Gateway Park

[Tyler]

Love this idea of the transit connection cutting through the block. Then we could put the park on the triangle near the library and the triangle along Washington/Nicollet could be opened for new development.

[woofner]

Per the link above, apparently the best option is to put the layover facility in the existing Gateway Ramp.

This isn't the best option, it's just the cheapest one. It will be more expensive for Metro Transit, likely less convenient for transit riders, and it will add 10-15 buses per hour to the segment of Washington that the City thinks can be rebuilt with 4 through lanes rather than 6. But no one wants to pay for a new bus garage, so let's use the ugly, dated, street-deadening one we have.

[MNdible]

Oh good. I'd like to see a bus network that requires less downtown layovers in the future. It seems like such a wasted use of bus resources and (most importantly) bus storage space. But I understand that layovers are necessary for buffering schedule delays/inconsistency and also crew rest. Yet I'm sure there's a way we could do it outside the CBD.

I think the original idea for this site was to be the base for a high-frequency free Nicollet Mall shuttle that never materialized, not so much as a traditional layover facility.

[PhilmerPhil]

it will add 10-15 buses per hour to the segment of Washington that the City thinks can be rebuilt with 4 through lanes rather than 6.

Shhh! Don't say that until after the conversion has been approved!

[Wedgeguy]

Oh good. I'd like to see a bus network that requires less downtown layovers in the future. It seems like such a wasted use of bus resources and (most importantly) bus storage space. But I understand that layovers are necessary for buffering schedule delays/inconsistency and also crew rest. Yet I'm sure there's a way we could do it outside the CBD.

I think the original idea for this site was to be the base for a high-frequency free Nicollet Mall shuttle that never materialized, not so much as a traditional layover facility.

Yes, you are correct. That plan was some 10 to 15 years ago. I WANT TO SAY THAT WAS ABOUT THE LAST Time THEY REDID THE MALL to PROMOTE PEOPLE COMING AND SHOPPING AT THE MALL. I want to say that is part of why they tore the old Nicollet Hotel down. They lost a great old building and an asset to the north end of the Mall.

[MNdible]

This isn't the best option, it's just the cheapest one. It will be more expensive for Metro Transit, likely less convenient for transit riders, and it will add 10-15 buses per hour to the segment of Washington that the City thinks can be rebuilt with 4 through lanes rather than 6. But no one wants to pay for a new bus garage, so let's use the ugly, dated, street-deadening one we have.

Yeah, best, cheapest, same difference.

But seriously, which buses are actually using this layover? The 18's, I assume, but what else? And how many of the routes really need to layover here, as opposed to those that do just because the city has a piece of land they can't use for anything else?

I guess if the Gateway Ramp has capacity (which it apparently does), and it's three blocks from this location, which it is, why in the world wouldn't we use it for this? It's not clear to me how this is less convenient for transit riders, and it's only nominally less convenient for Metro Transit.

[woofner]

I just lost a long post in response because I had to actually do some work in between nerding out. So, in brief: the 18 & the 12 & a substantial number of runs for the 6, the 4 and the 11 were intended to lay over at the Nicollet Hotel block. I'm not sure if they'll all move to the Gateway Ramp or if they'll continue laying over in the Warehouse District. Regardless, the Gateway Ramp adds a good 5-8 blocks to the Hennepin buses, depending on whether they can enter either side of the ramp or not. Around 550 buses a day will be subject to that increase in deadhead distance, which adds up. I don't know how much it costs or how carbon-intensive it is to build an underground layover facility that could be capped by a building or a park, but I imagine it could be recouped eventually by the cost and emissions savings of less deadheading.

As for customer convenience, would you rather have one heated, attractive place where you could catch all 5 of those routes, or a smattering of unheated, sometimes unsheltered stops? It may make sense to extend revenue service to the Gateway Ramp for the 18 or the 12, but probably not for the rest, and it's much less central than the Nicollet Hotel block.

There are many other local transit issues that infuriate me more than this, but I think there is a very different difference between best and cheap in this case.

[Wedgeguy]

I just lost a long post in response because I had to actually do some work in between nerding out. So, in brief: the 18 & the 12 & a substantial number of runs for the 6, the 4 and the 11 were intended to lay over at the Nicollet Hotel block. I'm not sure if they'll all move to the Gateway Ramp or if they'll continue laying over in the Warehouse District. Regardless, the Gateway Ramp adds a good 5-8 blocks to the Hennepin buses, depending on whether they can enter either side of the ramp or not. Around 550 buses a day will be subject to that increase in deadhead distance, which adds up. I don't know how much it costs or how carbon-intensive it is to build an underground layover facility that could be capped by a building or a park, but I imagine it could be recouped eventually by the cost and emissions savings of less deadheading.

As for customer convenience, would you rather have one heated, attractive place where you could catch all 5 of those routes, or a smattering of unheated, sometimes unsheltered stops? It may make sense to extend revenue service to the Gateway Ramp for the 18 or the 12, but probably not for the rest, and it's much less central than the Nicollet Hotel block.

There are many other local transit issues that infuriate me more than this, but I think there is a very different difference between best and cheap in this case.

As one that rides the 4 and 6 I have never seen them use the area as a layover. Moving it a few block will not cause major problems or heart break.

[seanrichardryan]

Nothing says "Welcome to the gateway of Minneapolis, enjoy our beautiful park" like the mouth of a transit tunnel.

[MNdible]

As for customer convenience, would you rather have one heated, attractive place where you could catch all 5 of those routes, or a smattering of unheated, sometimes unsheltered stops? It may make sense to extend revenue service to the Gateway Ramp for the 18 or the 12, but probably not for the rest, and it's much less central than the Nicollet Hotel block.

There are many other local transit issues that infuriate me more than this, but I think there is a very different difference between best and cheap in this case.

Obviously (hopefully) I was kidding about the difference between best and cheapest.

As for the layover facility, I've always viewed these as being for internal operations and not really part of the customer experience. They're places where buses are jockeying all over and they provide some services for drivers, but they're not really intended to be transfer points or amenity locations for passengers (in my experience). As Sean suggested, the examples of these that I've seen are rarely pleasant places. I'd rather save the (significant) money that would have been spent on this and use it to upgrade the bus shelters that passengers actually use.

[Nathan]

Nothing says "Welcome to the gateway of Minneapolis, enjoy our beautiful park" like the mouth of a transit tunnel.

Agreed. I see a near greenway type corridor straight from the river to the Hen and 3rd corner of the Hotel Block, potentially a suspension type bicycling bridge to span Washington.

[woofner]

As one that rides the 4 and 6 I have never seen them use the area as a layover. Moving it a few block will not cause major problems or heart break.

I have had a 6 driver offer to let me off at her layover spot in the Warehouse District. It's on 2nd Ave or 2nd St, can't remember which. I think I just explained the potential impact on costs and pollution. Let me know if you want me to slow things down for you.

Nothing says "Welcome to the gateway of Minneapolis, enjoy our beautiful park" like the mouth of a transit tunnel.

Yes, the peace and quiet of this site at the intersection of Hennepin and Washington would be ruined by buses going into a tunnel instead of traveling at surface level. Too bad there isn't a professional class of people whose sole task is to figure out how to make disconsonant parts work together physically and aesthetically.

Obviously (hopefully) I was kidding about the difference between best and cheapest.

We can't all be blessed with your talent for comedy. Have you ever taken the bus in Europe, Japan, or even Canada? It's very typical for central bus stations to serve as layover points. They can even be comfortable, attractive places to wait, although I grant that this feature is too rare.

[MNdible]

Have you ever taken the bus in Europe, Japan, or even Canada? It's very typical for central bus stations to serve as layover points. They can even be comfortable, attractive places to wait, although I grant that this feature is too rare.

I'll concede that it's possible to have attractive bus stations, but when I've seen them, they've been a boarding location for long haul, limited stop service. That's not what we're talking about here.

You've been to the north end of Nicollet, right? There's nobody there. Everybody transfers buses further south along Nicollet Mall. That's where the people are. Let's spend the money there, rather than forcing people to stay on the bus and sit through a couple of extra light cycles and jockeying around in a cramped underground parking garage. It's theoretically possible to make that a pleasant experience, yes, but it's not a real benefit to anybody.

This idea maybe made sense when a number of buses from outside downtown were going to stop at this location and transfer passengers to a free, super-frequent circulator bus, ala Denver. Based on our current service model, there's very little reason for passengers to stay on until the bitter end of the route. (See also: Metro Transit bus service to SPUD)

[mattaudio]

Agreed... We don't even use layover facilities for express buses (see Marq/2) ... It would be better if drivers emptied their buses BEFORE heading to the layover facility, and the facilities are designed solely for buses and their drivers. This would allow us to keep them from infringing upon the pedestrian realm, since they are not pretending to be a facility for transit riders as well.

[Tyler]

You've been to the north end of Nicollet, right? There's nobody there. Everybody transfers buses further south along Nicollet Mall. That's where the people are. Let's spend the money there, rather than forcing people to stay on the bus and sit through a couple of extra light cycles and jockeying around in a cramped underground parking garage. It's theoretically possible to make that a pleasant experience, yes, but it's not a real benefit to anybody.

This is what I'm thinking. The central bus stations I've been to which I think redisciple is talking about are right in the middle of dense, busy areas. As you say, "they are where the people are."

[woofner]

I'm not saying the Nicollet Hotel block is a more convenient transfer point than 7th & Nicollet, I'm saying it's more convenient than the Gateway Ramp (which is a layover facility for some Marq 2 buses, btw). Sure, if given a choice of building a layover facility at the Nicollet Hotel block and upgrading heavily used bus stops elsewhere, I'd choose the latter. But that's not our choice - there is money, but not political will, for both - and it wasn't even our conversation.

You've been to the north end of Nicollet, right? There's nobody there.

I should direct the same question to you. There are probably a dozen large office buildings and highrises north of 3rd and in walking distance from the Nicollet Hotel block. One of my favorite places to sit at the library ( ) has an excellent view of all the nobodies that wait for the bus at 3rd & Hennepin on weekend afternoons. Of course Ryan is banking on the area being able to attract more nobodies and Opus is still in line next to them as far as I know. It is also a good transfer point to northbound 14s and 7s (I have been one of those nobodies), and (if you'll excuse my distraction by another pet transit issue) if Metro Transit ever figures out that Washington is a logical place to reroute the 3 and the 22, it will be even more useful for transfers.

[MNdible]

No doubt, I'm not going to change your mind. Having not been privy to any of these conversations, I'd speculate the following:

1. That like me, the rest of the people who looked at this utterly failed to use any imagination, and deemed that grafting a messy, ugly layover station to a high-quality public space for transit users simply wasn't worth the trouble. There's nothing about the place where the bus rests and drivers relieve themselves that necessarily makes it a better place to wait for and transfer buses. These buses chew up a lot of physical space, and there's an underused existing ramp a couple of blocks away.

2. That the physical impacts of placing this layover station underneath what's been identified as the new Minneapolis Central Park were too much to try to wrassle with. Could it have been done? Yes, I have no doubt. But you're looking at this park being chewed up by at least one and (for bus operation ease) preferably two portals that can accommodate a bus descending down to a below grade space. Then, you'd need the vertical circulation for the people to get down there, presumably again not just at one location. You'd need the exhaust and fresh air intake fans to clear out the exhaust.

My assessment is that it's just not worth it. You're going to spend a lot of money and get a compromised park and a transfer station that isn't where people really want it to be.

[min-chi-cbus]

I think it's more often than not that transit stations and centers are located slightly away from the center of action....primarily because they are often built well after that center is established. Look at The Interchange. It's located on the edge of everything, but it also located in what is now becoming a very hot area and demand and development seem to follow these centers regardless of where they locate themselves. I don't know that the North end of Nicollet Mall is the best place for a bus transit center, but I also don't have a better solution that is closer to the core of the action either -- at least, not a cheap, viable solution.

[mattaudio]

But do we really need bus stations in the first place?

[mulad]

Yeah, they've been tried before in Minneapolis and the experiment hasn't gone well -- then again, they're all primarily parking ramps (Leamington, Gateway, and ramps "A" and "B" of the ABC Ramps complex -- plus the Hawthorne Ramp abutting "A" which is used by Greyhound/Jefferson Lines). They're not very comfortable spaces.

I'm not really aware of any attempts to make a truly high-quality station with a pleasant waiting area plus other amenities like shops. Well, I suppose the Saint Paul Union Depot qualifies, but it's not quite located where you'd really want to have a major bus terminal.

Nicollet Mall and the Marq2 project have the disadvantage of having to spread out amenities along mile-long corridors, but they do allow riders to get on and off closer to their destinations.