Twin Cities Public Transit and Areas to Live (Minneapolis, St. Paul: middle-class, 2014)

[uptown_urbanist]

Where is the job located? Everything else is going to stem from that. If the job itself isn't on a bus or train line, then the rest of it is going to be a moot point. Transferring can also be a hassle (although I do it and it's not too bad, depending on specific bus line and its frequency), so in an ideal world you'll be able to live in a walkable neighborhood either within walking distance or on a one-ride route to your work.

And as has been suggested, biking is also a option for much of the year -- people here commute on bikes year-round. Some employers have access to gyms or changing rooms, if you don't want to bike in your work clothes. I don't bike to work, but know many people who do; they represent a broad variety of types of jobs (from casual to very corporate, and at bike-friendly workplaces in both city and suburbs). It's definitely a possibility.

Overall I'd say the local public transportation options are so-so. It's a big step down from many bigger cities, and the public transportation in many of the suburbs is overall pretty lousy (with some exceptions), but depending on where you work, it's definitely doable. Supplement with a Zipcar or Hourcar or City2Go membership (the local carshare options) and you'll do fine. No one in our building has a car, and we all seem to get by just fine with work, shopping, socializing, etc.

[Beenhere4ever]

So-so is a good description. All transit is subsidized explicitly. Which makes it hard to make big improvements. In fact, it seems transit authorities are totally focused on expensive expansion, less on raising overall quality. When I rented, I always chose a location with good bus service to where I worked. Usually a ten minute ride or less. That went on for a long time. I had a car from my twenties, but I used it very little.

[pete6032]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

So-so is a good description. All transit is subsidized explicitly.

So is all the road infrastructure that people drive their cars on.

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by pete6032

So is all the road infrastructure that people drive their cars on.

Maybe true. But where does that dollar figure appear in the state budget? And then there's the matter of the funds. That's a totally mixed up bag with money coming from every direction. I've seen figures for the percent that a rider pays out of total cost. Who has published figures for the percent that drivers pay out of total highway costs?

[xandrex]

You'll definitely need to specify where you're working before we can let you know more about the transportation options.

The usual suspects for the "young professional" crowd are neighborhoods like Uptown, Lyn-Lake, Loring Park, the North Loop, and parts of Northeast just across the river from downtown. Depending on what you're looking for (mix of nearby amenities, where you want transit access, etc.), your preferred area may vary.

If you're going to be working in St. Paul, then there are a whole other grouping of neighborhoods that might better fit you (so you're not taking a 45+ minute bus ride just to get to work).

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Maybe true. But where does that dollar figure appear in the state budget? And then there's the matter of the funds. That's a totally mixed up bag with money coming from every direction. I've seen figures for the percent that a rider pays out of total cost. Who has published figures for the percent that drivers pay out of total highway costs?

Money for roads comes from so many different sources that it would be quite difficult to track the total "subsidy". And so many people drive that they don't even think of it as a subsidy that they're getting.

[Beenhere4ever]

Money for roads comes from so many different sources that it would be quite difficult to track the total "subsidy". And so many people drive that they don't even think of it as a subsidy that they're getting.

Which is why I treat "auto traffic is subsidized" as more a religious statement than one based on any research. Could be true! I won't deny it. And the CONSTITUENCY for such subsidies is about as monstrous as for residence ownership. The 800 pound gorilla comes to mind. Where does he sit again? People wondering about transit should really follow Metro Transit on Twitter. See how EVERY time it snows, the ontime percentage drops way below 50 percent. So it is not totally a matter of where to live, it is also "how much earlier do I have to try to catch a bus so that the snail-like pace of the buses won't make me late". Anyone new to local transit has to understand what any sort of situation can do to the bus schedule. Buses can be stopped dead by an accident. Buses that un on routes with lots of handicapped or elderly (like I do) can fall way behind schedule because the schedule makers haven't the ability to factor the time the driver has to take to get people aboard with walkers, grocery baskets, canes, or electric scooters on board. I've seen buses fall 10 to 20 minutes behind schedule for this. Visiting a whole bunch of other cities, I've yet to see anything like it. I'm not even sure why scooter users go out on regular buses in heavy snow situations. I saw a lady with a walker walking against traffic on Lake Street because McDonald's wouldn't assign a staff member to clear out the street corner where their restaurant was.

So I hope people wanting badly to live in the city do some extensive real world planning about transportation. Cars aren't really a perfect solution since they have to be moved and can be made late by slow moving traffic. In a perfect world, I want to live a block from work. But this world never measures up.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Which is why I treat "auto traffic is subsidized" as more a religious statement than one based on any research. Could be true! I won't deny it. And the CONSTITUENCY for such subsidies is about as monstrous as for residence ownership. The 800 pound gorilla comes to mind. Where does he sit again? People wondering about transit should really follow Metro Transit on Twitter. See how EVERY time it snows, the ontime percentage drops way below 50 percent. So it is not totally a matter of where to live, it is also "how much earlier do I have to try to catch a bus so that the snail-like pace of the buses won't make me late". Anyone new to local transit has to understand what any sort of situation can do to the bus schedule. Buses can be stopped dead by an accident. Buses that un on routes with lots of handicapped or elderly (like I do) can fall way behind schedule because the schedule makers haven't the ability to factor the time the driver has to take to get people aboard with walkers, grocery baskets, canes, or electric scooters on board. I've seen buses fall 10 to 20 minutes behind schedule for this. Visiting a whole bunch of other cities, I've yet to see anything like it. I'm not even sure why scooter users go out on regular buses in heavy snow situations. I saw a lady with a walker walking against traffic on Lake Street because McDonald's wouldn't assign a staff member to clear out the street corner where their restaurant was.

So I hope people wanting badly to live in the city do some extensive real world planning about transportation. Cars aren't really a perfect solution since they have to be moved and can be made late by slow moving traffic. In a perfect world, I want to live a block from work. But this world never measures up.

I don't think there's ever been proof that cars pay their full freight. I know people have gathered the numbers. I just don't particularly care to find them. In this discussion, it's sort of moot.

As for Metro Transit, you don't see it in other cities because most other cities with any respectable transit aren't in a climate like we are. And the places that are (Boston, Chicago, etc.) rely heavily on rail, which has much better on-time averages. Looking at Metro Transit's Twitter, average delays seemed to be about 12 minutes. That's not great, but I'd say understandable, since many routes are very long. But in dense areas where the Hi-Frequency routes exist, a 10-15 minute delay just means that you're waiting a couple of extra minutes...the late bus is arriving around the time your normal bus would be.

I was taking the bus into downtown all winter and while I had a few days where I had significant delays (20 minutes), I generally got on within a minute or two of the scheduled time.

And on those days when I was delayed, a lot of car drivers were getting in later than I was. My bosses understood that those delays weren't anybody's fault. Obviously not everyone has the flexibility of schedule that I had or a great boss, but most people I know understand that weather can cause delays. It's Minnesota, after all...

[Beenhere4ever]

The cities that have rail didn't have it bought and ripped up. And then wait 40 years to try to restore any of it. This area was pretty addicted to cars and sprawl. The governments here snoozed for the longest time. When they awoke, they found it was no cheap deal to restore any of that rail let go in the 50's.

[MplsTodd]

All the comments about buses being made later by weather impacts also apply to cars. I just don't see how weather delays favors cars. If anything, I think that the prospect for weather delays encourages people to live closer to where they work.

There were lots of cities that got rid of rail in the '50s and have reintroduced service during the past few decades. Results have been mixed based on individual cities, but cities such as Denver, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington, D. C., & San Diego have experienced strong ridership. The Twin Cities have also had strong ridership on our initial LRT line. A major investment in transit infrastructure such as rail is likely to take many years to payoff. It's worthwhile to recall that the interstate highways received 90% Federal Subsidy back in the 50s-70s, and that subsidy encouraged our metro to build an extensive highway system, which of course was a major factor in the sprawling suburban development we have. That sprawling development took several decades to fill in along the freeways. Development along transit corridors will also continue to occur over several decades, which should increase ridership of transit lines.

[uptown_urbanist]

RE: recent Metro Transit delays, setting aside the Northstar Line, most of those delays weren't any worse than what people in cars were experiencing; the buses were delayed because traffic for everyone was so incredibly bad.

I haven't been paying close attention, but in general I've noticed that on these snowy days the light rail line is moving on time even when the buses aren't. Makes sense, I suppose, given that they are not sitting on slow-moving streets like the rest of us.

In any case, I wouldn't use weather-related delays as a reason to criticize Metro Transit. I wish there weren't any delays, and I have plenty of other complaints about Metro Transit, but on a snow day there's much to be said about taking public transportation rather than driving. (Unfortunately many other people have the same idea -- it's been my experience that during bad weather the buses get uncomfortably crowded. Not sure what the ridership numbers are officially, but I get the impression that a lot of people prefer to let someone else do the driving when the weather gets bad.)