Better Bus Routes - Metro Transit

[Bakken2016]

This comment could go in the aBRT thread or here, but I wonder if going with lettered rapid lines instead of numbers is going to seem like a good idea long-term, once we're in the middle of the alphabet. Instead of A-K (minus I), the first ten aBRT routes could have been labeled Routes 1-10. Obviously that would require a prerequisite action of renumbering the current single-digit routes to higher numbers. Or they could've done what many other cities have and do R1, R2, etc.

As it stands, we're going to have colors, letters, and numbers. Outside of NYC, I'm not sure another US city has all three. For a transit system of our relatively small size and relatively low complexity (i.e. just two transit modes: ignoring Northstar, we have only buses and LRT; no streetcars, ferries, etc.), it seems like we could manage to only use two of the three route naming schemes. Metro Transit does a great job with consistent branding across the system, I think we could tighten up the route naming/numbering a little bit.

I actually very much disagree on this. I think it’s important to differentiate these from regular bus routes. If we end up with 26 of these things, that’s a good problem that we can deal with then.

Me sitting here, yes the METRO AA, AB, AC lines! *laughs maniacally in favor of all the BRT routes*

[thespeedmccool]

I expect they'll skip I?

I think so, yeah. They've requested bonding money to plan and build the J, K, and L Lines, but no I.

[Bakken2016]

I expect they'll skip I?

I think so, yeah. They've requested bonding money to plan and build the J, K, and L Lines, but no I.

Yeah I think they are skipping that due to it looking too much like the number 1.

[Tom H.]

Probably no O line either, then. Guess we're stuck with just 24 letters - let's hope we're forced to use Greek

[daveybabymsp]

Probably no O line either, then. Guess we're stuck with just 24 letters - let's hope we're forced to use Greek

If we start converting lines to LRT we can reuse the letters!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trademark]

I expect they'll skip I?

I think so, yeah. They've requested bonding money to plan and build the J, K, and L Lines, but no I.

Do you have a source for this?

[thespeedmccool]

I expect they'll skip I?

I think so, yeah. They've requested bonding money to plan and build the J, K, and L Lines, but no I.

Do you have a source for this?

It was just in the list of bonding requests this year. I think it can be found on MMB's website

[Trademark]

Yeah, the obsession with killing the downtown hub-and-spoke in favor of a cartesian grid is truly baffling to me. You're benefiting hardly anybody, and hurting lots of people who do want to go downtown (or who would like to make a different connection there).

The reason why Johnson to Cedar makes the most sense is because of the volume of connections that can already go to downtown. 61, 3/H, 6/E, Green, and Blue all provide connections to the core. Now more than ever, downtown is not the central place to be. Not only do the deviations cost a ton of time for riders looking to go from south to northeast but they lead to bus bunching and congestion on our downtown corridors that have cascading effects that slow down multiple routes.

As for Lyndale to Lyndale connections to the 17, 6/E, 5/D, C, 7, and 9 all bring you to downtown. While providing a north south connection to an area that doesn't have any until Plymouth. Also there is no route that provides a one seat ride from the western half of the southside to the Northside.

[Trademark]

I found it, thank you

"The 2023 Legislative session provided funding for arterial BRT corridor planning. With these
resources, Metro Transit will begin updating the region’s arterial BRT system plan in late 2024 to
identify the next corridors after H Line. It is expected that $25 million in federal funding will be
available for another candidate corridor after the H Line. Requested 2024 state funding will be used
to match anticipated federal funds and advance the development of J, K, and L lines from corridors to
be studied in the upcoming plan update. Candidate corridors to be studied include Nicollet Avenue in
Minneapolis and Richfield, Randolph/East 7th, Grand Avenue and West 7th in St. Paul, and 63rd/Zane
in Brooklyn Park/Brooklyn Center, in addition to others to be identified through local stakeholder
engagement."

Interesting that they don't include Lyndale/Johnson or Lowry. Hopefully that means there's time to straighten out Lyndale/Johnson. And maybe look into extending Lowry on the old Route 223 to Maplewood Mall. It would fill a whole in the network and connect nicely with the G Line, and the Purple Line while some decent density by Lexington/Victoria/Dale and Cty-C, Little Canada Road, Cty-D on the southside of 35E which was an area that was highlighted by the county/city (I don't remember exactly which one) as a potential reroute of the Purple Line due to the amount of apartment buildings there.

This would also make it easier to justify extending the 71 north to Vadnais Heights Walmart. East St Paul has no regular route connections to either the Walmart in Woodbury or Vadnais Heights. If I want to go Walmart I have to go to West St Paul.

[BigIdeasGuy]

I get the complaint about how many bus routes flow through downtown but what's the route from north to south that doesn't as least graze the edge of DT?

Lowry Hill, the Sculpture Garden & 394 force anything west of Lyndale on to Lyndale. On the east you have the river, I guess you could use Ceder & Riverside on to 10th which is great for NE and the U but not exactly convenient for literally anywhere else.

[Tcmetro]

I think bringing back the 27 and extending to the North Side via Lyndale and Dunwoody/Van White could be a pretty interesting concept. On the east side it's a little bit trickier but perhaps something on 2nd or Washington then along 4th/University to Jones/Eddy Hall, West Bank, Cedar, Minnehaha to the Lake St/Midtown Station.

Making the 4 & 22 through routes that don't go downtown is tempting from a simplification concept, but I don't think it's a good idea. I think the north-south concepts should overlay on top of the existing network as opposed to rerouting what exists now.

[Trademark]

I think bringing back the 27 and extending to the North Side via Lyndale and Dunwoody/Van White could be a pretty interesting concept. On the east side it's a little bit trickier but perhaps something on 2nd or Washington then along 4th/University to Jones/Eddy Hall, West Bank, Cedar, Minnehaha to the Lake St/Midtown Station.

Making the 4 & 22 through routes that don't go downtown is tempting from a simplification concept, but I don't think it's a good idea. I think the north-south concepts should overlay on top of the existing network as opposed to rerouting what exists now.

The 27 should stay dead. It got almost half as many riders per hour as the next lowest urban route (the 83, and the 33). And only had around 20 riders per day. I don't agree with creating convoluted routes that serve very few people we need to be getting rid of these not adding more.

There is no route that goes from the Northside to the westside of the southside, or the east side of the southside to the Northeast. That doesn't make sense especially when a multitude of pretty high frequency routes are available to transfer that do the same thing as these routes do now. And if you don't want to transfer there are decent to high frequency routes available within a half mile walk of most of these routes that will take you to downtown, for the 4 you can walk to the 6, 10, 17 or the 18. Or if your on the 22, you can walk to the D, 14, Blue, 7, or the 9.

The only place where you aren't a 1/2 mile from a direct downtown route for the 4 is on 50th between Penn and Lyndale, south of 68th street on Penn, and East of Johnson on 37th to Silver Lake. For the 22, the only exceptions are north of 47th ave, and a couple stretches over south from 21st and 38th to 23rd and 38th and 28th from 41st to 46th. If ever there is a time to de-emphasize downtown it's now, if ever there are routes that are set up for it, it's these routes.

It's the same logic as getting rid of the 3 going into downtown St Paul and running it on Maryland to the East Side as the H Line (Which is an improvement I can't wait for and is desperately needed).

[Trademark]

I get the complaint about how many bus routes flow through downtown but what's the route from north to south that doesn't as least graze the edge of DT?

Lowry Hill, the Sculpture Garden & 394 force anything west of Lyndale on to Lyndale. On the east you have the river, I guess you could use Ceder & Riverside on to 10th which is great for NE and the U but not exactly convenient for literally anywhere else.

It's about connecting the eastern part of southside to Northeast better, and the western part of the southside to the Northside better. It would graze downtown, but would still save 10-15 minutes of travel time especially in rush hour (Downtown is where bus speed and reliability go to die). Especially for the 22, it's convoluted route isn't necessary with the 3, Green, and 7 doing largely the same exact route. These are huge benefits to riders who are headed between those parts of town.

Your correct on the routing choices though. Lyndale to Lyndale, and Johnson to 10th/Cedar.

[twincitizen]

My annoying fantasy transit idea connecting Southside and NE Minneapolis is a new LRT service to NE (and eventually Rosedale) using the Blue Line's existing Hiawatha trackage, then running up 35W to Rosedale (some sections in the middle of 35W, some alongside). The Blue Line running right over 35W, in such close proximity to the 35W bridge that we spent extra money on to be LRT-ready, is just too tempting to not come up with silly ideas like that. Despite ample evidence from every other city that's built freeway-adjacent transit that it is far from ideal, I still don't hate it right here. A 2.5-mile extension of LRT track to the Quarry is fun to think about.

[Trademark]

My annoying fantasy transit idea connecting Southside and NE Minneapolis is a new LRT service to NE (and eventually Rosedale) using the Blue Line's existing Hiawatha trackage, then running up 35W to Rosedale (some sections in the middle of 35W, some alongside). The Blue Line running right over 35W, in such close proximity to the 35W bridge that we spent extra money on to be LRT-ready, is just too tempting to not come up with silly ideas like that. Despite ample evidence from every other city that's built freeway-adjacent transit that it is far from ideal, I still don't hate it right here. A 2.5-mile extension of LRT track to the Quarry is fun to think about.

Median freeway transit is fine. Just either put in noise barriers or enclose the station with platform doors. Lake street is a great example of this working well. Ya the walkshed isn't the greatest, but the speed you get from running it in the freeway makes up for an additional transfer or longer walk to get there.

Let's be honest the Blue Line is damn near freeway-adjacent transit with Hiawatha and it's still one of the highest ridership light rail lines in the country.