Thoughts on the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan

I’d been meaning to spend more time digging into the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, but I’ve been kind of busy with another project, and the due date for comments (today at 5pm) has snuck up on me. There are a couple areas in which I’m concerned but I think I’ll just send in the generic TLC supportive comment because ultimately my concerns are more quibbles than anything. Overall I think the plan makes some significant advances over the 2030 plan, particularly in its consideration of land use and form when evaluating transportation investments. But at the same time the plan is deeply troubling to me, primarily because in the time horizon of the plan I will have reached the end of my middle age (knock on wood) and this plan contemplates a transit system that still cannot be used for daily needs on a citywide scale.

1. Transit Market Areas

This plan makes significant improvements to the important policy known as Transit Market Areas. These areas are actually used to decide where and what kind of transit service is implemented. Briefly, the areas are numbered 1-5 (or I-V in the new plan) and as the area increases numerically the level of service warranted decreases, with the most important break in my opinion coming between areas 2 and 3, the former of which supports usable regular route service and the latter of which does not. The formula used to determine these areas has been updated to include intersection density, a proxy for (and characteristic of) transit-supportive urban design, but at the same time employment density has been demoted in the weighting of the different components of the formula. The result is a map that has changed from the 2030 plan in unsettling ways.

First, the 2030 map:

2030TPPTransitMarketAreasAnd now the 2040 map:

2040TPPTransitMarketAreasIt disturbs me that Area 3 expands in the new map while Area 2 contracts significantly. This represents a decline in the area where it is practical to use transit, since it is extremely difficult to use peak period express service for anything other than a daily commute. This transit-slashing result is due to the use of current figures for population and employment rather than projections. Bloomington is a great example of this, as the Met Council’s 2040 population forecasts predict a 37% increase in the city’s population, an absolute increase of over 30,000 people, and the city’s land use policy directs half of that into the area in the eastern tip that surrounds the Mall of America. Yet the Area 2 actually shrinks out of this growth ghetto in the updated map!

There is a bit of temporal incongruity in the plan’s use of the Transit Market Area map, as despite the fact that this plan is covering the next 26 years, this particular portion is actually supposed to reflect current conditions, be used immediately, and revised as conditions change (I’m not sure how often that actually happens). However, as I noted above the important achievement of this plan is the degree to which it articulates land use and transportation policies. As such, I don’t think it should be unreasonable to recognize the influence that transportation facilities have on land use. So while it would be inadvisable to base current transportation policies solely on future land use, I think it would be wise to include the population (and employment) forecasts in some degree while developing the Transit Market Area policies. After all, what incentive is there to build transit-oriented development in a place with no transit?

One more brief quibble that is illustrated by the new exclusion of the Mall of America’s neighborhood from Transit Market Area 2 is the underweighting of employment density. Again, I think it’s great that intersection density is a factor in determining these areas, but does it really deserve to be weighted higher than employment density? What is more important in the decision to take transit, the relative comfort of taking it or the existence of something to take it to? While both are important, if the latter were all that mattered, would anyone ever take transit in this nation of curb cuts and skinny or nonexistent sidewalks?

For easy reference, here is the relative weighing of the different components of the formula that determines the Transit Market Areas (which they call the Transit Market Index or TMI, which apparently is also Too Much Information for the typical reader of the plan, so they buried it in Appendix G):

𝑇𝑀𝐼=0.64βˆ—(π‘ƒπ‘œπ‘π‘’π‘™π‘Žπ‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘› 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑦) +

0.23βˆ—(πΌπ‘›π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘ π‘’π‘π‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘› 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑦) +

0.20βˆ—(πΈπ‘šπ‘π‘™π‘œπ‘¦π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘ 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑦) +

0.11βˆ—(π΄π‘’π‘‘π‘œπ‘šπ‘œπ‘π‘–π‘™π‘’ π΄π‘£π‘Žπ‘–π‘™π‘Žπ‘π‘–π‘™π‘–π‘‘π‘¦)

2. “Increased” Revenue

I’m moving away from the Twin Cities in which I was born and raised because of the low quality of the transit system. One of the reasons I’ve stayed as long as I have is that my family is here, but it is frustrating or impossible to visit them without a car, and I’ve grown to realize this is not going to change. The 2040 Transportation Policy Plan confirms this. It plans for broad swathes of the metro area to remain distant from transitways, condemning anyone without a car to the limbo of mile after mile on a lumbering, rambling local or interminable waits and planning your life around extremely infrequent service, or simply not being able to access much of the city.

Of course I’m not saying transportation for the region should be planned around my family, but I do find it strange that this plan has ended up with such little coverage. Interestingly, there is some discussion on pages 246-247 of the factors for determining transitway investment, and regional balance, a form of coverage goal, is included. Unfortunately this seems to mean that at least one transitway should touch each county, which has the bizarre effect of allowing 19th century politics and geography to determine 21st century transportation investments. I would think that if this coverage goal could be included as a factor, there could be something about considering regional employment and retail centers.

Now may be the time to mention that the Current Revenue Scenario vision for transitways is exceedingly bleak:

2040TPPCurrentRevenueTransitwaysThere is a caveat in the plan that it does not include arterial transitways that may be added if the winds of the next 10 years are favorable, but that says nothing about how this vision leaves the vast majority of the metro area, and a significant number of employment centers, completely unserved by transitways and therefore unusable for transit outside of downtown commuting. In what may be an unprecedented move in American planning, it also represents a retrenchment of the transit vision from the 2030 plan:

Of course, the plan also considers an Increased Revenue Scenario, the transitway vision of which is pretty similar to what, in May 2013, the Met Council was planning to have accomplished by 2030:

2040TPPIncreasedRevenueTransitwaysThis vision, while pushing transitways deep into the exurbs, leaves the region’s third largest job center and probably largest retail concentration, Southdale, unserved by rapid transit. Just a couple of years ago, we were considering building light rail to rapidly growing Maple Grove, but this plan doesn’t even consider it worthy of arterial BRT. According to this plan, it will take more than 26 years to figure out how to serve the hundred thousand jobs loosely clustered in industrial districts in Plymouth, Eagan, North St Paul, and Spring Lake Park with some kind of higher-speed transit.

The reasons behind the underwhelming advance in transitway planning deserve deeper reading of the plan that I was able to give. It’s possible that the vision was pared to fit the revenue available under the assumptions of their Increased Revenue Scenario, but I’m not entirely sure what those assumptions are and probably deserve the blame for not being able to interpret the figures given in the plan. If I’m reading it right, the sole difference between the Current and the Increased Revenue Scenarios is that the latter includes a half-cent sales tax increase. I’m unclear about why this number was chosen, since peer cities such as Denver and Salt Lake City have higher transit sales taxes (I think). But I have deeper questions about the assumptions in the Current Revenue Scenario, in which categories such as State Bonds and Property Taxes see declines over the life of the plan despite increases or plateaus in recent history. What am I missing that would account for a 30% drop in property tax revenue. In a political world where we’ve seen the traditionally biennial bonding bill become a yearly feast, why would state bonding support for transit drop? But again, I haven’t had time to give the financial underpinnings of the plan the scrutiny they deserve.

Ultimately this plan represents a major advancement in transportation policy for the region, and as such it deserves support. If you’re interested and have time today, check out David’s and Brendon’s critiques at streets.mn, and if you still feel compelled, submit TLC’s form letter. If you have had more time than I have to spend with this plan, I welcome your corrections, insights, or general comments.

Bust open the Bottleneck with buses

Last Thursday I threw a post up on streets.mn that proved using mathematics! that the Hennepin-Lyndale Bottleneck is overbuilt as a roadway and could be reduced by a lane in most segments without risking more than moderate congestion. This result fits with my experience as a frequent user of the Bottleneck at rush hour over a period of many years – the freeway-scale design makes it feel like you’re inching through the facility at slug speed, but in reality traffic moves through the Bottleneck no slower than on other nearby urban streets. On top of the space that could be recaptured from the extraneous lanes, the existing lanes are mostly far too wide, so a lot of pavement can be reduced just by rebuilding the lanes at a more appropriate width.

Scroll down for pics!

So what to do with all this extra space? Anyone who glances over the last year or so of posts here, if still awake, can guess what I say: bus lanes. The thousands of bus riders that travel through the Bottleneck could be sped through daily and be insulated from occasional congestion, and those sitting in cars would watch as the buses made it through faster on this highly visible facility, encouraging them to think of transit as a better option. One of the great transportation weaknesses in Minneapolis is that the Devil’s Backbone (the ridge that comprises Lowry and Loring hills) creates a wall that makes it difficult to travel between Downtown and Uptown. It’s in the city’s best interest to encourage as much of that traffic as possible to take place on space-efficient travel modes such as mass transit.

Here is a map-like graphic I used on the streets post to show which segments could lose a lane without risking much congestion:

BottleneckLaneCapacityMinusOneLane

Most of the route along Hennepin is green, indicating that a lane can be removed, and the one segment that isn’t is just barely over the 75% threshold. This segment has an enormous amount of queuing space (650′ for the lanes coming from the Bottleneck and over 2000′ for the lane coming from I-94), so I’d suggest that here too a lane be removed and replaced with a bus lane. Here is a lane diagram of the Bottleneck with extraneous lanes removed and replaced with bus lanes where needed:

BottleneckProposedLaneCount

This provides a bus lane through the entire facility for buses coming to or from South Hennepin, and for much of the facility for Lyndale buses. The bus lanes would also be used for right turns indicated by standard lane symbols, which simply involves a switch from a solid while line to a dashed line shortly before the intersection, along with a right-turn symbol or two. I’ll reproduce an example from British Columbia here, because a lot of Minneapolitans seem to have difficulty picturing this:

The northbound segment just north of Franklin is more tricky, due to traffic exiting to I-94. The bus should still have priority, so I’d recommend striping a short lane for general traffic north of the intersection that is required to merge across the bus lane (yielding to buses in the process) before exiting:

HennepinAtFranklinNorthLegBusLanesThis may seem tight, but there is about 330′ or the length of a downtown block in which to accomplish this, which shouldn’t be a problem for traffic moving at urban speeds (20-25mph). I’ve depicted it within the existing curb-to-curb width, but as the northbound segment is being rebuilt as part of The Project, I’d suggest that the general traffic lanes be reduced to 10.5′ a pop, with the bus lane at 12′, so that it can be reduced 2′ overall and adjacent sidewalk/boulevard made a bit less pathetic/dismal.

As long as we’re discussing the above image, I’ll mention that it depicts the existing southbound roadway, the 34.5′ of which will not be touched as part of The Project. In this space I’ve ruthlessly slashed one of the general traffic lanes and replaced it with an offset bus lane. Additionally I portray the corner with a striped (and bollarded) curb extension, which should be added to every corner on a street with parking as the city’s adopted policy recommends.

It’s possible that something similar could be done on Lyndale at the north leg of the intersection with Franklin. The roadway there happens to be exactly the same width as Hennepin, and the traffic patterns seem to be mostly similar. I think that the city’s policy to reduce VMT is enough to justify replacing a lane in each direction with a bus lane, and additionally this area has been screaming for an extension of the Lyndale bikeway to Franklin (not to mention more pedestrian space, the lack of which forces an awkward dance at the southbound bus stop and taking turns in front of Rudolph’s). If this were to occur, here’s a suggested cross section:

lyndale-ave-s-rebuilt-north-leg-at-franklin

However, there is a much higher volume of vehicles per lane on Lyndale than on the corresponding segment of Hennepin, and anyway this segment of the Bottleneck isn’t going to be rebuilt as part of The Project. It should still be restriped, though, to improve the currently awkward required movements and outrageously overwide lanes. Additionally, the Lyndale bikeway should be extended south by replacing the existing parking lane with a bollard-separated two-way cycle track. Here’s an idea for how this would look:

lyndale-ave-s-restriped-north-leg-at-franklinThis could also improve traffic flow by removing the scary merge of southbound traffic just north of the intersection (technically the traffic from I-94 is supposed to yield but they often don’t). It would do this by replacing one of the lanes of Bottleneck traffic with a bus lane, then giving each stream their own lane at the intersection and banning Bottleneck traffic from turning left (they have had plenty of opportunities to travel in that direction already). Here is a diagram:

SouthLyndaleRestripeLaneDiagramThis plan reduces capacity as measured by square feet of pavement, but I think it will actually improve traffic flow by reducing conflict points and increasing clarity about where to go (note how the northbound lanes now have one clear lane to get in that will take them either to Hennepin or to Lyndale & the freeways). I’ll point out that here too there is enormous queuing space, so dozens of cars could pile up (er, behind, not on top of each other) before impacting an intersection.

If you look back to my overall lane diagram above, there are a few other places where reducing a lane actually has the potential to aid the flow of traffic by making destination more clear. The southbound lanes are an example; currently the four lanes are ambiguous about which will go where, but if you cut a lane it’ll be one destination per lane, from left to right: 15th/I-94, Lyndale, Hennepin. The other spot improved by a lane reduction is the northbound lanes where it splits into Hennepin vs. Lyndale/freeways. Currently one of the lanes splits into both destinations, making the signage confusing. Since Hennepin downtown has been reduced to two lanes inbound, there’s absolutely no need for three lanes to split off the Bottleneck here, so I’d say do one general traffic lane to Hennepin that can be flared out to two at the intersection if necessary.

As you may have noticed, my plan mostly doesn’t actually reduce the number of lanes, but rather replaces some lanes with bus lanes. But there are many other changes needed along the Bottleneck, such as improving the space for bikes and peds and general greening, all of which requires space to do. Amazingly, the current lanes are so overbuilt that even assuming one of the current lanes in each direction is replaced with a 12′ bus lane, by reducing the remaining lanes to 10.5′ a substantial amount of space can be captured (zoom your eyes to the 4th & 5th columns from the right):

BottleneckLaneWidthsNote that each line of the chart indicates only one direction, so that for most of the segments, at least 10′ can be converted to bike/ped space or green buffers. Also, my analysis hasn’t even touched on the pointless “access” road between Groveland and Douglas, which could be eliminated altogether but at least could be substantially narrowed for a significant aesthetic improvement and public gathering space.

Public works has promised to release their latest design for the reconstruction at a public meeting on August 4th. I’m hopeful that they will use the space gained from narrowing lanes to separate the bike & ped streams along the Loring Bikeway, and my best case scenario is that one of the obviously superfluous lanes heading to Hennepin downtown will be dropped. But aside from that I don’t expect any substantial changes, in part because of Public Works’ continued auto-orientation but also because of the rumor I mentioned in the streets post that got so much attention in the comments. Rebuilding the Bottleneck substantially the same would be a tragedy for Minneapolis, not only because it dooms the city to decades more of unpleasant, auto-centric commutes but because it is a huge opportunity lost for a great central public space. If this occurs, rest assured I will expound on this rumor and call to account those responsible for the tragedy.

Postlude, because I really haven’t written enough yet: I of course think that the freeway ramp overpasses should be torn down and replaced with surface facilities like a roundabout or traffic circle, thus freeing up developable space as well as providing room for much greater pedestrian connectivity and cycletracks throughout. The plans shown here operate only within the constraints of the current reconstruction project, which do not allow us to ponder changing the freeway interchange, possibly with the ulterior motive of requiring their continued presence.

Minnehaha and the sad state of Twin Cities streets

Today on streets.mn I write about Hennepin County’s half-assed new design for Minnhaha Ave, and their pathological use therein of one of the dopiest beasts in my menagerie of pet peeves: bus pull-outs. On probably one out of every four bus trips I take, I witness some schlub motoring recklessly around a bus and into some crosswalk, careless about the pedestrians that might be there that he or she has no way of seeing. That’s every other day I witness this personally, and spend most of my time on the bus staring at a piece of paper covered in ink markings.

There are other horrors of the roadways that I experience on a daily basis in Minneapolis. Related to the Crosswalk Plunge described above is the Half-cocked Hook, where a motorist completes most of a turn but slams on the brakes right before entering the crosswalk that’s occupied by a pedestrian that the motorist didn’t care to look for. This happens to me daily. Literally every day. Of course I already described in probably my greatest ever piece of writing that slimy piece of human garbage known as the Crosswalk Creep. I encounter this scum I would say once or twice per mile of walking.

All of this adds up to some truly terrifying (in the literal sense) and constantly frustrating walking conditions in Minneapolis. So why not just ride a bike? Well, because I encounter at least one bike lane blockage per ride. At least one driver buzzes me per ride. And on top of that, bikes also have to deal with Half-cocked Hookers who have no idea how to judge the speed of a cyclist so they delay their turn until just when the cyclist is entering the intersection. On a bike I probably get that every second or third ride.

This is not an inherent quality of city life. I’ve walked in countless cities that are more congested but don’t make me fear for my life with every step. This is an inherent quality of living in one of the most sprawling cities on earth, where there are entire municipalities of people who think it’s their god-given right for the government to provide them with an unclogged road to anywhere they want to go with a free, easy to find parking space at the end of it, and without having to pay a dime in taxes for it. That’s why a bike lane here and a bump-out there isn’t good enough. No, when the walking is deadly and the biking is deadly and the buses are only good for homeless shelters, but the streets are kinda bumpy, you don’t take new revenue and put it into filling potholes. At least you don’t if you’re a leader with integrity. You put it into the modes that have been marginalized and underfunded for decades. At least you do if you’re a leader with integrity.

That’s why it’s frustrating when there’s an opportunity to entirely rebuild a street, because that’s exactly when they should be optimizing streets for these historically marginalized modes. But instead we see stuff like the design for Minnehaha, which is much better for pedestrians, about the same for bikes, and much worse for buses. There has been some progress in the last 10 years, but we’re coming from way behind, so we can’t afford to let any opportunity pass us by.

Walk this (High)way (Dept)

Henn Cty's plan does not address beg buttons, not even inaccessible ones like this that the County installed on Lake St

Henn Cty’s draft Pedestrian Plan does not address beg buttons, not even inaccessible ones like this one that the County installed on Lake St

I recently took a fairly long vacation, which gave me time to review and comment in detail on Hennepin County’s draft Pedestrian Plan. It’s a small but welcome first step for the County, but has some significant shortcomings, most of all the failure to address land use and urban design impediments to walking in Hennepin County. My comments are below, in a format that the County’s online feedback form did not take kindly to. General comments are first, then specific. Comment period closes at 5pm Monday, so while I certainly don’t recommend wasting 4 hours on it like I did, you should at least put in a quick word against beg buttons (which are not addressed in the plan).

 
I’ve spent the majority of my life as a pedestrian in Hennepin County, so I welcome the creation of the first Hennepin County Pedestrian Plan. This is particularly welcome from an arm of the County that not too long ago was called the Highway Department, and only within the last decade or so showed any consideration of non-motorized transportation (we’re still waiting for it to pay attention to transit). Still, pedestrians in Hennepin County are used to having to push inaccessible beg buttons, cross superfluous motor vehicle lanes, and walk in ditches, shoulders or even travel lanes along County roadways. Hopefully this plan is an indication that the County intends to value pedestrian travel as highly as it currently values travel by personal car.

Unfortunately, the plan is probably too timid and high-level to make a practical difference in the short term. The goals are all rather basic (Why is it necessary to have a goal of improving pedestrian safety? Surely there is an existing requirement that County activities take safety into consideration?) and the strategies for implementation mostly call for further study (e.g. 2.2B. Identify and prioritize pedestrian improvements to enhance the pedestrian environment at Transit stops and along common routes to LRT and BRT stations – why doesn’t this plan serve as a foundation for identifying and prioritizing these improvements so that every new context for consideration of pedestrian facilities doesn’t have to start from scratch?) and only rarely call for concrete improvements (e.g. 1.2A. Install leading pedestrian intervals (LPI), Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB), and High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacons (HAWK) where appropriate and feasible).

The plan has a second fatal defect in its singular focus on infrastructural solutions to degraded pedestrian environments in Hennepin County. In fact, land use has a huge impact on the decision of County residents whether or not to walk, which despite having a major bearing on Goals #2 and 3 is not considered in this plan at all (presumably an effect of the compartmentalization of County departments, as well as the intention of this plan to be folded into the Transportation System Plan that similarly fails to consider land use). In other words, this plan is solely focused on mobility, and entirely ignores accessibility, which is probably a bigger factor in encouraging pedestrian activity. Without a land use component, this is not a pedestrian plan, it is a sidewalks plan. While the County has a less direct impact on land use than on infrastructure, surely the pulpit of the state’s second largest unit of government by budget reaches enough ears that it could be an effective advocate for land use solutions. So the power of persuasion could be used, as could the County’s substantial granting programs (e.g. TOD, NSP, Brownfields, etc). While land use strategies could be incorporated into the plan’s draft goals, I suggest a fourth goal as well that Hennepin County affirmatively advocate pro-pedestrian policies when interacting with other jurisdictions.

Pedestrian activity in Hennepin County is too complex to be planned for in 54 pages. I suggest the finalization of the plan be delayed to accommodate a significant new chapter that attempts to define the universe of facilities related to pedestrians and prioritize them, as well as the incorporation of a fourth goal that commits the County to the advocacy of pedestrian activity to all interacting jurisdictions, and additionally considers land use (and ideally urban design, i.e. what happens to the pedestrian after he or she leaves public right-of-way) strategies to implementing the goals in addition to the infrastructural strategies identified in the draft. While this will certainly add some delay and likely cost more, it will result in a more effective plan. As noted on pages 5 & 6, there are significant costs to avoiding pedestrian activity, so every dollar the County invests in promoting it will be well spent.

2 Goals (p 7)

In addition the three existing goals, I propose Goal #4: Hennepin County should affirmatively encourage policies and activities that promote pedestrian behavior whenΒ  interacting with other jurisdictions. Hennepin County is a patchwork of overlapping jurisdictions, and the County government has only so much direct responsibility with which to further the goals of the plan. Therefore the plan should explicitly state that its principles should be extended to every fingertip of the County, in order to reach those other jurisdictions and maximally impact the pedestrian environment. There are many opportunities to do so, starting with County granting programs, which could have pro-pedestrian criteria embedded in them; moving through County review of other jurisdictions’ plans, on which pedestrian impacts the County could comment; and extending even towards directly inviting municipalities to formulate their own pedestrian plans or adopt the goals of the County’s plan. The plan already agrees with this goal in such Strategies to Implement as 3.2A. Advocate in the Hennepin County legislative platform for statewide policy to mandate pedestrian safety education in school curriculum and the Practice to Continue outlined on page 32, Support the Development, Implementation, and Coordination of Municipal Pedestrian Plans. It would be further strengthened and made central to more of the County’s activities, however, if it were explicitly included as a goal.

4 Existing Conditions (pp 12-13)

This section contains valuable information about County residents who currently choose to walk to work or other destinations. It would be improved with information about the number of County residents who, based strictly on land use and intensity of use, potentially could walk to destinations but choose not to. This is feasible through GIS. For example, on page 68 of the Appendix, it states that the Met Council TBI found that the average walk journey was 10 minutes in duration. It is possible using GIS to calculate how many county residents live within a 10-minute walk of retail, office or industrial land uses to get a general idea of how many County residents could potentially walk to destinations but do not. This would be particularly useful to get a sense of the feasibility of the performance measures in Section 7.

6.1.1 Practices to Continue: Stripe Zebra-Style Crosswalks (p 23)

The plan states that “are currently the standard style of crosswalks installed on Hennepin County roads outside of Minneapolis.” The plan then continues to describe the rationale for this choice as that they’re “more visible to drivers”, presumably leading to a safety benefit for pedestrians. Why, then, are they not striped in Minneapolis? The plan should include as a Strategy to Implement that the County standard style of crosswalk should be extended to Minneapolis, as the site of 76% of the County’s pedestrian-vehicle crashes (p. 17). If the County standard is not practiced within Minneapolis city limits due to resistance from local officials, the plan should include as a Strategy to Implement a coordination of city-county roadway standards.

6.1.2 Signals (pp 24-25)

This section should include as a Strategy to Implement “Lagging Left Turns as Signal Timing Standard”, as was included for example in the City of Chicago’s Pedestrian Plan (chicagopedestrianplan.org). This practice has the benefit of increasing pedestrian safety and convenience, thus contributing towards all 3 goals outlined in the Hennepin County Plan. By allowing pedestrians to go first, goal 2 is obviously furthered. The contribution towards goal 1 is perhaps deductive, but it is observable that when the protected left turn is at the beginning of a phase, pedestrians tend to not notice and thereby enter the intersection at the same time as a driver has the right-of-way. This situation is absent when the protected left turn is at the end of the phase, and in addition in most cases the pedestrian traffic will have cleared by the time the left-turning vehicular traffic enters, effectively removing this conflict point. Lagging left turns should be the default signal programming, with engineers required to submit documentation of exceptional purpose for programming protected left turns at the beginning of a phase.

Additionally, this section should include as a Strategy to Implement “Require Documentation of Exceptional Purpose for Installation of Pedestrian-Actuated Signals.” These signals, less jargonistically known as beg buttons, reduce pedestrian safety both by requiring the pedestrian to touch a non-sanitized surface and by making the default signal timing unaccommodating to pedestrian travel. While the latter is mitigated by requiring the pedestrian to stop and wait until the next phase, this works against Goal #2 by significantly reducing the speed and convenience of pedestrian travel (depending on the season, comfort can also be significantly reduced). Further, it is unrealistic to expect pedestrians to always obey the signal, especially when they arrive at a signal while vehicular traffic moving in the same direction has a green light, so in a very real sense beg buttons criminalize pedestrian travel. It is difficult to evaluate any pedestrian plan’s outcome as pro-pedestrian if the plan does not call for default accommodation of pedestrians in signal phases.

6.1.2 Practices to Continue: Install Countdown Timers on all County-Owned Signals (p 25)

Page 25 of the draft plan states that countdown timers are a “proven safety strategy.” Yet research on the safety benefits is mixed at best. Most studies seem to show that countdown timers do not discourage pedestrians from beginning to cross even after the Don’t Walk sign begins to flash, although usually it encourages pedestrians to cross more quickly (see for example Countdown Pedestrian Signals: A Comparison of Alternative Pedestrian Change Interval Displays by Jeremiah Singer & Neil Lerner). The latter effect is not a safety benefit, of course, given state law requires motorists to yield to pedestrians who remain in the intersection even after their phase is up, and considering that rushing pedestrians may encourage them to stumble or make some other dangerous error. Even if there is some safety benefit to countdown timers, it is much less than other benefits, such as the basic provision of sidewalks and crosswalks. Therefore countdown timers should be installed when logical as part of other processes, but not necessarily as part of its own initiative.

6.1.3

Strategy to Implement 1.3A. Formalize an Internal Procedure for Evaluating Pedestrian Safety Needs at SpecificΒ  Locations in Response to Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes and Community Concerns.
(p 27)

This strategy is laudable, but should be modified to include as a priority the inclusion of a method of public transparency of the evaluation process. That is, not only should residents be able to “report pedestrian connectivity and safety concerns”, they should also be able at least to monitor the evaluation process and outcome in as close to real time as is reasonable, and further there should be a mechanism for public input into the evaluation outcome.

6.1.3

Practices to Continue: Seek Opportunities for 4-to-3 Lane Conversions on County Roadways. (p 28)

This is an excellent strategy for more efficiently and safely accommodating multimodal transportation. Based on the brief description included in the plan, it seems that opportunities for 4-to-3 land conversions are sought on a piecemeal basis, as restriping of individual roadway segments is undertaken. The county should consider coming up with a master plan of 4-to-3 conversion opportunities. This would not only allow perhaps for a more logical and consistent rollout of this practice, but also for early notice of candidates, which otherwiseΒ  occasionally can take neighbors by surprise and introduce controversy to the process.

6.5 Partnerships (pp 40-41)

It is unclear if the strategies outlined in this section are of equivalent priority to the strategies in sections 6.1-6.5. The plan states that these “goals” (are they goals or strategies? Where is the difference elucidated in the plan?) are “are outside of the county’s role and will be led by others” but some are clearly within the County’s purview, for example 6.5.3 mentions county participation in providing pedestrian wayfinding, which is explicitly mentioned as a part of StI 2.2A (and possibly is allowed in the REPP program mentioned on p 33). In addition, while the County Sheriff’s Office is a quasi-separate organization, it obviously has many natural synergies with the rest of the County’s operations, and frankly if it wasn’t a participant in this planning process, it certainly should have been. Further, if the County isn’t willing to play a lead role in the accomplishment of these goals, why should other jurisdictions? Why couldn’t the County develop a wayfinding plan, for example? Why couldn’t the County develop a crosswalk law enforcement strategy, or an awareness strategy (as MnDot recently did, for example)?

7 Performance Measures (pp 42-44)

It’s not clear how the performance measures correspond to the Strategies to Implement or Strategies to Continue. Without explicit relation, the plan risks having a performance measure that has no strategy to measure, or a strategy the effect of which remains unmeasured.

7.2 PERCENT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTS WHO WALK TO A DESTINATION AT LEAST ONCE PER WEEK (p 44)

As I commented above regarding Section 4, it is difficult to gauge the feasibility and/or aggressiveness of many of these performance measures in the absence of more detailed date on existing conditions. However, this goal strikes me as particularly weak. If the County achieves its goals, walking should be seen as an attractive option for a wide variety of trips for the vast majority of the County’s population. In that case, if almost half of county residents still chose to effectively never walk, even to the neighborhood retail or park, than what would the point of this plan be?

If Washington Ave doesn’t deserve bus lanes, what does?

According to Hennepin County, around 7,500 bus riders will travel on Washington Ave at peak hour (4:30-5:30 PM) between Hennepin and 35W on an average weekday in the year 2035. For some perspective, that’s about the same amount of cyclists estimated to ride the Washington Ave Bridge on a typical day, which is the busiest location for cyclists in Minneapolis. To be honest, I’m not really sure where Hennepin County got that number, but they mention something about Metro Transit estimating 30 passengers on an average peak hour bus, and if that’s true, that means around 5,000 riders are commuting by bus on this segment of Washington at peak hour today, which would seem to rival the number of cars.

These numbers are fuzzy, obviously, but it seems clear that a large number of people are riding transit on Washington Ave. So why isn’t Hennepin County proposing a layout that would benefit that mode? In fact the four proposed layouts actually make things worse for transit by moving most bus stops to right-turn lanes, where they face the delay of having to pull in and out of general traffic, and where riders face the safety threat of vehicles turning right around the bus.Β  Besides the sheer number of existing transit trips, there are other reasons that a responsible analysis of options for Washington Ave would include dedicated bus lanes, which I’ll detail below.

Preparing for battle

Preparing for battle

The Gateway Ramp is a major bus layover facility. Part of the fuzziness of the bus rider numbers above, I think, is that they assume average occupancy for the buses running on Washington, about half of which actually pick up and drop off most of their passengers on Marquette or 2nd, so run mostly empty on Washington as they access the Gateway Ramp to lay over. Even if they’re not carrying passengers on Washington, though, it is important to the passengers they pick up later that they not encounter congestion, so their eventual passengers will benefit from dedicated facilities that allow them to be picked up reliably. In addition, the Gateway Ramp has been apparently been designated as a layover facility for an unspecifiedly enormous number more buses so that the City can do what it wants with the Nicollet Hotel block. That likely means that 30-60 additional buses will be soon be traveling on Washington between the Gateway Ramp and Hennepin Ave, relying on a congestion-free route to deliver timely service. (The Gateway Ramp is also a convenient place for the up to 6,000 employees in Ryan’s recently proposed development to catch an express bus.)

Clustering transit and providing dedicated lanes on Washington will maximize the impact of transit investment, create a more legible system, and improve route spacing. Hennepin County’s analysis provides a depiction of the bird’s nest of transit routes on Washington:

Page 13 from DRAFT Traffic Operation Analysis - Apr2013This diagram should set off alarms at Metro Transit. If transportation engineers need to create a diagram like this to understand the network structure, what chance does a lifelong suburbanite retiree who just bought a condo on Washington have? Bus lanes would offer reassurance to confused riders that yes, they can catch a bus on this street. If Metro Transit were to use the bus lanes for its various archaically routed local services that use Washington for a portion of their trip already, it would be able to focus shelter improvement money on this one street instead of spreading it between several (not that there is any apparent shelter improvement on the downtown segments of these routes currently). This would also have the effect of maximizing frequency (a rider traveling between 7 Corners and Hennepin could catch any of 3 routes), adding legibility (riders would not have to memorize where the 7 & 22 turn off of Washington), and spacing (the thousands of new housing units being added to the Mill District face a long walk to convenient transit service).

These advantages are recognized and supported by the City of Minneapolis, which recommends reorganizing downtown transit to cluster along three corridors they call spines (a biological metaphor that becomes less apt the more spines you have). The buses running closest to the riverine edge of downtown are left as they lay, probably out of inertia. Yet these services would benefit from “spining” too, and perhaps more, since lower-frequency services will gain more from higher effective frequencies due to clustering. I have made a table of the number of buses at the peak hour on Washington Ave by segment and direction, based on data from Hennepin County, but adding a spine scenario, which assumes the 3 and the 7 proceed along the length of the corridor and the 22 travels on Washington east of Hennepin (it also adds the 14 west of Hennepin as it travels today but was not included in the Hennepin County data for some reason; I’d add that it may make sense to add the 14 to this spine west of Chicago or 11th Ave S).

pm peak bus load avg headway washingtonIn the segment where reconstruction is imminent (outlined on the table), average headways are expected to be three minutes or less at peak hour in 2035, and are currently under one minute for all but one block in the westbound direction. The spine scenario brings average headways in each direction to under 3 minutes, and by 2035 both directions of Washington will carry a busΒ  less than every 2 minutes. These are really substantial bus volumes, unlikely to be exceeded by any Nicollet Mall, Hennepin, or the main E-W bus spine. So why are those streets candidates for bus facilities (even if they’re half-assed ones), but not Washington?

Of course, most of this service could cluster on 3rd or 4th Sts instead of Washington, but those seem to have fewer advantages and more disadvantages. Briefly, Washington connects better to the remainder of the routes on the east and west ends, which means less delay caused by turning. 4th St is an awkward distance from the LRT stations on 5th St, too far for first-time users to see the transfer stop from the station, and also too far to really work as combined effective frequency, yet not spread enough for the larger portion of downtown to benefit. Washington is convenient to the two fastest-growing neighborhoods in the state, and with this effective frequency could provide easy access for the residents of these new dense buildings to regional transit (LRT or Highway BRT). Finally, in order to fit (ideally two) bus lanes on 3rd or 4th, you need a curb-t0-curb width that leaves too little space for sidewalks. Currently the sidewalks are reduced to 10-12′ on these streets, whereas the wider right-of-way on Washington would allow for ample sidewalks in addition to the bus facilities.

But assuming we continue our practice of ignoring the huge current use and future potential of bus transit, why should we prioritize transit rather than bikes or cars? Well, Washington is actually not as connective for cars & bikes. OK, there are a pair of big freeways on the each side of Downtown that make it a convenient route for cars, but even those are duplicated by other exits a few blocks away (or will be soon). In terms of surface connections, it’s also not very useful for cars. As I’ve argued before, and as residents tend to agree, Cedar is inappropriate as an auto commuting route. North Washington has some destinations, but is superseded by 2nd St by the time it gets to Plymouth Ave (certainly North Loop destinations don’t generate enough car trips to justify 3 lanes).

For bikes, too, Washington is not ideal as a through route. Of course the U of M is a big destination, but to reach it from Washington you need to turn at least twice and/or carry your bike up the stairs behind Willey Hall. A better U of M connection to Downtown is CPED’s (possibly abandoned) proposal for a path in the trench that would connect to the LRT trail at Curry Park, which would maximize connectivity and have the greatest separation. Even if you could somehow create a surface route between Washington and the U of M, it would likely be slower than a trench route and the LRT trail because of the left turn and all the stoplights. Anyway, the LRT trail is likely to be at least as important a source of bike trips into downtown as the U of M (or at least that’s the goal), and Washington both connects poorly to it and is out of the way for people trying to access the core (requiring two left turns).

3rd St would work best for a regional bike facility that goes through downtown (unlike West River Parkway, which bypasses it), especially because 3rd St offers connections to the Northside that Washington doesn’t. As noted above, Washington itself kind of peters out as a frontage road to I-94 north of Plymouth Ave, but even the parts that are there will be difficult to retrofit for bike facilities – certainly it wouldn’t be able to do any better than duplicate the lanes that exist on 2nd St N. 3rd St, on the other hand, connects directly to the LRT trail on the east, and with some additional cantilevering of the sidewalk along the 4th St Viaduct could connect directly to the Cedar Lake Trail and be extended across the Cut and through the Interchange to the bike lanes on 7th St N, basically the main bike route between Downtown and the Northside (it could also connect to the off-street trail that could logically be placed along Olson Hwy, but doesn’t seem to be in anyone’s plan for some reason).

washington or 3rd bike routes

Of course people will still want to use bikes and cars to access destinations on Washington Ave. Bus lanes actually work really well for this since they are used heavily primarily at the peak hours, and at other times they can be flexed for other uses, including parking. A bus lane works much better for bikes than a general traffic lane because there are typically far more gaps between buses than cars. At rush hour on Washington you wouldn’t want to bike the length of the street, but the minute gap between buses will allow you to bike on one of the ample adjacent facilities on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, then up one of the north-south bike routes (for example 1st, Hennepin, Nicollet, 4th, 5th, Portland, Park, or 11th), and then the one or two blocks remaining to your destination. I would suggest 16′ shared bus-bike lanes, separated by a solid white line except for the 150′ or so before right turn intersections, and symbolized by a diamond. 5-6” advisory bike lanes could be striped to guide cyclists toward the left side of the lane to minimize the amount of leap frog, and a 1-2′ mountable curb could be placed between the Shared Bus-Bike Lanes (SBBLs) and general traffic lanes to provide a buffer for cyclists and to discourage the spread of congestion by stupid or greedy motorists.

Would all this fit? For the most part, yes:

Washington_Ave_existing

Existing

SBBL configuration

SBBL configuration

You can add SBBLs and fit within the right-of-way and have sidewalk space at least as wide or wider than most of Hennepin County’s proposed layouts and what is there now. SBBLs are an ideal compromise solution that provide for the existing and future demand of cars and transit, but also provide a more comfortable space for bikes and opportunities for parking. It is a shame that Hennepin County only does planning for transportation by car instead of transportation for all, or there may have been a possibility for a holistic solution that would be appealing to a larger group rather than their special-interest focused layouts.

If a street that carries 15,000 transit passengers in a typical day – as many as some light rail lines in the US – doesn’t deserve dedicated bus lanes, what street does? Is it realistic to expect that the maybe 50 miles of light rail being developed in the Twin Cities will be able to shift the millions of daily trips here to a lower-emission mode? Buses are crucial to our current transit system and will continue to be crucial to our future transit system, which represents our best hope for achieving environmental and equity goals through transportation policy. If one of the cycle track options is built, I will certainly enjoy riding it to Grumpy’s every once in a while. But if the Washington Ave process means that the Twin Cities is just shifting from focusing all transportation planning on making it nice to drive to focusing all transportation planning on making it nice to bike, I’m taking the first bus out of here to someplace that plans transportation comprehensively, without mode bias, and with an eye towards societal goals.

 

 

The best laid plans

Last week the Transportationist noted and reposted the Comprehensive LRT System Plan for Hennepin County, a 1988 vintage addition to the Twin Cities’ sky-high stack of written-and-forgotten plans.Β  This particular collection of fantastical fireplace fuel was posted on the official site for the Southwest Transitway, presumably to display their staff’s inability to use a scanner (a deficit I share as you’ll shortly see).Β  The Transportationist concluded his post with a call for a map of the routes planned in the “1970s ‘Regional Fixed Guideway Study’”.

At last an opportunity to share the fruit of my many hours of sequestration in the Minneapolis Stewart L. Central Library!Β  I’m not sure if I have exactly the map he’s looking for, but I do have a few items that likely will be of interest.Β  The first comes from Rail Rapid Transit, a report produced by Vorhees & Associates for the MTC in 1969.

The other is the Fast Link System, which I got from a doc called Fast Link Rail-Rapid Transit for Minneapolis, produced in 1972 by Don Fraser’s City Coordinator IIRC in a desperate effort to influence the Met Council and the Legislature (aka the decision-makers) to choose a transit policy that would actually benefit the city.

I believe, based on the references I’ve stumbled on occasionally, that the Fast Link plan was the one that had the most support, as opposed to the Vorhees plan.Β  It’s kind of hard to tell based on the scan that I made a few minutes before the library closed, but most of the Fast Link plan was proposed to be subway, with a few aerial segments.Β  As the 70s slithered on, this plan seems to have evolved into an option that had PRT-like segments through the downtowns and at the University, and curiously split into two one-way segments in St Paul, one of which was proposed for University and the other for I-94.Β  This iteration appeared in the Met Council’s 1975 Automated Small Vehicle Fixed Guideway Report along with a more traditional subway plan.

I have to admit that I didn’t have a chance to read through this one in detail, so I’m not sure if these were plans that were being seriously advocated for or if they were merely sacrificial lambs.Β  This is the report that set high-quality transit back for decades in Minnesota, as it was forwarded by the Met Council to the Legislature, which promptly banned the study of fixed guideway rail transit (as will be seen later).Β  These rail plans were compared with the Met Council’s adopted transit policy, which favored a network express buses with possible people mover systems in the downtowns.Β  According to the report, the rail plans would somehow not have serviced non-downtown locations as well as express buses, and the non-PRT plan wouldn’t even have served the downtowns well.Β  35 years later we know what hooey that was, as anyone who’s attempted to take one of the routes in today’s highly developed express bus network anywhere besides Downtown Minneapolis or Downtown St Paul.Β  But I concede it’s possible that at the time they really didn’t know that people would be willing to walk a bit further in exchange for reliable, fast, frequent transit, just as they didn’t know that gently suggesting that cities not allow non-sewered large-lot development wouldn’t contain sprawl.Β  On the other hand, the apparent lack of effort to develop a true bidirectional express bus network for the next three decades is also compelling evidence that this “Report” was utter bullshit, designed to funnel state money into highways.

Anyway, my sense is that by this point transit advocates were feeling a sense of panic and despair comparable to that I imagine is currently being felt by the GOP, at least at the MN level.Β  This can be gleaned from the timeline provided in the 1988 Hennepin County LRT plan, which I would really love to have been able to just copy and paste:

Planning for a variety of fixed guideway transit systems has proceeded almost continuously in the Twin Cities since the late 1960s.Β  [Here I would have added “to little or no effect.”Β  -Alex] Some of the major events of that history include:

  • MTC sponsored analyses of various technologies, early 1970s
  • MTC – Small Vehicle Study, 1974
  • Minnesota Legislature prohibition of fixed rail planning, 1975 [! -Alex]
  • University of Minnesota Transitway, 1976
  • St. Paul Downtown People Mover, 1976-1980
  • Minnesota Legislature lifts prohibition of fixed rail planning, 1980
  • Light Rail Transit Feasibility Study, 1981
  • Hiawatha Avenue Location and Design Study – EIS, 1979-1984
  • I-394 High Occupancy Vehicle Roadway, 1982
  • University/Southwest Alternatives Analysis, 1985 (draft)
  • Metropolitan Council/RTB identify LRT as preferred mode in University, Southwest and Hiawatha Corridors; University is the priority corridor
  • LRT Implementation Planning Program, April 1985
  • Minnesota Legislature prohibition of fixed guideway planning, 1985 [This is not an accidental duplication – it apparently happened again.Β  How did this get past Perpich? – Alex]
  • Transit Service Needs Assessment, Regional Transit Board, 1986
  • A Study of Potential Transit Capital Investments in Twin Cities Corridors – Long-Range Transit Analysis, Metropolitan Council, December 1986
  • Minnesota Legislature lifts prohibition of fixed guideway planning, 1987
  • Comprehensive LRT System Planning for Hennepin County, 1988

So next time you’re feeling proud of Minnesota’s history of relatively sane governance, remember that the Legislature managed to interfere in what should be a technical decision not once but twice.Β  And lest you think that these poxes on transit are just a product of overreach by Republicans on the rare occasion that they gain complete power, the 1975 Legislature was overwhelmingly DFL, and Wendy Anderson of St Paul was in the Governor’s Mansion.Β  Of course, in 1975 it wasn’t necessarily an anti-transit attitude that was prevalent; more likely it was a misunderstanding of the nature of urban systems masqueraded as futurism in the form of People Movers and PRT.Β  This same Legislature, after all, further empowered the Met Council, which itself is a culmination of the suburban experiment – the failed idea of the Broadacre City, made more palatable in its rationalization of the overdelivery of infrastructure that’s inherent in such an individualistic urban form.

Anyway, in the above timeline is included the 1981 LRT Feasibility Study, which was produced by an apparently repentant (or possibly begrudging) Met Council.Β  This is available in a form that patrons of the Stewart J. Central Library can check out, which I did last summer, resulting in these atrocious scans:

West LRT

Southwest LRT

University LRT

Northeast LRT

And a summary sheet indicating that the fully built LRT system (including a Northwest line, which I didn’t scan for some reason but was probably pretty similar to the Bottineau LPA) would serve 32,900 more weekday passengers than an existing or minimally improved system, and would actually turn an operating profit of $4.8m a year.

With that, I’ll close the vault for now.Β  If you liked these and want more, don’t worry – I spend a lot of time at the library, and unlike our transit system, the archive of old transit studies is almost limitless.

To a mouse.

St Paul transferring

Click for high-res pdf

The official plan for restructuring St Paul’s bus routes was presented to the Met Council’s Transportation committee the other day, and while there were one or two surprises, mostly fulfilled my expectations (although it didn’t follow my recommendations).Β  Accompanying the presentation was an excellent map – showing the new route structure and symbolizing frequency through line width.Β  Here’s a brief summary of the changes:

As Expected

  • The east-west orientation of the network is still intact.Β  It would have been highly advantageous to riders to change this to north-south to take advantage of the high-quality transfers that would have been newly available on the Central LRT and Fort Rd Rapid Bus.Β  But the presentation notes that many comments exhibited “Loyalty to existing routes” – change is hard.
  • They couldn’t bring themselves to straighten out the kink in the 21 up to the Midway.Β  I guess the frequency bump to every 10 minutes for the 84 adds up to a hill of beans.
  • The 8 has been absorbed.Β  Everyone saw this coming for this runt of a line.Β  A bit more surprising is what route absorbed it – more below.
  • The 94 will be peak-only and no Midway stops or Capitol service.Β  Maybe it’s surprising that a government agency wouldn’t want to compete with itself, but it should be expected anyway.
  • A new route called the 83 has been added to Lexington to meet the route spacing requirement of a line at least every mile in one direction and at least every half-mile in the other.
  • The 63 has been extended to Raymond & University.Β  They didn’t do it my way, though (that would have been a much bigger change) – they have it dart up Cleveland and over on Summit for two blocks before proceeding up Cretin.Β  That’s not ideal – it splits the service around St Thomas and thereby dilutes it (which my plan also would have done, but at least I kept one line up the length of Cleveland for legibility, whereas they have the Cleveland bus jut over to Cretin at Marshall anyway) and it leaves Desnoyer Park unserved.
  • The 65 has been rerouted to Grand, which makes sense because Selby already has the 21 service.Β  But it does lead us to our first surprise…

Surprise!

  • The 65 will terminate at Grand instead of continuing downtown.Β  This one perplexes me, as it would have only been another mile to the Smith Ave ramp, which certainly would take riders to more jobs and seemingly would be better for operations anyway.Β  Maybe they’re afraid that once they’re downtown, they’d have to go all the way to SPUD.
  • The 67 will be absorbing the 8.Β  It makes sense when you consider that these two routes run on about the same latitude.Β  I’d think that this overserves the stretch of University between Fairview and Raymond, though – using their rough guide for frequency, it looks like the average headway for buses between Cretin and Raymond will be 6 minutes – that’s not counting the train.Β  Another strange quirk is that they’re routing the new 67 up Riverside for a couple blocks and then back down 25th/26th, presumably to better serve Fairview.

    A facelift for the 8

  • The West Side branch of the 67 will be shifted to the 62 – a logical choice, although I will they had experimented with a crossing at Smith, which then could have gone up Kellogg and John Ireland to Rice for a quicker crosstown.Β  Trips to St Paul CBD would have an easy transfer at Seven Corners.
  • The aforementioned 83 – the Lexington bus – appears to terminate at Como and Snelling after a short jaunt down Energy Park Dr.Β  An extension to Roseville via an extensive detour back to Lexington – seemingly designed to deter anyone who wants to get anywhere fast – is penciled in for someday.Β  Here’s an idea – if you’re going to Snelling anyway, why not go the extra mile and a half to the U of M?Β  There are actually destinations there besides Nelson Cheese Shop.
  • No circle line!Β  The Central Corridor EIS assumed two changes that didn’t make the cut – one was an extension of the 67 to Fairview, which would have resulted in half-mile grid of service that apparently was considered overkill, and the other was a weird circle line that would have run down Hamline, St Clair, Victoria and University.Β  Maybe this one shouldn’t be in the surprise category, because that route didn’t make much sense in the first place.

They also provided a table showing the proposed frequency of the 23 affected routes:

It seems like most of the St Paul routes in the study are getting a modest frequency boost – the 65, 67, and 87 are all going from every half hour at peak and midday to 20 minute headways, with more evening runs as well.Β  I’m a little surprised they didn’t give the 63 a rush hour increase, but maybe since the area is mostly students and shopping there isn’t as much peak demand (they do seem to be boosting it in the afternoon peak a bit).Β  It’s disappointing that the 62 didn’t merit more service, though not too surprising since it doesn’t have much in the way of a northern terminus.

I’m tempted to say that some of this frequency would be better put to use in Minneapolis, but I’m excited for the opportunity this service improvement provides to St Paul.Β  It wasn’t the news I was looking for, but the results of the Central Restructuring study are good news indeed.

PS the presentation claims that the study final report is online but as of writing it isn’t up yet.

PPSΒ  The same Met Council Transportation committee meeting has an update on the Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis – including this interesting graphic of a proposed Hi-Lake station and how Wellington wants to build apartments on top of the easement for it: