The Sad Truth Behind Twin Cities Traffic Congestion.... (St. Paul, Bloomington: home, movies)

[OyCrumbler]

So all these cities that are rapidly developing with massive economic growth around the world have spent a massive amount of investment into mass transit including trains relative to roads, but they were all mistaken in doing so. Okay.

[mr roboto]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

So all these cities that are rapidly developing with massive economic growth around the world have spent a massive amount of investment into mass transit including trains relative to roads, but they were all mistaken in doing so. Okay.

It's a grand liberal globalist conspiracy I tell ya.

[Doctor Z]

Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus

I'm sorry, but your correlations are not tied to causation. In this case, the addition of rail and bike paths MAY cause some slight disruption on some of the city's side streets and primary corridors, but their presence more than likely REDUCES the amount of traffic on the roadways, despite their hinderance to motor vehicles. If a car has to sit at a stop light for a few extra minutes a day because of the existence/addition of bikeways or rail, it's more than offset by the number of motor vehicles removed from the roads due to those additions.

Most traffic bottlenecks are caused by merging roads, whether it's two freeways merging or on-ramps from city streets. There is almost NOTHING you can do about some of these mergers, unless you want to eliminate the on-ramps or tear down hundreds of homes just to widen the freeways enough to account for half-mile merge lanes.

Merging just causes congestion, and widening the freeways will only do so much to improve that congestion. If you're a fan of fewer mergers, then you'd love tollways, which have on/off-ramps every 10-20 miles. That's the most efficient way to move traffic through a city, but it seriously limits your options for getting on/off the freeway, AND it's much more costly to drive on.

Your logic is grossly flawed. I'm not talking about putting bikes lanes or trains on SIDE STREETS, I'm talking about main thoroughfares like Washington Avenue in Minneapolis. I'm not talking about sitting at a single stop light for a few extra minutes, I'm talking about POOR TIMING AND COORDINATION of ALL stop lights in general.

As for reducing the number of vehicles on the roadways, how about you count the total number of people on bicycles and give us a total. Even it it was as high as 200, it wouldn't make a noticeable difference in traffic flow compared to the 1,000's of vehicles on the road. If you put enough bikes on the street to actually make a noticeable dent in congestion those bikes would BECOME the congestion simply because they'd clog the road so bad and move so slow.

As for the trains, they screw up the timing of the stop lights further. Metro Transit even ADMITS that the timing the stop lights are set to help keep the TRAIN on schedule (at the expense of traffic). When the train changes the timing of the stop light at the crossing intersection it takes the cars out of the rhythm of the stop light timing the rest of the way down the street. This creates more congestion.

As for merge lanes and off ramps, I'm in full favor of expanding them at the expense of whatever development is there. There's plenty of areas in Minneapolis/St. Paul where renovation could improve the neighborhood. This could come from the merge lane expansion.

Finally, I can safely merge and exit from a freeway/highway/Co. Rd WITHOUT causing the person behind me to take their foot of the accelerator. It's called performance suspension, brakes, tires, and skill of the driver. These vehicle mods should be Government mandated, and drivers trained BEFORE ever being granted a Driver's License.

[Doctor Z]

Originally Posted by Thedosius

Obviously, you cannot. Personal observation and anecdote can amount to "I notice a great deal more congestion wherever I go" but obviously cannot perceive a causal link between that and light rail. Unless your personal observation extends into a counterfactual world where the cities developed without implementing rail and you could compare the two worlds side-by-side would personal observation or anecdote mean anything. Your post really gives us no new information about the issue at hand but does tell us you've formed your position on very bogus grounds.

I drive daily through areas of the Twin Cities (and have been for over 20 years) where the Light Rail goes. Both my travel times, and stop light timing changed drastically AFTER the Light Rail was built. You can't tell me that mere congestion increased that drastically from just more cars on the street in a year's time!

[Doctor Z]

Originally Posted by Thedosius

The CAE report would have you believe that only transit kooks and nameless bureaucrats support transit development. Unfortunately for them, the presidents of the (conservative-leaning) Minneapolis and St. Paul Chambers of Commerce, and indeed the business community in general, have consistently supported transit for more than a decade now:


Counterpoint: In the Twin Cities area, transit is needed, wanted


"Recent arguments by the Center of the American Experiment (“The sad truth behind our congested mess,” June 9) have been disproved any number of times. But rather than go point by point, let’s look at the CAE’s own examples. The CAE wants us to be more like Kansas City, where you can drive around at high speed. There’s a reason Kansas City highways are empty: It’s not as attractive as we are, so its economy is weaker. “Kansas City: Economic competitiveness has slumped,” reported the Kansas City Star in 2014, just before Kansas City decided its highways-only approach was wrong and began investing to give people the option to move around by transit, bikes and walking. Same story in the CAE’s other example, Indianapolis, which just this winter passed a new sales tax to build new transit lines. The strategies that the CAE admires are being abandoned by the places the CAE itself points to."

That's strange, I was just in Kansas City last summer and noticed that they have the same STUPID stop light timing as Minneapolis. I couldn't go anywhere without sitting at a red light in traffic. The freeways were crowded, especially at rush hour as well.

Finally, the Kansas City Metro population is only 2.3 Million--half what the Twin Cities Metro is. How is that a fair comparison?

I was in Indianapolis two years ago, but didn't drive through the heart of the city so no comment.

[Doctor Z]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

A solution to our traffic congestion problem is just around the corner and it's not mass transit or bike lanes. Driverless cars could be the solution to reducing traffic congestion - BT

I read Time Magazine's article on Driverless cars, and I will go to CIVIL WAR before I EVER step into one!

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Doctor Z

I read Time Magazine's article on Driverless cars, and I will go to CIVIL WAR before I EVER step into one!

No problem. I don't want one either, though my present car already has things like collision avoidance systems. That should be your choice.

Studies show that traffic flow is improved if as few as 5% of the cars on the road are autonomous. I'm sure we'll get to that number.

To me the big advantage of driverless cars is they don't require the huge public investment or change in commuting habits of mass transit.

[Chester Burnett]

Once driver-less cars become commonplace, insurance companies will make sure piloting your own vehicle will become a privilege of the wealthy.

Getting worked up over traffic is pointless and droll. Show me a city that doesn't have bad traffic and I'll show you a city where no one wants to live.

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by Doctor Z

That's strange, I was just in Kansas City last summer and noticed that they have the same STUPID stop light timing as Minneapolis. I couldn't go anywhere without sitting at a red light in traffic. The freeways were crowded, especially at rush hour as well.

Finally, the Kansas City Metro population is only 2.3 Million--half what the Twin Cities Metro is. How is that a fair comparison?

I was in Indianapolis two years ago, but didn't drive through the heart of the city so no comment.

Great questions. The belief that Kansas City traffic is wonderful was posited in the anti-train propaganda piece.

[Doctor Z]

Originally Posted by Chester Burnett

Once driver-less cars become commonplace, insurance companies will make sure piloting your own vehicle will become a privilege of the wealthy.

Getting worked up over traffic is pointless and droll. Show me a city that doesn't have bad traffic and I'll show you a city where no one wants to live.

I read that too, and I'll be one of the first to sue my insurance company if they try and raise my rate just because I choose to drive my own car. I don't even plan to ever own another newer car. I've got a mid-1990's model sitting in my garage with under 40K miles in mint condition ready to take over when my current mid-1990's vehicle quits running. I'm set for awhile. I won't even own a vehicle with a U-Connect system installed. It's no ones business where I am or where I go. I will NOT be tracked! (Cell phone off battery removed)

As for getting worked up over traffic, that only happens when I'm behind the wheel.