Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1436
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby Tcmetro » May 8th, 2014, 4:09 pm

http://www.metrocouncil.org/Council-Mee ... eport.aspx

High Potential:

Highway 36 - 17.7 mi, 9300 riders, $46M
Highway 169 - 26.9 mi, 7800 riders, $46M
Interstate 394 - 12.6 mi, 6600 riders, $47M
Interstate 94 NW - 14.7 mi, 5400 riders, $98M

Medium Potential:

Interstate 35E S - 24.3 mi, 4000 riders, $41M

Low Potential:
Highway 65 - 9.3 mi, 800 riders, $27M
Interstate 35E N - 10.7 mi, 2500 riders, $24M
Highway 212 - 9 mi, 600 riders, $14M

mplser
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 730
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:43 pm
Location: Elliot Park

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby mplser » May 8th, 2014, 7:05 pm

More excuses to steal transit money to build highway lanes? Or are these going to be actual separated transitways? The first one is far more likely

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1436
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby Tcmetro » May 9th, 2014, 4:59 am

The study states that the majority of the stops will either be located along the entrance and exit ramps or at off-freeway stations (the only exceptions being 94/Shingle Creek and 94/Lowry), and as a result the buses will use existing lanes and bus only shoulders. The document even explains that the buses won't be using the MnPass lanes.

There are some other assumptions that I think are a poorly thought out as well. The study mentions that the bus stations would be enclosed, with level boarding (similar to the Red Line). However, in a lot of these low-density suburban areas, there is little to no need for completely enclosed shelters in the outbound direction. Very, very few people will be waiting at 36 and Century to ride to 36 and Hadley. They also mention having one-size of shelter, which obviously doesn't make sense when different stations will have different ridership.

Cost assumptions are also skewed in the inclusion of the O&M facility line. I would imagine that the bus operations would be at existing bus garages and maintenance of shelters would be added on to the routes of the workers who take care of the other facilities. So, IMO, the facilities will be cheaper due to economies of scale.

The routings are a little wonky, in that they completely avoid using surface streets. The Hwy. 36 Line would benefit from serving Maplewood Mall and Century College instead of Hadley Ave; the Hwy. 169 Line could skip Seagate Park and Ride, and be extended to the older part of Shakopee, etc, etc.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7710
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby mattaudio » May 9th, 2014, 8:38 am

This misses the mark. Freeway BRT should be used as a cost-effective way to provide off-peak service to strings of (existing) Park & Rides along a freeway corridor. It's crazy to think that Freeway BRT corridor will serve transit oriented land uses; it will not. Look no further than Apple Valley to figure out what opposite direction stations in human-hostile land use will do.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4727
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby David Greene » May 9th, 2014, 9:08 am

Highway 169 - 26.9 mi, 7800 riders, $46M
Interstate 394 - 12.6 mi, 6600 riders, $47M
How is it that a project half as long that already has dedicated HOT lanes costs more than a project on a totally overcapacity freeway where new lanes will almost certainly have to be built?

EDIT: Not using the HOT lanes is stupid. The feds are already pissed that they're used as little as they are. Just pay the cost for online statioons.

I don't think there is enough shoulder room on 169 between Excelsior Blvd. and I-394. I just can't believe the cost comparison between these two corridors. 169 has more stations, not enough shoulder and it costs less?

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1360
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby acs » January 21st, 2015, 9:24 pm

Unlocked: http://finance-commerce.com/2015/01/stu ... -plymouth/

I wonder how this one sneaked by us? Apparently Plymouth requested the Met Council to study highway BRT on the Highway 55 corridor since this was left out of the original highway BRT study. Cost would be $52 million for 11 stations and 52 minutes running time, all on the high side. The article says 55 would rank above four other highway corridors, but it doesn't mention which ones it is below. Plymouth apparently wants this for reverse commuters but the report says the biggest challenge is a lack of local support.

Personally, I'd rather the council scrap this whole study and do a full-on corridor study for a "west" transitway including 55 and I-394.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7710
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby mattaudio » January 22nd, 2015, 9:25 am

If Plymouth really wanted transit, they wouldn't be pushing to build new general-purpose freeway capacity on 494.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6219
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby twincitizen » January 22nd, 2015, 10:12 am

If Plymouth really wanted transit, they wouldn't be pushing to build new general-purpose freeway capacity on 494.
1. Plymouth is a pretty big town at 36 square miles and 75,000+ residents.
2. I think even the strongest transit advocates would admit that serving trips along/around the beltway isn't really doable (i.e. a ring route around 694/494 would be a terrible idea)
3. Why are you marrying lane expansion on 494 and point-to-point service on MN-55? Each serves completely different origins and destinations.
4. If anything I think we should be ecstatic that the City of Plymouth might potentially be the main local sponsor of a BRT line on 55, since it kinda sounds like Hennepin County is either too busy or unwilling to do at this point. Many urban/transit folks have noted the potential of such a route, and Met Council's preliminary study seems to confirm that it's a legitimate corridor, perhaps moreso than all others on the table right now.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7710
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby mattaudio » January 22nd, 2015, 10:22 am

Does Plymouth have any nodes that can be incrementally transformed into walkable, mixed use, neighborhoods complete with employment, shopping/services, and walkable housing? Those would be excellent contenders for transit connectivity to neighboring nodes, alongside service to regional centers and employment hubs.

The problem I see is that transit effectively serves walkable nodes, not 6x6mi meshes with 75,000 people. 2,200 people/mile^2 isn't adequate for non-P&R transit.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6219
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby twincitizen » January 22nd, 2015, 10:36 am

Well, I think even Plymouth is well aware that the Hwy. 55 BRT would primarily serve commuters coming in to Plymouth for work and not the other way around. Yes, of course it would also serve Plymouth residents who desire transit service to downtown (and points between) during off-peak hours, but Plymouth residents themselves will still be best served by the existing express routes. Given that, I think it's somewhat impressive that they might want to pursue this BRT service on behalf of their businesses in the corridor. Plymouth residents themselves are likely to see it as a waste since it won't directly benefit them, aside from adding off-peak trips for those that really need it. The vast majority of Plymouth residents would continue to drive for off-peak trips in the corridor.

User avatar
woofner
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1315
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:04 am

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby woofner » January 22nd, 2015, 10:59 am

BRT along Hwy 55 has been informally discussed for years. It's pretty clear that Plymouth is not that interested in it, thus Cole Hiniker's veiled threats about the project needing "political support." It's just too bad that the Met Council is not willing to champion transit projects.

It's also too bad that Hwy 55 was left off of the original study. There is no published justification for why they picked the corridors they did for the study; I found it baffling that they left off Hwys 55 and 100 (which we discussed here as being a prime candidate for Highway BRT). The study references corridors that were included in the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, which reference the corridors studied in the 2008 Transit Master Study. The chain ends there; the Transit Master Study gives no reason whatsoever for its selection of corridors.

Just more incompetence from the Met Council on the transit front. Anyone else notice that the DFL is proposing a higher sales tax for transit than the Met Council thought was possible in their "increased" revenue scenario in the 2040 TPP?
"Who rescued whom!"

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2684
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby RailBaronYarr » January 22nd, 2015, 12:58 pm

I'm surprised Matt doesn't see the longer-term potential of 55 here as a multi-way boulevard closer-in to Minneapolis. 55 isn't freeway-enough like for me to cringe at the thought of compact development directly adjacent to so much tailpipe emissions. It's very possible that the stops along 55 as you get more suburban could be re-zoned in a major way to really promote walking/biking and use the transit stop as an anchor. I really am no fan of P&Rs, but if MT (or whoever) is smart, they can built it to be a long-term district parking ramp that allows development to wrap around it in the future.

Run buses on the shoulder on the stretched of 55 without as much access. Encourage the areas east of Hwy 100 (or at least east of TWP) to go as full-on urban facing 55 as possible and rely on Penn aBRT (assuming it doesn't re-route down to Glenwood or something) + Blue Line + Hwy55 BRT + remaining 19 buses to make for some pretty low headways within the corridor to/from downtown. Do something Columbus-y with the I-94 crossing to connect those areas better & reduce impact. With almost 150' of room to play with in this area, you could definitely justify rail down the middle and dedicated bus lanes plus much better ped/bike amenities, all while barely impacting LOS for vehicles.

Something like this would be a very low-cost way to build ridership to actual places (not just express buses from spendy P&Rs only for work trips), and be the catalyst for walkable development that will never otherwise materialize west of Hwy100 (or, would never have the potential by running it on 394).

froggie
Rice Park
Posts: 419
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 6:52 pm

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby froggie » January 22nd, 2015, 3:04 pm

Does Plymouth have any nodes that can be incrementally transformed into walkable, mixed use, neighborhoods complete with employment, shopping/services, and walkable housing?
Their "downtown" area (north of 55 between Vicksburg and Plymouth Blvd) comes close to this and could eventually be converted...my aunt lives in a subdivision about 1/2mi from here.
I'm surprised Matt doesn't see the longer-term potential of 55 here as a multi-way boulevard closer-in to Minneapolis.
Oh, he does. He's often mentioned it on Twitter.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2684
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby RailBaronYarr » January 22nd, 2015, 3:20 pm

Just for kicks, here are the preliminary station area possibilities for land use for Penn and Van White (plus for lolz, Plymouth Ave). Obviously nothing is set in stone, but it's not hard to imagine this corridor filling in over the next 15-20 years if 55/access is modified. Big opportunity to make 55 way better for the neighborhood.

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1436
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby Tcmetro » January 23rd, 2015, 4:28 pm


acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1360
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby acs » January 23rd, 2015, 4:37 pm

Still 5th in ridership behind 394, 169, 36, and I-94. It's a nice addition to the study but I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

User avatar
woofner
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1315
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:04 am

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby woofner » January 23rd, 2015, 4:47 pm

In my anti-Met Council rant the other day I forgot to complain about how they assumed the route terminus would be in Medina. It's interesting to see now that the scenario that eliminates the Medina station actually increases ridership (by eliminating other stations, but implies that Medina's contribution to ridership is negligible). If they actually looked at the geography of the corridor, it would make more sense to terminate at NW boulevard, with routes circulating through the large employment district south of 55 there. If the travel times are decent, it could be a useful reverse commute route with riders transferring from LRT or expresses in Downtown Minneapolis.
"Who rescued whom!"

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1436
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby Tcmetro » January 23rd, 2015, 6:04 pm

I think the best use of funds would be to upgrade the service on I-394 to all day service and provide connecting buses to the parts of Plymouth and Golden Valley that need transit. During peak hours direct routes could operate.

There are a few reasons 394 is the best choice for the next highway BRT line:
- Housing densities are relatively high, especially at West End, and Shelard Pkwy
- Lots of offices throughout the corridor
- Large retail nodes at Ridgedale and West End
- HOT lanes already exist
- Bus service proven on corridor, 30 minute weekday service, 60 minute weekend service
- Direct ramps to the Ridgedale area would help avoid traffic, and could develop a good bus hub in the area.
- West End on-line station would provide opportunity for a lot a west metro expresses to stop on the way downtown, could capture suburb-to-suburb demand
- Logical terminus at Wayzata

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1360
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby acs » January 23rd, 2015, 6:25 pm

I think the best use of funds would be to upgrade the service on I-394 to all day service and provide connecting buses to the parts of Plymouth and Golden Valley that need transit. During peak hours direct routes could operate.

There are a few reasons 394 is the best choice for the next highway BRT line:
- Housing densities are relatively high, especially at West End, and Shelard Pkwy
- Lots of offices throughout the corridor
- Large retail nodes at Ridgedale and West End
- HOT lanes already exist
- Bus service proven on corridor, 30 minute weekday service, 60 minute weekend service
- Direct ramps to the Ridgedale area would help avoid traffic, and could develop a good bus hub in the area.
- West End on-line station would provide opportunity for a lot a west metro expresses to stop on the way downtown, could capture suburb-to-suburb demand
- Logical terminus at Wayzata
Agree 100%. The currently studied 394 brt doesn't use the MNpass lanes and runs along the shoulder stopping at cheap in line stations, like the red line. This corridor has the potential to be much more like the Orange line, a huge upgrade. I also think it would provide the impetus behind building an east/west version of marq2 to take pressure off the local and future streetcar corridors.

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1436
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Postby Tcmetro » December 9th, 2016, 12:33 pm

Update on Highway 169 BRT:

- all stations "in-line", i.e. on the exit/entry ramps

- stops being considered at:
169/Marschall Rd Transit Center
169/Canterbury Rd
169/Old Shakopee Rd
169/Bren Rd
169/Cedar Lake Rd
General Mills

then,
394/Louisiana
394/Park Pl

or

55/Winnetka
55/Douglas
55/Wirth
55/Penn
55/7th St

https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetin ... y-169.aspx


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests