Traffic In Minneapolis/St. Paul? (Minnetonka, Apple Valley: versus, cars, transit)

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

I had this argument about traffic with a friend of mine once, who was trying to convince me that the Twin Cities had one of the worst traffic problems in the country. I forget what exact website we stumbled onto in trying to settle the debate, but whoever did the study put the Twin Cities about 15th on the list of cities with the worst traffic/commute - and the Twin Cities is also about the 15th largest metro area in the country. So it seems to be in line with what you would expect.

[knke0204]

I used to do lawn care literally everywhere in the metro. I crossed over the 35W bridge 3 times that day it fell into the river. There isn't a suburb that I haven't worked in. I know the metro like the back of my hand. I've done the 169 South in Bloomington, I've done the Crosstown Mess, I've done the can of worms crap at 35E and 694, I've been down to Cottage Grove, I've done the highway 100, and I've done everything in between.

Since I'm younger, I can't really speak about the traffic, but my parents say they have consistently gotten up earlier and earlier while getting home later and later as the years have gone on.

I can tell you. Once I was working in Lakeville. We left Lakeville at 3:30, and I didn't get back to the shop in Rogers until 6:30 pm. I'm sorry, rush hour or not, on a Tuesday afternoon it shouldn't take 3 hours to travel 45 miles. That my friends is poor traffic management.

[smith21]

has anyone seen the light rail with 3cars. just wondering because they extended the platforms to fit 3 car trains.

[MPLS_TC]

Is there a way to get off work in Plymouth at 430 pm and Get to south stpaul and avoid traffic?

[ManBearPig1]

Holy necro

[Beenhere4ever]

There's no such thing as "better traffic". If you get more, you get worse. Maybe the city population is frozen in place, but that means nothing. More people go more places all by themselves. It is the brainless kneejerk decision. Result? Worse.

[Pisces69]

Congested roads are a tragedy of the commons. Because roads are free at the point of usage, there is little financial incentive for drivers not to over-use them, up to the point where traffic collapses into a jam.

Furthermore, the more roads we build, the more traffic we get. This is because of the phenomenon of induced demand, or latent demand--the phenomenon that as supply increases, MORE of a good is consumed. In other words, more roadways means we can live farther and father away from where we need to go, resulting in ever more demand for use of those roadways.

To improve traffic, we need to build LESS freeways (maybe remove some) or charge tolls on them.

More lanes simply DOES NOT WORK:

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Pisces69

Congested roads are a tragedy of the commons. Because roads are free at the point of usage, there is little financial incentive for drivers not to over-use them, up to the point where traffic collapses into a jam.

Furthermore, the more roads we build, the more traffic we get. This is because of the phenomenon of induced demand, or latent demand--the phenomenon that as supply increases, MORE of a good is consumed. In other words, more roadways means we can live farther and father away from where we need to go, resulting in ever more demand for use of those roadways.

To improve traffic, we need to build LESS freeways (maybe remove some) or charge tolls on them.

More lanes simply DOES NOT WORK:

Lane placement is more important then the number of lanes on a total route. If you have three routes of four lanes each, you will have more reliable traffic flow than one road with 12 lanes. The Twin Cities is in the former situation in most locations, while Atlanta tends toward the latter. That's why I-75 can bottle up here even though it's something like 14 lanes at one point ... one single event can take everything out.

In the Twin Cities, I almost always had multiple ways of getting to work. If one was down, I could use another.

I do agree that building more lanes is not a long term solution, but the alternatives (buses to put more people in a smaller road footprint, light or heavy rail to provide mass point-to-point transport, etc.) all have various disadvantages. Cost is a big one for rail, of course. Buses are useful, but one still has to live close to a bus stop in order to use them unless you also build bus stations, and then you start running into cost issues again.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by Pisces69

Congested roads are a tragedy of the commons. Because roads are free at the point of usage, there is little financial incentive for drivers not to over-use them, up to the point where traffic collapses into a jam.

Furthermore, the more roads we build, the more traffic we get. This is because of the phenomenon of induced demand, or latent demand--the phenomenon that as supply increases, MORE of a good is consumed. In other words, more roadways means we can live farther and father away from where we need to go, resulting in ever more demand for use of those roadways.

To improve traffic, we need to build LESS freeways (maybe remove some) or charge tolls on them.

More lanes simply DOES NOT WORK:

LOL...if you are going to try and make a point about traffic congestion you'd probably be more credible if you didn't use a photo-shopped altered image.

so what did you do, google "massive traffic jam" and figure that would somehow support your point?

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

LOL...if you are going to try and make a point about traffic congestion you'd probably be more credible if you didn't use a photo-shopped altered image.

so what did you do, google "massive traffic jam" and figure that would somehow support your point?

While I'm not the other poster, here's a real life example a few miles away from my current location that shows a real traffic jam maybe three weeks ago.

If people had a good alternative route, you wouldn't see some of those cars in that photo.



Source:
Southbound I-75 reopens in southwest Atlanta following wreck - CBS Atlanta 46