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.
What I find most interesting is how few trips are generated by commuting to/from work. It's still a significant percentage, to be sure, but so many of our region's public transportation talks seem to focus primarily on the needs of commuting to/from work and perhaps this is a sign that it's really time we start addressing those needs AND the alternative ways to get around for all the other things we do during the course of a day or week.
It will be even more interesting to see the full report when it's released this summer.
Trouble I see with transit and work is that timeliness is so variable. Employers don't like a pattern of half an hour or an hour late. Yet, in the world of transit (excepting the very limited amount of rail), that is exactly the pattern. I know from using transit. You go to the stop. Wait for the bus at a certain scheduled time. It doesn't come. Or when it does, it is two buses playing leapfrog. There's no consistent reason, but this just doesn't cut it when there's even one transfer involved. Who tends to be aboard are simply those with no financial alternative. It would be fascinating if there was some academic study of metropolitan areas with similar environmental changes, just to see if this is an intrinsic transit problem or a problem of poor management. I know that in Portland and in Toronto, I didn't run into anything close to this inconsistency. I've yet to discover any reason why this should be. I'm tempted to speculate that Portland simply loves transit more and always has. But that's not really a fact-based finding. I know that Trimet didn't take over a bankrupt system as happened here with Twin Cities Lines. Metro Transit was born in crisis. Perhaps it never has really gotten beyond that.
We took part in this survey. They had you track every time you left your house and where you went, how you got there and why for each person in your house. We had to log mileage, etc. for a week.
Again, with 90% of the workforce in the metro working in the suburbs with no real viable mass transit, these numbers are not going to change. Put the mass transit where people drive, make routes that make sense and people will use it. No one is going to use a system that gives them an hour and a half plus commute when they can drive in 20 minutes or less.
With park and rides, there are many many opportunities to ride transit INTO TOWN from the suburbs. What doesn't exist is intersuburb transit. Not sure how Metro Transit is going to address that. Even if you put it in, it will have to be the most subsidized form, and with tax resistance, mainly EMANANTING from suburbs, there's just no money for it. Private companies could jump in there to cherry pick a few routes and charge full cost, with no subsidy, but suburban workers probably aren't ready to pay that.
With park and rides, there are many many opportunities to ride transit INTO TOWN from the suburbs. What doesn't exist is intersuburb transit. Not sure how Metro Transit is going to address that. Even if you put it in, it will have to be the most subsidized form, and with tax resistance, mainly EMANANTING from suburbs, there's just no money for it. Private companies could jump in there to cherry pick a few routes and charge full cost, with no subsidy, but suburban workers probably aren't ready to pay that.
The suburban workers already pay for a transit system they can't use. The current system is highly subsidized already, what difference would it make? Far, FAR more tax dollars go into the transit system from the suburbs because there are just more people that live and work in the suburbs than in Minneapolis, simple math.
We took part in this survey. They had you track every time you left your house and where you went, how you got there and why for each person in your house. We had to log mileage, etc. for a week.
Again, with 90% of the workforce in the metro working in the suburbs with no real viable mass transit, these numbers are not going to change. Put the mass transit where people drive, make routes that make sense and people will use it. No one is going to use a system that gives them an hour and a half plus commute when they can drive in 20 minutes or less.
Why does it have to be just the suburbs? A lot of people still live in the core cities and inner-ring suburbs, and they are already taking public transportation. There's room for growth there, as there's density of both people and destinations.
And I think you missed one big point -- commuting is only one part of the commuting pie, and interestingly enough, was not the largest part.
For far out low-density areas like Rosemount, I agree that there's not much incentive to add much more than you already have. Have some decent express bus service to downtown, have at least minimal connecting service for the few people who can't or don't want to drive, and focus the rest of your energies on making it easier and safer to bike and walk for in-town short trips to school, for errands, etc. Focus the bigger public transportation projects on routes where it makes more sense, and where there's both more riders and more destinations. Unless they discovered that there's a critical mass of people going from point A to point B at roughly the same time, in which case sure, by all means add a new bus line.
Then stop whining about people not taking the bus---we've had this discussion before--it's not about Rosemount, it's about adding mass transit along the routes with the most drivers--something for whatever reason, you just don't understand. 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.
The suburban workers already pay for a transit system they can't use. The current system is highly subsidized already, what difference would it make? Far, FAR more tax dollars go into the transit system from the suburbs because there are just more people that live and work in the suburbs than in Minneapolis, simple math.
Well, gee, vote in legislators who care about ANYTHING else but taxes on top income categories. I don't think suburbanites make the connection between their votes and lack of amenities. Tim "No New Taxes" Pawlenty was a suburbanite. He was a roadblock to the very things suburbanites now seem to think they want. But who do these voters elect? Look around. Your neighbors, the ones that want to drive, are voting against your aspirations for transit. The Metro Council can't do anything when the money for it is throttled by conservatives in the legislature.
Trouble I see with transit and work is that timeliness is so variable. Employers don't like a pattern of half an hour or an hour late. Yet, in the world of transit (excepting the very limited amount of rail), that is exactly the pattern. I know from using transit. You go to the stop. Wait for the bus at a certain scheduled time. It doesn't come. Or when it does, it is two buses playing leapfrog. There's no consistent reason, but this just doesn't cut it when there's even one transfer involved.
Timing is sometimes an issue, but largely I've always had the bus come within a very short window of when it was predicted. Actually, I'd say well over half of my rides came on the dot, while most of the rest were within 3-4 minutes. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been late to somewhere because of the bus in the many years I've utilized it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
The suburban workers already pay for a transit system they can't use. The current system is highly subsidized already, what difference would it make? Far, FAR more tax dollars go into the transit system from the suburbs because there are just more people that live and work in the suburbs than in Minneapolis, simple math.
Suburban workers can indeed use the system and they're getting a higher subsidy than just about every route in the city. Metro Transit is not in charge of your bus routes. Your area of the metro opted out in order to control its own transit. Contact MVTA and complain to them that they're directing their buses to downtown and not to all the other places you apparently need to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
Then stop whining about people not taking the bus---we've had this discussion before--it's not about Rosemount, it's about adding mass transit along the routes with the most drivers--something for whatever reason, you just don't understand. 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.
The routes with the most drivers are highways. We already have park-and-ride services to the downtown to get there because that's the area that has the most congestion (and therefore provides the greatest return for riding transit). What you want is personal rapid transit that is magically cheaper than using a car, but provides door-to-door service at car speeds. This, frankly, doesn't exist.
Effective transit in the suburbs has to make use of highways and busy roads to get enough people to ride (along with park-and-rides). But people don't like living near busy roads. So that means driving from the house to the park-and-ride, parking, waiting for the bus, riding the bus, and then walking/biking to your destination from the nearest drop-off point. The transfer penalty will make many trips at least an hour. So no, you'll never be able to beat that 20-minute suburban drive in your car with bus service unless you live on the line and have your destination right at the stop. With the way the suburbs are built, this is DOA.
The suburbs are sprawling areas that aren't built for transit. They were never built for transit. They were built for cars. We have a few inner suburbs that can support limited service, but unless Rosemount and Apple Valley can match the density of the city, you're not going to get Minneapolis-level transit service (which itself is fairly low in many areas).
Timing is sometimes an issue, but largely I've always had the bus come within a very short window of when it was predicted. Actually, I'd say well over half of my rides came on the dot, while most of the rest were within 3-4 minutes. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been late to somewhere because of the bus in the many years I've utilized it.
Suburban workers can indeed use the system and they're getting a higher subsidy than just about every route in the city. Metro Transit is not in charge of your bus routes. Your area of the metro opted out in order to control its own transit. Contact MVTA and complain to them that they're directing their buses to downtown and not to all the other places you apparently need to go.
The routes with the most drivers are highways. We already have park-and-ride services to the downtown to get there because that's the area that has the most congestion (and therefore provides the greatest return for riding transit). What you want is personal rapid transit that is magically cheaper than using a car, but provides door-to-door service at car speeds. This, frankly, doesn't exist.
Effective transit in the suburbs has to make use of highways and busy roads to get enough people to ride (along with park-and-rides). But people don't like living near busy roads. So that means driving from the house to the park-and-ride, parking, waiting for the bus, riding the bus, and then walking/biking to your destination from the nearest drop-off point. The transfer penalty will make many trips at least an hour. So no, you'll never be able to beat that 20-minute suburban drive in your car with bus service unless you live on the line and have your destination right at the stop. With the way the suburbs are built, this is DOA.
The suburbs are sprawling areas that aren't built for transit. They were never built for transit. They were built for cars. We have a few inner suburbs that can support limited service, but unless Rosemount and Apple Valley can match the density of the city, you're not going to get Minneapolis-level transit service (which itself is fairly low in many areas).
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.
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.
