearly impossible to be faster than it unless you go grade separated and cut the number of stops in half.

I also don't care for the Kellogg alignment. 5th or 6th would be good streets to use in Downtown St. Paul.

[BigIdeasGuy]

I think it's worth noting the $2.1 billion dollar budget includes replacing the bridge over the Mississippi with a new bridge which is certainly a big part of that number

That said if this thing can't get into a completely dedicated ROW and interlined with the Green Line for that number aBRT is the way to go. If you don't have those 2 parts of the project what additional utility does rail provide that aBRT doesn't bring a fraction of the cost?

The Met Council still needs to communicate who and why made the short decision that prevent the interlining with Green Line

[Trademark]

I think the big impact on the travel time is between the route between the Airport and Davern - that's easily 8-10 minutes on the streetcar and the only real difference between the 54 bus and the Riverview corridor.

Dedicated lanes would on W 7th would improve reliability but I don't think are going to have much effect on speed. The 54 bus is already really fast so it's nearly impossible to be faster than it unless you go grade separated and cut the number of stops in half.

I also don't care for the Kellogg alignment. 5th or 6th would be good streets to use in Downtown St. Paul.

5th and 6th would have worse connections to the Green Line then Kellogg, and have 90 degree turns that would slow down the streetcar to a crawl.