urbanMSP

Well the hi-frequency network is more or less being replaced with the lettered arterial bus lines (with the exception of the 16, which was replaced by the Green Line), with few exceptions (no plans to upgrade the 515). The (weak) reasoning for not updating the Hi-Freq map is that they aren't really pushing that as a brand anymore. Plus, with opening another aBRT line every year, they'd be changing it quite often. It should just be removed from the website if they aren't going to bother keeping it current.

As far as a parent brand for the A Line, B Line, etc., it was going to be "Rapid Bus", but they scrapped that for the time being. The current thinking is that the letter line names provide enough branding on their own and don't need another layer of branding. After a few of them are rolled out, Metro Transit is going to reevaluate if they need a parent brand.

Thanks for the information and for the pictures in the above post as well. I guess with only 1 commuter 1 BRT 2 LRT lines in operation the vision is still kinda undefined. If the Red line, and aBRT paint schemes were flipped then the abrt and local bus line would have a simular format while the Red line BRT would have a more blue dominate color which would better relate to the blue LRT trains and the blue commuter trains. I do like the phase out of the high frequency bus routes. Instead of Rapid bus, I hope they consider labeling it under the Metro name. Metro A or Metro A Bus has a nice ring to it, plus when ever I think of Metro I think of a transit line that has high frequency in buses that I don't need to check to see the next bus time. If the aBrt buses can provide that then I don't see the reason not to include them. Are they concerned it would cheapen the Metro brand, or it's image?

As far as a parent brand for the A Line, B Line, etc., it was going to be "Rapid Bus", but they scrapped that for the time being. The current thinking is that the letter line names provide enough branding on their own and don't need another layer of branding.

Best idea I've heard all day!

They state that articulated buses could be used on future arterial lines, which I imagine the first would be the D-Line (Chicago-Fremont, or today's Route 5).

The Penn Avenue C-Line will have articulated buses per the meeting I was at earlier this month.

I understand the reasoning behind not putting the aBRT lines under the METRO brand intellectually, but I still think it's a big mistake. Putting them all under METRO would not only greatly aid discoverability ("which Metro stop should I go to?") but it would also strongly bolster the METRO brand, which in my experience just hasn't been catching on. Right now, METRO is a brand that no-one cares about or understands, and I doubt that'll get any better once we have the Orange Line ("what makes that different from the other buses on Marquette?").

I mean, hell, if the technical details are really important for the branding, there are ways around that. We could call the trunk lines METRO and the aBRT lines "METRO Rapid" or "METRO Local", similar to what they do in Los Angeles. Sure, someone could get confused... once. But after that initial confusion, they'll know which ones are which, and I doubt they'll really care.

Agreed. Now, if the METRO brand was only going to be for trains, that would be one thing, but unless I'm missing something, aBRT has way more in common with METRO BRT than it does with normal buses. There's differences, sure, but that's why they get letters instead of colors.

METRO, as it stands, means dedicated guide way. But yeah I don't know why they couldn't make a sub brand of METRO, I really like the idea of METRO Local or METRO Rapid.

Maybe they're avoiding branding aBRT with METRO to avoid degrading it by connection to the METRO Red Line.

I think they are anticipating that these aBRT lines will be as slow as limited stop buses are now - why would they be any faster? I think the idea is that METRO is a fast ride, whether our not it's frequent. By contrast, these lines are frequent, whether or not they're fast.

why would they be any faster?

BRT = Bus Rapid Transit

That's why

however its also its a fast succession of buses arriving at stations . once these different routes get built out it will be much easier to categorize them as needed, both from a user and planning perspective. i think the important thing is to not change the branding of "A." changing the "hiawatha light rail" to the "blue line" wasn't bad because it was the only light rail, but since there's tons of buses there would be more confusion if "A" was changed to "purple."

I think they are anticipating that these aBRT lines will be as slow as limited stop buses are now - why would they be any faster?

Level boarding, signal voodoo, and off-board payment. Those three things alone will significantly cut time--not as much as even fewer stops and a dedicated lane would, of course, but it's not all-or-nothing either.

I think they are anticipating that these aBRT lines will be as slow as limited stop buses are now - why would they be any faster?

The Met Council is anticipating a 25% faster ride than the routes these aBRT lines are replacing.

I think they are anticipating that these aBRT lines will be as slow as limited stop buses are now - why would they be any faster?

The Met Council is anticipating a 25% faster ride than the routes these aBRT lines are replacing.

That seems like magic-thinking improvement to me. EOst's point about off-board payment and level boarding is right, those things will help. Signal "voodoo" might or might not help, depending on how it's implemented, but 25% would be pretty amazing. I guess we'll see.

Well, seeing how this line runs almost entirely in St Paul, and given St Paul's track record with Green Line signal priority, I think skepticism is warranted. However, based on the line documentation (which I can't find now), they stated a very significant fraction of trip time was station and stoplight dwell time, so I think in principle all of these options (far-side stops, signal priority, off-board payment) could reach 25-30% trip time reductions. In principle.

EDIT: Found it. Only 60% of current trip times is spent in motion.

http://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites/ ... elling.pdf

I totally believe that. Honestly, I could believe a 20% savings from off-board payment alone. A group of 20 people getting on at one stop takes forever, even if everyone has Go-To cards.

I suspect that the bus will have an easier time getting priority than the Green Line did, both because St. Paul has some experience now with what that means (and doesn't mean), and also because the arterials Snelling crosses aren't as major as those University does. I can't put it past them to screw it up, though.

Construction phasing set: http://finance-commerce.com/transit/201 ... asing-set/

I don't know if I understood this correctly, but it would go from Roseville to st Paul and then to Minneapolis. What's the purpose of that? Since it goes through major st Paul streets and looks like it's mostly for Roseville and st Paul, why not have it end at union depot and have people transfer onto the green line?

It's an upgrade to the 84, which follows the same route.

Minneapolis and Saint Paul are not zero-width points. There are other lines that serve the downtowns; this is not one of them. To go between Roseville and either downtown you can transfer to the Green Line at Snelling (though a bus to downtown Minneapolis may be faster, especially if you can catch a 264). Maybe there's merit in direct service between Roseville and downtown St Paul (though apparently not enough to keep the 65 going downtown), but what does that have to do with a line that's "mostly for" the Snelling corridor, Highland Park, and the southern end of the Blue Line?

I don't know if I understood this correctly, but it would go from Roseville to st Paul and then to Minneapolis. What's the purpose of that? Since it goes through major st Paul streets and looks like it's mostly for Roseville and st Paul, why not have it end at union depot and have people transfer onto the green line?

Unless you are going to drastically change this route, it would still run from Roseville to Highland Park. From there it is another 2 miles to the blue line, or 6+ miles to downtown St. Paul. Besides, this line already intersects with the green line at Snelling.