why dont they build more public transportation to more suburbs (Minneapolis: house, living)

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by northsub

Unless you can run more than a few trips a day I don't think there's much potential at all. The number of trips are limited by BNSF, so even having a large passenger demand won't matter.

Even if you somehow got BNSF to agree to a bunch more trips, Northstar would connect what? Riverdale and downtown Anoka? Those 2 are 1.4 miles apart, and the connection via Northstar involves about a 0.7 mile walk to downtown Anoka. The Riverdale stop is about 0.4 miles from the closest store at Riverdale. So, to get between downtown Anoka and the best-case store at Riverdale you saved someone about a quarter mile of walking if they take Northstar instead of just walking.

The Fridley station is not really next to much. I guess it's within 0.7 miles of a Cub and Home Depot.

There already exist places that could work as transit hubs. Why not use those?

There was just an article about how Anoka is going to build a big parking ramp at their station, so they can take one half of the parking lot and make it into a commercial/residential complex, but I don't really see that accomplishing much.

The comments you make above are the reasons I like the Bottineau Line option to Maple Grove. Arbor Lakes is a big enough area that I think it could act as an anchor opposite DT Minneapolis, and people would realistically travel both ways. And while its not necessarily ideally walkable, its not too bad, and some high frequency circulators could transfer people between some of the different sub-areas. Plus, there is already the transit center out there.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by golfgal

So, once again, build the transit system where people drive--the 494/694 loop and stop building useless lines. I've said many times, the rail system should loop around 494/694 with spokes off on the 35's, Cedar and 94. That would alleviate at least half, if not more, of the congestion in the metro since 90+% of people living in the metro work on the 494/694 loop....people can't use it if it does't exist....

well, apparently people were able to successfully take 81 million rides last year, so public transportation must go SOMEWHERE people want to go...

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by northsub

Unless you can run more than a few trips a day I don't think there's much potential at all. The number of trips are limited by BNSF, so even having a large passenger demand won't matter.

Even if you somehow got BNSF to agree to a bunch more trips, Northstar would connect what? Riverdale and downtown Anoka? Those 2 are 1.4 miles apart, and the connection via Northstar involves about a 0.7 mile walk to downtown Anoka. The Riverdale stop is about 0.4 miles from the closest store at Riverdale. So, to get between downtown Anoka and the best-case store at Riverdale you saved someone about a quarter mile of walking if they take Northstar instead of just walking.

The Fridley station is not really next to much. I guess it's within 0.7 miles of a Cub and Home Depot.

There already exist places that could work as transit hubs. Why not use those?

I admit that I'm not well-informed on placement of Northstar stops. I guess I was assuming -- erroneously, I realize -- that the stations were often in places where there was already some sort of development or "center," even if not an actual downtown.

By transit connections, I was thinking more along the lines of if the stations were hubs of dense commercial and residential activity then they could still be local transit hubs even if the train itself were not running for most of the day. So less train as part of the transportation connection, more station as centerpiece of a location that has the concentrated people and destinations to drive local bus rides. But maybe expecting Northstar stations to spur that kind of new development is unrealistic.

[dravogadro]

It's great to bike out to Bike Lake, get a bite to eat in town, and then take the train back to the cities.

I don't really get the feeling that you could walk from any of those North Star transit stations to anywhere. Just the reality of trying to work with already existing infrastructure.

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I admit that I'm not well-informed on placement of Northstar stops. I guess I was assuming -- erroneously, I realize -- that the stations were often in places where there was already some sort of development or "center," even if not an actual downtown.

By transit connections, I was thinking more along the lines of if the stations were hubs of dense commercial and residential activity then they could still be local transit hubs even if the train itself were not running for most of the day. So less train as part of the transportation connection, more station as centerpiece of a location that has the concentrated people and destinations to drive local bus rides. But maybe expecting Northstar stations to spur that kind of new development is unrealistic.

If you consider driving to a rail station as a "hub", that is what has already been done. But again, how full would the transit vehicles be? I was at Rosedale, and leaving from Rosedale was a line that went further out. But it was a miniature bus, a Metro Mobility type of vehicle. That reflects the lack of demand out that far. It is easy to come here and post a wish for regular service. But try talking to your neighbors and see how eager they are. Until someone organizes those needed out in the far reaches of the Metro, it just isn't gonna change. State government already has people who hate the subsidies at this point. Running empty or half empty buses miles from the central city will be DOA at the capitol. Not to say your MUNICIPALITY can't do it on its own. Take that proposal to city council meetings and hear what they have to say.

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I admit that I'm not well-informed on placement of Northstar stops. I guess I was assuming -- erroneously, I realize -- that the stations were often in places where there was already some sort of development or "center," even if not an actual downtown.

By transit connections, I was thinking more along the lines of if the stations were hubs of dense commercial and residential activity then they could still be local transit hubs even if the train itself were not running for most of the day. So less train as part of the transportation connection, more station as centerpiece of a location that has the concentrated people and destinations to drive local bus rides. But maybe expecting Northstar stations to spur that kind of new development is unrealistic.

Ramsey's new station tries that a little, as it is by their "COR" area (The COR at Ramsey | Urban Living, meet Minnesota's great outdoors!) with some city government offices, and plans for more development. Time will tell how much that area gets developed and what it actually turns into.

Ultimately, though, as I've said before, a train like the Northstar will live or die based on commuters and on special events trains (i.e. Twins and Vikings) that will be almost guaranteed to be full. The train will never make a profit on just carrying people to small town "attractions" like cute downtowns or pretty parks.

[l12]

I have to agree somewhat with the OP though I disagree with his (il)logical reasoning. We can't just pretend that everyone only needs to go to and from downtown when the reality is that only 17% of metro area jobs are even within 3 miles of downtown (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...l_kneebone.pdf)

As much as I would like to see the downtown area grow and add more jobs and stop the sprawl, the people will vote with their feet and money no matter what forward-looking politicians try to create.

The reality is, the public transit budget has been too small for too long. We need both. We need to expand downtown, we need to grow the urban area between MPLS and St. Paul and we need to improve transit in St. Paul, and yes some inter-suburb transit to major job centers at least. It's ridiculous that there is no good bus service to many of the major employers such as 3M in Maplewood, which has many international employees and visitors who would be happy not to drive. We need a transit tax, we need higher gas tax, higher cigarette tax, and some limitation on how far we allow the sprawl to go, following the Portland model.

Part of this is that Minnesotans are not really that into transit because buses are just not a very nice experience. They are bumpy as hell in the pothole season, you have to climb over snow, ice and slush to board them, boarding at each stop is very slow, they wait in traffic. Rail is the future and is the only thing proven to get people to enjoy using mass transit. It also requires that there is some density and order to development and job centers don't just go all over the place, and that is not a bad thing.

Is MSP going to be a cohesive city and community that people admire and want to live in, or a random messy agglomeration of competing suburbs like LA that people love to complain about and make fun of?

[l12]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

But maybe expecting Northstar stations to spur that kind of new development is unrealistic.

Regarding Northstar: I've only lived here for 3 years, and I really have a hard time understand why the hell they built the first commuter rail where they did. I can only imagine it had a lot to do with the track already being there. But it seems to me that the Northern suburbs are the most right-wing, anti-mass transit, and least-likely place for transit-oriented development or usage to take hold.

If they had spent that money doing the same thing to the west, southwest, south, towards Rochester, or in a direction closer to St. Paul as well it would have been a much better investment IMO. Maybe someone understands and can explain to me. I understand perhaps also the idea that they are lower-income suburbs so they might be more likely to take the train when gas prices rise, but I'm afraid it doesn't really work like that, at least where I'm from (the South) lower-middle class suburbanites would rather give up a few trips to Applebee's than their precious car-based "freedom" and "independence".

[QuietBlue]

Originally Posted by l12

Regarding Northstar: I've only lived here for 3 years, and I really have a hard time understand why the hell they built the first commuter rail where they did. I can only imagine it had a lot to do with the track already being there.

Pretty much, yes. It made it a lot cheaper to implement than it otherwise would have been if they had to build new rails, secure right-of-way, and so on. The downside, of course, was that it made it a lot less effective.

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by l12

I have to agree somewhat with the OP though I disagree with his (il)logical reasoning. We can't just pretend that everyone only needs to go to and from downtown when the reality is that only 17% of metro area jobs are even within 3 miles of downtown (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...l_kneebone.pdf)

It is all about density and parking, though. Once positions get spread out, you have to add more and more stops to serve the same number of people. As you add more stops, the length of the trip starts to increase, and that pushes people away. As soon as public transit starts to add 15-20% onto a commute vs driving, then that starts to push people away from transit. In the downtown areas, parking gets expensive, so there is additional incentive to swallow a bit longer commute. In the suburbs, most parking is free, so there isn't that push-back.