One of the big reasons I opted to keep the Millidgeville-North route as a single entity (and also opted to have it terminate Uptown) was so that the route would have "anchors" (or large trip generators) at both ends. Although that does create some duplication going into the Uptown, the Somerset routing I presented would mitigate this somewhat.
Another advantage of having one route for both neighbourhoods is that, in the distant future, it could potentially serve a corridor through the eventually-developed area above Forbes Drive and Cambridge Estates instead of duplicating service on Millidge Avenue. I've sketched below some of what I'd personally like to see there - a new urbanist-style community near Robertson Lake that orients itself strongly to the transit corridor - although I think this kind of development isn't really on the radar of the landowners in the area.
To speak directly to your proposed routes, I commend you for serving both grocery stores with your North End routing (I've been scratching my head on how to effectively serve the Superstore/ANBL in a reconfigured transit network), but I don't particularly like the one-way loop you have for much of the alignment. One-way loops are good for "casting the net wide" with lower-density feeder routes, but aren't great at driving up ridership between the midpoints of the line. I'd really like to see a frequent, two-way routing through the Adelaide/Main/Bridge core of the Old North End.
On the Millidgeville route options, I definitely prefer the one that doesn't run the length of Kennebecasis, and in fact I would even bring the turnaround point to Meadowbank rather than Crown Hill as the number of houses within a few hundred meters really drops off as you move past the Millidge/Kennebecasis intersection.
As you can probably tell, I tend to lean toward the ridership-maximizing side of the
ridership-coverage tradeoff when it comes to transit planning, which is largely underpinning my critiques here.
Prev
Linear Mode
