why dont they build more public transportation to more suburbs (Minneapolis: upper-class, neighborhood)

[northsub]

Originally Posted by 1stpontiac

Don't get me wrong, in principle I'm totally in favor of more suburb-to-suburb transit, and especially for the lower-income folks you mention. I occasionally ride the 850 or 852 buses from Anoka/Coon Rapids, and its clear that the non-express portions of that route primarily serve lower-income people.

I'm just skeptical of the idea that there there is enough demand to support that kind of bus service at the level it would need to be effective for anyone, much less to support light-rail as some have advocated. Some act like the lack of suburb-suburb bus options is an affront foisted on them by Minneapolis. But the suburban transit authorities could get together and run express buses between the suburbs, and yet they don't (with a few exceptions).

Looking at the system map I'd be surprised if the different agencies coordinate much at all. Maple Grove and Plymouth run local routes near each other, but don't cross. MetroTransit and SouthWest seem to do the same thing.

I think the best thing would be if we had a metro-wide transit provider that served the whole metro. But, it doesn't seem that MetroTransit has the desire to focus on the entire metro. I do think the focus on downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul is what drives areas to opt out.

I have to say that as things stand I'd be completely in favor of my part of the metro opting out. The local service certainly can't get much worse. Looking at the route map it seems the opt out areas have far more local service. I'm guessing that's not just coincidence.

I do think the idea of running rail all over the place is not very sound. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to establish that there is demand before spending a bunch of money on capital expenses? And should we really be dumping large amounts of money into certain areas when other areas have basically no service?

[Beenhere4ever]

I'm repeating myself, but the fact is that all this transit service is run on a public subsidy. Trouble with public subsidies is that powerful forces resist anything involving taxes, especially higher ones. Especially on upper incomes. So any service supplied by public agencies has to justify itself by minimizing subsidy. No matter what the Met Council wants to do, the antitax climate forces it to look at how much subsidy each ride will involve. No matter what the need is for people to get from a residence in one suburb to a job in another, if projected subsidies are too high, public transit won't fill the need. Private companies can do whatever they want. But it has to all be on their dime. And the lack of many of these services is eloquent testimony that the riders just can't afford or don't want the service. Citing population growth is meaningless if the people don't want to pay the cost. Or, in some cases, are just too poor. Maybe the bigger problem is a lack of affordable housing close to these new suburban jobs. Companies site themselves there, but they never expect to be involved in workers getting to the places they choose. Ergo, no alternative to self-supplied transportation (or very long rides to use what is in place).

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Roads are also subsidized, and I probably don't have to tell you how expensive car ownership is for the avg citizen!

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus

Roads are also subsidized, and I probably don't have to tell you how expensive car ownership is for the avg citizen!

Except that a lot of that subsidy comes from the tax on gasoline....a user tax....

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Except that a lot of that subsidy comes from the tax on gasoline....a user tax....

Thing about the road subsidy is that there isn't any big political force against that subsidy. People who burn a lot of gas may squawk when the price goes up, but since they can buy less in the market, they really have no political complaint. But at the same time the people who are CHOOSING to pay through the nose for fuel get even more resistant to the transit subsidy. That means it is one suburbanite against another. And the suburbanites for spending more on transit are outnumbered in the political arena.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Except that a lot of that subsidy comes from the tax on gasoline....a user tax....

some comes from gas taxes, but I'm guessing it's a much smaller percentage than you think. The number I've most recently seen is about 50% comes from taxes, tolls, etc. The rest comes out of general funds. Public transportation subsidies are higher, but of course the overall amount of money for public transportation is tiny compared to that received by roads. And also worth pointing out is that those costs are only direct costs. We clearly need roads, just don't get fooled into thinking that gas taxes alone are coming anywhere close to paying for them.

[jayhopethismeeturstandard]

Realizing how subsidized the transit network is has (kind of) opened my eyes to how lucky we are to be able to have such cheap fares, no matter how inadequate the system may be.

[uptown_urbanist]

These numbers clearly aren't perfect, and the article is not current, but here's some good Twin Cities food for thought (and an attempt to quantify trip per ride for car rides, too, for comparison against various forms of local public transportation):
When it comes to public subsidies, Twin Cities light rail seems a bargain | MinnPost

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

some comes from gas taxes, but I'm guessing it's a much smaller percentage than you think. The number I've most recently seen is about 50% comes from taxes, tolls, etc. The rest comes out of general funds. Public transportation subsidies are higher, but of course the overall amount of money for public transportation is tiny compared to that received by roads. And also worth pointing out is that those costs are only direct costs. We clearly need roads, just don't get fooled into thinking that gas taxes alone are coming anywhere close to paying for them.

Not sure what the actual quantities are. But I'm pretty sure about the politics. Suburban drivers, those who could care less about transit availability, are inclined to say "yes, I pay many ways for my privilege to drive, and I get value. When I pay to subsidize transit, I don't". What that adds up to is very weak support to add to the transit bill. And that matters because the original question was why there isn't more transit to suburbs. In the end, these are all political decisions. If gas gets up to $10, it may change. At any level that is likely, it probably won't. People will either take very long bus rides or maybe carpool. Not sure why there aren't more suburban car pools.

[Mplsite]

The answer to the OP's question is that suburbanites have a bizarre expectation for an urban amenity in a suburban setting. It's like asking why you can't expect to walk to stores,restaurants, and bars just a block or so from where you live: it's suburbia. Suburbia is built by design to be unwalkable, unbikeable, and anti-public transit. If you want to ride the bus or rail and have at least decent service you need to live in an urban area where that's a viable option. You can't have your cake and eat it too.