As suggested earlier on these pages, the approved plan for the Central Corridor is at grade through the University of Minnesota campus, closing Washington Avenue to traffic. See the article in the Pioneer Press:
A lot of details still need to be worked out.
In response to letters from the President of the University of Minnesota, former U of Mn Regent, Peter Bell, currently Chair of the Metropolitan Council now endorses Central Corridor on Washington Avenue at grade.
Now maybe someone will seriously consider getting private cars off of Washington Avenue if it is such a safety and congestion trap (which of course it would be were cars, buses, trucks, light rail, pedestrians, and bicyclists trying to simultaneously use that space). The price would be much lower than a tunnel (some paint, some bollards, and a "Do Not Enter" sign for starters).
Think about it this way, construction is effectively going to close Washington Avenue to traffic anyway for some period of time, just keep it closed.
This not too technical link might help some university officials rethink the issue.
From Induced Demand to Reduced Demand
OR
Effects of Roadway Capacity Reductions.
The I-35W Bridge collapse provides another example. 140,000 trips crossed the Mississippi River Bridge before the collapse, according to MnDOT's Nick Thomson (presented at a seminar at the University of Minnesota), only 90,000 can be accounted for on other crossings.
Should Washington Avenue really be carrying traffic through campus? Should campus have a major thoroughfare in its midst?
Twins ballpark will have Minnesota flavor ... it is surrounded by parking ramps. Even parking ramps look nice in watercolor.
In this week's Downtown Journal Online, an article "A Streetcar Named Development" discusses the potential for streetcars for Minneapolis.
Streetcars would be the third distinct rail technology that the Twin Cities would have introduced in the course of a decade, following LRT and commuter rail, and of course bus remains. This technology proliferation is one of several issues that has been inadequately addressed. The greater the number of distinct technologies used, the lower the economies of scale that can be achieved with any one of them. While they serve somewhat different markets, they also serve overlapping markets, yet no consideration was given to using technology A in market B.
The more important concern is revealed by the closing quote from Teresa Wernecke, director of the Downtown Minneapolis Transportation Management Organization. '“With rail, you know where you’re going,” Wernecke said.' The implication is that with bus you don't. Why should that be?
The answer is the under-investment in buses over the past 50 years, in particular the lack of signage. Staff I have spoken with at the Metropolitan Council seem to think it would be too expensive to have simple signs which actually told you what bus stopped where and when (since the schedules apparently change). But it is not too expensive to deploy 3 new rail systems to make up for the institutional inadequecies of Metro Transit's bus operations.
To illustrate, compare this typical bus stop sign from Minneapolis
With this one from London
While this sign certainly does not solely explain London's higher transit ridership, it helps considerably. The F helps orient you from which stop (among many), which are all shown on a map. The sign tells you where you are and where the buses go, and which buses go there. The schedule shows you the frequency (or schedule) of buses. Further there are maps at every stop, along with schedules.
It might surprise people to know, but bus mode share in London (18%) is as high as Underground and Surface Rail combined (17%) according to Transport for London.
Other factors include traveler information, designated bus lanes, frequent shelters, etc. But underlying this is the attitude that buses should be given full support as a transit mode.
It is too bad Minneapolis is choosing to throw money at streetcars at $30 million per mile and provide no additional service rather than using those scarce resources to create a world-class bus system.
-- dml
Our first report in the Access to Destinations Series: Development of Accessibility Measures
has finally been released.
The most interesting finding (which still awaits corroboration) is that despite the rising congestion of the past decade, accessibility in the Twin Cities region (measured as the number of things (jobs, workers, etc.) that you can get to in a fixed period of time) has been improving. Clearly this would be because there are more things per unit time, not because you can cover more distance per unit time. Increasing density increases accessibility, this is why cities form in the first place, it is nice to see it in the data. More in the final report. Thanks to my colleague Ahmed El-Geneidy who did most of the number crunching.
Minnesota's Governor Pawlenty signs Twins stadium bill , bringing to an end the incessant pestering/lobbying/threatening by the Minnesota Twins for a new ball field at the public's expense.
The Minnesota Streetcar Museum, Minnesota's "other light rail" will be open for rides again. See related article in the Strib about rail nostalgia, when life was simpler and trains were faster than cars. All obsolete transportation systems become rides, what will we do with interstates once we get flying cars?