Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Corridors

[Multimodal]

And as we get more rapid transit lines coursing through the downtowns, is it still a big deal to need enormously long lines that start on one side of a downtown and end on the distant other side?

For example, with all these high-frequency lines, will it be less of a nuisance to have to switch buses downtown, since you'll only be waiting a few minutes? In the future, would it make more sense to have a BRT for Johnson St. NE but not Lyndale S? Or have one line for Grand and a separate one for Franklin, thus ensuring consistent, rapid trips since there's no odd connector section?

A further benefit could be more electric buses. Wasn't the reason e-buses were stolen from the E Line (ironically enough, the E Line is not Electric lol) was because it was so long?

[Zkools20]

Now imagine if a majority of the those were either light rail or subway lines…

[MNdible]

Now imagine if we had cars that could fly...

[Multimodal]

OK, chalk that one up to Bad Idea #4,279

[Tcmetro]

Some updates on the arterial BRT study:

Evaluation tech memo: https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites ... mo%203.pdf

Corridor maps with concept stops: https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites ... ix%20A.pdf

W 7th St screening results:
https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites ... dendum.pdf

Three corridors have supplemental service plans:
Lyndale/Bloomington: 22 continues to serve Downtown - VA Hospital route.

Lyndale/Penn: 4 starts at 35W & 46th St station and travels to American & Knox station via 46th St, Lyndale Ave, and American Blvd.

Nicollet: 518 replaces the 18E, starting at 76th & Knox station via 76th/77th, Nicollet, 98th, Lyndale, 106th, Humboldt, 104th to 104th & W Bloomington Freeway terminal.

Franklin/Cedar/E 3rd St: it looks like there isn't a replacement for the 2 between Franklin station and 7th St SE & Central Ave. Presumably, the 7, 67, Green, E, H, and U of M shuttle bus lines provide some alternatives.

[twincitizen]

Page 39 of the technical memo has estimated capital & operational costs for each of the ten study corridors, ranging from $55M (Payne/Westminster) to $167.5M (Franklin-Grand). Nicollet is middle of the pack at $97M and West 7th clocks in at $75M, about double what it was going to cost in 2015. The Franklin-Grand corridor and Johnson-Lyndale corridors would each cost north of $160M to build, but Franklin-Grand could be operated for a $13.9M/year (over current service costs) while Johnson-Lyndale has the highest net operating costs at $25.8M/year. I'm guessing this is due to the substantial increase in frequency over the current route 4 and needing to operate a fairly frequent local route 4 on Lyndale from 46th down to 494, since BRT would serve the Penn branch only. Whereas routes like West 7th and Nicollet already have frequent service and wouldn't cost much more to operate over existing service levels. Page 37 shows how many net additional bus operators would be required over existing conditions.

With these next three routes planned for implementation in 2030-2035, I assume there is an estimated budget range that Metro Transit believes will be available during that time frame. One of the evaluation factors is "balance expanded arterial BRT investment with available resources", which I think partially means 'we can't select the three most expensive corridors in the same round'. West 7th appears to be a lock based on relatively low capital ($75M) and operational costs ($5.4M annually with only 3 add'l bus operators). Nicollet has a strong case as well ($97M capital, $9.6M operating). The big question seems to be whether to take on a costly corridor like Franklin-Grand that scores highly on ridership, equity and housing density, or a cheaper shorter route that makes good connections and expands the reach of the METRO network.

Lyndale corridor rant: I'm still not sold on the Lyndale BRT serving the Penn branch of the 4. Part of the appeal of ABRT is predictable, straight routes. I assume the reasoning is that Lyndale is seen as too close to Nicollet, so it would be overserving that area of South Mpls & Richfield. But Nicollet is just as close to the D Line (on Portland south of 60th) and that hasn't been said to be a spacing issue. In favor of keeping it on Lyndale, both Lyndale/54th and Lyndale/66th are larger commercial/mixed-use nodes than anything along the Penn branch from 50th to 494. At the end of the line, Penn-American is already served by the Orange Line and local routes, so that doesn't sway me towards putting ABRT on the Penn branch.

If the Lyndale BRT is going to serve the Penn branch of the 4, I might then suggest that the Nicollet ABRT should similarly have a jog, via 66th St to serve Lyndale instead of Nicollet through Richfield. In Richfield, Nicollet is less dense than Lyndale (esp. south of 66th), and anyone east of Nicollet is already served by the D Line on Portland. Penn would instead be served by the rump local route 4. Nicollet south of 66th wouldn't have ABRT in this imagined scenario and would need to be served by a slightly longer version of the 518 shown on p. 9 of the corridor maps. At any rate, I don't think Lyndale is getting selected this round due to very high operating cost and the likelihood that Nicollet will advance. Maybe Route 4's split service pattern on Lyndale and Penn south of 50th Street works kind of perfectly and should be left alone?

[twincitizen]

No official announcement on the selection yet, but West 7th appears to be a lock based on the recent announcement of collaboration between MnDOT, Metro Transit, Ramsey County, and St. Paul.

Metro Transit's ABRT study page had a note stating that following the J, K & L selection they will submit an amendment to Met Council to formally add them to the 2050 Transportation Plan later this year. I couldn't remember if the H Line had already been added to the 2050 TPP, so as I was looking that up I came across this comment by Metro Transit in the public engagement summary for the recent TPP amendment that added the Blue Line Extension's new route and the Gold Line Extension. This was in response to someone asking if an infill A Line station would be added at Snelling & 94 to facilitate transfers with the Gold Line.

Additionally, in 2026 Metro Transit will undertake a study of existing arterial bus rapid transit lines, like the METRO A Line, to evaluate if there are improvements that could be made to enhance service and connections. The connection between A Line and Gold Line Extension will be considered in that study.

I haven't seen a formal announcement of this study, so that feels like new information even though this comment was published months ago. In addition to the A Line infill station, I'd guess they will study various short extensions to the A and C Lines and coordinate with Minneapolis on designing a D Line Station at 38th & Chicago. I think they will also amend the H Line routing to Washington Ave instead of ending at Ramp B as initially planned. I'd assume no major changes to the B and E Lines since they are so new, unless something really needs fixing. I doubt lengthier extension ideas like "C is for Cedar" will be looked at since that would amount to a whole corridor study.

[Tcmetro]

I would hope that they are considering adding more stops as they eliminated operating or planned local overlays of the A (84), B (21) and C (19) lines. Also I'd imagine that it's at least worth reviewing more stops on the D Line to replace the 5.

[Silophant]

It would be nice if the C Line could extend up Shingle Creek Parkway to serve the Hennepin County Library/Service Center and eventual Brookdale redevelopment. My bigger wish would be redirecting the D Line up Humboldt and west on 57th/Bass Lake Road to better serve far North Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center, but that might have been an easier sell back when Ward 4 had a transit advocate CM instead of Ms. Cybertruck.

[twincitizen]

I was going to suggest something similar. The commons section of the C & D lines is over-serving that stretch of Osseo/Brooklyn Blvd to BCTC. It would seem to make sense for the D Line to use a different route to arrive at BCTC.

And now that I’ve looked at this, why did they put the D Line station on 44th EAST OF PENN WHERE THE C LINE CAN’T USE IT? Rerouting the D Line onto Humboldt north of 44th would result in abandoning this station. Given that, I guess this won’t be happening anytime soon. They must have considered this alternative when planning the D Line, but in hindsight it does seem strange that the C Line stops are a block south at 43rd Ave, and the D Line stops were placed east of Penn where the C Line can't share them. Had the D Line's platforms been built west of Penn, both lines could use them.

[Tcmetro]

The 22 branch on 49th Ave used to use Webber Pkwy and Humboldt but was changed to avoid the railroad crossing.

Extending the D to the Brookdale Library (or maybe even to 69th & Humboldt) and the C to Starlite would be great changes.

[DanPatchToget]

I wonder if there will be consideration of starting new aBRT routes that mostly or entirely use existing aBRT stations. For example a route that starts at Chicago & 56th, uses existing D Line stops along Chicago Avenue, then turns west onto Lake Street and uses existing B Line stops to Lake & France. There would need to be enough demand that the cost of starting a new route outweighs continuing to have people make an easy (in theory) transfer, but as more aBRT routes open there could be opportunities to start new aBRT routes with little to no new station stops needing to be built.

[twincitizen]

Here's a short A Line extension idea. A few years ago Route 7 was extended down to Cedar & 66th via Highways 62 and 77. What if Route 7 was truncated to end at 46th St Station and instead the A Line picked up that leg of 34th Avenue and short freeway jaunt to Cedar & 66th?

That leg is a 12 minute trip during rush hour, 10 minutes off-peak. That doesn't add too much to the A Line's total running time. The main benefit would be that it adds the busy Cedar Point Commons area to the ABRT network. Having a rapid branded service there likely boosts ridership between Cedar-66th and 46th St Station, in turn boosting Blue Line ridership. Operationally it shouldn't cost much since the 7 is already fairly frequent and it would be close to a 1:1 replacement of those service hours. Buses already layover/turnaround here too. The downsides are making the A Line a little less reliable by making it longer, and no longer having it dwell at 46th St Station since it wouldn't be an endpoint anymore. A really nice thing about the current situation at 46th St Station is you can usually board a warm A Line bus immediately after getting off the Blue Line. Extending the A Line anywhere means buses no longer dwell at the LRT Station.

Why extend south rather than west?
I don't think the A Line is likely be extended westward for a couple reasons. Foremost is that there's no logical endpoint/layover until 50th & France, and that's likely too long of an addition to the A Line. Second reason is Metro Transit just studied the 46 corridor for ABRT which scored poorly due to low ridership and low density land use along most of the route. As much as I personally want an ABRT route on 46th St between Hiawatha and France (even just to 35W to get me to the Orange Line), it just doesn't have the ridership. For now I just want Route 46's Network Now service implemented, improving weekend headways from hourly to 30 minutes. If it ever gets the upgrade, it will likely be a separate route replacing the 46 entirely.

[angrysuburbanite]

I've always thought an A Line extension to at least the 46th Street Orange Line station would be useful, but I do like this idea as well.

One thing this reminds me of: we have a lot of corridors with 30-minute frequency, and quite a few with 10-15 minute frequency, but not as many at 20-minute frequency. I believe the 32, 22, and 74 are the only routes that run every 20 minutes on weekdays. There are so many corridors that could benefit from the bump from 30 to 20 despite not quite having the demand for full high frequency. Like the 38, 46, 61, 65, or 87 are really good candidates for that. This doesn't have much to do with aBRT, but I suppose trialing high(er) frequency buses might expose more corridors as being strong performers.

The reason why I mention all of this: Look at Route 32. I know it was free-fare for awhile, but the upgrades to 20-minute frequency have had profound impacts on ridership. It carries almost 30 passengers per passenger hour (one of the highest numbers in the system) and has 1,700 daily riders which exceeds even pre-covid numbers. I know that high frequency and aBRT investments are obviously better, but small bumps/upgrades like that could arguably be more impactful. Obviously that depends on the corridor. Basically: more good crosstown routes!!

[DanPatchToget]

IIRC the 87 had 20-minute frequency when the Green Line opened. I want to say through my U of M years (2014-2018) it remained at that level of service, but I don't know when service was reduced (I'm guessing COVID).

[J. Mc]

IIRC the 87 had 20-minute frequency when the Green Line opened. I want to say through my U of M years (2014-2018) it remained at that level of service, but I don't know when service was reduced (I'm guessing COVID).

87 was trimmed back to 30 off-peak/20 peak frequency a bit before covid when they were trimming costs for the funding cuts, IIRC it was in 2017 or 2018. It may have been in conjunction with the new MTS E-W-Xtown contract in July 2017. (I remember the service performance on 87 with Schmitty improved drastically from how poorly it was operated by First previously)

While I don't live directly on the 87 now, I do still ride it occasionally and it does get decent use from what I've seen. I've even been on a few buses that were feeling 'full' with 15-20 riders. I'd be interested in seeing the route go back to 20 min frequency again if funding allows. Meanwhile, new buses coming in to start replacing the older existing 29' Gillig fleet will be 35' ones, so that'll add a bit of additional capacity for the busy trips.

[Hamstirly]

I was going to suggest something similar. The commons section of the C & D lines is over-serving that stretch of Osseo/Brooklyn Blvd to BCTC. It would seem to make sense for the D Line to use a different route to arrive at BCTC.

And now that I’ve looked at this, why did they put the D Line station on 44th EAST OF PENN WHERE THE C LINE CAN’T USE IT? Rerouting the D Line onto Humboldt north of 44th would result in abandoning this station. Given that, I guess this won’t be happening anytime soon. They must have considered this alternative when planning the D Line, but in hindsight it does seem strange that the C Line stops are a block south at 43rd Ave, and the D Line stops were placed east of Penn where the C Line can't share them. Had the D Line's platforms been built west of Penn, both lines could use them.

I ride between downtown and the 43rd/44th C/D stops here every week and this makes me so so angry. Nothing is worse than standing at one and watching a bus stop at the other. I'm guessing it's because space is tight on the osseo road curve with N 44th continuing just west of the intersection but it still feels incredibly bad.

[eowens]

Put together my opinion of how the future ~2030 twin cities METRO map should look - and included the high frequency bus network as well.

Main updates and notes are included in the map - enjoy!

https://photos.app.goo.gl/uCguivrPUxBP34Vj9

[Silophant]

Very cool. It's nice seeing the high-frequency routes on there - the fancy stations and off-board payment are nice, but a local bus that comes every 15 minutes or better is ~80% as good, imo, outside of the extremely high-ridership routes.

One note: as of last August, every Rt. 11 trip runs all the way to CHTC at 41st and Central, the whole route is now part of the high frequency network.