urbanMSP

Somebody was high.

or not high enough. That mascot might be the dumbest thing I have seen in a long while. Are they serious? Who in their right mind saw that and thought it was a good idea?

This decision screams "consultant work" or "market research." Then when there were results/suggestions no one spoke up and said "No, that is a bad idea. Good for sports teams, bad for transportation."

I imagine "T" will be short lived.

This decision screams "consultant work" or "market research." Then when there were results/suggestions no one spoke up and said "No, that is a bad idea. Good for sports teams, bad for transportation."

I imagine "T" will be short lived.

I mean it seems to be a kid-focused approach, and we're certainly not that market. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but making train and bus rides feel more fun and safe to children as they grow older is only creating more riders. I can see how this costumed... friend... could help that. It's not the best idea and I really don't know if it'll actually work, but that's my theory on what they're going for here.

First they created the Michelin Man, and I did not speak out, because I was not a tire executive.
Then they created the Pillsbury Doughboy, and I did not speak out, because I was not a flour magnate.
Then they created the Energizer Bunny, and I did not speak out, because I'm all about the rechargables.
Then they came for my bus, and there was nobody to say "no" to these high-as-fu&k mascot pushers.

Bring it on down to Transitville!

Bring it on down to Transitville!

A+

Can someone explain the 27 and 39 to me? Are they just circulator routes connecting Downtown Express routes and the Blue Line with the hospitals and other large employers in the Midtown area?

27 = circulator that connects the Blue Line and Route 535 (Orange Line) with the hospital and Wells Fargo employment centers. When I lived in Whitter, I used it a couple times to connect with LRT to the airport. Quicker to walk eastward to Phillips than down to Lake for the slow ass 21.

Throughout most of the day, Route 27 is operated with just a single bus & driver running the loop. It requires a second bus for a brief period during AM & PM peak where it increases frequency. It is really efficient from that standpoint.

39 = Route 5 substitute for white suburban folks transferring from express buses. There's no reason for its existence other than that. I have no idea how well used it is, but aside from getting closer to Wells Fargo's campus it is extremely duplicative of the Route 5.

27 was once a much longer route that operated between downtown and 34th Ave/Hwy 62. It was created in 2004 for the light rail restructuring, combining the old 7 and 22 on the south side. There were several further restructures, resulting in the 9 taking over the Park/Portland service and the 7 taking over the Minnehaha/34th Ave service. This more or less made it the 26th/28th shuttle it is now.

Did we see this yet?
Metro Transit plans a ‘better bus stop experience’
http://finance-commerce.com/2015/03/met ... xperience/

Apparently our 90's era lane assistance buses are the current pinnacle of automated bus systems.

http://www.citylab.com/tech/2015/03/don ... on/387844/

It's hard not to see how mass transit isn't utterly screwed in the face of rapidly approaching automated cars when the only major automation technology even being developed by bus manufacturers is a pedestrian warning system. You know, the same system you can already get equipped on most fords.

Eh, all that means is that bus manufacturers haven't jumped on the hypewagon. The basics of driving a bus are identical to the basics of driving a car (or, more accurately, a large truck, for which automation is absolutely being developed), so there's absolutely no reason why driverless car tech couldn't be directly applied to buses, when it's actually mature enough to be used. When the driverless revolution comes (it's not imminent, despite what Google wants you to think), the biggest impediment to its implementation is going to be the driver's unions, not the inability of bus manufacturers to deliver autonomabuses.

P&R usage in some parts of the region fell in the last year, while in other places it is nearing or over capacity: http://finance-commerce.com/transit/201 ... -capacity/

Before we get a #strongtowns #hottake, I'd heed the first sentence of the article: "A new survey on the seven-county region’s park-and-ride system shows that a little more than half of the spaces are being used, but that rate doesn’t necessarily mean the system is overbuilt."

From my review of a 2012 P&R system survey, many of the little used P&R spaces are the ones at churches or other quasi-public facilities that have vast parking lots, but comparatively few users. Across the system, usage is quite high at the purpose-built P&R facilities owned by Metro Transit (or opt-out providers). I'm not defending the massive parking subsidy we hand out to far-flung suburban commuters, but I just wanted to make sure no one jumped on that "little more than half" usage stat.

#hottake is: Park & rides are a complete waste of money and a failure of land use whether or not they're being used.

In lieu of Park & Rides, we'll just send out a massive fleet of mini-buses crawling through the cul-de-sacs of the suburbs to collect transit riders.

*puts a bag of pop secret in the microwave*

In lieu of Park & Rides, we'll just send out a massive fleet of mini-buses crawling through the cul-de-sacs of the suburbs to collect transit riders.

If we could get off our ass and actually push the development of driver-less buses we could do exactly that.

^I think you'll find that cul-de-sac dwellers will be even more frightened by unmanned, roving buses in their neighborhoods than a bus with a driver.

Certainly park n rides are less-bad than freeway expansions, but that's kind of a false choice there. Was it worth the $9m to construct the Lakeville Park n Ride to collect all of 600 daily riders on a bus that doesn't integrate with the urban fleet, costs more to buy, and requires higher subsidy to operate than urban local/express buses (and parking ramp)? That's a lot of money to spend on only marginally reducing highway volumes. 87,000 vehicles use I-35 a day at that particular park n ride. I suppose 1,200 people fewer is a 1.3% reduction, but could we have funded that park n ride and/or bus route from MnPass fees rather than the the federal funds that built the ramp & regional transit dollars subsidizing the route?

I'm trying to be pragmatic and agree we need some sort of an 'all of the above' strategy to work with the land uses/transportation system we've got. I won't say "complete" waste of money, as it implies absolutely zero benefit for the results (which DO include reduced VMT, pollution, road spending, cars on downtown streets, etc). I just don't know the calculus that says if we have $X to spend on transit, allocating a decent chunk of it to suburban park n rides that barely limit the problems we have is a better policy option than something else.