urbanMSP

Here's the final report on the Midtown Corridor study from 2014: https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites ... ow-res.pdf

For light rail/streetcar on the Greenway, they assume it would be single car LRV or modern streetcar that's approximately 94 feet long.

Here's the final report on the Midtown Corridor study from 2014: https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites ... ow-res.pdf

For light rail/streetcar on the Greenway, they assume it would be single car LRV or modern streetcar that's approximately 94 feet long.

Thanks for posting! I love reading through old studies!

Response from the B Line project team about adding a station at France & Lake:

"West Lake Street Station has been proposed as the western endpoint for the B Line because it will create a critical transitway connection following completion of the METRO Green Line Extension and will provide for convenient transfers between the B Line and the Green Line, where customers will use stairs and elevators to move between the BRT and light rail platforms.

Locating the westernmost B Line station at France Avenue would require riders to walk an additional ~1,100 feet to transfer to and from the Green Line. However, because there is not space for B Line buses to turn around and layover between trips on the Lake Street Bridge, B Line buses will use the Lake Street and France Avenue site as a layover location.

Constructing B Line stations at both locations has not been proposed because it would be inconsistent with BRT station spacing guidelines, which call for stations to be placed every third- to half-mile on average, and the projected ridership in this area does not warrant an additional station, despite additional development in the area. An additional station would also increase project costs, and could cause confusion for both riders and drivers in an area with quite a bit of movement and activity. It’s something we are continuing to track, but are ultimately not considering a station at this time."

First it seems like they're intentionally misreading what I wrote. I didn't say anything about relocating the western terminus to France. Then it seems like they're in search of problems to a solution when they say it could cause confusion for riders and drivers because there's a lot of movement and activity in the area. I don't see how that's a deal breaker for adding a station. Literally everywhere in South Minneapolis has a lot of "movement and activity."

I'm probably going into a little bit of a rant here, it's just quite frustrating when something as simple and easy as this gets muddied for no apparent reason.

I think it's a bit obtuse of them to so easily write off a station at France. It doesn't add any additional travel time, and they're compromising station spacing elsewhere.

Personally I prefer a 1/4-1/3 mile stop spacing so that the local buses can be removed to prevent situations where extra service is running almost empty all day. I feel like 3 more stations along the B Line would be enough to remove the 21 local service completely.

So, I just read through all 33 pages of this thread that started way back in 2012. It appears that the Midtown Greenway rail concept hasn't been added to the MSP region's queue of projects, right? It is mentioned the Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan as a big transit priority for the City, however.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/9S3PPVF

Use this Link to Comment on the Recommended Corridor Plan for the METRO B Line. A good comment in my opinion is to make sure we get a full Bus Lane along on Lake St.

My comment:

It appears B Line buses will use the turnaround/terminal at Lake Street & France Avenue on the Minneapolis-St. Louis Park border. I don't understand why this is not identified as a station location. This is a high-density residential area, with hundreds of additional housing units to be constructed in the near future. Given that this is a terminal, only a single eastbound platform would need to be constructed. It makes all the sense in the world to allow riders to board here. A platform here would extend the walkshed of the B Line several blocks into St. Louis Park, and also provide quick trips to transfer to the Green Line. This stretch of Lake Street isn't the most walkable, and due to the slope of the bridge, could be a difficult/unpleasant walk to reach the light rail vertical circulation at the apex of the bridge. Please clarify in final plans that a station platform will be constructed at the Lake & France turnaround.

My comment:

It appears B Line buses will use the turnaround/terminal at Lake Street & France Avenue on the Minneapolis-St. Louis Park border. I don't understand why this is not identified as a station location. This is a high-density residential area, with hundreds of additional housing units to be constructed in the near future. Given that this is a terminal, only a single eastbound platform would need to be constructed. It makes all the sense in the world to allow riders to board here. A platform here would extend the walkshed of the B Line several blocks into St. Louis Park, and also provide quick trips to transfer to the Green Line. This stretch of Lake Street isn't the most walkable, and due to the slope of the bridge, could be a difficult/unpleasant walk to reach the light rail vertical circulation at the apex of the bridge. Please clarify in final plans that a station platform will be constructed at the Lake & France turnaround.

I also commented that there needs to be a station at Lake & France. If they don't put a station there then I'll just be standing at that bus turnaround on opening day wanting to get on, and going back west I'll request to be dropped off at Lake & France. I'll encourage other people to do the same as it's absolutely ridiculous that a bus turnaround and layover point isn't included as a station stop.

What a weird thing for Metro Transit to be so adamant about. It doesn't affect the operation of the route at all.

The sidewalk on the bridge is quite narrow and I'd imagine that snow clearing isn't all that great in the winter. Add in the crosswalk and the five-minute walk and it basically keeps a lot of those apartment dwellers in their cars for easy crosstown trips.

I hope that folks will also leave comments calling for "floating" bus stops on Marshall Avenue in St. Paul. Given that these stations will be built from scratch and the curbs will be moved, it's unbelievable to me that the plans still call for buses to pull into the bike lane. Why would this conflict be left unaddressed? Floating bus stops are a proven design and should be a no-brainer.

Every time I've brought up floating bus stops to local transit planners, there's some reason they think it's not a good idea. Same thing with far-side bus stops as the default. Now I can't remember why.

Every time I've brought up floating bus stops to local transit planners, there's some reason they think it's not a good idea. Same thing with far-side bus stops as the default. Now I can't remember why.

I guess they would prefer conflict points between buses and cyclists over conflict points between bikes and pedestrians? It doesn't make sense in terms of the overall good since bikes can't do to pedetrians what buses can do to cyclists. But if they're trying to prioritize transit riders, and they assume they are pedestrians and not cyclists, it makes sense.

Didn't someone here say they saw poor compliance with the test ones they built on 7th St N?

Oh boy, I wouldn't call that Olson Hwy & 7th St N intersection, or just 7th St N in general, a good location for testing cyclists' compliance. Heck, I don't feel like it's that patchy bike lanes and wide-open intersections in that area are good enough for cycling in general.

I bike through that intersection every morning and can report and can report that about 90% of people waiting at that station at ~8am are standing in the bike path. I don't really blame them, though, that's where the only shade is, given the way the shelter is oriented.

Take this with a grain of salt because my source is people tweeting about it, but it sounds like the Minneapolis City Council's Public Works Committee amended their official stance and are now asking for the full (two-way) bus lane configuration.

https://twitter.com/ban_SUVs/status/1425540073307656193

I'm all for improving bus service on Lake Street, but there's a rail trench 1 block away, which should be a priority too.

Take this with a grain of salt because my source is people tweeting about it, but it sounds like the Minneapolis City Council's Public Works Committee amended their official stance and are now asking for the full (two-way) bus lane configuration.

https://twitter.com/ban_SUVs/status/1425540073307656193

I hope this is true!!!!

What does that mean for the section between ~28th Avenue and the River, which under the “medium alternative” was slated to get a 4-3 conversion and bike lanes, and doesn’t really need full bus lanes due to low traffic congestion?

What does that mean for the section between ~28th Avenue and the River, which under the “medium alternative” was slated to get a 4-3 conversion and bike lanes, and doesn’t really need full bus lanes due to low traffic congestion?

I wondered this too. A four-lane road (even with two of them painted red) would be a bad outcome here.