Your Thoughts On the New Public Transportation Projects (Minneapolis, St. Paul: transfer to, buy)
Minneapolis - St. PaulTwin Cities
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing DC has that the Twin Cities doesn't is more density in its suburbs; some of that may be chicken-and-egg , but for now, I think the density just isn't there. I think the Twin Cities is still always going to need the spikes in towards downtown, so one way to do it is to work on getting those done, build up the transit along the corridors, and then if traffic and population patterns warrant it add a loop or branches connecting them.
One thing DC has that the Twin Cities doesn't is more density in its suburbs; some of that may be chicken-and-egg , but for now, I think the density just isn't there. I think the Twin Cities is still always going to need the spikes in towards downtown, so one way to do it is to work on getting those done, build up the transit along the corridors, and then if traffic and population patterns warrant it add a loop or branches connecting them.
Again, common misconception that people actually want to get into Minneapolis. The issue is MOST people in the metro do not live, work and socialize in Minneapolis, they do that in the suburbs which is why a suburb to suburb rail would be better. We also have another large city called St. Paul that is pretty much ignored on these boards that has a working population similar to Minneapolis...
A circular light rail would have been much more practical with spokes into St. Paul and Minneapolis following 94, 35, Cedar and 394.
Again, common misconception that people actually want to get into Minneapolis. The issue is MOST people in the metro do not live, work and socialize in Minneapolis, they do that in the suburbs which is why a suburb to suburb rail would be better. We also have another large city called St. Paul that is pretty much ignored on these boards that has a working population similar to Minneapolis...
A circular light rail would have been much more practical with spokes into St. Paul and Minneapolis following 94, 35, Cedar and 394.
Most jobs and homes may be in the suburbs but they're too broad and lack consistent destination points for rail to make any sense. These areas already benefit from the interstate and are designed according to them. Whereas in the cities, peoples destinations wont be a mile from the station. With all the economic vitality that a light rail brings at street level, wouldn't building them along interstates be like a waste anyway? The light rail is to precious a gift to be tucked away on the interstates.
Again, common misconception that people actually want to get into Minneapolis. The issue is MOST people in the metro do not live, work and socialize in Minneapolis, they do that in the suburbs which is why a suburb to suburb rail would be better. We also have another large city called St. Paul that is pretty much ignored on these boards that has a working population similar to Minneapolis...
A circular light rail would have been much more practical with spokes into St. Paul and Minneapolis following 94, 35, Cedar and 394.
I think you lack an understanding of how both public transportation works as well as how larger metro areas work. It's not just that people want to get INTO Minneapolis, but also that people want to get OUT of Minneapolis; that's where the current high density is, and where you have a higher core of potential riders. The U is also right there, which is an additional generator of potentially tens of thousands of daily rides. You also really need central hubs, hubs that can, among other things, serve as transfer points. It doesn't make any sense to have your major transfer point be somewhere on the edges, although eventually if there is enough activity at those points then it starts to make more sense to have them as hubs. MOA is a bus/train transit hub, for example, but it wouldn't make much sense to have a regional transportation network centered in Bloomington. It would make even less sense to have it centered in Eden Prairie or Eagan.
If locations in the suburbs can create enough density of both jobs and housing in one central location, then you can start justifying them as central hubs. But for now, how many people are really going to commute on a suburban rail ring? At this point in time, there just seems to be no reason to expect that the ridership potential is there. There's not enough people, and what would be their incentive to switch to rail? Eventually there may be both the ridership and the development patterns to support that, but right now it seems a very tough sell. As it stands right now, most suburb-to-suburb bus routes are underutilized. I think there are definite improvements that might boost those numbers, but for now, anyway, a really good bus option would make more sense. Creating a suburban loop first would be setting it up to fail.
For what it's worth, I think the model city to be looking at these days is LA; they also have many different major job centers and corridors (i.e. downtown LA, Long Beach, Glendale, Santa Monica, Wilshire Blvd, etc.) and a decentralized metro area. They've done some really great things with buses, and are working hard to expand train options. Obviously they have many millions of people on us, as well as a MUCH higher population density (including in the suburbs), but they're doing innovative things to deal with a lot of people scattered across a vast, decentralized region. Of course they also hit rock-bottom with traffic, which provided some extra incentive to get things going! Right now in the Twin Cities the traffic is getting worse, but still isn't so bad that it's convincing many people that it's worth spending money on public transportation.
St. Paul is getting its own LRT line. If they can get enough riders to justify additional lines there (with DT St. Paul as the hub of their network), I think that would be wonderful.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 12-19-2011 at 08:20 PM..
Again, common misconception that people actually want to get into Minneapolis. The issue is MOST people in the metro do not live, work and socialize in Minneapolis, they do that in the suburbs which is why a suburb to suburb rail would be better. We also have another large city called St. Paul that is pretty much ignored on these boards that has a working population similar to Minneapolis...
A circular light rail would have been much more practical with spokes into St. Paul and Minneapolis following 94, 35, Cedar and 394.
we need roads to get the train drivers and repair technicians to the light rail lines and drive people in ambulances to the hospital when they get ran over by the light rail cars. jeesh... never seen a more delusional bunch of people who feel that the rest of us have to subsidize their imaginary entitlement.
The Twin Cities will continue to progress forward whether you like it or not. The notion that a large city has to be completely reliant on the automobile is ridiculous. How is providing an efficient means of transit to people of all means "imaginary entitlement"? Most large cities in the world rely heavenly on efficient mass transit systems.
The Twin Cities will continue to progress forward whether you like it or not. The notion that a large city has to be completely reliant on the automobile is ridiculous. How is providing an efficient means of transit to people of all means "imaginary entitlement"? Most large cities in the world rely heavenly on efficient mass transit systems.
I changed my mind since then and now fully support mass transit just not the inefficiencies inherent with light rail. A better idea would be to take the billions that would be spent on that inflexible, high-maintenance and obsolete strategy and buy everyone who wanted one a commuter van. The money left over can be used to hire more cops that will be needed to write out more tickets, the fees of which can be used to build more jails. Which naturally would require hiring more construction workers and corrections officers.
They could utilize the existing transit stations in most of the larger suburbs (Eden Prairie, Burnsville, Eagan, Maple Grove, etc.). They already have multi-level parking ramps for parking, etc. They really aren't along 494/694 but they could figure something out. It would make the transit system similar to that in Washington DC, which is heavily utilized. Maybe the connections to the 494/696 loop could be subway type systems to keep the landscape looking nice and not something like you see in Chicago with rusty fences and El-tracks everywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
Again, common misconception that people actually want to get into Minneapolis. The issue is MOST people in the metro do not live, work and socialize in Minneapolis, they do that in the suburbs which is why a suburb to suburb rail would be better. We also have another large city called St. Paul that is pretty much ignored on these boards that has a working population similar to Minneapolis...
A circular light rail would have been much more practical with spokes into St. Paul and Minneapolis following 94, 35, Cedar and 394.
I've no idea why you (and others) think that DC's Metro is a hub and spoke transit system. In fact, it is a system that focuses on downtown and The Mall, and spurs out. The ring often seen on the DC Metro map is just an illustration to show where the 495 Interstate loop is in relation to the system. There is no rail that encircles the DC metro area. There are a couple of small loops, but they are both inside of the DC/Arlington proper limits. Plus, to travel these 'loops', you'd have to transfer 2 or 3 times...again, no loop that goes around the DC metropolitan area.
Here is an example of the normal DC metro map with the I 495 loop:
And here is a map I found that shows the system, without the Interstate 495 loop overlapped. As you can see, there is no hub and spoke. At best, it is a series of interconnected 'hook' lines that ALL overlap one central focal point...DOWNTOWN:
I've no idea why you (and others) think that DC's Metro is a hub and spoke transit system. In fact, it is a system that focuses on downtown and The Mall, and spurs out. The ring often seen on the DC Metro map is just an illustration to show where the 495 Interstate loop is in relation to the system. There is no rail that encircles the DC metro area. There are a couple of small loops, but they are both inside of the DC/Arlington proper limits. Plus, to travel these 'loops', you'd have to transfer 2 or 3 times...again, no loop that goes around the DC metropolitan area.
Here is an example of the normal DC metro map with the I 495 loop:
And here is a map I found that shows the system, without the Interstate 495 loop overlapped. As you can see, there is no hub and spoke. At best, it is a series of interconnected 'hook' lines that ALL overlap one central focal point...DOWNTOWN:
While not a perfect circle is does circle the city with spokes off to the suburbs. DC is a very different work environment then MSP area, MOST of the jobs in DC are in DC or the immediate "suburbs" proper-Arlington, Crystal City/Pentagon, etc.. That is not the case here, Minneapolis has a very, very small percent of the jobs in the metro area which is why a Minneapolis focused transit station makes very little sense. 160,000 people work in downtown Minneapolis,
If you look at that map, it looks very much like what I suggested, a circle around 494/694 with spokes going off on 94 (north and east) and spokes from 35 (south and north) and Cedar Ave.
The Red Line in DC would be similar to the North 95 and North 35 route, the blue line would be similar to the East 94 and South 35 Route (or even 169 route), etc.
As for density, 380,000 people live in Minneapolis and 3 million live in the suburbs . No, you aren't living on top of your neighbors like you do in Minneapolis but people would create an artificial density by driving to transit stations, just like they do now with the bus transit stations.
Yes, people want to get out of Minneapolis, which is why the spokes through Minneapolis make sense. There is already one light rail line running through Minneapolis, people can take a bus to that line, just like they do now, to a hub to get anywhere in the metro. Why is that an issue? I am still trying to figure out how 380,000 people are more then 3 million .
St. Paul is getting its own LRT line. If they can get enough riders to justify additional lines there (with DT St. Paul as the hub of their network), I think that would be wonderful.
Depending on the success of the Central Corridor line in St. Paul, perhaps interest in the Riverview Corridor might be renewed. This would connect the Central line at Union Depot in SP to the Hiawatha at MOA or MSP through the West 7th/Fort Rd. area of St. Paul. The would form a triangle between the three biggest cities in the metro, and suburban expansion could occur from these three hubs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. No, you aren't living on top of your neighbors like you do in Minneapolis but people would create an artificial density by driving to transit stations, just like they do now with the bus transit stations.
