urbanMSP

True. Although it's always fascinating to me to hear conservatives cry that the Met Council isn't elected. If it was elected by the metropolitan population, it seems to me that it would skew more liberal in theory than appointment by a governor (a statewide officeholder which generally serves a constituency slightly more conservative than just the metro).

I don't know about that. Minneapolis and St. Paul are probably the two most liberal parts of the metro, but do you think they're more liberal than Susan Haigh? If the Council ends up being conservative overall, it's more because there are institutional and legal incentives up and down the line, from the federal level on down, which encourage conservatism and minimum-acceptable service.

Making the Council elected would encourage each of the commissioners to focus on parochial, district-level concerns rather than overall metro needs--exactly what the Council is intended to prevent. Do we really need some guy from Stillwater pledging to do everything in his power to stop public transit growth on the Council?

The problem is that the Met Council isn't actually progressive. Heck, even our Hennepin County commissioners aren't progressive. They might think they are, but their strategies and outcomes say otherwise.

The Met Council has really been an agent of sprawl and automobile-oriented growth more than it has been an agent of regionalism, restraint, and seeking valuable growth.

Honestly we might be better off if we just scrap this failed concept of regionalism, and we let regionalism happen organically letting market forces have a place that say distant suburbs don't deserve transit OR better roads.

Honestly we might be better off if we just scrap this failed concept of regionalism, and we let regionalism happen organically letting market forces have a place that say distant suburbs don't deserve transit OR better roads.

The reason we created the Met Council in the first place is that that approach didn't work.

that approach didn't work.

Because we failed to allow market forces to work. We built freeways where there was no economic justification to build freeways. We now have a severely unproductive land use that is bankrupting every level of government, making Americans poor and unhealthy, and leading to plenty of regressive outcomes. The Met Council has been complicit with that regressive land use.

Larger, higher levels of government can do good at a larger scale and do damage at the same larger scale.

Having that larger higher level of government can get either good or bad done faster.

Set of maps comparing LRT frequencies across the country, we do quite good.

http://www.intermodality.us/?p=1516

Beat Portland and Seattle, that's all I care about

I kid though both amazing cities

Devil is in the details of all political institutions. I understand the reasoning that a technocratic Council insulated from political pressure can do more things than a democratic body, but the Met Council also appears to be hesitant at times because of its lack of legitimacy. It's a kind of unelected federalism, which is just about the worst form of government. The flip side of being insulated from political pressure is there's way fewer consequences for failure.

I would personally argue for a structure that elected 1/2-2/3 of the Council in a metro-wide contest, and the other 1/3 - 1/2 in large multi-member districts that did not have to correspond with existing jurisdictional boundaries (other than perhaps keeping precincts whole). Ranked choice voting, of course.

That would make for a Council that focused on metropolitan concerns, but it would have to be empowered to do so, probably by transferring assets to it so it has more financial stake in its decisions.

It's no accident that peer cities outside the United States that have better transit mode share and better density have better regional governments. Melbourne, Brisbane, all the Canadian metros, Auckland. London has made huge improvements in transit in the last decade since the reforms to the council there.

Toronto's streetcars evoke some rage from streetcar riders.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/15 ... ederated=1

One take away, dedicated ROW streetcars seem to be viewed as less of a fiasco.

I think that has a lot less to do with the nature of streetcars than the peculiar problems of Toronto, which is trying to carry on with a system designed for a city half its density and transit use.

One take away, dedicated ROW streetcars seem to be viewed as less of a fiasco.

Minneapolis will never, ever be Toronto. So comparing the street car(s) planned for our city and theirs isn't even fair. Perhaps if NYC had streetcars, you could compare. Toronto is HUGE. Even their subway is subpar to Montreal's or Vancouver's in many ways - even though the city is larger. Streetcars work in a lot of ways (even for Toronto), but to assume it's a great means of moving tons of people efficiently in a city of 6+ million people is just insane.

A better comparison (if that's what you're wanting to do), is to look at Portland. That's who our city leaders have been working with and studying for the past decade.

There was no comparison. Just noting that the lines where streetcars had operators needing to keep alert for bad behavior from truck drivers and auto drivers caused less anger from the streetcar riders.

also, never ever be Toronto? you realize not a single person lived here 200 years ago, and our planet is only so big and fragile. you have no idea what Minneapolis will be like in 100 years. I'm not saying we have to plan for 6 million today but it's not THAT unlikely.

also, never ever be Toronto? you realize not a single person lived here 200 years ago, and our planet is only so big and fragile. you have no idea what Minneapolis will be like in 100 years. I'm not saying we have to plan for 6 million today but it's not THAT unlikely.

If we're honestly going to be talking about how we shouldn't build streetcars just in case we triple in size in 100 years, we have a real problem with our priorities.

New 865 express beginning next month from Minneapolis to Blaine, Ham Lake, and East Bethel.

http://www.metrotransit.org/new-route-865-express

A presentation on the upgrade to the Rail Control Center, for the nerds amongst us...
http://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meeting ... ation.aspx

So the new platforms at Target Field are known as "Station Square". Good to know, I guess. Maybe.

A presentation about automated stop announcements on buses:

http://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meeting ... ments.aspx

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.

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.