Newest Metro Council transit data (Minneapolis: home, high school, live in)

[Beenhere4ever]

That is another suburban problem, housing development meant to create quiet remoteness is exactly what transit can't work with. People want to leave their cars home. But they don't want to live on a highway. And buses aren't going to drive through these winding roads in search of passengers. Suburban developers develop for people who drive.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by FierySun

Finally somebody who used common sense in this argument to end the obnoxious ranting. I've noticed that person complains about the same thing ad naseum and when people explain to he or she in full detail why what she's asking for isn't feasible she still rants. Nothing wrong with living in a suburb of exburb but you can't live in one and then complain that you're not getting decent transit.

She could care less if there is mass transit in the suburbs--She is tired of the people from Minneapolis whining about people not riding the bus

[uptown_urbanist]

I don't care about public transportation in low-density exurban areas, other than I think it's nice for them to have commuter buses and it's nice for them to have some sort of option for people who can't drive. I think for those areas it makes sense -- from the standpoint of those who would like to see fewer trips taken by cars and to see more options for those who can't or don't want to drive -- to focus on walking and biking options.

I DO care about public transportation in areas that can support it. I found it interesting how many trips were taken for non-work purposes, and think that keeping those transportation needs in mind as cities and regions make transportation decisions (including planning walking and biking infrastructure and improvements) we can make a transit system that gets even more people out of their cars.

Clearly this will work better in some locations than in others. It would be a waste of money to build a streetcar through Rosemount (just as one example) or high-frequency bus service -- although those types of areas may well benefit from improved bike connections/infrastructure or improved pedestrian access where needed. But for other parts of the metro area LRT, streetcars, or high-frequency buses could well meet the needs of a large number of people.

No need for this to be another city-versus-suburb debate. I just thought it was interesting and note-worthy that most trips in the metro area are NOT made for commuting! That is news that should shape transportation policy. What that means for specific areas is clearly going to depend on the needs of the people of those specific areas.

[Bslette]

This is pretty off topic, but I went to the Southwest Transitway website to check for any updates on the project, and I was greeted by a "this website may harm your computer" message from my computer. Obviously, I ignored it because it is the Southwest Transitway site... and it is the right site. But, I clicked continue and it came up as a search engine, and there were results for "sports gambling." I clicked out and went to the website two more times and got "black jack" and "casino black jack." That is odd, considering it is the main website for the project. But,I guess somebody is screwing with their site.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by golfgal

She could care less if there is mass transit in the suburbs--She is tired of the people from Minneapolis whining about people not riding the bus

Who is whining about people not riding the bus?

As for me, I tend to whine more about lousy public transportation in the Twin Cities, including even in areas that could support better transit. And sometimes on these threads I do perhaps "whine" those who choose to live in spread-out low-density locations and then want to have excellent public transportation giving them door-to-door service to any number of other spread-out low-density locations! Seems like an unrealistic expectation to me.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Who is whining about people not riding the bus?

As for me, I tend to whine more about lousy public transportation in the Twin Cities, including even in areas that could support better transit. And sometimes on these threads I do perhaps "whine" those who choose to live in spread-out low-density locations and then want to have excellent public transportation giving them door-to-door service to any number of other spread-out low-density locations! Seems like an unrealistic expectation to me.

I like my car, I like being able to go where I want, when I want. I don't need mass transit Living in Minneapolis would increase our commute times-no thanks....

[ManBearPig1]

Originally Posted by golfgal

It's still more cost effective for people to drive, however because the mass transit system is a huge money suck from the state budget.

Only because we've incentivized (subsidized) them living out in the sticks.

Originally Posted by golfgal

I like my car, I like being able to go where I want, when I want. I don't need mass transit Living in Minneapolis would increase our commute times-no thanks....

I like being able to go where I want, when I want. I don't need a car. Living somewhere I can't walk to the vast majority of my destinations - no thanks.

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by golfgal

I like my car, I like being able to go where I want, when I want. I don't need mass transit Living in Minneapolis would increase our commute times-no thanks....

Fact is, there are MANY location choices with the best transit options. For decades, living here, I always checked the transit availability in locating my home. It allowed me to buy cheaper cars. I could have, if I wanted, go the exact opposite route, get the best car I could afford and punt on the transit. That's what I think people have to do. Make a choice. And don't make a bad one and then fault Metro Transit for not making you bad choice a good one.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Fact is, there are MANY location choices with the best transit options. For decades, living here, I always checked the transit availability in locating my home. It allowed me to buy cheaper cars. I could have, if I wanted, go the exact opposite route, get the best car I could afford and punt on the transit. That's what I think people have to do. Make a choice. And don't make a bad one and then fault Metro Transit for not making you bad choice a good one.

Again, I could care less if there are buses here or not. It wasn't even a glimmer of a thought when we moved here. We moved where we did because we wanted top schools with excellent programs near where we work. We couldn't get any of that in Minneapolis.

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Again, I could care less if there are buses here or not. It wasn't even a glimmer of a thought when we moved here. We moved where we did because we wanted top schools with excellent programs near where we work. We couldn't get any of that in Minneapolis.

Which is exactly why there isn't more suburb transit....no one cares.

Anyways, the data in the original post is interesting. Approaching the non-commuter trips offers some of the same challenges as suburb transit does. Although there are a lot of people making those shopping/entertainment/whatever trips, they are at different times, to such different locations that it will be a challenge to incorporate them into a public transit model. Also like the suburb issue, though, there are probably some additional routes that could be tested to see how people would respond.