Public Transit News / Current Events (MN only)

[angrysuburbanite]

Happy 2026! Unfortunately we still need to wait a month before end-of-year data is out, but for now, here are the November ridership numbers. November is typically the end of the fall ridership surge, and that is especially true this year. Performance is mixed, with gains on the A Line, Orange Line and the bus system overall but every other service is lower than last November.
- A Line continues to punch above 4,000 daily rides for the third consecutive month at 4,082, which is a 9.38% increase over 2024.
- B Line falls slightly from the previous month to 9,815, no longer above 10k.
- C Line surprisingly declines after rebounding in October. Nearly 11% lower than last November at 4,950.
- D Line sees a similar decline of about 9.24% compared to last year at 12,056 daily rides.
- Gold Line falls from its highs in October and December to 1,656 daily rides. This is still a 28% increase from the opening month. I expect growth to slow on this line until after the holiday season.
- Orange Line slips a little but is still well above all previous years. Ridership is 30% higher than last november.
- Regular route buses bleed riders after a good fall surge that offset the losses of the B Line, dropping to 68,333 daily rides, but bus services as a whole are still above 2024 as they have been since August. November was 2.13% higher, so the gap is closing though.
- Blue Line is still a little turbulent and it seems like riders aren't very eager to return after the closures, with an average daily ridership of 15,611. However, this is only about 3% lower than last November, much better than earlier in the year.
- The biggest disappointment is definitely the Green Line, which barely saw a fall surge in the first place this year and hasn't been above 25,000 daily riders since 2024. Ridership is down 28% compared to last year at this time.
- LRT overall is at 36,777 daily rides, well below the 45,517 seen last year. Daily ridership has fallen below Denver, Houston, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix on a national scale.
- Year to date, rail is down 16.4%, bus is down 4.6%, and overall down by 7.8%. The good news is that at 48,093,745 rides as of november, Metro Transit will still be in the 50M+ category, but just barely.

[angrysuburbanite]

Our first glimpse at our new fare system! https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetin ... ation.aspx

The Met Council is looking to fully implement a new payment system by Q1 2027, just in time for the Green Line extension and completion of Network Now improvements. It looks to be similar to newer systems being installed in major cities like Boston, San Fransisco, New York, etc. This includes stuff like tap to pay with a mobile wallet or credit cards. In addition, there are some major changes being rolled out in phases to make fares less complicated.

Phase 2a will occur in 2026. It will remove rush hour surcharges on express buses, instead opting for a $3.00 all day fare. The $1 fare for TAP, youth, seniors will be extended to express service and the youth fare will apply all the way until you turn 18. Personally, I wish this happened earlier because I'll only get a single year with this advantage . I love this change because it will make traveling as a family less expensive. Metro Micro will have a $4 fare all times of the day, higher than the current fare at all times.

Phase 2b is a much bigger change, and this occurs in 2027 with the full rollout of the new technology. The biggest thing is that prepaid passes will go away completely. I am very happy about this because the current pass system is convoluted. Local/METRO fares will cap at $4 a day, and $64 a month. Express fares will cap at $6 a day and $96 a month.

Overall this is a really good improvement. There will be no more trying to show the operator your pass on your phone, confusion over how to get a day pass to work with express fares, etc. I'd like to think this will encourage occasional riders to take transit more. The biggest barrier seems to be how much to pay and worrying about passes. That being said, I think a discounted family fare or tourist pass would be helpful, though for the sake of simplicity I understand why those aren't options.

[wingedmolotov]

Currently Metro micro has a reduced off-peak fare ($1) for youth/seniors, which I didn’t see in the slideshow. I wonder if that’s set to remain or not.

[Korh]

Do people really find peak/off peak confusing?
Don't get me wrong I have found them annoying on more than one occasion, especially when the bus being late is what caused me to pay peak instead of off peak, but it could always be worse, we could have zones where prices can vary wildly if you cross an arbitrary line on the map.

[Wezle]

I think for the layperson who is trying to use transit for the first time it's important to make the process as seamless and simple as possible. Anything Metro Transit can do to simplify fares by getting rid of peak/off peak and introducing tap to pay will make the process much smoother.

I am worried about this month's ridership numbers. Between the bitter cold and ICE snatching people from bus stops, there's a very real chance that there is a steep drop coming into the new year.

[DanPatchToget]

Agreed, you'll have a better chance of winning people over if you make the fare system as simple as possible.

[mattaudio]

What's the point of the peak/off-peak distinction in the modern era? IMO, collapse local/express and peak/non-peak into one single fare. Provide a means for people to get need-based discounts. And charge for parking at P&Rs, since parking space/structures are costly and express fares punish walk-up express riders. https://streets.mn/2014/03/18/the-dirty ... ark-rides/

[twincitizen]

They already eliminated peak hour fares on local routes a couple years ago, so this is just bringing that change to express routes as well. Good to have consistency across the system. I'm pretty sure we are one of the last large transit systems in the country to still have peak/off-peak fares.

Fare zones are more common. That said, I don't know how many express routes in our system would necessitate charging a higher fare than $3, except maybe the new Northstar replacement bus serving Big Lake and Elk River. Maybe if/when gas prices go up in the future, it would be palatable to charge a higher fare for that service (if it lasts beyond the 2-year trial) and the handful of express routes that travel more than ~20 miles from downtown, like the 467 to Lakeville.

Charging for P&R use is the ideal pricing model, but I would not support it here. I think parking being "free" is too baked into the culture. This would likely reduce ridership and increase congestion, as many people would just pay to park downtown instead. I think P&Rs remaining free is a pill we have to swallow to get/keep people in the habit of using transit. I also think the days of Metro Transit building large P&R ramps in the suburbs is mostly over. We'll maintain what we have already built, but I'm not aware of any proposed new ramps other than the couple along the Blue Line extension.

[Rube Dali]

Metro Transit quarterly changes for March
https://www.metrotransit.org/quarterly- ... y-march-14

[mamundsen]

Improvements to 270! Finally. The 15 min frequency during rush hour will hopefully entice commuters back. The leap from 30 to 15 min is a game changer IMO. The hourly service throughout the day is new. Could this be a test of midday ridership to see if this could be a future BRT route?

[Bakken2016]

Improvements to 270! Finally. The 15 min frequency during rush hour will hopefully entice commuters back. The leap from 30 to 15 min is a game changer IMO. The hourly service throughout the day is new. Could this be a test of midday ridership to see if this could be a future BRT route?

We have been adding hourly service through to a handful of express routes during the day, it’s part of Network Now called the Key Express Network.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thespeedmccool]

The Met Council's legislatively-mandated study on high-subsidy routes is out. Shocking no one, the majority of high-subsidy routes are suburban local routes run by MVTA.

I don't know what inspired this study, but I'd bet it was probably Northstar (which had the second-highest subsidy in 2024) and a desire to spank the Met Council, who is apparently everyone's favorite punching bag in St. Paul. Of course, the real enemy of efficiency is the suburban opt-out providers, but that isn't as politically juicy.

The Met Council's weak routes were 25 and 71 (core locals that serve sparse suburbs), 38 and 46 (south Minneapolis crosstowns), 501 (cancelled airport-worker service), and 766 (Champlin express). Overall, 28 of the Met Council's 208 routes are deserving of at least "minor modifications;" 26 of MVTA's 43 routes are considered candidates for modifications.

26% of MVTA's and 35% of Plymouth MetroLink's expenses go to high-subsidy routes. Met Council is at 2.7%.

[angrysuburbanite]

I think that most of these routes should continue to exist--not every route is going to be a high-performance route. Sometimes transit needs to exist in order to provide coverage. Part of having a strong network requires there to be some weaker connective tissue, and routes like the 46, 71, 440, etc. fulfill that role. MVTA has been optimizing their suburban service recently after dumping a lot of resources into it post-COVID. Already since 2023, they've cut 10% of their local service hours yet maintained stable ridership. They're testing the post-covid local market to varying degrees of success, and keeping what works. The suburban market is sensitive and I think the gradual right-sizing is the only way to make changes without major disruption. This spring, they are consolidating routes 440 & 442, as well as 4FUN and 495, and trimming duplicative service hours. I'm not saying MVTA is perfect, but I do think it is worth giving them credit where it is due: they are actively testing the market, and then optimizing based on what happens. Honestly, I wish the Met Council would consider trialing more high-quality suburban routes to see what would happen. The super-strict subsidy requirements prevent Metro Transit from adding the crosstown service that residents demand. It's frustrating that the MVTA can do what Metro Transit should be able to do with little scrutiny.

I should note for Plymouth Metrolink--the 747 uses deadhead hours from regular commuter express routes in order to provide reverse commute options for those living downtown and working in Plymouth. I appreciate that this option exists for downtown residents who have no choice but to work out in the suburbs. I wish more routes in the Twin Cities ran bidirectionally during rush hour, to be honest. Even if it isn't high performing.

Route 766 should be converted to all day service like the 827 across the river. It's an example of a suburban limited stop/local bus operating as a peak only express for no real reason.

Edit: If there's one thing to knock the Met Council for, it's Metro Mobility. I understand that ADA dial-a-ride is federally mandated, but there's no reason why it should be racking up 26 million vehicle revenue miles a year. That's the same as the entire bus system of Dallas or Atlanta, or the subway in Boston! Imagine how those resources could be invested elsewhere to provide better service.

[MNdible]

I completely agree that some low-performing routes are necessary to provide coverage, but to those among you who scream that the crosstown service is lacking... again, there's just not that much demand.

[mattaudio]

46 also provides some important connectivity for areas north and west of Hiawatha Golf Course that are far from the 14 and 22. It will be even more important once most of the 14E frequencies are eliminated.

[J. Mc]

The estimated capital cost savings for the 501 in the table on page 9 have to be incorrect IIRC the service only ran 2-3 trips a day that took about 20 minutes to complete. It ran using a South based bus on a service block interlined with runs on the 54 or another MOA originating route. (I saw some trips run using an artic) There's no way canceling the service saved $3.3 mil.

Very interesting study regardless. For MVTA services it looks like a continued push to eliminate some of the unused local fixed-route service in favor of using connect coverage is the way to go. I think they are also on the right track with their proposed service changes for this spring with a streamlined 4FUN route, combining some of the lower frequency stuff into a more practical single route service.

[thespeedmccool]

It's worth pointing out, as the study does, that the 46's worst subsidies were on weekends in 2024, but weekend service only ran for one month that year in December. The weekday subsidy was high too, but not nearly as bad.

And the study certainly doesn't suggest that crosstown routes are naturally bad investments. In fact, the 65, 80, and 87 have lower weekday subsidies than all core local routes.

I would say, though, that the study casts serious doubt on the ability of MVTA to plan and implement suburban local routes. Of all suburban local services that were high subsidy, 1 was eliminated by Met Council (501), 1 was eliminated by MVTA (498), and 16 are still operated by MVTA. In fact, Met Council's ability to run suburban service looks like magic in comparison: 24 of Met Council's 27 weekday suburban local routes are more efficient than all of MVTA's suburban locals. Of the 3 Met Council routes worse than at least one of MVTA's routes, 2 no longer operate (501, 612) and the other operated for only one month in 2024 (223).

The takeaway seems clear enough to me: for whatever reason (built form, bad planning, incompetence), MVTA is burning cash on local routes. I'm not saying there's no use for suburban locals in the MVTA service area, but clearly what exists now is not economically efficient and likely not providing a useful service to many people at all. Maybe that implies MVTA shouldn't exist, maybe it implies its constituent communities need to demand more bang for their buck, etc.

[Tcmetro]

It's worth keeping in mind that MVTA provides more service to their area than Metro Transit does in its suburban territory. Also MVTA is the only opt-out that repositioned service hours from commuter express to local service post-pandemic, which is an interesting experiment in itself.

Maple Grove, Plymouth, and Southwest instead reduced express service and invested in microtransit. MVTA also invested in microtransit which could be competing against their increases in fixed-route local service.

[twincitizen]

The Met Council's legislatively-mandated study on high-subsidy routes is out. Shocking no one, the majority of high-subsidy routes are suburban local routes run by MVTA.

I don't know what inspired this study, but I'd bet it was probably Northstar (which had the second-highest subsidy in 2024) and a desire to spank the Met Council, who is apparently everyone's favorite punching bag in St. Paul. Of course, the real enemy of efficiency is the suburban opt-out providers, but that isn't as politically juicy.

The Met Council's weak routes were 25 and 71 (core locals that serve sparse suburbs), 38 and 46 (south Minneapolis crosstowns), 501 (cancelled airport-worker service), and 766 (Champlin express). Overall, 28 of the Met Council's 208 routes are deserving of at least "minor modifications;" 26 of MVTA's 43 routes are considered candidates for modifications.

26% of MVTA's and 35% of Plymouth MetroLink's expenses go to high-subsidy routes. Met Council is at 2.7%.

With this information in hand, it makes one wonder why they even bothered studying the 38 or 46 corridors for upgrading to Arterial BRT. The 46 can barely justify its current hourly service on weekends.

[angrysuburbanite]

I just really hope this report doesn't result in some bad-faith legislation that uses "efficiency" or "protecting taxpayer dollars" as a guise for completely eliminating large swaths of the transit network. A lot of these routes are very inefficient, but are probably a couple service changes away from getting into a reasonable threshold.

Any effort to make transit less confusing and more productive is appreciated. It's just that based on some of the comments made by members of the committee this was presented to make it evident that legislators aren't willing to view each route in context, but rather as an expenditure that can be added or removed as needed.

The real solution is to look at why routes are performing poorly. Do they have too much frequency? Are they duplicative of other routes? Is the routing too confusing? Just because an existing route is performing poorly doesn't mean that general service area is undeserving of fixed route transit. In some cases, maybe, but in a lot of cases it is because the route isn't meeting the demands of residents who need transit. For the most part, it looks like our local transit agencies are working on streamlining service, I just don't want some uninformed piece of legislation getting in the way of the more nuanced reality transit planners are currently dealing with.