urbanMSP

Gov, in introducing new transport chief, say no new gas tax

What's up with that? I'm on a Northbound 10. Are we too fat for aisles?

Huh. Maybe trying to make it easier on-and-off for some high capacity routes? More standing room capacity?

^^^^ I would love that. I think US transit systems are too sitting focused sometimes. Especially on high frequency and express routes, I think it would be ok to have fewer seats so more people could board the bus.

I agree. Most urban locals would benefit from having a few less seats, especially near the rear door.

The problem with that solution is that Metro Transit is a very express-oriented operation, and their policy is to offer every single passenger a seat on express routes.

Something else that could help on the newer low floor bus is to simply discourage passengers from standing near the front of the bus.
I'd like to see two stickers placed inside the buses that would improve circulation and loading times, if followed:
1. Please exit through rear door (but again, not applicable to express routes due to "pay-exit")
2. Standing passengers please move as far back as possible.

I'm surprised and psyched to see that. Besides crush loads, greater floor area really comes in handy when you have luggage. I'd asked John Siqveland about the possibility of increased floor area a while ago and he seemed pessimistic.

In other transit news, on a hybrid bus doing a 14 route I took last night they interspersed the date and time on the LCD display with various paternalistic messages such as "don't get your smartphone stolen" and "don't be annoying about your smartphone". Anyone know if these messages are new or if I just haven't seen them? It would be funny if they were testing them out on the 14.

They're not unique to the 14. I've seen them on buses with lcd message deals across multiple routes.

I first saw the new LCD messages last Thursday (on my way to the Hobbit midnight showing).

The 10 this morning had the LCD displaying messages about language and volume. One of those 10s (either the H or the N, they come within a few minutes of each other) is timed to pickup a bunch of kids heading to Edison, I figure. Which is always great when I'm on that one.

Metro Transit wants to buy a six-acre site just north of the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit line in St. Paul’s Midway area.

Locked: http://finance-commerce.com/2012/12/met ... -property/

I assume this is for the previously announced facilities maintenance building, which I assume handles bus shelters, LRT station stuff, signs, etc. They are currently renting space somewhere in NE Mpls and wanted to purchase a larger site. It's crazy how many different facility buildings there are scattered around Mpls-St. Paul, not even inlcuding the 5 bus garages.

The article is behind a paywall, but maybe this is the long-talked about Hampden location?

QFT;

I agree. Most urban locals would benefit from having a few less seats, especially near the rear door.

The problem with that solution is that Metro Transit is a very express-oriented operation, and their policy is to offer every single passenger a seat on express routes.

Something else that could help on the newer low floor bus is to simply discourage passengers from standing near the front of the bus.
I'd like to see two stickers placed inside the buses that would improve circulation and loading times, if followed:
1. Please exit through rear door (but again, not applicable to express routes due to "pay-exit")
2. Standing passengers please move as far back as possible.

I'd also like to see a one way turnstile (that could easily be breached for fare payment, ADA, Winter Stops, etc) so rear door is default- I swear they had this in Europe

Of course, if Metro Transit gets militant about getting people to use the rear door, they'll have to find a way to keep bus stops clear of snow for the length of the vehicles that use them. Definitely not impossible, but it takes money and planning. There are also some stops where the policy is to keep the back door locked. Of course I say "some", but I only know of one -- the southbound route 84 stop right at St. Anthony Avenue, I-94's north-side frontage road. There's only a tiny triangle of concrete there because of the free right-hand turn. That stop might go away entirely when the CCLRT route reshuffling happens and the 94 runs direct without a Snelling stop.

Metro Transit wants to buy a six-acre site just north of the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit line in St. Paul’s Midway area.

Locked: http://finance-commerce.com/2012/12/met ... -property/

I assume this is for the previously announced facilities maintenance building, which I assume handles bus shelters, LRT station stuff, signs, etc. They are currently renting space somewhere in NE Mpls and wanted to purchase a larger site. It's crazy how many different facility buildings there are scattered around Mpls-St. Paul, not even inlcuding the 5 bus garages.

The property is 677 Transfer Road, which is directly across the street from the current Amtrak station. You're right about the proposed users, described as the "public facilities team" in the article.

So .0001% of exits will be done from front door by bypassing turnstile.
No reason not to make the other 99.99999% of rides more efficient

Tell our governor to support and prioritize transit!
http://fresh-energy.org/2012/12/take-ac ... -priority/

Not here, or anywhere near here, but China built a bullet train of epic proportions that it's certainly news:
187MPH and over 1400 miles long
China's New Bullet Train

1) FTA is adopting a simpler, more straightforward approach for measuring a proposed project’s cost-effectiveness. FTA will no longer require communities to compare a proposed project’s travel time savings against a hypothetical alternative project. Instead, FTA will look at the estimated cost to construct the project communities intend to build compared against a rigorously analyzed estimate for the number of passengers the project will serve.

[...]

3) FTA is adding new economic development factors to its ratings process. FTA currently looks at local plans and policies already in place to encourage economic development and how well they’re working in a given area. Going forward, a broader set of economic impacts will be included, such as whether local plans and policies maintain or increase affordable housing.

[...]

Uh, I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I really feel like we should redo the study for Southwest...

Question about change #1 in the analysis: so how will that affect which mode gets chosen? For example, whether to build at grade vs. tunnel underground for a segment.