Poverty is hitting MSP suburbs with more sting (Minneapolis, Blaine: fit in, apartment)

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Your bus pass is only good for students at the U of M-the $20K you are paying for your masters program is a LOT more then our car expenses. A bus pass for everyone else runs over $100/month.

Everywhere in Minneapolis and St. Paul is not walkable either. You run into the same situations in Minneapolis that you do in the suburbs. Someone losing a job in Minneapolis would face the same issues of getting to work unless they work in Downtown or somewhere that is on a bus route. You yourself would have problems getting to your job in Eagan if you didn't have a car and you now live farther away from your place of employment by moving to Minneapolis so please explain to me why your situation is better then everyone in the suburbs. Personally, I can work from home if I chose and live less then a mile from everything I need on a day to day basis. If needed I can call the MVTA for a bus to come pick me up at my house and bring me grocery shopping, to the mall or whatever. We could survive without a car if needed, we choose not to however.

Seriously? I can tell you don't regularly take the bus on a regular basis. EVERYWHERE in Minneapolis is on a bus route, although admittedly some areas are better served than others (although I'm spoiled; I think waiting 30 minutes for a bus is way too long.). And getting to and from a job in Eagan doesn't really matter if you LOSE that job. I thought we were talking about people who no longer have jobs, hence the newly rising poverty?

I've looked into the MVTA option; maybe I missed something, but I found nothing to suggest that you can just call them up and use them like a taxi service. There are some limited flexible routes that sort of do that, but it's just that -- limited. It's a great option for those who live along those routes, but many people don't. And again, of course there are some areas of the middle and outer suburbs that are walkable and have some transit options, but we all know there are many that aren't. It sounds like you are lucky to have the opportunity to go carless if it were to come to that, but many people are not so lucky.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Your bus pass is only good for students at the U of M-the $20K you are paying for your masters program is a LOT more then our car expenses. A bus pass for everyone else runs over $100/month.

You're comparing my school costs to your car expenses.....what!? The Upass is just one pass, many employers offer metropass which is an unlimited monthly pass for $76/month. There are other discounts offered by metro transit too for frequent users. For the people who do pay over $100/month for public transportation, I'd still argue it's cheaper than operating almost any vehicle when you include cost of the vehicle, insurance, gas, maintenance and depreciation.

Everywhere in Minneapolis and St. Paul is not walkable either. You run into the same situations in Minneapolis that you do in the suburbs.

Understood, there are always exceptions and I stated there were in my previous post. I was speaking from a general standpoint. Exceptions aside, the city is more walkable than any suburb overall. Anyone sensible would understand this fact.

Someone losing a job in Minneapolis would face the same issues of getting to work unless they work in Downtown or somewhere that is on a bus route. You yourself would have problems getting to your job in Eagan if you didn't have a car and you now live farther away from your place of employment by moving to Minneapolis so please explain to me why your situation is better then everyone in the suburbs. Personally, I can work from home if I chose and live less then a mile from everything I need on a day to day basis. If needed I can call the MVTA for a bus to come pick me up at my house and bring me grocery shopping, to the mall or whatever. We could survive without a car if needed, we choose not to however.

I can't make any sense of this, if I lost my job I wouldn't be commuting to my job. The point I was making is if I did lose my job I am not stranded where I'm living (or was living in Uptown). I can walk, use public transportation to get almost anywhere I need to get very very easily. I did not have this privilege in the 4 suburb locations I lived in...in reality I would be completely stranded and screwed in those locations had I been in a position where I didn't have the ability to use a car.

Just as an FYI though, I can hop on the light rail and then on a bus and I'm to my work location in 51 minutes. Obviously it isn't the most ideal scenario but it's always an option. It's still better than what my public transportation would've been where I was previously living in Eagan. I'd be walking 2 miles to the transportation hub and then taking a bus 2 more miles to where I was working...ridiculous...that'd probably take even more than 51 minutes.

[uptown_urbanist]

Since debating whether the suburbs or the cities have better public transportation is a pretty pointless endeavor, I thought instead I'd post this link to Brookings Institution testimony about the importance of considering the high costs of auto-dependency in American society; many sprawling suburbs grew in the era of cheap gas (not that long ago!), but today car ownership is getting more and more expensive. I think it's definitely relevant to any discussion of Twin Cities suburban poverty. It certainly has a major impact on the lives of the Twin Cities' poor or working class residents. Whether the solution is more public transportation, better planning to make for more truly walkable communities, or some combination thereof, I think it's clear that this is at least an issue worthy of discussion.

[uptown_urbanist]

I don't know that stats on this, but it's also worth pointing out that in many suburban areas it seems that the most walkable areas come with a higher price tag; certainly nationally new "New Urbanist" communities usually cost more than the old style cul-de-sac subdivision. I don't know how that stacks up in the Twin Cities, but I'd guess that it often also holds true. The people who are buying the cheapest houses in the far out subdivisions often need a car, and they're depending on jobs to cover both the mortgage and the car payments. In those cases the car isn't really optional, and is a fairly non-negotiable part of life.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by Slig

For the people who do pay over $100/month for public transportation, I'd still argue it's cheaper than operating almost any vehicle when you include cost of the vehicle, insurance, gas, maintenance and depreciation.

Golfgal's facts are misleading here- if every bus fare you ever take is $3.00 (most likely only case scenario being an express bus from the suburbs), your monthly pass would be $113.50. Most people can get unlimited service (esp. if in the city/inner suburb) with the $85/month card. You can get a $59 monthly pass that doesn't include rush hour/express rates in which you would just have to add the difference if taking one of these routes.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

Golfgal's facts are misleading here- if every bus fare you ever take is $3.00 (most likely only case scenario being an express bus from the suburbs), your monthly pass would be $113.50. Most people can get unlimited service (esp. if in the city/inner suburb) with the $85/month card. You can get a $59 monthly pass that doesn't include rush hour/express rates in which you would just have to add the difference if taking one of these routes.

Which you then add on top of the cost of owning a car because even in Minneapolis most people still own and drive cars.

The point is, the article itself is talking about people losing jobs and falling below the poverty level. It isn't any different then living in Minneapolis, losing a job and falling below the poverty level--you still don't have a job whether you live on a bus line or not so even buying a bus pass without any money is impossible. Of course, any time there is something remotely negative about the suburbs it gets posted here . For what ever reason it is ok to blast the suburbs but if anyone says anything negative about Minneapolis they report threads to the mods...

[DaPerpKazoo]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Which you then add on top of the cost of owning a car because even in Minneapolis most people still own and drive cars.

Whaaaaaaaat?

The whole discussion there was about the cost of utilizing public transit versus the cost of owning/operating a car, not about transit + car versus just car. The whole point that they're trying to make is that for those who lose a job and can no longer afford to have a car, having acess to public transit and living in a walkable neighborhood suddenly becomes very important.

I've read that the average car in America costs about $4250 a year in combined expenses (perhaps it was on the TLC MN site?), which is no contest to beat with an $85/mo pass (or even $113/mo, which only applies if you have to get to a job in the suburbs, in which case you're not unemployed).

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Which you then add on top of the cost of owning a car because even in Minneapolis most people still own and drive cars.

The point is, the article itself is talking about people losing jobs and falling below the poverty level. It isn't any different then living in Minneapolis, losing a job and falling below the poverty level--you still don't have a job whether you live on a bus line or not so even buying a bus pass without any money is impossible. Of course, any time there is something remotely negative about the suburbs it gets posted here . For what ever reason it is ok to blast the suburbs but if anyone says anything negative about Minneapolis they report threads to the mods...

I think you are missing the fundamental point here: for people facing major financial struggles in areas with decent public transportation (whether in the city or the suburbs) they don't HAVE to have a car in the same way that they do in areas lacking real transit options; sure, they'd probably like to continue driving, but they can cut out that expense in the case of job loss and put that money towards things like food and housing. In that way living in a far-out suburb without good transit is VERY different than living in Minneapolis.

There have been many reports and studies coming out lately talking about the problems relating to poverty and transportation; owning and running a car is taking a bigger bite out of household budgets, and for some people -- including plenty of poor people in Twin Cities suburbs -- this is no small matter. Paying for a bus ride when needed is much, much cheaper than owning/driving a car. There's just no way around that. For those living in auto-dependent areas they don't have nearly as much leeway in cutting out that portion of their household budget.

Or we could just all collectively put our heads in the sand and pretend that there are no problems. We're not talking about the costs for middle class people with jobs; we're talking about people who have lost jobs and are desperately pinching every penny to get through these tough times.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Of course, any time there is something remotely negative about the suburbs it gets posted here . For what ever reason it is ok to blast the suburbs but if anyone says anything negative about Minneapolis they report threads to the mods...

Golfgal- There are of course going to be cultural differences between the urbanites and suburbanites and those that prefer one over the other (there are going to be many cases of, on average, persons that live in "x" environments prefer ____ amenities, politics, types of lifestyle; which may by virtue of this preference exclusionary to "x" groups). The stereotyping/bashing piece is going to happen, and yes, it is petty (and I'm not even sayign i'm innocent of this myself here).

But I also think you should take look at some of the root causes of some of the conflict on this board, specifically, is there anything you can see that you have done to create or perpetuate this type of mentality? I have seen you write off the entire City of Minneapolis and the entire Minneapolis Public Schools district on literally DOZENS of occassions on this board, as well as perpetuate beliefs/fears that crime is RAMPANT throughout the city- not only is this misleading, one could argue that part of your rationale for doing so is to promote your own suburban interests- I'm not saying I've never done the same thing, but I think what you don't realize is that people often also don't like living in suburbs of cities that they view as unhealthy, crime-ridden, and lacking in education or value- which couldn't be further from the truth in regards to the core cities of MInneapolis and St. Paul, and I think you should reflect on how the posting of 'anything remotely negative' about the suburbs might in fact be a reaction to some of the things stated by you on this board in your leadership position here (just as your doing so is at times a reaction to some of us urbanites' comments).

The core cities are more in need of newcomers/homebuyers, etc. than the suburban areas- there will always be a steady flow/influx into the suburban areas, but the detrimental stereotypes and fear-mongering targeted at the core city environments (and the fears of the 'unknown' or the 'other' or persons of certain, race, class, and ethnicies in some cases) is what leads to the 'flight' of persons with resources to suburban environments, which often times leaves core city neighborhoods in weakened, deteriorating, and/or at times blighted positions (I am not speaking about any one area or even the City of Minneapolis, although this is found here on some level as well- I'm more speaking of trends found in core cities/suburban expansion throughout the US).

[west336]

Sounds to me like the inevitable is already starting to happen -- older, high-quality housing stock central to most key amenities are becoming popular again and the cheap, suburban unplanned crap is losing interest and value -- on par with the rest of the world, for the most part.