This past weekend, dignitaries and Metro Transit staff helped cut the ribbon on the C Line, the Twin Cities’ newest rapid transit service. The C Line is the second project in a planned set of five “Arterial Bus Rapid Transit” (aBRT) routes, the most exciting thing that is happening (and not happening fast enough) for transportation in the region.
Last fall, I wrote a review of the early success and possible future of Metro Transit’s Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (aBRT) program. The first aBRT route in the Twin Cities—the A Line along Snelling Avenue and Ford Parkway—increased ridership in the corridor by offering a superior transit product. With aBRT, buses come more frequently and stop less often. Stations are highly visible, provide real-time arrival information, and allow fare prepayment to enable all-door boarding and shorter dwell times. The result is first-rate transit service that experts rank among the best bus routes in the country. All of this was achieved for a cost in the tens of millions. That’s a fraction of the expenditures needed to boot up a new light rail or highway BRT line.
Metro Transit will hope and expect that the C Line service along Penn Avenue N, running from the Brooklyn Center Transit Center into downtown Minneapolis, is a similar success. Three more routes are currently in stages of planning and engineering. The D Line will also start from Brooklyn Center, motor along Emerson and Fremont Avenues in North Minneapolis, and along Chicago Avenue in South Minneapolis to the Mall of America. The B Line will start from the future Green Line West Lake Station, traveling along Lake Street in South Minneapolis, Marshall Avenue in West St. Paul, and possibly beyond to downtown St. Paul. The E Line will chart a course from Uptown via Hennepin Avenue in South Minneapolis, to the University of Minnesota via 4th Avenue SE and University Ave SE, and possibly further at both ends.
Despite this obvious success, aBRT has been slower to scale up politically than hoped. This year’s legislative session moved to help Metro Transit fill its growing Metro Mobility funding obligations, but failed to deliver the money needed to build the D Line, nor proposed long-term funding for the aBRT program. These set-backs are frustrating, but there remains strong support for aBRT at all levels of government, especially among urban legislators. Over the next two legislative sessions, which will include a 2020 bonding bill and a post-election shift in power in 2021, there are reasons to hope for a breakthrough in time to complete this initial slate of very strong projects by 2024.
But what comes next? In proposing a new sales tax to fund bus expansion, Governor Tim Walz proposed to fund ten new BRT routes. In addition to the five routes already proposed, this could put MSP on the path to a network of fifteen aBRT routes by 2030, a goal I also proposed last year. That’s still possible, if local and state leaders commit to moving in that direction. The primary delay in booting up aBRT routes is not technical, but political. If funding were secured for the next five, ten, or fifteen routes, planning, engineering, and construction could proceed much more quickly. But because detailed engineering and construction are still well in the future for of these any new proposed routes, work should begin on the overarching planning for the next expansion of aBRT routes today.
The existing framework that the region has for bus expansion is the 2012 aBRT corridor study. That study is inadequate. The list of corridors studied is slapdash. Clearly inferior routes, like American Boulevard, are included, while obvious ones like Franklin and Lyndale are omitted. Meanwhile, other corridors (like Lake Street) are cut short in unhelpful ways, and natural corridor combinations (like Nicollet and Central Avenues) are not made. More worryingly, the Met Council is now promoting a “vision” for rapid transit in the Twin Cities that—and I take no pleasure in pointing this out—is galaxy-brain stupid, plotting BRT routes through fields of corn while neglecting the places that best support transit.
In short: there’s a compelling need to revisit the 2012 study, nip this new “transit vision” in the bud, and provide a better plan for bus rapid transit in the Twin Cities.
The first step is starting with the right premise. Just thirteen bus routes provide over half of Metro Transit’s local bus ridership. It’s realistic to set a goal for over half of bus trips to be taken via aBRT by 2030, and over half of all trips in the entire Metro Transit portfolio to be taken by aBRT sometime shortly after that. For about the same investment as a single light rail line, the Twin Cities could improve the quality of transit for over a hundred thousand weekday rides, and increase ridership along these routes by 30% or more. The proposition is too good to pass up. The future of rapid buses will be as the flagship transit service of the Twin Cities.
In order to achieve this, all future plans must first be comprehensive, beginning with the full universe of arterial roads in the best transit market areas in the metro. Next these routes must be measured against each other. After that, a future network can be illustrated, with lines that compliment each other and follow important, easy-to-understand routes. The last step is to develop a scheme to prioritize these routes and determine the order of construction.
This article is the first in a three-part series, going through the process outlined above, in a rudimentary way. It is not meant to be the final word. It is not peer reviewed research. What this series will be, I hope, is a conversation starter for what a future Twin Cities rapid bus network could look like, and how to get there.
The core Twin Cities have a funny kind of symmetry; Minneapolis looks a lot like St. Paul turned ninety degrees counter-clockwise. Both cities also share a similar pattern of streets. As a general rule, arterial streets run in a half-mile grid. Because of this similarity in layout, both cities also have similar patterns of bus service, b Metro Transit runs its highest frequency buses on every downtown-bound arterial corridor (radial routes, every half mile), and runs decent bus service on every other crosstown arterial corridor (circumferential routes every mile). We can use this pattern to collect a set of corridors for further study.
The purest expression of this form is in South Minneapolis. Hennepin, Lyndale, and Nicollet Avenues are each a half mile from the other, and support frequent north-south bus service towards downtown. In the perpendicular direction, Franklin, Lake, 38th, and 46th Streets are one-mile apart from the other, and support frequent or reasonable east-west bus service.
For the perspective of transit, this distribution makes some sense. Transit planners often describe a quarter-mile “walkshed” around transit stations, within which people can easily access that service within five minutes. For higher capacity transit, you will also see a half-mile walkshed illustrated. It makes sense to use intervals of a half mile to a mile when assigning transit routes and stations. In much of South Minneapolis, nearly everyone is within a five-minute walk of good transit service to downtown, and a ten minute walk of good transit service crosstown, with connections to the METRO Blue Line.
Although lakes, the river, and highways create some disruptions, you can find a similar pattern of streets and transit service across the other three quadrants of the two core cities.
In North Minneapolis, Penn and the Emerson/Fremont pairing are slightly further than a half mile apart, and across the river, University NE is also slightly further from Central. But the deviations are minor. Johnson and Stinson resume the usual half-mile spacing. The two primary crosstown routes, Lowry and Broadway, are a mile apart. Closer to downtown, things are slightly more condensed. Just a half mile separates Broadway from Plymouth on the west side of the river, and E Hennepin on the east side, both important crosstown routes that also connect easily to downtown and carry bus service that behaves like radial routes.
In West(ern) St. Paul, the pattern is also strongly apparent. Here, corridors in the north-south direction are the crosstown routes, like Cleveland S, Snelling, Lexington, Dale, and Rice. Each of these sits a mile apart from the next. East-west downtown-bound routes can be found every half-mile starting from the top with Minnehaha, University (LRT), Marshall, Grand, St. Clair, and Randolph. Only Selby and Ford Parkway (both slightly further south than expected) tweak the mold. North of the railroad, where there are some trans-MSP corridors, and where the the state fairgrounds and Como Park sit in the middle of the grid and make crosstown travel more difficult, Como and Larpentur are a mile apart.
In contrast to Minneapolis, St. Paul has far fewer high or medium-frequency routes. Its best transit service, exemplified by the Green Line, A Line, and #54 bus on W 7th, are extremely good. But there is a steep drop off. The #21 bus doesn’t serve Selby as well as it does points west across the river, Grand Avenue has only decent service, and the transit service on St. Clair, Randolph, Cleveland S, and Dale is a step above non-existent. Worst of all is Lexington Parkway, which serves neighborhoods that should support transit. But because of absurd laws that limit buses on “parkways,” and a bad northern terminus, the #83 bus is one of Metro Transit’s worst services.
East St. Paul is a tricky area, carved up by two highways and one pseudo-highway. It has the messiest roadway grid of these four quadrants. It is also already targeted for a lot of highway bus rapid transit. There are still important and well-spaced arterials, and some additions corridors to keep in mind. Edgerton and Arcade are a half mile apart, but the principle neighborhood drag in the area is along Payne, just one block east of the former. Maryland and Minnehaha are a mile apart, but it’s also important to pay attention to E 7th, which sits inconveniently in between them. E 3rd is a half-mile further south of Minnehaha. There are few crosstown routes in this area. Maryland and Larpentur Avenues come into this part of the city from the west. In the perpendicular direction, a mile east of Arcade is Johnson Parkway, which is a short, curvy road that terminates at Lake Phalen and isn’t covered by any bus. A mile further east is White Bear Avenue, which is a heavily trafficked road that has some transit but (like a lot of Ramsey County’s handiwork) just isn’t pleasant for anyone but drivers.
South of the river in St. Paul doesn’t fit so easily into my simple divisions of St. Paul, but there area is served by two arterial streets, Smith and Robert, which are one mile apart, and both lead directly to river crossings. Currently Robert has respectable transit service, and Smith does not.
There are thousands of roads in the Twin Cities, but only some of them make sense for transit service. Even so, our list of corridors is extensive. But to get a comprehensive network, you need to start by casting a wide net. While the aBRT process ultimately advanced a limited series of corridors, a fresh look needs to start from the full universe of arterial corridors in the core, transit-supportive areas of the Twin Cities.
A city map, and a look at Metro Transit’s existing local bus network provides the starting point for this analysis. But this fresh look needs to also be able to step outside of these sources. The current local bus network is fairly useful and comprehensive, but is undermined by low frequency branching, duplicative routes, and inadequate off-peak service. aBRT is a balm for a lot of these issues by providing direct, highly legible, all-day service. Both the A and C Lines provided the justification needed for deleting a counter-productive web of branches on the #84 and #19 buses respectively.
aBRT expansion must necessarily use the existing bus system as bedrock, but from there, we must have the license to ask questions about whether the current layout is appropriate. For example: Is it necessary to run the #11 bus on 4th St S, when the D Line becomes available on Chicago just a quarter mile to the east? Or: Why does Lexington Parkway and so much of West St. Paul have such poor service, and does that make sense? Or: Do the bends and jogs on so many East St. Paul routes hit valuable destinations, or only serve to confuse?
We can’t answer questions like these perfectly, but to start getting at the answers and more, the next step is to measure corridors against each other. Tomorrow’s post will tackle that challenge.
The designation of “transit corridors” like Bryant, or W44th with their single lanes of traffic each way shared by bus car bike and pedestrians are terrible targets for the massive density increases called for in the 2040 plan. Reconciling the corridors to truly good candidates was feedback given and ignored by the planners.
So are you suggesting those streets are too valuable to leave space for cars and instead should be transit/bike/walk streets? That’s not a bad idea.
But “ … massive density increases …”
Converting streets that are largely currently single family to 4+story multi lot apartment buildings meets Webster’s definition of “‘massive”. These aren’t triplexes or 2.5 story fourplexes. It’s a big increase in population on skinny roads Ill equipped unlike true transit corridor streets.
Except that no one is proposing that anything be converted. Those things are just allowed now.
Unless you are aware of a lot of vacant land on these streets, to put up apartment buildings means you need to convert the little buildings there, like single family houses and duplexes, to much bigger buildings. Mpls2040 expects these buildings to occur, Lisa Bender said as much last week that (paraphrasing) “most of the increase in density will occur on the transit corridors”. You won’t get that without “converting” some small buildings to much larger ones. Is anyone going to be forced to convert their building? No, the eminent domain threat has been debunked, but it’s clear what the city wants to see and it’s not what is there now.
No, it doesn’t “expect these things to occur.” It allows them to occur. Whether anything happens is up to the property owners.
That’s only true if you convince yourself of it. 4-6 story buildings exist all over the world on skinny streets, oftentimes next to single family homes. It’s fine. The street can handle it (the secret is that residential structures like that don’t drive a ton of auto traffic, and what they do bring can be spread out as people adjust to slight congestion increases). Be honest, you just don’t like the idea of a 4 story building next door.
Bryant, 44th, etc have more than enough capacity to handle more people. We waste tons of street space on free parking, overly-wide lanes, etc. Let’s also not ignore the constant “XXX would be fine elsewhere” in land use and transportation planning. Plan a 4 story building on Lyndale and 34th (rather than your “skinny Bryant side-street”) and people still fight it. Want to put a protected bike lane on Hennepin Ave south of Uptown? People fight for on-street parking that obviates the better design for bikes. Want to build a high-capacity LRT line somewhere through SW Mpls? Good luck finding a spot that won’t meet years of lawsuits and resistance. There’s always a better spot somewhere else for whatever you want to build.
So, what happens when your single family House is surrounded on three sides by 4 to 6 story buildings? The SFH would be like living in a fishbowl.
The property would likely have little resale value as an SFH. The only way the owner comes out whole at sale time is if a developer wants to buy it and build another apartment building.
I count myself lucky that my city and neighborhood are so in-demand that this level of development has surrounded my lot. I enjoy what must be a crazy increase in local amenities like shops and restaurants supporting all these new people. I buy some window blinds and become okay with the idea that people might (but probably won’t) look at my family while we’re in the backyard.
I could also revel in the flexibility offered by a situation like this. I could choose to not invest in maintenance and upkeep on the property, knowing it would likely be redeveloped when I sell, and save on my annual ownership costs. I could choose to rent the house out entirely and move away, making money in the meantime before selling (one might call that “whole”). I could build a basement and/or attic and/or garage apartment unit while living there. All options afforded by a neighborhood that is both in-demand and flexible on zoning.
Mostly, I’d probably realize I live in a society and my selfish desires for a little more sunlight or privacy are not more important than letting other people be close to the parks, schools, transit, shops, jobs, and other things that make our location already desirable.
Isn’t is selfish for people to want to barge in and invade your privacy and block the sunlight out of your family home you might have lived in for decades just so they can live where they personally want?
Nope. Buy the air rights if you want to control forever how tall other people build buildings on their property.
Just to be clear, residents have no right to their view; however, they absolutely do have a right to sunlight which is why shading studies are always included in development proposals. Now a 4-6 story building isn’t a big deal, but let’s be careful about throwing out the air rights claim.
So by that logic my neighbors should be able to put a toxic waste dump on their property because it’s “their” property and I have no input into things that they do that would affect me?
Point is we have all kind of restrictions on properties due to their impacts on neighbors, everything from painting the siding to mowing the lawn to the form of their building. If the neighbors grass it too long should I have to buy out their property if I don’t like that? A six story apartment tower is going to affect my property a lot more than not mowing the grass every week.
I lived in a traditional neighborhood in St. Paul that was built before disallowed such a mix and it was mix of single family homes and apartments and was wonderful neighborhood with high home values, when odker people left young families with young kids gladly bought the homes, somw.moving from less dense SFHs neighborhood I he city to this more sense are preciseky because it was more walkable.
There were SFHs next to very tall, large duplexes, four-plexes, six-plexes and much larger apartment buildings that had no private parking! It is a first class premium neighborhood, high in demand and SFHs on blocks mixed with apartments are just as valuable as on blocks that are all SFHs, no apartments.
You chose to move such a neighborhood. It’s great it was such a great fit for you. Having the neighborhood morph dramatically around you (not talking a few triplexes but big 4-6 story buildings) is different and it’s always striking how little appreciation the maximum density advocates have that not everyone who lives in the city wants their block to change so signifucantly.
Change will be gradual. If it gets to a state you don’t like, then maybe you choose to move. But it’s going to be awhile.
Meanwhile, the metro has tons and tons of SFH-only neighborhoods and not many mixed, dense ones, with the ones we have in high demand.
One big reason why buses were limited on Lexington Parkway was a classic Robert Moses thing. The bridge by Como Park is too low to allow a full bus to pass underneath it, which is why they use the small van-based transit for the current service.
Yep, the bridge is the limiting factor. The parkways language in statute is specific to Minneapolis. Saint Paul has no law against it, e.g. many routes operate on Ford Parkway.
I stand corrected!
In Saint Paul, using the 2013 streetcar route plan as a basis for aBRT investment would be a good start. (https://streets.mn/2014/01/16/five-saint-paul-problems-that-streetcars-might-solve/) An aBRT line that went from Rice Street to Robert Street would be pretty huge for both of those corridors.
Great article. A couple comments:
It would be interesting to overlay the early 1900s streetcar routes over your maps to understand why the streets with existing density have it, and how new aBRT is usually a reflection of streetcar routes of the past. As you know, transportation and land use are inextricably linked.
I hope you consider cities outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul proper. If our goal is to save the planet, encourage transit, and encourage density outside of the core cities, our regional transit plan has to address the suburbs. Suburbs can’t densify if there is no transit. Transit won’t work in low-density suburbs. The regional transit authority should reward suburbs that are trying to address climate change through better land use.
I kind of imagine extending the 38th hypothetical west to Excelsior and Grand, Wooddale Station, Walker/Lake district, then maybe all the way west down Walker then 36th towards Knollwood and the neighborhood of apartments between 169 and the North Cedar Lake trail.
Matched with extending the Minnetonka Blvd hypothetical as far as the apartments in Minnetonka on 169 (turn around at Oak Ridge Rd), and two higher frequency bus routes would sandwich the lower income neighborhoods and apartments on Saint Louis Park’s western side.
Those are great ideas, Eric.
I think there’s a case for extending a 38th Street aBRT service in three directions:
(1) Between the lakes and down France
(2) To West Lake Station and down Excelsior
(3) To West Lake Station and down Minnetonka
The best option probably ought to come down to how those corridors develop in the future.
This is part of the discussion in the third part of the series!
For the most part, I considered arterial routes within what Metro Transit labels as “Market Routes I & II”. That’s Minneapolis, St. Paul, Richfield, and narrow corridors to the southeast, west, and north. If other areas get serious about designing streets and zoning land to support transit, then they ought to be considered for aBRT-quality service.
Nice article. Perhaps you’ll get to this in an upcoming post, but I do not understand why Hennepin and Ramsey County do not use the .5-cent sales tax for ABRT. Scrap or postpone the Blue Line extension and use that funding to improve bus service now.
Isn’t the Blue Line extension unlikely to happen at this point anyway due to the federal funding timeline that it would require? Could be an opportunity to plan something with a better route that doesn’t just skip over north Minneapolis…though that could mean a long delay before anything happens at all
The BRT project office is doing a new study to decide which routes need aBRT, because the 2012 study is outdated.
That’s good to hear! Hopefully this new study is more methodical
I eagerly await it!