urbanMSP

Metro Transit is getting to work on the station plan for the D Line. Here's where they're at on the stations:



According to the public engagement plan, these areas need more outreach before they decide the general locations of the stations.

• 1-2 stations between Osseo & 47th and 44th & Morgan (reconsidering the plan to not have a station in the Victory Neighborhood)
• 1 station near 44th & Girard, depending on Victory Neighborhood stations
• 1-2 stations on Chicago between 14th and 18th
• 2-3 stations on Chicago between 24th and 28th
• Chicago & Lake (use the Chi-Lake transit center or build new stops at the intersection to reduce turning movements?)
• 1 station on Chicago between 33rd and 35th
• 1-2 stations on Chicago at 48th, 50th, and/or 52nd
• 1-2 stations on Portland between 70th and 73rd
• 2-3 stations on American Boulevard between Portland and Hwy 77

Also noteworthy is the addition of a station right at 8th & Hennepin, which wasn't included in the C Line.

Thanks for providing the info here

FRNNG is supporting a station at 48th and Chicago. I'm hoping we can do a joint resolution with HPDL supporting stations at 48th and 52nd.

I sorta wish we could be doing stations at 41st and 44th rather than 42nd/46th, since that's where there are actual business nodes and development opportunities. But I understand why they need the transfer capabilities at 46th, and then that really changes things further north.

My eyes are bad and I haven't got my new glasses yet. What do the shaded portions represent?

Why would you want stations at 46th *and* 48th? That's not very rapid. Not being terribly familiar with the area or ridership patterns, I would either ditch the station at 42nd or add one at 24th. The spacing along the southern portion just seems inconsistent and strange. 56th and 60th? Nothing between 66th and 77th?

And a big YES to a Victory station. It's ridiculous to even consider not having one, neighbors be damned.

Frankly, I'd like to see the entire Chicago transit station torn down, re-thought-out and rebuilt to orient to Chicago and Lake directly, much as how the Uptown station operates. I think many people questioned the design of that thing at the time.

The point is to go where there are actual activity nodes, no? There are big activity nodes at 48th and 56th.

It might be a bit of a stretch to say 44th is a business node, considering it's corners are a SFH, a cemetery, a commercial granite place, and an H&R Block. 46th has two corners with businesses, and a park that is much more used than the cemetery. Plus the obvious transfers. To me, 46th seems like the correct choice if the debate is between 44th and 46th.

Agreed with David on the Chicago/Lake Transit Center.

The spacing seems okay otherwise. The stops are at 56th and Chicago and then 60th and Portland, no? Those two are 3/4 mile apart, and both have destinations. And there isn't much between 66th and 77th. The only place a stop would make sense would be 72nd/73rd for the apartment and church/school, but those are very auto-oriented buildings.

FRNNG is supporting a station at 48th and Chicago. I'm hoping we can do a joint resolution with HPDL supporting stations at 48th and 52nd.

Not sure about 52nd. Might not be worth it. 48th is a must.

I sorta wish we could be doing stations at 41st and 44th rather than 42nd/46th

The businesses at 41st are super-low volume, though. I saw a woman on the sidewalk there this morning, but whenever I go by (most morning rush hours) that corner is super dead (which is why her presence was notable). Could transition to higher-traffic stuff in the future, of course.

But yeah, there isn't much point in a stop at 42nd. It would make sense just to move it to 43nd to shorten the walk to Walgreens or whatever replaces it (and the few businesses at that corner).

It might be a bit of a stretch to say 44th is a business node, considering it's corners are a SFH, a cemetery, a commercial granite place, and an H&R Block.

It's the Walgreens mid-block that you'd want a stop for (although that property is up for redevelopment).

Thanks for the context. I wonder what the transfer volume is at 46th. Does it make sense to remove that station and add the others? Would result in much less convenient transfers though. Re-route lines on 46th down Chicago to 48th to hit the commercial node, back north on Bloomington?

Does it make sense to locate a station like 48th and Chicago not literally at the intersection? IIRC, the existing bus stop is located a bit north of there to not add to what can be a fairly congested intersection (and presumably to maintain business parking).

Thanks for the context. I wonder what the transfer volume is at 46th. Does it make sense to remove that station and add the others?

Between the transfers (don't know the numbers, but it's got to be more than a few) and the fact that there are a number of business along that stretch, I think you just go ahead and stop at both 46th and 48th.

Re-route lines on 46th down Chicago to 48th to hit the commercial node, back north on Bloomington?

I don't think you'll have any luck selling buses on 48th to the neighborhood. And even if you could, that's would be a really inefficient stretch.

MNdible - The existing stops are not literally at the intersection (far-side for the northbound, mid-block to the north on the southbound). I'd assume the stations would be there.

Frankly, I'd like to see the entire Chicago transit station torn down, re-thought-out and rebuilt to orient to Chicago and Lake directly, much as how the Uptown station operates. I think many people questioned the design of that thing at the time.

the Chicago/Lake setup isn't ideal, but I'm not sure there's a better configuration given the space constraints along the intersection itself. The Uptown station works because it's primarily North/South routes + the 21 terminus. At Chicago/Lake the 5 & 21 are continuing through in both directions with a lot of transfers needing to happen in all directions. Hard to make that work right on Chicago/Lake.

I do think they need to adjust the timings for the lights at the Chicago side of the station. Something changed with the Chicago lights within the last year or so where traffic is always backed up into the intersection. Then the buses exiting the station get a green while the Chicago/Lake light for southbound traffic is still red, so they're stuck in the intersection long enough that the light changes and they're still blocking NB Chicago traffic. The SB Chicago/Lake light doesn't turn green until about 30 seconds later and is pretty short, so the 21 isn't able to turn onto Lake until the next light cycle. If SB Chicago got the green to clear things out before the buses exit the station things would be much smoother.

I mean, we had bus stops there before the Midtown Exchange, so how well did that work? What was the compelling reason for the new station?

Why can't we simply build aBRT stations on four corners and call it a day?

I recall that the 21 WB stopped both before and after the light. I think all the other lines made one stop at the corner.

The problem is that there is a high volume of transferring as well as scheduled hold time. This means the buses cause traffic issues and sidewalks become crowded easily. Neither the sidewalks or the roads are easily expanded, and I would imagine that Chicago and Lake is the single busiest transfer point outside of downtown (except maybe Snelling and University). Nicollet and Lake probably has similar volumes, but the 18 is split on Blaisdell and 1st, and any reconstructed Lake-Nicollet intersection can be designed with buses in mind.

Could make a lot of sidewalk space if you made Lake St 3 lanes and cut in bulbouts for all the parking lanes.

Metro Transit has published their recommendation for the Chicago & Lake station location.

Northbound stop will be at the current northbound Route 5 stop.

Southbound stop will be on Chicago just past the transit center’s access road. This will save 3 minutes and allow them to operate service with one fewer bus.

That is the correct choice, in my mind. It'll be frustrating to have to stop at the light at Lake immediately after boarding, but far-side boarding isn't really an option there, with the transfer point being the transit center.

Is the 5 going away, or staying on like the 84/16 have? If it is going away, couldn't we switch the 21 to far side boarding, the D to far side, and do away with the transit center?

That is the correct choice, in my mind. It'll be frustrating to have to stop at the light at Lake immediately after boarding, but far-side boarding isn't really an option there, with the transfer point being the transit center.

Is the 5 going away, or staying on like the 84/16 have? If it is going away, couldn't we switch the 21 to far side boarding, the D to far side, and do away with the transit center?

The 5 is not going away. The D Line will have 10 minute frequency, while the 5 will have 30 minute frequency.

That is the correct choice, in my mind. It'll be frustrating to have to stop at the light at Lake immediately after boarding, but far-side boarding isn't really an option there, with the transfer point being the transit center.

Is the 5 going away, or staying on like the 84/16 have? If it is going away, couldn't we switch the 21 to far side boarding, the D to far side, and do away with the transit center?

It is at least farside of the traffic light that controls traffic into the transit center.

They said in the recommendation that they wanted to keep the bus stops away from the intersection of Chicago & Lake because it gets too congested.

How challenging will it be for people traveling on a southbound D line to transfer to the 21 going east or west. It looks like they have to crash Chicago Avenue to get to the transit center.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk