What is the appeal of Minneapolis/St. Paul? (2009, neighborhood)

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

While you are eager to defend the Twin Cities, I think you have to be fair to other cities too. What do you mean by "MARTA might as well not exist"? It has the nation's 7th most ridership in rapid transit, with a daily ridership of 269,700 (this number is larger than any light rail system in the nation), and 5666 ridership per mile, compared to a daily ridership of 30,200, and 2525 ridership per mile of the Minneapolis light rail.

Yes, MARTA is a success in the City of Atlanta, at least if you look at its passenger traffic numbers and not at its financials. But the City of Atlanta is a city of 550,000 people in the center of a much larger metro area of 5.5 million.

Go to the Atlanta forums and ask. The fact is, MARTA is largely a nonfactor in the greater Atlanta metro except for the folks who tend to live and/or work ITP. For most of the folks who both live and work OTP and who generally aren't commuting within MARTA's rather limited confines, it really isn't a useful system.

[fashionguy]

That the ridership is not over 10% doesn't mean that only 10% of the population are affected. Not the same people ride the metro everyday. Apart from NYC and DC, none of the cities seem to have a ridership of much more than 10% of their metro area population. Are you saying that all the rapid systems in these cities might as well non-exist? Besides, if you look at the metro area population, only 1% of the Twin Cities population ride the Hiawatha. If you look at city population, half of the Atlanta population ride the MARTA. I don't understand why there is a comparison here. Maybe you are looking at the population of the Minneapolis proper vs. the metro population of Atlanta?

Yes. The light rail of Minneapolis ranks 16th among all light rails, but the light rail with the most ridership still falls short comparing to MARTA. You can't only look at the light rails just because Minneapolis doesn't have any rapid transit system. And let's be honest, once a system is there, it is there. It makes no sense to look at number of stations per capita, etc. because the whole idea of public transportation is that people share it. The ridership per mile of MARTA is twice larger than the Minneapolis light rail, and Atlanta is not some dense city.

I am not the one who said the public transportation of Minneapolis is poor. I am just appauled to see someone saying the MARTA might as well non-exist. As I said, even if Minneapolis completed the central corridor and southwest corridor, it would at best be as good as MARTA. If these are for nothing, why would the Twin Cities bother at all. A city that spends taxpayers' money for nothing is not a good city.

Originally Posted by Clifford63

This is a fair point, as was the one made by RC. The info you posted was indicating that our light rail was 16th in ridership and we are the 16th largest metro. That seems in order to me and I would say that is more like average instead of poor. We are not nearly as dense or large as NYC, Chicago, Boston, SF so that type of comparision is not exactly appropriate. I believe the point RC was making is that any comment indicating that public transportation in Metro MN is weak, is overstated if you look at other similar sized metro areas. If you look at the numbers for Marta, is the ridership over 10%? Is the ridership greater than Hiawatha line?



Once you get beyond the large and dense metro areas, public transportation is more of a challenge. There are some good systems in smaller metros on the list, and there are large metros like Dallas that did not make the list.

If you look at the Bus and Rail combined, the public transportation in Twin Cities is far from poor as a whole. It serves the core cities quite well, and park and ride for commuting is well used by people working downtown. If they get the core cities connected via rail, and extend to SW corridor this will be a substantial improvement. It is not a great infrastructure, but there is commitment, and investment is happening. Things are moving in the right direction.

[fashionguy]

MARTA is not perfect, but it is still way ahead of the Minneapolis light rail system and more successful than many rapid transit systems in the nation in terms of passengers per mile. If its ridership per mile is comparable to Chicago L yet its total length is larger than the Boston MBTA, you can't really say it is not a useful system. Not useful for many people but currently this is a goal many cities are trying to achieve.

And, as you said the city of Atlanta has only 550000 people. If MARTA affects only the City of Atlanta, that means half the city's population is riding MARTA. That is really impressive. BTW, Minneapolis is also a small city with a big metro.

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Yes, MARTA is a success in the City of Atlanta, at least if you look at its passenger traffic numbers and not at its financials. But the City of Atlanta is a city of 550,000 people in the center of a much larger metro area of 5.5 million.

Go to the Atlanta forums and ask. The fact is, MARTA is largely a nonfactor in the greater Atlanta metro except for the folks who tend to live and/or work ITP. For most of the folks who both live and work OTP and who generally aren't commuting within MARTA's rather limited confines, it really isn't a useful system.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

MARTA is not perfect, but it is still way ahead of the Minneapolis light rail system and more successful than many rapid transit systems in the nation in terms of passengers per mile.

That is certainly true. It's a nice system as far as it goes. Too bad it can't get any GA state funding, though...

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

That the ridership is not over 10% doesn't mean that only 10% of the population are affected. Not the same people ride the metro everyday. Apart from NYC and DC, none of the cities seem to have a ridership of much more than 10% of their metro area population. Are you saying that all the rapid systems in these cities might as well non-exist? Besides, if you look at the metro area population, only 1% of the Twin Cities population ride the Hiawatha. If you look at city population, half of the Atlanta population ride the MARTA. I don't understand why there is a comparison here. Maybe you are looking at the population of the Minneapolis proper vs. the metro population of Atlanta?

Yes. The light rail of Minneapolis ranks 16th among all light rails, but the light rail with the most ridership still falls short comparing to MARTA. You can't only look at the light rails just because Minneapolis doesn't have any rapid transit system. And let's be honest, once a system is there, it is there. It makes no sense to look at number of stations per capita, etc. because the whole idea of public transportation is that people share it. The ridership per mile of MARTA is twice larger than the Minneapolis light rail, and Atlanta is not some dense city.

I am not the one who said the public transportation of Minneapolis is poor. I am just appauled to see someone saying the MARTA might as well non-exist. As I said, even if Minneapolis completed the central corridor and southwest corridor, it would at best be as good as MARTA. If these are for nothing, why would the Twin Cities bother at all. A city that spends taxpayers' money for nothing is not a good city.

I don't think we have any real disagreement. I was just trying to say you have a valid point, but so did RC. Our system is not great, yet it does not suck either. If you look at the total public transit system for entire MN metro area, it is a hodgepodge of light rail and serveral bus systems that does ok moving people around. Most burbs have some connectivity to downtown, which is more than other metros have. As a whole our transit system seems around average considering we are mid tier metro.

It sure seems to me that different areas have different priorites and philosophy on how to build out transit. MN seems driven by the metro council which is more focused on one metro wide solution instead of other areas that focus on city wide solution. Sounds like that may be the case in Atlanta, but I won't assume that.

[GG74K]

Im originally from the San Francisco currently living in Indianapolis for the past 2 yrs (god help me)...I've decided to move to Minneapolis in the spring.
Some may think it not the wisest move due to the fact that im in the bricklayers union and most likely will be shut down through the winters in Minneapolis, but at this point in life, 43 and single, it needs to be about were i would like to live and retire.
Over the past 23 yrs i've worked all over the United States and have really come to see how important a states politics, foresight, management, etc are when it comes to my decision making process. Indianapolis is a perfect example of this, the state is so behind in so many ways its really sad, low rent and the Colts thats it, very much reminds me of Denver back in 1983 & 84 before Denver became the world class city it is today because of its foresight and planning.
As far as i can tell from all my research Minnesota has a very solid track record, Its a state that seems to march to it's own drum, has a unique music history and scene, important for me being a songwriter, and seems to me to be a much more desirable place to live compared to many other top 20 cities in the U.S. most of which ive worked in over the years...Texas is a good example, always a strong economy but the lifestyle is rat race (even in austin now) the politics are a mess, and if you think the winter in Minnesota is rough go spend a summer in Houston or Austin.
see yall in the spring.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by GG74K

Im originally from the San Francisco currently living in Indianapolis for the past 2 yrs (god help me)...I've decided to move to Minneapolis in the spring.
Some may think it not the wisest move due to the fact that im in the bricklayers union and most likely will be shut down through the winters in Minneapolis, but at this point in life, 43 and single, it needs to be about were i would like to live and retire.
Over the past 23 yrs i've worked all over the United States and have really come to see how important a states politics, foresight, management, etc are when it comes to my decision making process. Indianapolis is a perfect example of this, the state is so behind in so many ways its really sad, low rent and the Colts thats it, very much reminds me of Denver back in 1983 & 84 before Denver became the world class city it is today because of its foresight and planning.
As far as i can tell from all my research Minnesota has a very solid track record, Its a state that seems to march to it's own drum, has a unique music history and scene, important for me being a songwriter, and seems to me to be a much more desirable place to live compared to many other top 20 cities in the U.S. most of which ive worked in over the years...Texas is a good example, always a strong economy but the lifestyle is rat race (even in austin now) the politics are a mess, and if you think the winter in Minnesota is rough go spend a summer in Houston or Austin.
see yall in the spring.

Welcome, believe you will like it here. Good luck!

[knke0204]

I would like to know what the appeal of Minneapolis/St. Paul is from some outsiders. Maybe those who live somewhere else in the country and have visited here or has family here.... I am interested to see how outsiders feel. Since I am a native Minnesotan I understand why we live here. I grew up playing ice hockey on rinks and ponds, sledding for hours!, building snow forts!, snowmobiling, skiing and snowboarding. To me, the winter was/is a non-factor. Yes, the cold gets kind of annoying, but so does humidity, hot heat, rain, and winds.

[Camden Northsider]

Growing up in SD, we loved coming to MN for any type of trip- as kids we revelled at its tidiness, cleanliness, and overall general appearance in the lush greenery in the summertime to the beautiful, well-kept towns and cities here. There was and is a very noticable and stark difference in the quality of life between MN and most of its surrounding states (esp dakotas and wi, and IMO many other states in the US) that always created a certain allure. As an adult, I've noticed the more tangible indicators of a higher quality of life. Driving on any highway from MN into SD, you will notice a couple of things: the sign welcoming people to MN from SD is always fairly large, made of stone or other nice materials (often in the shape of the state), complete with state motto and generally pretty impressive in appearance....as you drive into SD, you will see a find a very simple, small metal sign announcing your arrival. And it's almost a given that you will notice a much bumpier, less well-maintained highway as you drive into SD from the MN side, and nice smooth sailing after you drive back into MN state limits.

[MSMCGirl]

I relocated here (with my job) from Los Angeles in 2005 (having lived my whole life in So California). I LOVE THE TWIN CITIES! I am so happy to live here. The entire area has a great vibe...SO much more positive than L.A. I feel safer here - less crime, less traffic, cost of living WAY cheaper but quality of life WAY higher. Fortunately I COULD NOT stand the year round heat in LA (was so sick of 90 degree Christmas) and I love the four seasons (even if winter gets a little long). If the weather weren't an issue for most people, Mpls/St Paul would have 10 million people (IMHO).