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.
Have you thought about the fact that part of the reason that the commute into Minneapolis is bad is because so many other people are also trying to do it? People who may choose to take the train if it were available? If so few people wanted to get into/out of Minneapolis, then there would be no traffic problem!
I don't think people here were suggesting that centers of work only be located in Minneapolis (in fact, I think many were suggesting the opposite, or at least were suggesting that they be clustered around transit stops, transit stops that connected city to suburbs), but before you can have any kind of mass transit option you need to have density of jobs as well as density of people.
Locations that don't have the traffic, the people, or the number of necessary jobs don't require rail connections. Buses make more sense in those scenarios.
FWIW, downtown Minneapolis is quite a long way from the 494/994 loop.
And what would, say, someone from Maple Grove trying to get to Mendota Heights via public transportation get out of a loop that paralleled existing freeways? The beauty of rail lines is that they can cut through cities in ways that freeways can't. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just run right through Minneapolis? (and in the process serving a whole lot more people)?
Admittedly it's a pointless debate, as no one has ever suggested doing a suburban loop rail line, and no one with any experience in these matters thinks it makes any sense.
So, having a concrete jungle like you see in major cities is more environmentally friendly, I don't think so. If suburban sprawl is not self-sufficient, why has it been the norm for over 100 years? Urban living is not self-sufficient unless you spend millions and billions providing a transit system that is only used by less then 50% of the population...
Yes, the "concrete jungle," despite its own problems, is more environmentally friendly, when you're comparing it to sprawled car-centric life. Suburban sprawl has been the norm because our public policies subsidize cheap oil and roads -- car-centered living. Peak oil will change that soon enough though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
Yes, it is exactly Minneapolis against the suburbs. You are trying to create ONE spot for everyone and that doesn't work anywhere. There is going to be sprawl. The entire metro area can't possibly live in Minneapolis, all of the businesses can't possibly be located in Minneapolis, there just is not room.
There are multiple destinations in Minneapolis. It is not just one spot. There's the various locations downtown, there's Northeast, there's Uptown, there's the university etc. etc.
And there's still tons of room in Minneapolis. Manhattan has 1.5 million people living on an island that's about 23 square miles. Minneapolis has about 55 square miles of land. So to say there isn't room isn't true. You could easily fit 3-4 million in Minneapolis proper. Just because you might not like that doesn't mean it's physically impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
City living is for a very few, very select population. If more people WANTED to live in the city, Minneapolis would have 3 million people and 380,000 would live in the suburbs, not the other way around.
Except the younger, more educated people -- the future of the economy and the people we need to attract if the area is to remain competitive going forward -- are more and more wanting to live in dense, urban cities. We should be looking forward to where we want our society to be in the future, no continuing with the failed policies of the past.
Yes, it is exactly Minneapolis against the suburbs. You are trying to create ONE spot for everyone and that doesn't work anywhere. There is going to be sprawl. The entire metro area can't possibly live in Minneapolis, all of the businesses can't possibly be located in Minneapolis, there just is not room. MOST of the metro area businesses are within a few miles of the 494/694 loop, INCLUDING Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns. Look where the roads are built, build mass transit along those lines and the area will become less auto-dependent. It's not really a difficult concept to grasp.
If you hub everything in Minneapolis, THAT will take more time away from family life. The only BAD commutes in this area are commuting into downtown Minneapolis, everything else is a breeze. I've said before, MOST people in the suburbs have easy commutes under 20 minutes, unless they work in Minneapolis. I say it is much more family friendly to have centers of work near where people live--which is what we have in the Twin Cities.
Of course I'm not suggesting that everything go to mpls. I'm saying that decentralization of the metro needs to generally move in the opposite direction, unless we want to become 'just' another Dallas, Atlanta or Houston. I am for some business being in the periphery. And to call mpls near 494 is near ludicrous to me...it just illustrates the difference between what you and I deem a reasonable scale of distance. To me, a few miles is 2, at most 3, miles. Either way, to me, 3 miles is a long distance.
Btw, I did the commuting from suburb to suburb thing...for several years...several cities...several jobs throughout my 20s...the commutes weren't easy. At all. I think it would be interesting to see actual stats on commute times of burb to city, city to burb, burb to burb, city to city.
Have you thought about the fact that part of the reason that the commute into Minneapolis is bad is because so many other people are also trying to do it? People who may choose to take the train if it were available? If so few people wanted to get into/out of Minneapolis, then there would be no traffic problem!
I don't think people here were suggesting that centers of work only be located in Minneapolis (in fact, I think many were suggesting the opposite, or at least were suggesting that they be clustered around transit stops, transit stops that connected city to suburbs), but before you can have any kind of mass transit option you need to have density of jobs as well as density of people.
Locations that don't have the traffic, the people, or the number of necessary jobs don't require rail connections. Buses make more sense in those scenarios.
FWIW, downtown Minneapolis is quite a long way from the 494/994 loop.
And what would, say, someone from Maple Grove trying to get to Mendota Heights via public transportation get out of a loop that paralleled existing freeways? The beauty of rail lines is that they can cut through cities in ways that freeways can't. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just run right through Minneapolis? (and in the process serving a whole lot more people)?
Admittedly it's a pointless debate, as no one has ever suggested doing a suburban loop rail line, and no one with any experience in these matters thinks it makes any sense.
And as I have said, MANY TIMES, THESE ALREADY EXIST....There are bus transit stations in areas where there are a lot of commuters or a lot of businesses close by like Eagan, Burnsville, Eden Prairie, Oakdale, and many up in the northern suburbs too. Incorporate those into a light rail system-or heck, even a better suburb to suburb bus system and people will use it.
The reason the commute into Minneapolis is so bad is because downtown Minneapolis proper is a nightmare with too many roads with stoplights. Getting off the freeways are the problem. St. Paul doesn't have that issue because of the city design and how things aren't so centralized like they are in Minneapolis. Getting TO Minneapolis isn't the problem, driving IN Minneapolis is.
I guess we can just have the city dwellers continue to harp on the people in the suburbs for not utilizing non-existent mass transit vs coming up with a solution to what the city dwellers seem to think is a problem, which isn't a problem at all really.
I was just able to combine 4 errands into one in under 30 minutes, driving my car all of 2 miles--couldn't do that on a bus...
Yes, I realize they exist. No one was suggesting that they don't. They're mostly not yet at the level that we're talking about, though, if you're talking about enough density of people and jobs to justify building rail connections.
I'm not sure what it is that you want. I thought you were suggesting that we build rail connections between the suburban transit stations. Do you think that the ridership potential is there? I don't. I think it would be great if development was clustered enough that it made sense to build such connections, but right now most of those stations are mostly for the purpose of commuting into the core city. The existing stations can certainly be used as the basis for development, but you can't make the argument that they are currently being used as centers for suburb-to-suburb trips, or at least not large numbers of suburb-to-suburb trips. (and as I noted, there are some fairly heavily traveled suburban bus routes -- the 515 is one I know best -- but I still don't think the demand or need is yet there to justify rail.)
GG. Um. Have you ever driven down flying cloud dr in EP from 494 toward anderson lakes pkwy in rush hour? Or hwy 13 in burnsville? How about shady oak road through mtka? What about vicksburg ln in maple grove? I have....waaaaaaaaaay worse than anything I've ever EVER experienced in my neighborhood in mpls. That is, of course, when I even DO have to drive at all to do any errands...
A long-term strategy to connect the largest suburban employment centers to the city and to each other via rail would be helpful.
A line could run from Eagan to MOA, continue roughly along 494/American Blvd so serve Best Buy, Southtown, and several hotels, continuing to the office towers at Normandale lake, then turn north between Hwy 100 and 169 in an existing rail corridor, serve the Edina industrial area, connect with the SW-LRT, continuing north to General Mills, then head west along 55 to 494 to serve Plymouth, then turn north again to Maple Grove.
The way I see it, it would be built piece by piece, extending off the existing Hiawatha and future SW-LRT lines, but the important part to make it work is to put it where people already are--especially where they work, with park and ride ramps (and covered, secure bike parking) near where people live. Zoning and planning in those cities would have to become a little more flexible to reflect that developers will be eying some of the industrial-zoned land for apartments near the stops. This is more of a very long term evolution than a forced "build what we say where we say and they will come" type of plan. I'm not saying that it will or won't happen, but I could see it in the future if we really commit to rail.
Rail is a good investment IMO, because although start-up costs are high, long-term vehicle and fuel costs are lower, and fewer train drivers carry more passengers at a time than bus drivers. The "here now, here forever" permanence of a rail stop nearby also stabilizes real estate values. A pole in the ground that says "Bus Stop" doesn't have nearly the same impact, especially when they up and reroute or even cancel the bus line--over time, or even overnight. The same route flexibility that bus-boosters tout as an advantage to the Transit system has proven over time not to be such an advantage after all--buses don't do a thing for real estate values or the stability of an area as an employment center or shopping hub.
I won't go so far to say that the country's mass conversion from rail transit to bus transit post WWII was entirely wrong-headed--nobody has a crystal ball--but they absolutely over-estimated the long-term (macro-economic) sustainability and (micro-economic) affordability of a purely automotive/highway based transportation plan. I will say that cities that kept their rail systems intact, like Chicago and NYC, are not looking back and wondering if that was a bad idea. On the other hand, here we are, discussing how best to rebuild them.
Really how important is Hiawatha avenue ??? that road is like a wannabe freeway in a metro with one of the most dense freeway system.
I say we downgrade the road make more room for a larger sidewalk and bike lanes room for park space between the road and the sidewalk and still have enough room to build stores, lofts, apartments, offices. connect all those residential roads that dead end before Hiawatha.
The people who drive on Hiawatha will most likely have to keep the gas guzzling cars at home and hop on the light rail.
This is just a question by the way, im wondering what other people think about this, will this work, or is it stupid.
To respond to golfgal's comment about the city being a nightmare due to the all the traffic lights, I agree that it's bad, and Minneapolis does need to get their traffic lights up to snuff.
Their system was installed in 1976, was only marginally upgraded in 1992, and can only do fixed time intervals, not fully actuated operation like the suburbs.
The really old intersection controllers (the ones that go "ka-kunk" when the lights change) can only advance to the next phase in the cycle, and only when the computer (or back-up mechanical timers) blindly tell them to; emergency vehicles can't preempt them, and they can't even do helpful things like skip left turn arrows when nobody is turning.
They plan to install a new computer system with modern traffic management software, and new intersection controllers to give the system feedback, which will coordinate it all much better, but that's still a few years away.
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.
