Public Transit News / Current Events (MN only)

[Silophant]

Precisely. And they still get their share of Met Council funding.

[intercomnut]

You all should check out 7th and Hennepin sometime. The Metro Transit local buses are terrible about blocking that intersection during rush hour.

[Tcmetro]

The opt-outs were created in 1984 by state legislation, primarily because MTC had very poor suburban service. In some ways, things would be better without them (sometimes they are territorial/uncooperative with Met Council), but in a lot of cases they provide a more comprehensive service than Metro Transit would.

[xandrex]

You all should check out 7th and Hennepin sometime. The Metro Transit local buses are terrible about blocking that intersection during rush hour.

This. Especially the articulated buses that run on 7th. They're very content to run a red and then completely block the southbound Hennepin lanes. Happens on my way home from work at least 1-2 times per week.

[EOst]

Yep. Getting rid of opt-outs means better overall transit service (metrowide) but dramatically worse service in the suburbs, because commuter express buses have a much higher cost per rider than urban locals. (Metro Transit was(?) required by Minnesota law to have an unusually high farebox-recovery ratio, which exacerbated this.)

[Tcmetro]

The transit system as a whole is required to have a 30% farebox recovery rate, which is high but not too crazy. It's probably on the higher end on a nation wide scale.

Chicago transit is required at 50%, and some agencies with higher fares manage even higher (such as BART, which I believe is at 80-85%).

To see the difference in suburban service quality, a good comparison is Woodbury and Eden Prairie. EP has bi-hourly to hourly all day express service, all day dial a ride, very frequent peak service, some reverse commute and some local connections. Woodbury has a few peak expresses, that have 10-15 minute frequency, and a very skeletal reverse commute service.

[jebr]

The opt-outs were created in 1984 by state legislation, primarily because MTC had very poor suburban service. In some ways, things would be better without them (sometimes they are territorial/uncooperative with Met Council), but in a lot of cases they provide a more comprehensive service than Metro Transit would.

My question whenever something like this is the case: how are they able to provide that service when Metro Transit wasn't able to? Is it solely because Metro Transit wasn't prioritizing the suburban express market enough, or is there some actual cost savings that they have that Metro Transit is unable or unwilling to do?

[RailBaronYarr]

Many of them do contract out to transit providers, which may offer lower costs than MT given labor structures, etc. While we often saw how the suburban express buses are much more chushy than local routes, I also see a lot of Metrolink, Shakopee, and Prior Lake buses that look a generation older than much of the MT fleet. Maybe that's perception bias.

It's worth noting that almost none of the opt-outs get revenue directly from the city or whatever that opted out of MT service. So it's not like the city said "nuts to your farebox recovery limits that hinder express service, we're gonna opt out and fund the gap ourselves," they just get more money per rider than MT does from the state. Which, fine, but it's not like the residents of those communities valued better transit with their own money.

[DanPatchToget]

Awhile ago I saw an ad on a MVTA bus with a green circle around a MVTA bus and a red circle with a cross through a Metro Transit bus. MVTA had students from Burnsville High School (I believe) make ads promoting MVTA and public transit in general and this was one of them. I told MVTA to remove that particular ad because it may give people the impression that MVTA and Metro Transit are competing for riders. Thankfully they agreed.

[Tcmetro]

The opt-outs were created in 1984 by state legislation, primarily because MTC had very poor suburban service. In some ways, things would be better without them (sometimes they are territorial/uncooperative with Met Council), but in a lot of cases they provide a more comprehensive service than Metro Transit would.

My question whenever something like this is the case: how are they able to provide that service when Metro Transit wasn't able to? Is it solely because Metro Transit wasn't prioritizing the suburban express market enough, or is there some actual cost savings that they have that Metro Transit is unable or unwilling to do?

Public transit in the 1980s was much worse in the Twin Cities. MTC was known for incompetence and was generally considered a money hole. There were quite a few instances of fraud and theft within the agency, especially because there was basically no inventory system. Crime was also much higher then, the buses had a reputation for not being safe. MTC had to switch from leather padded seats to plastic seats because they would get cut up and burned.

Service was pretty awful in those days, too. Most routes were pretty confusing, a lot of routes would have 10-20 variations and the Minneapolis and St. Paul systems were separate and used duplicate route numbers. Service levels were rather poor too. The 2 bus used to have 40 minute frequencies, these days it runs every 10 minutes. The route structure was heavily designed after the streetcar routes and the private bus systems that preceded. Basically running 1950s routes. Met Council and MTC couldn't agree on how to expand transit, and funding from the state limited possibilities.

Suburbs at the time just wanted to be able to provide a bus service for their residents to get to downtown jobs. MVTA evolved their system into one that provides fairly decent local coverage too. SWT, Plymouth, Maple Grove are still more commuter focused. All this being said, they are able to provide better service to their residents than Metro Transit can offer to its suburban communities to this day.

[Qhaberl]

http://finance-commerce.com/2016/10/met ... ent-sites/

Locked.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lordmoke]

Nicollet Mall LRT phantom platform opening in March:
https://www.metrotransit.org/work-under ... n-platform

[Silophant]

How can it possibly take five months to finish that? The steel is up now, so it's down to installing the glass and the electronics.

[seanrichardryan]

The same could have been said for the A-Line stations, which seemed to take 18 months.

[Silophant]

Yeah, but at least there were dozens of A-Line stations.

But I guess it doesn't really matter, since this platform's basically pointless until 2021.

[twincitizen]

I also didn't see an explanation for why the work on it was halted for 2 years.

[acs]

Probably wasn't needed unless SWLRT was approved.

[Silophant]

That's my guess too.

[jebr]

Fare evasion on the two light rail lines is running between 8.3 and 10.4%, much higher than previous surveys have shown.

http://m.startribune.com/freeloading-on ... ection=%2F

[seanrichardryan]

Fare evasion up 5%, strib commenters go wild.
http://m.startribune.com/freeloading-on ... ection=%2F