6 ms·
The Twin Cities had a lot of catching up to do with transit, and only recently have we started to see the fruits of our labors. Both Minneapolis and St. Paul u
by mproud 12y ago
The Twin Cities had a lot of catching up to do with transit, and only recently have we started to see the fruits of our labors.
Both Minneapolis and St. Paul used to have very active streetcar systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_City_Rapid_Transit_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_City_Rapid_Transit_Compan...) in the first half of the 20th century, all of which were dismantled when they fell victim to politics and hostile tactics by the oil and auto industries. Unlike Chicago, for example, the Twin Cities have no subway or elevated train system — busing has been the only form of public transit for 50 years. (I think that might explain the article.) Only in the last 10 years have we seen light rail, bus rapid transit and commuter trains. (In fact, like him or not, former governor Jesse Ventura played a significant part in getting the Blue Line built, the first light rail transit in the Twin Cities.)
As others mentioned, cycling turns out to be a decent alternative for commuting. The area has an excellent park system (which is part of the reason why the Twin Cities ranks at the top of livability indexes) and this has benefited cyclists, as almost all park and waterfronts are interconnected by separated bicycle paths. Buses and light rail are outfitted with bike racks, making it easier getting about.
Despite all this, the larger metropolitan area is still one of the least dense in the nation, much of it brought on by significant urban sprawl in the 1990s. A car is still practically a necessity, especially if you live further out than the first-ring suburbs.
Still, we’re seeing positive change. We have a huge apartment boom going on, with a scary low vacancy rate. The population of people living in downtown Minneapolis has grown from almost nothing 20 years ago to over 30,000 people today. And with more people living in the city, particularly in projects built next to the light rail, this means more are utilizing public transit — each public transit addition in the last 10 years has been a success, which has fueled future projects (you could argue the North Star commuter rail has underperformed). The Green Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METRO_Green_Line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METRO_Green_Line), which opened only 6 weeks ago finally connects the downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul via light rail. And it looks like the Southwest Corridor is going to happen, too.
- evgen 12y agoPlease stop perpetuating the bogus "oil/gas/auto companies killed the streetcars" myth. Streetcars/trams/light-rail is always a bad idea unless it is segregated from regular traffic and even in that case it still loses to several alternatives. Every possible justification for this form of public transit died by the middle of the 20th century. The only reason for such systems now is to amuse tourists.
- toddmorey 12y agoI think looking for one single cause in any complex transformation is a bad idea, but like most myths, it's an exaggeration of a kernel of truth. An equality frustrating myth is the idea that pure market forces led us into our current auto-based transportation system because it's just superior to public transport in every way. I think were that the case, public transit would have waned more evenly worldwide. But I am curious (genuinely) about the other alternatives you mention.
- cbhl 12y ago> Streetcars/trams/light-rail is always a bad idea unless it is segregated from regular traffic I find this interesting, since there is a lot of mixed light rail traffic in the San Francisco Bay Area, whereas in my hometown of Richmond Hill, Canada, there is ongoing construction of segregated bus lanes (with the intention of building light rail over the bus lanes in the next ten years). What were the arguments for mixed light-rail/roads, and what are the current counterarguments that make buses and/or segregated light rail strictly better?
- hapless 12y agoSeparate rights of way are the only way to ensure on-time service. Bus "bunching" is an unsolved mathematical problem. Traffic is just not predictable, and since buses follow a defined route, they have an even worse time of it than the average driver (who only goes from point A to B, with flexible routing) This is equally true whether you use rail or bus. A bus system on dedicated busways can be just as fast and reliable as a traditional subway. A rail system running at-grade in traffic will suffer the same low ridership and stigmatization as a regular bus line. Advantages to buses on dedicated busways: They're slightly cheaper than rail development. Advantages to rail on dedicated railways: Much greater capacity than a bus system. More "headroom" to upgrade capacity. Segregated lanes in an at-grade system are a half-measure at best. It gets you nowhere close to the service improvements made possible by a dedicated RoW. A bus system with segregated lanes is just a slightly faster bus system. A bus system running on dedicated busways is rapid transit.
- deleted 12y ago