Apple Valley’s $21 million nightmare, the transit station which spans both sides of Cedar and probably has been closed more than it has been open due to various stages of construction and has a roof which is bubbling and an expensive and useless security system, may soon gain a cousin at the planned station at 147th and Cedar. While the transit stations themselves are a forgone conclusion, according to the StarTribune, the Apple Valley City Council desperately wants another skyway to (dis)grace the Cedar landscape.
From the article:
Construction of the stations at 140th and 147th Streets — including equipping them with security cameras, security phones, ticketing machines and connections to control centers — will determine the opening date, said Patrick Jones, assistant director of facilities engineering at Metro Transit. “It’s just not a simple project.”
Construction bids from firms competing to build the stations will be opened Sept. 10 before the Metropolitan Council, Jones said. The bids will show the cost of the stations with and without a skyway over Cedar at the 147th Street station.
If Apple Valley finds the price right, it will pick up the cost of the skyway at 147th.
As someone who opted for mass transit from Apple Valley to downtown Minneapolis every single day for nearly four years while believing that mass transit is a very important part of our transportation system, let me be the first to say, “this is a complete and utter waste of time, money and energy.” Yes, I understand the City Council’s desire to pretend that they will gain ridership and use of the system if there are precautions taken to increase the level of safety and visibility of the stations; even at the detriment to the already tacky looking stretch of roadway, but the City and the County are quite confused if they really believe they are going to get the transit numbers they claim when the cities along the route and the MVTA simply do not have the infrastructure available to properly support BRT.
While I have, for years, been speaking out against BRT and the massive waste of money that it is as well as the fact that they will, and you can mark my words here people, get rid of almost every single express route downtown in order to get ridership numbers up on this disgusting failure all while tripling the amount of time it takes to get downtown (45 minutes to MOA and 45 minutes to Downtown as opposed to the 35 minutes it now takes), Sank takes a more lighthearted approach in his critique of the hellhole this miserable project has become, however he makes a phenomenal point about the second planned skyway over Cedar:
The Star Tribune reported this week that the project is running almost a year behind, the current hold up is the construction of the stations along the route. Apparently, our city council and the Met Council are very concerned about the esthetics of the stations along the route;
“Apple Valley’s view is that to attract riders, the busway must be an attractive, safe and pleasant experience — and from the beginning if possible, City Administrator Tom Lawell said”
And now I believe I’ve found the root of the problem. Our elected officials are enamored with the majesty of the project and not the practical application of it. With all due respect, the key to attracting riders is providing them with reliable and fast service to destinations that make sense. Back in the day when the Apple Valley Transit Station was nothing more than a Plexiglas shelter in an abandoned parking lot, it was always packed. Packed because the primary transit users in town, commuters, were looking for a fast convenient way to get downtown, and the bus provides this service. No one takes the bus simply because the station is neat.
No one takes the bus simply because the station is neat. This. Full stop. What people want are what the article claims they will have the opportunity to use BRT to do: “…go to jobs, stores and restaurants along the busway or ride all the way to the Mall of America,” however, aside from the Mall of America, the items listed simply do not exist at any of the planned station locations and only one restaurant currently exists within close proximity to the line. Yeah, someone could work at Cub Foods, Red Robin, or Batteries Plus but I really just don’t see those being jobs which attract many out of town individuals as employees. So let’s say someone does want to use this route to get to some future fastfood restaurant which will inevitably open along the route, something like the-never-open-Subway which exists at the 28th Ave LRT station. They have to potentially drive or walk some ungodly distance to a “nearby” transit station and then wait 15 minutes for the next bus to take them to their final destination of Raising Cane’s – Cedar Grove – Eagan for the culinary delight of their life: two chicken fingers or three? Then they have to walk back to the transit station, wait for 15 minutes, ride back to the station nearest to their house, and then walk or drive back home. Figure, on a good day, this exercise in ridiculousness will cost the average person at least an hour between walking/driving/waiting/riding and will set them back at least $1.75 during off-peak times and $2.25 during on-peak plus the $8 they’re going to pay for the MSG-covered, fried chicken goop. These people would be better off driving themselves the entire way, saving us millions on inevitably empty buses painted to look like trains.
Listen, Dakota County didn’t need BRT and it certainly doesn’t need yet another skyway over Cedar to get people to ride these empty buses. What we needed was someone with a brain to say, “this is a completely idiotic idea and we should have spent our money to create a more viable mass transit system in the county which people who live more than 1000 feet from the traffic and street-light congested hell that is Cedar would be able to utilize without wasting more time and money than they will be by using the system.” Unfortunately we didn’t and now we have to have a bunch of politicians deciding to waste even more money because the first round wasn’t enough and obviously the only barrier to the success of the plan is that we don’t have enough bridges over Cedar.
I really wish someone would tell these total morons to stop messing around with tax dollars. Sorry folks, when my home value decreases by nearly 50% in 8 years and my taxes don’t drop at all I have a serious problem with the City Council even considering spending another dime on something like this. Don’t you?
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
September 11th, 2012 at 7:23 am
Agreed. I used transit for almost ten years when I worked downtown. I am a big supporter of transit and think its necessary, but this project certainly isn’t. There are plenty of ways they could improve the current system (mainly through expanded service) without spending nearly so much money.
September 11th, 2012 at 8:04 am
As Jason Lewis is fond of saying. “you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax”. As long as our government on all levels, Federal to local, is enamored of this perverse subsidy of “if you build it they will come”, in lieu of building a stronger roadway infrastructure, we will see more and more and more of this unused and perhaps unnecessary transit.
September 11th, 2012 at 8:13 am
Well I am a proponent of transit expansion, and the Cedar BRT idea in general, the 147th St Skyway is a horrible idea. Metro Council predicts that the station will attract 300 riders/day at most, so they aren’t willing to put up the money. Apple Valley is so gung-ho about BRT, they don’t listen to the consultants and move forward on this waste of money.
To add my complaint about the project, this wouldn’t be an issue had the County decided to build real BRT with separated lanes in the middle of the road. Instead they went with the grand idea of Bus/Shoulder/Right Turn lanes.
In reality, Apple Valley should be looking at beefing up the feeder routes to the stations, so people are actually taking transit. Toronto is a prime example where ridership is high in the suburbs because buses are actually frequent and follow straight routes and they don’t have useless skyways all over the place. Of course having good transit service is too logical, we just need to build more expensive transit stations.
September 11th, 2012 at 8:31 am
Sank, in his blog piece, made a most cogent point when discussing BRT:
“In all the euphoria of the prospect of rapid bus transit I missed the 800 pound gorilla in this grandiose plan. I made a bad assumption. I assumed that this new bus service would provide service to and from downtown Minneapolis, by far the number one destination of mass transit riders in the South Metro. It does not. It only goes to the Mall of America.”
What were we thinking? Yes, “we”! We get the government we vote into office. Ask the candidates hard questions. Think before you vote.
September 11th, 2012 at 8:34 am
C&V,
The people who put this through are at the County Commissioner level, not the local level and their final decisions are impacted by those who are not elected and also the financial.
September 11th, 2012 at 8:52 am
I started working downtown on a contract acouple of months ago. I love the bus. Having a nice big expensive skyway won’t change where I pick up the bus (157th st station). I pick it up at the closest station to me that gets me there in a reasonable time.
If they do decide to cut express routes to get people funneled through MOA, I’ll be disappointed, and probably stop riding. I don’t want it to take 2+ hours to get downtown. I can do better than that in my car, even on a bad day.
September 11th, 2012 at 9:02 am
Yes, Bill, I know the unelected/appointed Met Council owns this fiasco, and many more. I complain about them often. Never-the-less we do get to elect city and county officials. They need to be grilled on this issues, and others, and not let off the hook because “it’s the Met Council’s fault. It’s out of our hands,” BS.
September 11th, 2012 at 9:45 am
I don’t get the opposition to these skyways. They allow for operational efficiencies allowing linear services to through-route each station, so buses don’t have to exit the transitway as they did in the first incarnation of the Apple Valley TS.
If anything, pro-road types should love this BRT project since a majority of the “transit” project is really being spent on road improvements… curb-to-curb redo of the aging Cedar facility. Of course, the nature of the stroad has not sustained itself financially over its lifecycle, therefore this “transit” project removed significant financial liabilities from the county’s books. Not only that, but the “transit” project is building out Cedar to six lanes far into Lakeville.
It’s strange that we have a “transit” project that was mostly about building new capacity, and removing existing long term liabilities for maintenance from the books, and now we’re having to find extra pots of money to complete the project. And even when it is is completed as intended, it will be a far cry from how BRT is often sold (like light rail on rubber tires). That said, we know the density and development patterns SOTR are not compatible with high quality transit except for express buses, which is why all of this money and effort should have been spent on improving transit inside the beltway instead.
September 11th, 2012 at 9:51 am
When I said I don’t get the opposition to the skyways, I meant in non-financial functional terms. Obviously they are a waste for the ridership expected in Apple Valley, but that speaks to the line itself and not the engineering of individual stations.
Also, expanding Cedar Ave to accommodate increased traffic did the opposite of what would actually push development that would increase ridership. I heard something like 100,000+ cars use portions of the “stroad” daily. What really needs to be decided is if we want a facility designed for mobility (a road, likely a freeway) without direct local land access. Or do we want a facility designed to accommodate local uses and capture the value of adjoining property (a street, which is much friendlier to linear transit corridors). Cedar cannot be both a road and a street and be successful at both missions simultaneously.
One potential option for improving Cedar would be to turn it into a Multiway Boulevard (http://www.placemakers.com/2012/06/07/strip-mall-vs-multi-way-boulevard/ ) but this is obviously too late considering we’ve doubled down on the Stroad design of the facility.
September 11th, 2012 at 9:52 am
If anyone can make any sense of what Matt just said and/or identify his position, would you please translate into basic conversational terms please? Thx.
September 11th, 2012 at 10:23 am
Matt is in favor of the principal of skyways as a means to increase efficiency of transit. However appears to feel they are not needed in the Cedar Ave experiment.
He also thinks that Cedar work of enhancing the streets will not serve to increase ridership. The idea being that with more lanes for traffic, more people will be willing to drive as traffic is not as congested. If the traffic had remained at the congestion rate it was, more people would want to take the bus to avoid the congestion.
He also points out that Cedar should either be a street, or should be more like a freeway as today it is trying to be both.
September 11th, 2012 at 10:25 am
I would be tempted to agree with the street or freeway discussion. More sidestreet/street access points result in slower traffic flow. If Cedar was modified (not sure how they would be able to now with the mess that is there although the multi-way boulevard is and interesting approach) to more like a freeway it would serve a better solution than what they came up with. High speed buses running curbside sounds like a pedestrian killing machine waiting to happen (make sure to look both ways before crossing even if the light says walk).
Regarding the walkways, I think they are a waste as implemented on Cedar. One reason is location. Had they been added up by 42 I might say they make more sense as there is many more businesses of interest to stop for within close proximity of Cedar. The other reason is design. I like the walkway solution created on 35W/46th Street in Minneapolis. Why didn’t they try to do something like that along cedar instead of the curbside crap?
September 11th, 2012 at 10:30 am
That is due to the joy of public input with a focus on placing more weight on the desires of business rather than what is really best for the public. IOW, the businesses based along Cedar freaked the fuck out when it was proposed that Cedar become a highway with interchanges for intersections instead of remaining the traffic snarled hellhole it is.
However, to respond to your point about this reducing congestion, it won’t do that at all. In fact, because the bus routes will not take any additional drivers off the road (remember, there is already rarely used bus service to MOA via Cedar Grove today) due to the poor design of the system. What this is going to do is only change capacities at non-peak times when it doesn’t matter anyway.
We’re developing a transit system based on growth projections and assumptions about mass transit uptake which are no longer valid after the housing market crash. Couple this with the reverse housing phenomenon of people who would be driving downtown instead flocking to the cities instead of the suburbs. This leaves us with a population of people possibly dependent on mass transit who aren’t going to be served well by the model currently planned for Dakota County.
September 11th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Bill, based on the fact you brought up that suburban growth may now be history, it seems to me like the best strategy would be to push Cedar towards being a street rather than pushing it towards the ultimate road (a freeway). Unfortunately this transit project widened the road in many areas which makes it even more difficult to capture any value in adjacent land uses down the line.
September 11th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Matt,
Personally I avoid Cedar at all costs right now so I don’t think your argument holds water but then again I’m not a Planner, just a person who despises unnecessary traffic created by businesses who want to hold citizens hostage so we can see their crappy street signage.
September 12th, 2012 at 6:47 am
If we were talking about 20,000 people using a system a day, the BRT might make sense. The skyways across cedar do make the system more efficient, certainly easier for busses to just pull over and drop people off.
Problem is as Bill so eloquently points out over and over again to deaf ears usership of this thing doesn’t come close to justifying the cost. When I do the math it makes no sense at all. I would estimate based on my experience that the total number of riders from MOA to Apple Valley is in the neighborhood of 500 a day.
Stewards of the public trust should be using the money the most efficient manner possible. What we have instead are monuments to the egos of local bedroom community politicians who in their minds I believe are building skyways to their aspirations for higher office.
September 12th, 2012 at 7:30 am
Disgusting waste of taxpayer dollars. I could go on, but what else is there to say? :(
September 23rd, 2012 at 6:41 pm
This is old news (sorry, I forgot to post the link) but AV decided not to buy it: http://www.startribune.com/local/south/169542696.html