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.
Great questions. The belief that Kansas City traffic is wonderful was posited in the anti-train propaganda piece.
Kansas City traffic IS in fact mild. Not saying the MSP opinion piece is accurate or inaccurate, but KC has modest traffic. Even at rush hour, the main arteries (Ward Parkway, Southwest Trafficway, Brookside Boulevard, Gillham) are pretty quick. The stoplights on the arteries are timed to maximize flow (you can immediately tell when one light is out of whack -- huge backups)
I currently drive in KC three workdays per week from PV to 12th/ Main (downtown) and it takes 12-18 minutes. That's 7 miles on city roads in 15 minutes, not on highways. Average speed 28MPH including stoplights.
Kansas City traffic IS in fact mild. Not saying the MSP opinion piece is accurate or inaccurate, but KC has modest traffic. Even at rush hour, the main arteries (Ward Parkway, Southwest Trafficway, Brookside Boulevard, Gillham) are pretty quick. The stoplights on the arteries are timed to maximize flow (you can immediately tell when one light is out of whack -- huge backups)
I currently drive in KC three workdays per week from PV to 12th/ Main (downtown) and it takes 12-18 minutes. That's 7 miles on city roads in 15 minutes, not on highways. Average speed 28MPH including stoplights.
I second that KC is a good place to live, with minimal traffic, which seems to go hand in hand with them having the most highway miles/capita. Not making a statement on if investing in concrete is the best option or not, but at the present moment it does seem to benefit their traffic flow.
One thing I noticed about KC..... in the twin cities, generally speaking living in the city is more expensive than the suburbs, causing young families to move to the burbs if they want a house (and dictating a long commute). But in the KC, living in the city was actually cheaper than living in the burbs (I'm generalizing, I'm sure there are exceptions). So all they young job hoppers are actually able to live in the city proper and be close to their jobs, which I found interesting. One could find a reasonable home in a KC neighborhood akin to our S. Minneapolis for $250K no problem.
More proof that the Twin Cities is deliberately creating congestion and trying to force Mass Transit use at the expense of personal vehicles:
The recently rebuilt I-35W is going to be torn up AGAIN to build a Transit Station at Lake Street! The construction will last FOUR YEARS and not only snarl already congested traffic for years to come, but also remove a lane in each direction along the worst congested part of Lake Street permanently!
This congestion will be so bad, that even the Liberal Rag, Transit Friendly, City Pages wrote a glaring article about it.
MPR Newscut Blog: "Counties provide what state won’t for transportation: leadership"
From the blog:
"Washington County, long the poor stepchild in the seven-county metro area when it comes to transportation funding, has voted to increase its sales tax by a quarter percent to fund what leaders cashing state paychecks refuse to do: fund a rapid-transit bus line connecting Woodbury to St. Paul — the Gold Line."
More proof that the Twin Cities is deliberately creating congestion and trying to force Mass Transit use at the expense of personal vehicles:
The recently rebuilt I-35W is going to be torn up AGAIN to build a Transit Station at Lake Street! The construction will last FOUR YEARS and not only snarl already congested traffic for years to come, but also remove a lane in each direction along the worst congested part of Lake Street permanently!
This congestion will be so bad, that even the Liberal Rag, Transit Friendly, City Pages wrote a glaring article about it.
There is no proof that the Twin Cities is 'deliberately creating congestion' either in the right-wing crackpot article you posted before or in this one.
In regard to light rail, one piece of particularly low hanging fruit is timing the lights. This is just my own experience, but there are times when there is no train or the train has already passed and all roads have red lights for up to two full minutes (I have timed it) at University and Huron, University and 29th and Huron and Washington. This happens enough that I time it. All the while, traffic backs up, sometimes past the next intersection. Even if the goal is to time it so that the trains get green lights, there is still congestion caused this.
This is all easy-to-implement, fairly-low cost things things to consider.
I contacted the Met Council BEFORE the Light Rail went down University Avenue, and expressed my concern that the then fairly good timing of the stop lights would be changed to create more congestion as happened when the Blue Line started operating along Hiawatha Avenue years before.
The bottom line is if the stop light timing had stayed the same, traffic would be passing those trains at a constant pace. The people in cars would be thinking, why would I ever want to ride that train, it's so slow. Meanwhile the passengers in the train would be watching all the cars go by wondering why they are sitting on the train when they could be cruising down the street in a car?
The Socialist Pigs at the Met Council and our Socialist Governor, WANT you to be sitting in your car watching that train pass you at every light. They also need all the passengers on the train to see how badly the cars are backed up so they'll keep riding.
And that's why you have noticed the horrible timing of the stop lights during your commutes.
There is no proof that the Twin Cities is 'deliberately creating congestion' either in the right-wing crackpot article you posted before or in this one.
Well here's another article for you to read. How many do we have to come up with to convince you, or are you an Agenda 21 proponent?
They admit in the second article link that the timing of the stop lights can be improved along Washington Avenue, Minneapolis; my question is why wasn't it improved to relieve the congestion long ago?
I think transit promoters are spot on by saying that improving transit efficiency and service frequency will get cars off the roads and relieve congestion.
The fallacy in their argument is that that's never going to happen in the foreseeable future in Minnesota because as evidenced by the Red Line, Northstar, and running the Green Line at-grade with stops every half mile and red lights all lend evidence to transit development decisions being based on someone's qualitative personal interest or pet project. Every time I drive through Apple Valley I see those empty Red Line stations and laugh at how they're blowing funds there while city buses with a healthy demand continue to stop every block and wait out red lights every other block with no alternative.
If we want to get enough ridership to put a dent in cars - and it is possible - we need to hire a team of unbiased engineers to use data and logic with zero bias towards which markets and neighborhoods they serve and all their decisions in alignment with increasing ridership which means making the new lines fast and frequent service and in locations most likely to attract the most riders. No surprise, these will generally be along existing frequent-service bus routes.
Secondly, I read an article that the typical transit project most notably rail or subway costs four times as much in the US as in Europe. The Green Line has all those fancy barriers and amenities and stuff that we really don't need to get to our destinations. Make them generally low-cost to the degree that it doesn't put a dent into trip times.
Until this mentality shift in our leadership happens, I'm done even caring or getting excited about transit improvements in MSP. As far as I know, the A Line is great! But the majority of new lines are either a waste (Red Line) or done much less than optimally from an efficiency standpoint (Green Line). Some of you may recall back in the day there was a subtle shift from "Provide a good connection between the downtowns" to "Serve and help the neighborhoods along its route." Nothing against the latter objective - it's great - but their focus on it undoubtedly cut out a major component of ridership going from points outside one downtown to points outside the other that would be a three-leg journey practical with a fast connection but too slow taking the Green Line. In 10-15 years we may have talk of a subway down in the soft sandstone or a rail along the middle of 94 like what Chicago does with only 3-4 stops along the way if that to provide that fast connection. Then ridership will improve. Don't even ask me about Bottineau...nothing against it long-term but how could anyone in their right mind route it to bypass the majority of their expected ridership in North Mpls unless it's required for efficiency but then why not build North Mpls transit first before the low-density car-based suburbs?
I could go on and on, but in effect we're not prepared for the switch over to transit that we'd all like to see happen until we get that mentality shift which based on history is not gonna happen any time soon.
Regarding Hiawatha, I've experienced where the light is red until the train flies past and then turns green but after looking at the timing, I have confidence that this is not some conspiracy to make the car drivers watch the train go faster than them. Because the street crossing the tracks is kept green with green arrow even before the train passes through, my hypothesis is it's so some moron doesn't stop too far forward and block the tracks. If they didn't have this feature (which is a lot of the cause of the horrendous timing along Hiawatha), cars would need to be aware and comfortable to stop where the sign says they're supposed to stop and then frequently watch the railroad gates come down in front of them and the train pass by before they get their green light. This is the way it should be - it's logical and most efficient and practical - but I believe the fact that the morons would get confused and potentially cause trouble or worst case stop on the tracks is why they insist on a green with green arrow from that lower-trafficked direction prior to the train going by.
Dumb people get accommodated at the expense of everyone I guess...
I think transit promoters are spot on by saying that improving transit efficiency and service frequency will get cars off the roads and relieve congestion.
The fallacy in their argument is that that's never going to happen in the foreseeable future in Minnesota because as evidenced by the Red Line, Northstar, and running the Green Line at-grade with stops every half mile and red lights all lend evidence to transit development decisions being based on someone's qualitative personal interest or pet project. Every time I drive through Apple Valley I see those empty Red Line stations and laugh at how they're blowing funds there while city buses with a healthy demand continue to stop every block and wait out red lights every other block with no alternative.
If we want to get enough ridership to put a dent in cars - and it is possible - we need to hire a team of unbiased engineers to use data and logic with zero bias towards which markets and neighborhoods they serve and all their decisions in alignment with increasing ridership which means making the new lines fast and frequent service and in locations most likely to attract the most riders. No surprise, these will generally be along existing frequent-service bus routes.
Secondly, I read an article that the typical transit project most notably rail or subway costs four times as much in the US as in Europe. The Green Line has all those fancy barriers and amenities and stuff that we really don't need to get to our destinations. Make them generally low-cost to the degree that it doesn't put a dent into trip times.
Until this mentality shift in our leadership happens, I'm done even caring or getting excited about transit improvements in MSP. As far as I know, the A Line is great! But the majority of new lines are either a waste (Red Line) or done much less than optimally from an efficiency standpoint (Green Line). Some of you may recall back in the day there was a subtle shift from "Provide a good connection between the downtowns" to "Serve and help the neighborhoods along its route." Nothing against the latter objective - it's great - but their focus on it undoubtedly cut out a major component of ridership going from points outside one downtown to points outside the other that would be a three-leg journey practical with a fast connection but too slow taking the Green Line. In 10-15 years we may have talk of a subway down in the soft sandstone or a rail along the middle of 94 like what Chicago does with only 3-4 stops along the way if that to provide that fast connection. Then ridership will improve. Don't even ask me about Bottineau...nothing against it long-term but how could anyone in their right mind route it to bypass the majority of their expected ridership in North Mpls unless it's required for efficiency but then why not build North Mpls transit first before the low-density car-based suburbs?
I could go on and on, but in effect we're not prepared for the switch over to transit that we'd all like to see happen until we get that mentality shift which based on history is not gonna happen any time soon.
Regarding Hiawatha, I've experienced where the light is red until the train flies past and then turns green but after looking at the timing, I have confidence that this is not some conspiracy to make the car drivers watch the train go faster than them. Because the street crossing the tracks is kept green with green arrow even before the train passes through, my hypothesis is it's so some moron doesn't stop too far forward and block the tracks. If they didn't have this feature (which is a lot of the cause of the horrendous timing along Hiawatha), cars would need to be aware and comfortable to stop where the sign says they're supposed to stop and then frequently watch the railroad gates come down in front of them and the train pass by before they get their green light. This is the way it should be - it's logical and most efficient and practical - but I believe the fact that the morons would get confused and potentially cause trouble or worst case stop on the tracks is why they insist on a green with green arrow from that lower-trafficked direction prior to the train going by.
Dumb people get accommodated at the expense of everyone I guess...
I too live in Apple Valley and question the value of the Red Line. And I am a promoter of mass transit. By I can't come up with the use case. I wouldn't take it to the mall, where I can drive and be parked in 15 minutes. And I wouldn't take it to downtown, where I can take a metro transit bus direct and be there in 35 minutes (vs taking red line to MOA, then hoping on light rail, 1hr+). Being very generous, I would MAYBE use this option as a park and ride to MOA on an xmas shopping weekend if I wanted to avoid the parking nightmare. But even then, I just don't shop on those days.
I could go on and on, but in effect we're not prepared for the switch over to transit that we'd all like to see happen until we get that mentality shift which based on history is not gonna happen any time soon.
Regarding Hiawatha, I've experienced where the light is red until the train flies past and then turns green but after looking at the timing, I have confidence that this is not some conspiracy to make the car drivers watch the train go faster than them. Because the street crossing the tracks is kept green with green arrow even before the train passes through, my hypothesis is it's so some moron doesn't stop too far forward and block the tracks. If they didn't have this feature (which is a lot of the cause of the horrendous timing along Hiawatha), cars would need to be aware and comfortable to stop where the sign says they're supposed to stop and then frequently watch the railroad gates come down in front of them and the train pass by before they get their green light. This is the way it should be - it's logical and most efficient and practical - but I believe the fact that the morons would get confused and potentially cause trouble or worst case stop on the tracks is why they insist on a green with green arrow from that lower-trafficked direction prior to the train going by.
Dumb people get accommodated at the expense of everyone I guess...
I will agree with you on two points:
1. They will make the Bottineau Line look efficient by rerouting and restructuring all the bus routes in such a way as to FORCE riders onto the train, thus justifying it's cost; just like they did with the other two rail lines, and will for the SW Metro Line to Eden Prairie.
2. People who don't know how to drive (or learned to drive in another country, except Germany) don't deserve to own cars or be given licenses here. This step alone would eliminate 90% of all congestion in our metro area.
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.
