Bus-only shoulders move you past congestion
metrotransit.org
metrotransit.org
Now about those winters...
As far as the winters go… it’s kind of a roll of the die. Sometimes we have very mild winters where it barely snows at all. And then other years we get brutal weather like last winter, which forces rare parking restrictions where you can only park on one side of the street. However, when it does snow, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Mn/DOT are incredibly efficient when it comes to plowing streets and highways.
I actually live on the outskirts of Minneapolis and all the bike trails are usually plowed clean before most of the streets. The bike paths are used year round and the cities work together to make sure they stay clear, even during snowstorms.
I have several co-workers who ride year round and swear they've never had to ride on a trail with a ton of snow.
And besides, all you have to do now is strap on your FAT tires and you're good!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-04P3j7-1VkY/TyjLZ2MPIcI/AAAAAAAAGO...
Well, some Minnesotans consider the winters a feature, not a bug. They keep the Californians out.
I accept my downvotes with dignity.
> Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended at high speed.
If you like reading and have ever spent more than an hour or two thinking about traffic and American car culture, consider reading this http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/03072...
Both Minneapolis and St. Paul used to have very active streetcar systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_City_Rapid_Transit_Compan...) in the first half of the 20th century, all of which were dismantled when they fell victim to politics and hostile tactics by the oil and auto industries. Unlike Chicago, for example, the Twin Cities have no subway or elevated train system — busing has been the only form of public transit for 50 years. (I think that might explain the article.) Only in the last 10 years have we seen light rail, bus rapid transit and commuter trains. (In fact, like him or not, former governor Jesse Ventura played a significant part in getting the Blue Line built, the first light rail transit in the Twin Cities.)
As others mentioned, cycling turns out to be a decent alternative for commuting. The area has an excellent park system (which is part of the reason why the Twin Cities ranks at the top of livability indexes) and this has benefited cyclists, as almost all park and waterfronts are interconnected by separated bicycle paths. Buses and light rail are outfitted with bike racks, making it easier getting about.
Despite all this, the larger metropolitan area is still one of the least dense in the nation, much of it brought on by significant urban sprawl in the 1990s. A car is still practically a necessity, especially if you live further out than the first-ring suburbs.
Still, we’re seeing positive change. We have a huge apartment boom going on, with a scary low vacancy rate. The population of people living in downtown Minneapolis has grown from almost nothing 20 years ago to over 30,000 people today. And with more people living in the city, particularly in projects built next to the light rail, this means more are utilizing public transit — each public transit addition in the last 10 years has been a success, which has fueled future projects (you could argue the North Star commuter rail has underperformed). The Green Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METRO_Green_Line), which opened only 6 weeks ago finally connects the downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul via light rail. And it looks like the Southwest Corridor is going to happen, too.
An equality frustrating myth is the idea that pure market forces led us into our current auto-based transportation system because it's just superior to public transport in every way. I think were that the case, public transit would have waned more evenly worldwide.
But I am curious (genuinely) about the other alternatives you mention.
I find this interesting, since there is a lot of mixed light rail traffic in the San Francisco Bay Area, whereas in my hometown of Richmond Hill, Canada, there is ongoing construction of segregated bus lanes (with the intention of building light rail over the bus lanes in the next ten years).
What were the arguments for mixed light-rail/roads, and what are the current counterarguments that make buses and/or segregated light rail strictly better?
This is equally true whether you use rail or bus. A bus system on dedicated busways can be just as fast and reliable as a traditional subway. A rail system running at-grade in traffic will suffer the same low ridership and stigmatization as a regular bus line.
Advantages to buses on dedicated busways: They're slightly cheaper than rail development.
Advantages to rail on dedicated railways: Much greater capacity than a bus system. More "headroom" to upgrade capacity.
Segregated lanes in an at-grade system are a half-measure at best. It gets you nowhere close to the service improvements made possible by a dedicated RoW. A bus system with segregated lanes is just a slightly faster bus system. A bus system running on dedicated busways is rapid transit.
Every transit agency in the country was already investigating busses to replace street-level rail and trolley-bus systems. Lower costs (both up front and operating), greater route flexibility, and new capabilities seemed like a slam dunk.
The "conspiracy" was an attempt to corner the market on the already-inevitable replacement of legacy non-rapid transit systems. The conspirators were willing to spend a good deal of money to make certain that transit groups would buy GM buses with Firestone tires, not Ford and Michelin.
This safety mechanism is not required when traffic is congested and moving slowly. Thus Minnesota can allow buses to use the shoulder when traffic is moving slowly without compromising the safety benefits of the shoulder.
here we go: http://www.pacebus.com/sub/vision2020/expressway_brt.asp