Courtesy of the Transport Politic (click pic to link or click link below)
Back in 2007, Minneapolis announced an effort to replace some of the cities most popular and shorter (so non-express, non-suburban or connectors) bus lines with modern street cars to much fan fare. RT Rybak for years has championed this cause and was on the approach to getting city approval. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's hostile criteria for federal funding assistance stalled the street car plans to which even Rybak pointed out in his State of the City address as one of his biggest non-accomplishments. But with the election of a more transit friendly administration, the
Minneapolis City Council is set to embrace a long term street car plan along the densest corridors in the city providing cheap and relatively reliable service to the transit dependent while hopefully encouraging even more dense development that was characteristic of the 2000 to 2008 boom.
Of course, this always leads to the argument about whether this sort of funding is worth it and the inevitable "why are we subsidizing". To be frank, I find this argument rather pointless as pretty much all modes of transportation (with very few notable exceptions) require some sort of public funds either through local or state bonding and usually with a federal grant. So highway or street car, we're using public funds. At this point in American urban development, our network of highways is for the most part "complete" and the vast majority of highway projects are usually interchange re-planning or widening with the miles of new limited access roads decreasing. In terms of societal efficiency, we just don't really have the room for highways with similar levels of car dependencies. If the US does reach the 450 million mark around 2050, and the population continues to urbanize, we have to move the extra 140 million people and the net gain in cars from this population growth has to be very small. The US can't afford financially to both build and maintain hundreds of thousands of new highway lane miles and its accompanying demand for resources. I don't doubt the benefit of interstate highways, but as the US struggles with oil dependencies and chronic congestion, we have no choice but to invest in these forms of mass transit, even if it comes at a somewhat greater public financing cost. Highways are quickly becoming antiqued and inefficient. States that are increasingly highway based also face the economic weight of gas prices now becoming an increasing burden,
especially on Sunbelt states that have generally avoided mass transit. In addition to the increased societal cost of increased highway construction, and the impending oil demands, there's also the added health cost of being a sedentary population, stuck in traffic jams for hours at a time. Cities with great massive transit plans also tend to have lower rates of obesity and obesity related diseases just from the fact that you have to walk to and from transit entrance and exit points. So in a way, mass transit has a hidden cost BENEFIT that is never included in federal funds requests. Of course, no individual project can claim a reduction in municipal fat but the evidence is clear.
In the planning community, street cars have a love-hate relationship with many. One the one hand, street cars are slow, operate in traffic, and are usually limited in scope. However, there is no doubt that these street cars have time and time again encouraged development and promote commuting and even equalize racial disparities in ridership. Unfortunately, whites tend to avoid mass transit buses in droves but change it to a street car which is essentially no different, and its a hip new clean way to travel. Its unfortunate that mass transit has to combat on social preconceptions as well as financial ones, but its the reality of American transit. So as illogical as street cars are compared to other lines, they still get the job done and encourage growth and at a significantly lower cost than light rail. Many of the lines proposed in Minneapolis' transit plan are barely a mile long (at first) but can see tens of thousands of riders a day at 1/10th the cost of a light rail line.
I think Minneapolis is doing a great job so far in its mass transit planning (of course, implementation is a whole 'nother story) and its approach is very systematic and reasonable. Minneapolis' plan is to use a gambit of transit options to meet generally at one intermodal station that would connect buses, BRT, commuter rail, light rail, taxis, street cars and even bikes and skyways in downtown using the best solution for each corridor necessary. This is a logical plan that I'm surprised many cities aren't following through with. Yes, many cities beat Minneapolis in current mass transit construction, but many of the systems I've looked at run independently from the other systems or at best intersect haphazardly here and there.
Personally, I just like the fact that Minneapolis used its new baseball stadium to anchor the intermodal station which will be constructed in the coming years.
PotD #5
Reflections on the Mississippi River late night in Saint Paul. Again... not studying when I should have been.
Subscribe
