Metro's BRT schedule update from the May 2024 finance committee packet. Looking like late 2028/early 2029 for full implementation- "one line starting in FY28; with both lines operating in FY29"

On 2/13/2024 at 8:17 AM, thomasbw said:

2024 will be a telling year for Metro. Hopefully the new funding source will help continue to build ridership 

Through April, fixed route ridership is down -3.5% compared to 2019 and up just 0.5% compared to 2023. 

The Downtown routing of SORTA's BRT plan appears to assume there will be either a two-way conversion of 5th street or they're going to add a mixed traffic contra-flow lane. I guess it's also possible they mislabeled 4th street as 5th street. 

 

I have no idea why they wouldn't just use the Metro*Plus routing. Also if you're going to tack on this detour to use the RTC, you might as well add a Convention Center/Paul Brown Stadium stop at 3rd and Elm.

On 6/10/2024 at 3:58 PM, thomasbw said:

The Downtown routing of SORTA's BRT plan appears to assume there will be either a two-way conversion of 5th street or they're going to add a mixed traffic contra-flow lane. I guess it's also possible they mislabeled 4th street as 5th street.

The route seems pretty obvious to me:

1 hour ago, Dev said:

The route seems pretty obvious to me:

How do you get back up to 5th to the red arrow? The connection from the riverfront to 5th is clearly Race st (you can tell from Washington park) 

1 hour ago, thomasbw said:

How do you get back up to 5th to the red arrow? The connection from the riverfront to 5th is clearly Race st (you can tell from Washington park) 

It's a scrivener's error, and it's actually Vine, not Race. Ultimately, the specifics do no matter at this time. This is an initial draft, not a final plan, and any number of aspects can, and will, change.
 

Edited June 19, 2024Jun 19 by Dev

wow, you're right, red is southbound, orange is northbound. 

 

that matches this- 

 

If you want to avoid the streetcar conflict and still serve the Banks, why not just do this 0.86 mile loop instead of 

this insane, over three times as long loop. There's no additional stops aside from the banks, so it's just added travel time. 

 

When you pair this with the potentially huge service cuts that Metro is considering for the local service for the 17 and 43, there's a lot of questionable choices being made here. 

5 hours ago, thomasbw said:

If you want to avoid the streetcar conflict and still serve the Banks, why not just do this 0.86 mile loop 

You're putting an awful lot of stock in screenshots of graphics that are essentially an overview for laypeople who haven't even heard of the concept of BRT. I don't see a scenario where any BRT alignments needs to, or wants to, move eastbound through Government Square unless the RTC/2nd St. component is completely removed. 

 

I'm sure they're initially proposing using the underground Riverfront Transit Center because it's an agency asset that has been underutilized as long as it has been in existence. There could be benefits to using the RTC that warrant its use - operator layover at end of line that isn't possible at GSq comes to mind - but if those trade-offs don't make sense from a service and operations perspective (added time, possible added need for security and operational cost, etc.), I'd imagine they could use surface streets to 2nd street or elsewhere for terminus. As @Dev mentioned, none of this is finalized - but there's probably no way around adding time in that segment if they use the underground RTC and those trade-offs should certainly be considered. 

 

Quote

When you pair this with the potentially huge service cuts that Metro is considering for the local service for the 17 and 43, there's a lot of questionable choices being made here. 

Of course there will be a reduction to local service on the the 17 and 43 if there's a faster, limited-stop, higher capacity route that will be coming every 10-15 minutes - what exactly do you find questionable about corresponding cuts to local service on those segments? 

 

Doomerism about BRT aside, the board is set to vote on Tuesday about taking over the Queen City Wine & Spirits space for their Sales Office, which I think would be an unequivocal positive for Government Square. Some discussion in committee about how it's a bigger space and cost than they currently need, but some obvious opportunity as well - especially paired with the coming facelift to Government Square as a whole. 

I bought my first house on W. Clifton because of the excellent bus service - the #17, #18, and #19 all followed the same route between Northside and Downtown (Ludlow to Clifton to W. Clifton). Then when the circa-2011 service cut happened they reduced the number of #17 buses, eliminated the #18, and moved the #19.  Overnight, bus service when down about 75% between Skyline Chili and Downtown.  Now this once robust corridor faces an even greater service reduction.   

10 hours ago, shawk said:

You're putting an awful lot of stock in screenshots of graphics that are essentially an overview for laypeople who haven't even heard of the concept of BRT. I don't see a scenario where any BRT alignments needs to, or wants to, move eastbound through Government Square unless the RTC/2nd St. component is completely removed. 

 

This map was an attachment to a letter to the Federal Transit Administration. 

 

 

If you want to use the RTC, just use the Metro*Plus Routing. You can even add a bus-only lane on 3rd which might speed the service up during game days and would help improve FTA scoring. 

 

10 hours ago, shawk said:

Of course there will be a reduction to local service on the the 17 and 43 if there's a faster, limited-stop, higher capacity route that will be coming every 10-15 minutes - what exactly do you find questionable about corresponding cuts to local service on those segments? 

 

 

It all depends on the size of the cuts. At present, it looks like the cuts might be around 45-50% to routes 43 and 17. If that's the case, on Route 17 you go from 78 runs per day between 5am-Midnight to 34 runs. That makes the headway drop from 14.6 minutes to 29.2. Route 43 would go from 16 minutes to 32 minutes. 

 

All the areas in orange would have 30-minute headways 

 

[Note- here's where that 50% reduction figure comes from]

In the BRT study, SORTA estimated this as the operating costs, exclusive of local service cost reductions

In the most recent finance committee packet, operating expenses are assumed to only be $5m per line ($10m total)

The current cost to operate the 17 and 43 can be determined by multiplying the per-passenger cost KPI by the monthly ridership 

Disclaimer, this is all back of the envelope math, but it seems like it will be pretty close 

 

Edited June 21, 2024Jun 21 by thomasbw
fixed typo, 30 minute headways; removed duplicate spreadsheet

As someone who admittedly hasn't been following the BRT conversations... what is the likelihood of actually getting additional transit-only lanes installed on Walnut and Main? Like, real transit-only lanes with enforcement, signal priority, etc.?

2 hours ago, thomasbw said:

 

This map was an attachment to a letter to the Federal Transit Administration. 

The current map that's posted on the FTA website has the attached mumbo-jumbo between Government Square and RTC, so I hardly think that's a big indicator. It'd be a fair criticism that the design isn't exact or transparent enough, but calling it bad choices when those choices literally haven't been made yet is a pretty big leap. I'm choosing to assume the folks doing detailed service analysis and making eventual decisions about routing aren't the ones submitting graphics and are aware of the pros and cons of a route pattern they're already running.

 

Doing some back of the envelope math is fine, but again if we are assuming competency as I prefer, there will be a lot of moving parts in the next 5 years. Other service changes will be not only appropriate, but essential, once these lines are operational - a 5-10 minute trunk from uptown to downtown will allow for frequent transfers and a lot of flexibility in other routes, as you've acknowledged with your constant BRT-lite suggestion. We are already seeing operational changes and experimentation in routing adjustments, such as the #24 now crossing to Northside instead of going downtown, the #36 Price Hill to Uptown, and changes to the #12 Madisonville express. The biggest concern right now is operator staffing across the board - having an efficient BRT core route can and should help alleviate that throughout the system, and hopefully that improves over the next few years. 

 

@taestell's question is a fair one. When Metro recently presented to city council committee, Mark Jeffreys pointedly asked Metro's chief of staff what the agency needs from the city in response to concerns about it becoming watered down and the city wanting to do things right and be bold. A high-level summary of the response was for the city to remain engaged with the trade-offs and pushback but that Metro is hoping to do sufficient engagement on the front end, and that the FTA benchmarks including speed of travel, ROW dedication, and overall travel time and ridership models will make sure it's a substantial improvement overall and not just fancy shelters. Not as specific a response as I would have wanted, but at least it shows that (at least some) city leaders are aware of the concerns and willing to be bold on their end. Personally, 

urban core enforcement is much less my concern than elsewhere on the routes. GSq to Court to OTR south to Findlay should be fairly efficient hops with signal priority and prepayment alone, but making Main 24hr and adding Walnut should happen sooner rather than later. 

1 hour ago, taestell said:

As someone who admittedly hasn't been following the BRT conversations... what is the likelihood of actually getting additional transit-only lanes installed on Walnut and Main? Like, real transit-only lanes with enforcement, signal priority, etc.?

High quality enforcement would need to be automated but given existing state and local laws, that's not happening, at least not in the initial implementation. I hope passing the anti-gerrymandering initiative this year would help lead us in a path that could make that viable, over the long-term.

SORTA is paying for all the engineering and it's my understanding that DOTE is not going to pushback since they don't have to do any work on the project. It's also telling that signal priority for the streetcar made it into the OKI 2050 update, indicating that something has shifted internally at the city. I would be surprised, and very disappointed, if Walnut and Main didn't have signal priority.

 

The current plan is for BAT lanes on Walnut and Main. To have full bus-only lanes might require a reduction of a lane of parking, and we all now how the response in OTR about that will go.

But all of this is why it's important for supporters of transit to show up to the legally required public engagement sessions. The plan that is public at this moment is like a 60% plan, the core of it is not going to change but a lot of these edge items are flexible. For example, it's my understanding that the decision to go to the RTC is not a final one, and features like jump-lanes in places where bus-only lanes are not physically or politically feasible, is at risk of not being included. We have to show up and ask the obvious questions, like what is the reliability and frequency differences if Walnut & Main have actual bus-only lanes, instead of BAT lanes. This will tee up the staff to make the case why certain elements of the plan should be updated.

From page 227 of the Alternatives Analysis

 

"From the southern terminus of the BRT lines at the Riverfront Transit Center, the alignments proceed east, turning north on Broadway and west in Second Street. At Main Street, the alignments proceed north on Main Street, turning west on Liberty Street, resuming bi-directional operations at Liberty and Walnut streets."

 

That would look like this I guess- 

 

I'm assuming they meant 3rd street. 

 

https://www.metrobrtstudy.com/_files/ugd/e63c00_b7258f017c1a49e2a6e41c35a791705d.pdf

Metro had a BRT display at Findlay last weekend. BRT will not be using the RTC, will take Wlanut to 3rd, then Race to the Banks with a stop on 2nd. 

On 7/3/2024 at 11:32 AM, thomasbw said:

BRT will not be using the RTC

 

Missed opportunity, but on-brand for what will likely not be very good BRT anyways. 

28 minutes ago, Gordon Bombay said:

 

Missed opportunity, but on-brand for what will likely not be very good BRT anyways. 

The fundamental issue is that the RTC was set up for east/west travel and the BRT is traveling north/south.

29 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

The fundamental issue is that the RTC was set up for east/west travel and the BRT is traveling north/south.

 

Too bad we don’t have any circulators that could whisk people around quickly while the “rapid” transit flows in and out of the RTC.

Access to the RTC from the west (Central Ave) will be closed off for an extended period while the overhead bridge structures for the Brent Spence project will be demolished and replaced over the next few years.   Not sure that work will be completed before SORTA intends to start BRT operations.   Everything south of third and west of Elm will be demolished and replaced over the next 5-6 years.  

Going to be interesting to see if they can bring the Brent Spence Bridge companion project in on budget considering the trends in highway construction 

B

Highest ridership route for 2nd quarter 2024. It will likely be the highest for 3rd quarter as well. 

 

The Metro Plus LED's are about 10 years old now and typically in ruins:

Cincinnati seems to have a stronger economy and has population growth and a denser urban form (at least downtown and OTR) than Cleveland, so why did Cleveland build rail and not Cincinnati? There should be serious plans for a light rail system in Cincinnati because the city and surroundings definitely need it and with the success of the streetcar ridership there are certainly people that will ride it. Could they do something similar to St. Louis and get Kentucky involved so the rail system would also serve Covington, Newport, etc.?

On 7/20/2024 at 4:45 PM, Philly215jawns said:

Cincinnati seems to have a stronger economy and has population growth and a denser urban form (at least downtown and OTR) than Cleveland, so why did Cleveland build rail and not Cincinnati?

The City of Cleveland did not build the light rail that exists today. They inherited what was left over from the electric streetcar era, as did Cincinnati and every other city in the country. Cleveland was larger and denser than Cincinnati, so when the transit collapse happened, there was more left of the network to buy out.

 

Getting Kentucky involved would likely need both states to create a special type of transit authority via an interstate compact, which would also need approval of Congress. This arrangement is how the St. Louis, and Kansas City, transit authorities function across state lines. I'm not sure that would be politically feasible, given the lack of support for transit within Kentucky, not that Ohio is good on the issue either. The amount of time it took to come to an arrangement for the BSB corridor is also concerning, especially since it took a massive carveout by the Feds to finally move it forward.

 

I think it'd would be more politically feasible for SORTA to merge with BCRTA, especially if 3C+D moves forward. In any case, that would still be very, very unlikely any time soon. OKI should be leading this process, with feasibility studies laying out the path forward, but they are still completely car brained, so nothing is going to move forward until Mark Policinski retires and/or there is a massive increase in federal funding, like with how the Corridor ID program has planted a lot of seeds around the country for intercity service.

It's interesting how Route 4 has seen a much larger ridership recovery than the limited-stop BRT-lite Metro*Plus post-pandemic. 

16 hours ago, thomasbw said:

It's interesting how Route 4 has seen a much larger ridership recovery than the limited-stop BRT-lite Metro*Plus post-pandemic. 

The Metro plus route is not what it used to be. When it started it was fast and the bus came every 10 mins or so now it runs every 30 mins which is pointless. I wouldn’t at all describe it as BRT lite anymore. Whats even more interesting is the 4 route can get you from downtown to Xavier in the same amount of time as the Plus route (that should not be) the Plus route only gets time separation when the 2 buses get to the Norwood area. Metro needs to take a look at it asap. I honesty think they should cancel the plus and add more 4s.

Edited July 30, 2024Jul 30 by 646empire

This is why I worry about Metro's upcoming BRT routes. They've let the "BRT lite" route decline into being just another bus route and let the city's sole transit-only lane get blocked by cars on a regular basis, so what's going to stop the new BRT routes from suffering the same fate?

31 minutes ago, taestell said:

This is why I worry about Metro's upcoming BRT routes. They've let the "BRT lite" route decline into being just another bus route and let the city's sole transit-only lane get blocked by cars on a regular basis, so what's going to stop the new BRT routes from suffering the same fate?

I agree and after taking an even closer look it’s worst than I thought, the metro plus route only beats the 4 route from Downtown to Kenwood by about 6 mins, that is outrageous the 4 has so many more stops!. I’m going to send an email, how could route planners miss this? Yikes.

Edited July 30, 2024Jul 30 by 646empire

2 hours ago, 646empire said:

I agree and after taking an even closer look it’s worst than I thought, the metro plus route only beats the 4 route from Downtown to Kenwood by about 6 mins, that is outrageous the 4 has so many more stops!. I’m going to send an email, how could route planners miss this? Yikes.

I think that's been the case since the service started. The detour through Uptown slows the route down. 

 

I also think a standard route 20 bus is going to be a faster way to get from the Northside Transit Center to Government Square than Hamilton BRT will be. 

New Metro transit route will allow people to get from the West Side to Madeira

 

Cincinnati Metro, the region’s largest transit agency, will run a new bus route along Galbraith Road connecting the West Side to Madeira starting Aug. 11.

 

Route 61 starts on Colerain Avenue in Mount Airy and proceeds north to Galbraith Road, where it heads east, then south on Kenwood Avenue, east on Euclid Avenue and then south on Miami Avenue to downtown Madeira.

 

The route connects Mount Airy, North College Hill, Springfield Township, Arlington Heights, Reading, Amberley Village, Deer Park, Sycamore Township and Madeira. On weekdays, half of the trips will run to Reading, with the other half continuing on through Amberley Village, Deer Park, Sycamore Township and Madeira.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/08/05/go-metro-route-61-mount-airy-amberley-madeira.html

 

^Now this is a great route 

Cincinnati Children's, Metro team up to create bus route that connects the far West Side to Avondale

 

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Cincinnati Metro are announcing the recent success of a new bus route that connects the far West Side to the hospital system’s Avondale campus.

 

Route 36 has 10 stops running east and west between Mount St. Joseph University at 5701 Delhi Road and Montgomery Road and Sherman Avenue, connecting Delhi Township to Norwood.

 

It is Metro’s first route that connects the Delhi area directly with clinics and appointments at Cincinnati Children’s, UC Health, TriHealth’s Good Samaritan Hospital and the Christ Hospital Health Network.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/08/08/cincinnati-childrens-metro-route36.html

 

I rode the TANK #2 Airport for the first time in several years earlier this week. I observed that old TANK maps and timetables come up on Google and no doubt confuse the hell out of people.  These transit agencies need to work to get old maps and schedules off of searches. 

 

Another issue is the ongoing confusion at the TANK stop at the airport.  The years go by but airport travelers continue to assume that every #2 is headed to DT Cincinnati.  It is not.  The #2 now serves many points south of the airport on its way to the Florence Hub.  The TANK stop at the airport needs a different boarding location for #2 southbound and #2 northbound.  

 

The #2 is now serving many masters south of the airport, with a circuitous route through industrial parks.  Like, you pull off to a single monster warehouse and not a single person gets on or off.  5+ minutes wasted.

SORTA put out an RFP to move Government Square to the Riverfront Transit Center 

That's interesting and I would guess that's to help align the busses with the future BRT that will be terminating down there? . There was just a story this morning that the Metro retail store will move to 5th street to make it more visible to government square bus users. As much as I like the idea of using existing infrastructure we have, the reality is that coming up stairs under 2nd street isn't actually all that close to where most workers are downtown but since the space is primarily for transferring then having it in a covered relatively climate controlled space would be very nice.

 

The real issue is that the transit center was built nearly as wide as the whole CBD (to potentially hold long ass trains) so it really extends where the bus routes will need to shift to line up on the extreme edges of downtown adding extra length, but not really touching useful parts of downtown in the process. 

On 8/10/2024 at 1:25 PM, Lazarus said:

I rode the TANK #2 Airport for the first time in several years earlier this week. I observed that old TANK maps and timetables come up on Google and no doubt confuse the hell out of people.  These transit agencies need to work to get old maps and schedules off of searches. 

 

Another issue is the ongoing confusion at the TANK stop at the airport.  The years go by but airport travelers continue to assume that every #2 is headed to DT Cincinnati.  It is not.  The #2 now serves many points south of the airport on its way to the Florence Hub.  The TANK stop at the airport needs a different boarding location for #2 southbound and #2 northbound.  

 

The #2 is now serving many masters south of the airport, with a circuitous route through industrial parks.  Like, you pull off to a single monster warehouse and not a single person gets on or off.  5+ minutes wasted.

 

This must be a recent change, user error, or, an issue with Google, because the 2X stop is still on the East side of the baggage claim. Looking on Google right now, it seems to be defaulting to the stop on Lincoln Rd depending on how you plan the trip (an easy fix for TANK/Google by adjusting the data packets that Google Maps picks up automatically)., rather than the main one at Terminal Dr. Either way, though, there's no "masters" it's serving and the priority of the route is still for airport travelers.

 

If you take the 2X from Downtown (for example, from the Hilton Netherland), it's still taking you directly to the airport. And if you reverse that trip, you have the potential for a few quick stops at employment areas directly north of baggage claim (still on airport property that the bus may as well pass anyways) before heading directly into Downtown Cincinnati. If you're wishing to reach Amazon, DHL, etc. or the destinations south of the airport, those are going to come AFTER and BEFORE the main airport stop (still giving priority to travelers). It's not a direct express route technically (as there's potential for at-most four stops before getting on the highway if you're headed TO Cincinnati), but it makes sense and is easy enough to understand for anyone accustomed to using Google maps or the Transit app. The 2X is never going to be a great option for airport travel anyways, unless you live in the core, and even then—it faces the same traffic as everyone else. It also makes sense that to maintain, justify, and keep this route—it would also serve as a quick way for those massive employment centers south of the airport. And if your ultimate destination is Florence and not the airport, the 2X isn't your best bet anyways. Again, the whole situation isn't as advantageous as a direct rail line, or even a bus line with transit only lanes on the highway, but it's probably the best we can hope for in this regional, political climate.

 

Anecdotally, I've been using the 2X every time I've flown since both working (since 2016) and living (since 2021) Downtown. That bus is always filled with workers headed to the various airport destinations, but every time I ride it seems to have more and more airport travelers and I've had some good conversations with out-of-town folks who are catching the bus into the city after arriving at CVG. It's a super easy connection to the airport (and I've yet to have a trip skipped or missed (knock on wood as I fly next week)). 

 

5 hours ago, thomasbw said:

SORTA put out an RFP to move Government Square to the Riverfront Transit Center 

 

This, in my opinion, is fantastic news. I certainly understand the appeal and utility of Government Square as both a transit user and former transit industry employee—but the space is often overcrowded, confusing, lacks protection from even the mildest of rain, and is spread out across multiple blocks. The key to using the RTC though will be if there's an easy, reliable, connection to it. Perhaps a circulator? Maybe the streetcar can serve that role if the city ever decides to run the streetcar properly. Maybe the SORTA Board could actually put some pressure on that. 

 

P.S. If everything shifts to the RTC, Government Square should become a proper food truck park. Like, a real one, that they have in other cities (not that silly one on the far east side that lasted a few weeks). 

 

Edited August 12, 2024Aug 12 by Gordon Bombay

Cincinnati Metro looks at moving main bus station downtown

Chris Wetterich

By Chris Wetterich – Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier

Aug 13, 2024

 

Metro, the region’s largest transit agency, has released a request for proposals to examine whether it is feasible to move its main Government Square bus station to the Riverfront Transit Center underneath Second Street or elsewhere downtown.

 

If it goes through with the idea, it would be a major change for the thousands of people who use Government Square every day, either to get downtown or to transfer to another bus, adding as many as 12 minutes to bus riders’ trips, according to an analysis by a former Metro board member.

 

Metro was in the midst of repairing and updating Government Square when stakeholders asked it to evaluate how the bus system functions in the city center, said Brandy Jones, Metro’s chief communications and marketing officer. She declined to say who the stakeholders were or to specify what concerns they had that prompted the RFP.

 

MORE

Region's top 5 routes by ridership for August 2024

TANK is proposing cutting their five lowest ridership routes which account for 1.8% of total ridership. 

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/09/23/avondale-burnet-quarter-childrens-uptown-restarts.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_6&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s

Metro's BRT plans call for BAT lanes here, but my guess is the City is going to side with the developer and we're just going to run a bus in mixed traffic. I think this will also be what happens for College Hill's business district and Mt. Healthy's business district

On 9/23/2024 at 2:50 PM, thomasbw said:

Metro's BRT plans call for BAT lanes here, but my guess is the City is going to side with the developer and we're just going to run a bus in mixed traffic.

It's more likely that the BRT will just stay on Reading given that SORTA is working on building their own transit center at Whittier. I don't know what the current status is but most of the land is currently owned by UCI and the Port. Also the Uptown Multimodal Center is planned by UC Health to be on Harvey at Hickman, not Burnet.

Edited September 26, 2024Sep 26 by Dev

Regarding the Uptown Multimodal Center:

 

The planned NIOSH campus is going to subsume Hickman Ave.  

 

If the intention is to have buses jog over from Reading Rd. to stop at the Uptown Multimodal Center on Harvey Ave., then Ridgeway Ave. would probably need to be widened to accommodate this.  But I haven't seen any provisions made for that in the plans for this area.

 

It may also be helpful to redo Ridgeway and Reading intersection so that it meets at single point, or alternatively, put a traffic circle there.  

 

A spur from Wasson Way could also cross Reading in this area to connect to the Uptown Multimodal Center.  

On 9/28/2024 at 1:29 PM, thebillshark said:

If the intention is to have buses jog over from Reading Rd. to stop at the Uptown Multimodal Center on Harvey Ave., then Ridgeway Ave. would probably need to be widened to accommodate this.  But I haven't seen any provisions made for that in the plans for this area.

They would take Forest to get to Harvey and/or Burnet, not Ridgeway, which is the way buses currently go down Burnet. If any modifications to the roadway are required, that would be included with the BRT grant SORTA will be applying for with the FTA. You haven't seen any plans for any of this because they haven't gotten to that point in the process yet.

1 hour ago, Dev said:

They would take Forest to get to Harvey and/or Burnet, not Ridgeway, which is the way buses currently go down Burnet. If any modifications to the roadway are required, that would be included with the BRT grant SORTA will be applying for with the FTA. You haven't seen any plans for any of this because they haven't gotten to that point in the process yet.

 

Let me clarify- I thought the idea was for the 43 bus that goes up and down Reading Rd. to jog over to make a stop at the planned "Uptown Multimodal Center" on Harvey, just like the 17 leaves Hamilton Ave briefly to stop at the Northside Transit Center.  In that case using Ridgeway (possibly together with MLK) for buses would make the most sense, and in that case Ridgeway would need to be widened for buses.  However, I read that they already transferred land for the NIOSH campus, so I don't know if widening Ridgeway is still possible.   

 

If the "Uptown Multimodal Center" is just supposed to be for BRT, and possibly the local buses along Burnet (if there is an additional entrance from Burnet Ave)., I guess it's fine how it is. Still, a spur of Wasson Way along the north side of the NIOSH campus to the Uptown Multimodal Center would enhance connectivity.    

 

The BRT project site has a survey I hadn't noticed before about station design and name for the service. There are 3 options of each.

 

These names aren't great....

 

 

They better not keep the "Metro*Plus" route and call the new service "Metro Pulse"

 

I imagine the plus route disappears when they open this new BRT lite service

46 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

These names aren't great....

 

Well neither is the overall plan, so at least it's still on brand, but wow all three are... yikes. Just call each one a colored line and make this easy for any rider (whether local, experienced, new, or visiting) to understand. They need to learn the lessons of Metro "Plus" and "The one for fun." 

33 minutes ago, Gordon Bombay said:

Just call each one a colored line 

 

Racism shouldn't be tolerated in 2024!

49 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Racism shouldn't be tolerated in 2024!

 

Tell that to the Republican Party.