urbanMSP

It's so frustrating that the environmental counterfactual some people think of is people living... nowhere? rather than the counterfactual of development somewhere else, in a form that would clearly be worse for the environment.

Does this mean we can turn the tables and sue every other city in the metro for not doing an environmental review and harming the environment by not allowing MORE density?

Adam Platt writes in the Strib about the 2040 plan hinging on a transit system the city has zero control over.

https://www.startribune.com/the-2040-eq ... 600337693/

30-minute times come in for big criticism as affecting reduced transit use. Crappy transit will just induce car use.

This is a fair criticism. The city really needs a hand at the wheel over transit in its borders if development is based on useful transit.

Adam Platt writes in the Strib about the 2040 plan hinging on a transit system the city has zero control over.

https://www.startribune.com/the-2040-eq ... 600337693/

30-minute times come in for big criticism as affecting reduced transit use. Crappy transit will just induce car use.

This is a fair criticism. The city really needs a hand at the wheel over transit in its borders if development is based on useful transit.

I think he forgets though that there are currently 6 METRO lines either under construction or in the planning stages in the Minneapolis boundaries. 2 of those are LRT and 4 are BRT. Plus, Metro Transit is releasing Network Now in the spring to guide system wide increases in service for the local bus routes as well. I think the opinion piece is short sighted and completely disregards all the transit expansion actually happening in Minneapolis.