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.
Here's the thing you don't get: The cost to supply infrastructure for the spread out suburbs is much more per person than in the city. Roads don't even pay themselves off with gas taxes. In fact, taxes cover only about half of the expense of roads and the rest of us are subsidizing your choice.
The trains, however, may pay for less of themselves, but they're also:
Cheap
Stimulate development which INCREASES property tax revenue.
One bus line in Cleveland has stimulated over $5 billion in private investment.
What are the suburbs doing again?
Right, spending on roads that don't pay for themselves AT ALL and are covered through property taxes of people who don't drive. Why don't you make US stop subsidizing you? Well, I don't really mind it. Let me have my choice (which costs infrastructure) and you can have yours (which costs infrastructure).
The government subsidizes oil. The government subsidizes expansive freeway systems which serve your suburbs. The government subsidizes home ownership (FHA and VA loans could primarily only be used in new growth, auto centric areas). Nowhere in the world can the average joe buy a house with such ease, and that's not necessarily a good thing... Well... it's a good thing, but when everyone has that good thing it can be at serious cost in maintaining it once the conditions that allow it go away. We're paying lower taxes than every to provide more infrastructure than ever, ESPECIALLY in the suburbs. While we may ask for a single rail line, we're not only subsidizing Anoka County but also Dakota County, Scott, Carver, etc. and the expense of those is far greater and the efficiency is far less than a measly train.
Also, those corporate benefits you don't get? WHO DO YOU THINK WORKS DOWNTOWN? It's not the yuppies in uptown or the hipsters of Seward.
According to the census-numbers posted earlier, 50% of the downtown working population of about 200,000 people live in Minneapolis, the other 100,000 come from outside of Minneapolis. The other 2,000,000 working people in the metro are work in the SUBURBS.
According to the census-numbers posted earlier, 50% of the downtown working population of about 200,000 people live in Minneapolis, the other 100,000 come from outside of Minneapolis. The other 2,000,000 working people in the metro are work in the SUBURBS.
They would'nt all be working in the SUBURBS if not for all of the federal subsidies though, now would they?
Like I said before someone rudely deleted my post.
The City of Minneapolis needs the suburbs much more than the suburbs need Minneapolis. Without it's suburbs and the people that live there, MPLS would be hanging with Cleveland, Milwaukee, Kansas City and Cincinnati instead of Seattle and Denver
Pretty much everything they do, marching band, jazz band and golf. No city school has a marching band and none of the city schools have a music program even close to what we have nor do any of the city schools have golf programs like we have here.
Or hockey programs, because city people are poor.
I remember my cousins who went to Cooper would ALWAYs complain about their crappy computers (and gym). My new suburban school had the best of the best computers and a squeaky (no pun intended) new gym.
Like I said before someone rudely deleted my post.
The City of Minneapolis needs the suburbs much more than the suburbs need Minneapolis. Without it's suburbs and the people that live there, MPLS would be hanging with Cleveland, Milwaukee, Kansas City and Cincinnati instead of Seattle and Denver
While I agree with the gist of your statement that MSP benefits from the cities, your wording makes it sound like the suburbs could be just fine without either of the cities. Without the city cores, Eden Prairie would have all the national significance of Morris.
As with many things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The cities and the suburbs, together with a whole raft of historical events and decisions (some planned, some by chance) combine to make MSP what is today. Pretty hard to project what things would be like if you removed any one part of the puzzle.
While I agree with the gist of your statement that MSP benefits from the cities, your wording makes it sound like the suburbs could be just fine without either of the cities. Without the city cores, Eden Prairie would have all the national significance of Morris.
As with many things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The cities and the suburbs, together with a whole raft of historical events and decisions (some planned, some by chance) combine to make MSP what is today. Pretty hard to project what things would be like if you removed any one part of the puzzle.
You're right. I guess I made it too black and white. It's more of a working relationship - like gears. That kind of dependence. I understand that the suburbs and the people in them wouldn't exsist if it wasn't for the core city. However, It's those who live in the suburbs that dictate the core city's significance. They are the ones who have made a decision to stay in the general metro and "feed" off of the core city. It's an interesting paradox, kind of like the chicken and the egg.
With that said, I still believe that right now the suburbs are needed by Minneapolis and St. Paul more than STP and MPLS need them.
I guess I look at it this way - Large groups of people leaving the region for somewhere else. Why would that happen? Most of the time it's job loss/cost of living factors or catastrophe. Imagine if some of the big employers left town - Supervalue, 3M, General Mills, Medtronic, etc. They don't even have to leave town, they just have to cut major jobs. It's going to be the people that live in the suburbs that leave because logic says that the majority of those employed in the Twin Cities live and work in the suburbs.
Like I said it's interesting, and it's fun to discuss it.
There is a definite economic class component being represented here. If you live in a high-income suburb, and you have the means to drive wherever you want...whenever you want, you don't have a lot of personal interest in mass transit. You may even see it as a boondoggle which effectively transfers your wealth to others via transportation taxes. That would be fine if you could live your entire life in a geographical vacuum, never leaving the comfort and security of your suburban enclave. But large, modern cities (that is, metro areas) don't work that way. In a robust metropolitan area, the city core serves as the economic and cultural engine of the region, with numerous interactions with outlying communities. If that city core deteriorates, it becomes incapable of supporting the human infrastructure which propels the entire region.
Whether you live in the city or in the suburbs, having an efficient means of moving large numbers of people, makes any urban agglomeration healthier. Because density tends to dissipate as one moves away form the city core, mass transit works most effectively when operating on a hub-and-spoke principle. The hub representing the highest density; not only of residents, but of jobs, entertainment venues, cultural amenities, etc. The hub of this region is Downtown Minneapolis.
there is a definite economic class component being represented here. If you live in a high-income suburb, and you have the means to drive wherever you want...whenever you want, you don't have a lot of personal interest in mass transit. You may even see it as a boondoggle which effectively transfers your wealth to others via transportation taxes. That would be fine if you could live your entire life in a geographical vacuum, never leaving the comfort and security of your suburban enclave. But large, modern cities (that is, metro areas) don't work that way. In a robust metropolitan area, the city core serves as the economic and cultural engine of the region, with numerous interactions with outlying communities. If that city core deteriorates, it becomes incapable of supporting the human infrastructure which propels the entire region.
Whether you live in the city or in the suburbs, having an efficient means of moving large numbers of people, makes any urban agglomeration healthier. Because density tends to dissipate as one moves away form the city core, mass transit works most effectively when operating on a hub-and-spoke principle. The hub representing the highest density; not only of residents, but of jobs, entertainment venues, cultural amenities, etc. The hub of this region is downtown minneapolis.
There is a definite economic class component being represented here. If you live in a high-income suburb, and you have the means to drive wherever you want...whenever you want, you don't have a lot of personal interest in mass transit. You may even see it as a boondoggle which effectively transfers your wealth to others via transportation taxes. That would be fine if you could live your entire life in a geographical vacuum, never leaving the comfort and security of your suburban enclave. But large, modern cities (that is, metro areas) don't work that way. In a robust metropolitan area, the city core serves as the economic and cultural engine of the region, with numerous interactions with outlying communities. If that city core deteriorates, it becomes incapable of supporting the human infrastructure which propels the entire region.
Whether you live in the city or in the suburbs, having an efficient means of moving large numbers of people, makes any urban agglomeration healthier. Because density tends to dissipate as one moves away form the city core, mass transit works most effectively when operating on a hub-and-spoke principle. The hub representing the highest density; not only of residents, but of jobs, entertainment venues, cultural amenities, etc. The hub of this region is Downtown Minneapolis.
But it is NOT and that is the point. There are more jobs along 94 in St. Paul between Ruth and 694 then in all of downtown Minneapolis. The business center along 394/494 has more jobs in that few mile radius then all of downtown Minneapolis. Again, it makes zero sense to have a central hub in the Twin Cities metro area. If you expect people to travel into Minneapolis 20 miles, which takes about 40 minutes by bus or rail, hop on another bus or rail back out 20 minutes to their job, no one is going to do that. A circular system around the metro area would make much more sense, following current major highways, spoking into St. Paul and Minneapolis to take you across the metro from either north to south or from east to west but the majority of commuting does not happen that way in the metro. It is mostly suburb to suburb not really crossing outside of a 1/4 piece of the "pie" that makes up the metro area.
On a related note, spent Wednesday in Minneapolis. For kicks I though we would take the bus to do what we needed to do. So, 8:00 am starts at the Cedar-Riverside area. We were done there at 9:00 but had to be back around 2:00 so we thought we would go into downtown and/or over to MIA. Look up the bus schedule, it would take us 15 minutes to bus into downtown but couldn't start that trek until 9:30 according to the bus schedule to the tune of $8 round trip. Coming back we would have had to arrive back at either 40 minutes early-leaving little time to do anything downtown, or 30 minutes late. Plan B to MIA, because of the bus routes and the amount of walking, it was 30-40 minutes to get to MIA via bus---and the amount of walking put that option off the table because the person I was with couldn't walk that far--again for $8 round trip.
My parking was $5 for the morning and $5 for the afternoon. It took us less then 5 minutes to drive over to the MIA....so, tell me again what is so great about the bus?
But it is NOT and that is the point. There are more jobs along 94 in St. Paul between Ruth and 694 then in all of downtown Minneapolis. The business center along 394/494 has more jobs in that few mile radius then all of downtown Minneapolis. Again, it makes zero sense to have a central hub in the Twin Cities metro area. If you expect people to travel into Minneapolis 20 miles, which takes about 40 minutes by bus or rail, hop on another bus or rail back out 20 minutes to their job, no one is going to do that. A circular system around the metro area would make much more sense, following current major highways, spoking into St. Paul and Minneapolis to take you across the metro from either north to south or from east to west but the majority of commuting does not happen that way in the metro. It is mostly suburb to suburb not really crossing outside of a 1/4 piece of the "pie" that makes up the metro area.
On a related note, spent Wednesday in Minneapolis. For kicks I though we would take the bus to do what we needed to do. So, 8:00 am starts at the Cedar-Riverside area. We were done there at 9:00 but had to be back around 2:00 so we thought we would go into downtown and/or over to MIA. Look up the bus schedule, it would take us 15 minutes to bus into downtown but couldn't start that trek until 9:30 according to the bus schedule to the tune of $8 round trip. Coming back we would have had to arrive back at either 40 minutes early-leaving little time to do anything downtown, or 30 minutes late. Plan B to MIA, because of the bus routes and the amount of walking, it was 30-40 minutes to get to MIA via bus---and the amount of walking put that option off the table because the person I was with couldn't walk that far--again for $8 round trip.
My parking was $5 for the morning and $5 for the afternoon. It took us less then 5 minutes to drive over to the MIA....so, tell me again what is so great about the bus?
There may be more jobs in the state of North Dakota (not sure, but you get the point, I hope) than in Minneapolis, but that does not make it more of a hub of anything. There may be more jobs and population in the suburbs, but it's spread out over vast distances with little density. Moreover, how do you propose people get to and from stations on this suburban loop?
And why should we care about where people are now? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the incentives we create to shape the future of the metro?
Since you asked, by driving you didn't just pay parking. You paid gas, which is only going to get more expensive going forward; you had to pay insurance, assuming you were driving legally; you had to purchase the car initially; you take on the added expenses and headaches of maintenance; you added congestion on the roads you took; you spewed more pollution into the environment around you; the time you spent driving was wasted paying attention to the road instead of reading a book, checking your email or doing any of the other things you could have done on the bus. I'm sure there's more I could list, but the point isn't that the bus is some great source of enjoyment or fulfillment; it's that it's more convenient than dealing with all that car-related crap, for many people. It's also better for society given the relative total costs involved.
And you're exaggerating the hassle of taking the bus, too. The 2 goes from Cedar Riverside to two blocks away from MIA in 25 minutes.
See Cedar Ave to Minneapolis Institute of Arts - Google Maps
And between the University's West Bank stop and the Seven Corner's stop alone, there are buses running pretty much every 5-10 minutes into downtown. The 22 runs every 15-20 minutes if you couldn't walk to Seven Corner's or the University.
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.
