urbanMSP

Or for folks who are blind. I've seen a number of occasions where a blind transit rider asks me or someone else to let them know when they get to a particular stop.

What confuses me the most about bus drivers announcing the stops is microphone quality. Some of them are perfectly understandable over the speakers, some sound like they're yelling into water, and some don't even have the mic and/or speakers on (and I don't think realize it) so you can only hear if you're at the front of the bus.

Shakopee voted to merge transit with MVTA, so if Prior Lake goes along at tonight's City Council meeting BlueExpress will be rolled into MVTA.

http://finance-commerce.com/2014/08/sha ... with-mvta/

While Shakopee officials voiced support for the merger and all voted in favor of it, the city has lingering concerns that its transit service could be cut in the future.

...

“The reality is … transit funding has been pretty volatile,” said Michael Leek, the city’s community development director. “And if transit funding in the legislative session coming up were to be cut substantially, then probably everyone who is a part of MVTA would have to see some transportation cuts.”

Nevermind Shakopee's former longtime State Rep Michael Beard fought transit funding at every turn in his role as chairman of the House Transportation Commitee and Scott County opted out of the CTIB.

Approximately 70% of the bus fleet will be capable of the announcements by the end of the year, with all buses capable by 2017. Looks like they aim to have most urban local buses have the announcements by November, and be fully implemented by early next year.

About time! Other places have only had this for 15 years now.

If I were I visitor I'd be really pissed at how often drivers don't announce stops.

I'm a daily bus user who knows the area and it pisses me off

While Shakopee officials voiced support for the merger and all voted in favor of it, the city has lingering concerns that its transit service could be cut in the future.

...

“The reality is … transit funding has been pretty volatile,” said Michael Leek, the city’s community development director. “And if transit funding in the legislative session coming up were to be cut substantially, then probably everyone who is a part of MVTA would have to see some transportation cuts.”

Nevermind Shakopee's former longtime State Rep Michael Beard fought transit funding at every turn in his role as chairman of the House Transportation Commitee and Scott County opted out of the CTIB.

Which is why I think it's our responsible (collectively as an urban/transit advocacy group) to write to reporters who either omit details like this from articles because of poor reporting or just plain laziness. We have to point out hypocrisies when we see them - at the very lease, out of principal. If the article made no mention of MVTA funding typically being advocated against by one or more of the area's Representatives - that's really bad.

New changes effective 8/23. Two new park & rides: this one for a cool $10 million


image from Metro Transit

and this one located in a "largely undeveloped" area (a senior center will soon provide easy fodder for people wanting to play Carmageddon in real life since the area is treacherous even for able-bodied adults not shielded by a metal bubble). As for people along heavily used and underserved routes in urban areas, it's another "go fuck yourselves". Again. Have fun at the bus stops this winter! It's not like people live in the cities anyway. Is it just me or does it seem disingenuous to claim that city residents need the suburbs for transit funding when it turns out we're always footing the bill for expensive projects like these park & rides and get no service improvements over and over again? Would a Twin Cities-only system really pale in comparison to what we have today? Hard to believe that it would,

Transit funding isn't a zero sum game. The limit is what the legislature decides to budget. If the governor and his met Council appointees decide to trim suburban service in favor of urban routes, you can bet the influential and numerous legislators in the suburbs won't support transit.

The constituency for an urban only transit system is very limited and probably doesn't include senator Dibble of Minneapolis, chair of transportation finance.

You can disbelieve reality if complaining when your most ideal policy outcomes don't come to fruition makes your smug little heart flutter but I personally like to live in reality.

park and rides might not be the best use of transit dollars but they do help reinforce downtown Minneapolis as the employment center of the metropolitan area. Forcing more single occupancy vehicles downtown isn't good for urbanism downtown nor does it make downtown a more desirable place to work.

Has anyone done all the math on this (#dothemath)? I'd be curious if, for example, the core cities contribute more on net to operating expenses than they use, or at the very least, see what the comparison is between the core cities and first ring suburbs vs farther out (or maybe just Hennepin & Ramsey county vs the rest of the Metro counties, however you want to define that).

Same with the CTIB. It's said that we have to keep the non-core counties to pay for expansion in Hennepin & Ramsey counties, but with flops like the Red Line, is that really true? What would happen if Hennepin & Ramsey went it alone?

It would all depend on the assumptions. Does the fifty grand in Minnesota income tax paid by Nicollet Mall lawyer count towards Minneapolis or Wayzata where his home is? How about the sales tax on his Guthrie season tickets?

The mvst makes up a sizeable portion of transit funding and I imagine the core cities make out pretty well since they get the majority of service but their residents buy fewer cars.

It may not actually be possible to figure it out for operations that come from statewide funding, without making a bunch of assumptions that weight the analysis in one direction or another.

But the CTIB should be able to be broken out fairly easily, right?

Transit funding isn't a zero sum game. The limit is what the legislature decides to budget. If the governor and his met Council appointees decide to trim suburban service in favor of urban routes, you can bet the influential and numerous legislators in the suburbs won't support transit.

The constituency for an urban only transit system is very limited and probably doesn't include senator Dibble of Minneapolis, chair of transportation finance.

You can disbelieve reality if complaining when your most ideal policy outcomes don't come to fruition makes your smug little heart flutter but I personally like to live in reality.

Like the reality that Minneapolis had better mass transit w/o the burbs?

Like the reality that Minneapolis had better mass transit w/o the burbs?

Umm...that transit *went* to the burbs. Its whole raison d'être was real estate development in the boonies.

You realize our most successful transit program in the 20's and 30's was all "burbs"

I find 10 million dollars on a parking ramp a waste also. with solar panels golly aren't we "green". just put some black top down and enjoy the surface parking. so what is the best use of these limited dollars?

spend some money giving bus routes adequate stops. ride the 18 sometime. laughable the amount of busy stops with inadequate signage let alone a proper shelter for our cold months. and then the sheltered stop at lake and nicollet across from kmart was removed for a stop on blaisdell. and then the white castle will complain about bus riders "loitering" in front of the restaurant. and don't get me started on the 5 line. but of course we'd rather give "cadillac" transit to suburbanites with cars. wonderful transit system we have here. end of rant.

Umm...that transit *went* to the burbs. Its whole raison d'être was real estate development in the boonies.

But those were urban suburbs, not suburban suburbs. Even NPR made the distinction this morning when describing Ferguson, MO as an "urban suburb."

But those were urban suburbs, not suburban suburbs. Even NPR made the distinction this morning when describing Ferguson, MO as an "urban suburb."

They were cornfields before the transit got there. They built up as they did based on the forms of transportation available.

Why should we not expect Eden Prairie to increase its density around SWLRT? It happened with rail transit a century ago, why not today? Sure, it won't be *exactly* the same because cars are here and they're not going away. New development will provide parking. But it can provide it in a way more compatible with transit. I just don't see why providing quality transit to suburbs (even suburban ones) is so evil. It's essential for lots and lots of reasons.

I don't expect the same pattern of development around highway BRT because the service quality is so much lower. It's not nearly as attractive an amenity so developers won't see the same reward/risk ratio as with rail transit.

And yes, the park-n-ride palaces are an abomination.

Why should we not expect Eden Prairie to increase its density around SWLRT? It happened with rail transit a century ago, why not today? Sure, it won't be *exactly* the same because cars are here and they're not going away. New development will provide parking. But it can provide it in a way more compatible with transit. I just don't see why providing quality transit to suburbs (even suburban ones) is so evil. It's essential for lots and lots of reasons.

I don't think providing quality transit to suburban suburbs is evil, I just think it is a waste of scarce resources that could otherwise be spent improving transit to and between urban suburbs/cities/towns.

Cap'n Transit says it best here: http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2013/01 ... ng-by.html

SWLRT to Eden Prairie might make sense in a world where we raise the gas tax to pay the true cost of roads and/or toll our urban freeways. Or in a world where we reform zoning code and design standards to build places rather than sprawlscapes (right now we subsidize the heck out of "free" suburban parking for distant job centers). Or even in a world where we charge an appropriate rate for car storage at a park & ride. Without those matching reforms to cease the all-in madness that props up SWLRT's competition, it is indeed a waste to build SWLRT yet pay even more to make sure it loses.

Umm...that transit *went* to the burbs. Its whole raison d'être was real estate development in the boonies.

But those were urban suburbs, not suburban suburbs. Even NPR made the distinction this morning when describing Ferguson, MO as an "urban suburb."

This is an urbanism-oriented forum, so of course we have to qualify if the suburbs we're talking about are "urban" or "suburban" in form: every, single goddamn time.

Say what? http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3532191.shtml?cat=1
"KSTP-TV Takes Metro Transit to Court" (not what you'd think)