How @patgarofalo, @jpetersburgmn, & @vjensensenate Blocked Decreased Asthma Rates

As I write this, it’s hot outside. It’s also sunny. I have solar panels on my house that are currently generating around 15X more energy than my house is consuming since my air conditioner isn’t running. I don’t always generate 15X. There are times when I generate nothing, like overnight. But, when demand is highest, my panels are cranking.

The excess electricity generated by the panels on my roof is contributed to the grid. Electricity flowing upstream from my house likely flows downstream to meet the nearest power needs, so it’s likely consumed by other residents of my block. It doesn’t have to route all the way back to a central location. It goes up through my meter and down through other power users’ meters.

This power is being consumed during peak demand. For people who choose time of day pricing, Xcel Energy charges them 18 cents per kilowatt hour for that energy. That’s 6X more than they charge in the middle of the night when demand is far lower. Supply and demand applies to energy production/consumption, so energy contributed to the grid during peak energy demand is worth a lot.

Here’s pollution industry ALEC chair, Rep. Pat Garofolo’s, latest take on why residential solar users are freeloaders:

“Under the current system, people who have distributed generation, solar panels on the roof or their own personal windmills, they’re able to use the grid without charge and this means higher rates for other consumers,” he said. “We fixed that so it will no longer be a problem moving forward.”

Think about this.

Energy generated within a neighborhood does not rely upon this to get power from one house’s roof to nearby homes:

High tension  Power lines heading east in the direction of the Twin Cities partially shroud the Monticello Nuclear Genedrating Plant, seen in background, 1/2 mile or so  east in rural Monticello Tuesday afternoon March 6, 2012.  (Pioneer Press: John Doman)
High tension Power lines heading east in the direction of the Twin Cities partially shroud the Monticello Nuclear Genedrating Plant, seen in background, 1/2 mile or so east in rural Monticello Tuesday afternoon March 6, 2012. (Pioneer Press: John Doman)

Or this:

ericroper_1398354092_Substation7

Or this:

transformer_on_pad

Or, more train cars of imported pollution from Montana:

8094023325_5cfe96c2c1_b

Nor does it lead to more deaths from even more workers suffocating from inhaling VOCs in North Dakota so we can burn natural gas to meet peak demand.

But, Pat Garofalo says people who put solar panels on their homes are freeloaders. And, he got enough people to agree with him to change the state’s laws so power companies could charge residential solar users ridiculous fees to cover the costs of the grid their solar systems actually alleviate pressure from.

A pollution industry spokesperson, Kristi Robinson, who represents one of Minnesota’s polluting companies is apparently threatened by the one in 300 homes who have panels on their homes in Owatonna.

Robinson said another concern is that some generate far more energy than they need as a way to make money.

“They’re not offsetting anything,” she said. “They’re putting multiple small generation up side by side with no load to offset it. In the eyes of the utility, that wasn’t the intent of net metering.” With the law change, “we’re able to dial that back a little bit, where they will also be paying their fair share of the distribution system.”

This argument is insane since there is no net difference between one person with a huge roof putting a ton of panels on it compared to multiple people putting the same number of panels on their roofs in aggregate.

So, let’s assume that you live in Owatonna and are considering putting solar panels on your house. It’s about to get far more expensive for you to do it there. But, you have options. It’s time to consider moving out of Rep. Petersburg and Sen. Jensen’s house and senate districts. Move into Xcel Energy’s territory so you can generate your neighborhood’s peak electricity more affordably.

Shifting Retail Buying Patterns Doesn’t Create New Jobs

When a company worth $200 billion decides to build a warehouse on land owned by billionaires, you know there will be subsidies. Today’s example comes from Shakopee where Amazon is planning to build a distribution center on land owned by the Pohlad family.

Amazon’s very good at what they do. They know how to put stuff in boxes and get it to your door quickly and reliably better than anyone. It’s really behavior-changing for those who’ve become Prime members where you get free 2-day shipping on purchases for $99/yr.

Behavior-changing retail is great for people who appreciate the convenience. I sure do. But, let’s not pretend that it creates new jobs. When I buy paper towels on Amazon, I clearly didn’t buy them somewhere else. I still use the same amount of paper towels as I did before, so there was no net increase in sales. It’s just a shift from purchasing at one store to another.

Because of this, spending $5,000 per job to “create” 1,000 “new” jobs is really a case of spending tax dollars to accelerate a shift of Minnesota’s retail jobs to one company based in Seattle. It’s certainly good for Amazon, but I don’t see how there will be a net gain in jobs from shifting where people buy the same stuff they’re already buying from one retailer to another.

In fact, it seems possible that we’ll end up with fewer jobs in retail after this since Amazon is so efficient at what they do. For example, Target’s a very efficient company by retail standards, but Amazon has $20 billion more in sales than Target with nearly 200,000 less full time employees last year. Amazon doesn’t have many cashiers or people restocking shelves.

Here are the winners and losers from this type of subsidy.

Winners:
Amazon, due to corporate welfare benefits.
The Pohlad Family, due to corporate welfare benefits.
People who live near Shakopee who can work in Shakopee rather than commuting elsewhere.
People who think the income and wealth gaps in America aren’t large enough already.

Losers:
People around the state who get less hours at the retail store they work at today.
Taxpayers who subsidized the corporate welfare deal.
People who prefer jobs with benefits.

Neutral:
People who use Amazon, and would see the same benefits from having a local Amazon warehouse with or without corporate welfare expenditures.

We should be mature enough to not subsidize “economic development” projects in one city that have no net benefit for the state, but we’re probably not.

Math Only a Corporate #wilfare Queen Could Believe @mnunitedfc

I was hoping that MN United would somehow be different than every other professional sports franchise in our local market, but then I read stuff like this:

We will pay our fair share of tax. The entertainment/sales/food/beverage taxes the facility generates will be 5x current tax. @edkohler

If you’re a business or resident in Minneapolis and you buy a property and improve it, you’re expected to pay property taxes. That’s the deal. It’s really quite simple. But, MN United seems to think that they deserve to redefine “fairness” based on sales tax generation.

It’s as if pro sports are the only industry that competes for entertainment dollars and generates sales taxes. Why should they be subsidized while local restaurants aren’t? If we were going to subsidize an entertainment business, how about subsidizing ones that are open more than 17 days per year?

But, the bigger issue with MN United’s claims is the math. It’s the kind of math only people who mistakenly trust pro sports franchise owners can believe.

Here’s the problem with their sales tax math. It assumes that every single dollar of sales taxes generates at the soccer stadium would not have been generated anywhere else in the entire state of Minnesota if there wasn’t a publicly subsidized pro sports stadium.

It’s an utterly preposterous assumption. Put another way, they’re lying. And, people who mistakenly trust MN United’s statements are falling for it:

@edkohler @_NickRogers_ Ed, if you didn't pay property tax, would your provide 5x those taxes in sales tax? Your analogy seems flawed.

People blindly trust pro sports owners that are in the business of subsidizing their businesses rather than competing fairly for entertainment dollars in the private market.

But, what makes this situation particularly interesting is that even loyal MN United fans seem to be embarrassed by the requests to shift property tax burdens onto homeowners and local business in order to further enrich some of MN’s richest residents. This is my assumption based on the lack of response to questions like this:

@lockstockspock I noticed that you ignored this tweet, which makes me wonder why you're so concerned about handouts:

Let’s try being honest. MN United doesn’t need subsidies. The team will be here. A stadium will be built. And Minneapolis will benefit from hosting a new local business while expanding its property tax base. That’s what fairness looks like.

How Power Companies Profit from Net Metering #mnleg

One of the nice things about residential solar systems in Minnesota is that they’re eligible for net metering. You have an upstream meter and a downstream meter and are charged for electricity based on the net consumption. So, if your home uses $40 of electricity over a month but your panels produced $60, you’ll get money back from Xcel. Not $20 back, since there are base fees to cover, but you’ll still get a check.

A common beef from the pollution industry and their legislative allies against net metering goes something like this:

Residential solar users are freeloaders. They’re selling electricity to the grid at retail rates, yet benefit from being attached to the grid when they really need it.

Or, as Rep. Pat Garofalo puts it “solar is dumb“.

Granted, this argument makes sense at a high level. If the price a residential solar user receives for the energy they contribute to the grid is the same as what they take off the grid, that’s a pretty sweet deal.

But, it’s a bit more complicated than that, which is something the anti-solar crowd chooses to ignore.

Here are Xcel’s current rates for electricity (not counting base fees, taxes, etc.):

Energy Charge per kWh:
June through September…$0.08671
October through May…$0.07393

But, Xcel offers other pricing models, including Time of Day pricing where customers are charged far higher rates during peak grid times, then far less during off-peak times.

Xcel Time of Day Pricing

That’s a significant difference. They charge more than 2X as much for electricity during the day, and offer a whopping 70% discount on overnight power consumption.

Now, let’s look at what hours solar panels generate power. Here is data from the past three days from my home’s roof:

Three Days of Solar Generation

Looks like 6am – 6pm is the energy producing window. So, during those hours, my panels are a net-contributor to the grid of most of that energy. That’s when my power meter runs backwards (technically, there’s a separate upstream meter).

My family is generally out of the house well before 9am, so our morning electricity consumption would be considered off-peak by Xcel in their time of day pricing plan. We’re generally home by 5:30pm, so there is some on-peak consumption between 5:30 and 9pm, but generally nowhere near what was added to the grid throughout the day.

So, I’m selling around $3/day of electricity during peak-grid hours Xcel at $0.08671/kWh. They can then turn around and sell that electricity for more than twice what they pay me for it. Of, if time shifting makes more sense to you. They sell me back my own electricity overnight at a time when electricity is 70% cheaper than they paid me for what I generated.

I’m a net-contributor of electricity to the grid at times when the grid needs it most. I’m generating that electricity locally so it doesn’t need to be transmitted from polluting power plants or rural wind farms. I’m selling electricity for far below market rates, and I’m buying electricity for far above market rates. Yet, I’m the freeloader?

Oh, did I mention that Xcel doesn’t allow solar power generators to use Time of Day pricing? Net metering is only allowed when net metering allows Xcel to arbitrage the power they’re buying/selling to solar power generators.

My guess is that the return on my solar panel investment would be around twice as fast if I could net meter at rates available to others. Taking away this ban on market rate solar sales/purchases seems like a good way to stimulate private investments in locally produced power.

@mngop Math: Light Rail Fare Edition

David Montgomery with the Pioneer Press has an article about a recent audit of fare skipping by light rail riders:

A recent audit conducted by the Met Council found around 3 percent of Blue Line riders and between 4.6 and 9 percent of Green Line riders were evading their fares. That adds up to between $800,000 and $1.5 million per year in lost money.

This created some outrage from a MN GOP rep:

Rep. Mark Uglem, R-Champlin, said during a Monday transportation bill discussion in a House committee meeting. “We have $1.5 million in taxpayers’ money that we’re being cheated out of.”

Let’s go with the absolute high end figure Rep. Uglem latched onto. I’m 100% confident that no level of fare enforcement or implementation of more rigid boarding systems would bring in anywhere near that kind of money.

The fallacy in his statement is assuming that every fare not collected actually would still exist under more rigid boarding/enforcement scenarios. It’s the same mistake the MPAA makes when they claim that every illegally downloaded movie should be treated as a lost DVD sale.

In the reality based community, it might be worth considering whether those fare skippers would have still taken the LRT if they had to pay the fare. I’m willing to be that a significant portion of them would not, because they likely have little to no money. But, they still need to get to work, visit their family, or get to the grocery store.

So, we could dump a whole bunch of money into attempting to increase revenue generated from the LRT’s poorest riders.

In the end, Rep. Uglem could proudly state that he helped kick poor people off the trains. But, there’s little chance that he’d see the uptick of $1.5 million in annual revenue he claims can be recovered. A good example of why can be found in the same article:

The fare-dodging audit said that all mass transit systems, even those with turnstiles, saw at least 2 percent to 3 percent of riders avoid paying their fares.

If we take the average of the Blue and Green line fare skippers (6.8%), and put that up against the reality that people will skip fares even if expensive turnstiles are installed, it becomes pretty clear that the potential savings – even before reality checking that many people would simply stop riding – could be more like $235k – $440k/year.

The article also mentions:

Once installed, turnstiles would cost about $1.3 million per year to operate, he said.

Even ignoring the huge costs of retrofitting LRT stops to make life harder for poor people and less convenient for all transit riders, this seems like a colossal waste of money.

If the goal was to invest taxpayer money into increasing the amount of money generated by light rail trains, there is probably a much better options such as increasing frequency. This would likely increase ridership among those who can and do pay.

Or – I know this is going to sound crazy, but we already do it for airline travelers – how about making the LRT free? We could save a ton of money on turnstiles and enforcement.

But, I suppose that’s less interesting to a Rep from Champlain than picking on poor urban people.

Adam Heskin: One of The Pioneer Press’ Racist Commenters

The Pioneer Press posted an Associated Press article about a group of Somali immigrants who’re dealing with discrimination and bullying. They claim that they’re being treated unfairly by fellow students and staff and, based on the original piece in the St Cloud Times, they’re right.

One of the parents involved in the protest, Sadwda Ali, said similar issues exist at South Junior High. Sadwda Ali said students there have taunted her 11-year-old daughter for wearing a hijab and spat in her face.

Sadwda Ali said she’s particularly disheartened to hear about students trying to link Somalis with the Islamic State group.

“They think that all Somalis and all Muslims are terrorists,” Sadwda Ali said. “That’s totally wrong. Our religion is peace.”

Here’s what Pioneer Press Commenter, Adam Heskin, had to say about this:

adamh2o: Is that all liberals know how to do anymore? Protest this, protest that, who cares if it even makes sense, scream and yell about it.

Adam Heskin Racist
Adam Heskin – Racist Commenter*

I’m not sure if it takes work to willfully ignore the concerns of protestors, or if racists like Adam Heskin save time by jumping straight from headlines to the comment box.

Heskin goes on:

Somali’s should be thankful we even let their Muslim terrorist a$$es into this country.

Adam Heskin - One of the Pioneer Press' Bigot Commenters
Adam Heskin – Pioneer Press Bigot

It looks like the “Heskin” surname is English. It’s really unbelievable that we allow English people into this country considering how much blood is on their hands.

Heskin goes on to explain that recent immigrants from a war torn country are a menace to society.

Get everything off the government dole, work for nothing, send money back to your terrorist families and yet you still whine and cry every chance you get.

Adam Heskin - Not a Fan of Today's Immigrants
Adam Heskin – Not a Fan of Today’s Immigrants

But, that was just a warm-up up for his big bigoted close:

Filthy animals should be grateful you aren’t put on the first plane out like you should be.

Adam Heskin can be found on Twitter @adam_heskin and Facebook adam.heskin.3 and as a racist commenter on many platforms that use the Disqus commenting platform as @adamh2o.

For those of you thinking “There’s no way that comment was actually published to the website of the second largest newspaper website in the State of Minnesota, here’s a screenshot of the article and comment with ads for Cub Foods and the Parade of Homes.

Screenshot 2015-03-19 09.33.19

* I figured that it was important to include pictures of the racist Adam Heskin in order to make it clear which Adam Heskin is the racist commenter on the Pioneer Press’ website. Personally, I find most people named Adam Heskin to be peaceful individuals who’re doing the best they can for themselves and their families during their stay on this planet. To suggest that all Adam Heskins are racist web commenters would be a broad generalization that tarnishes the reputations of the vast majority of Adam Heskins and I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing that.

Glen Taylor’s StarTribune: Crunching Minneapolis’ False Alarm Costs

Imagine how you’d feel if you figured out a way to save 26% of the time your employees spend dealing with worthless stuff only to read an article claiming that you’re being wasteful. Here’s an example of Glen Taylor’s StarTribune reporting on the Minneapolis Police Department’s handling of false alarm responses at businesses in the city.

Alejandra Matos has an article in the StarTribune about the Minneapolis’ costs of dealing with false alarms at businesses. It contains incredibly poorly supported comparisons of costs to Minneapolis’ neighbor. Is this an example of the Glen Taylor ownership era at the StarTribune? Misleading people to justify cutting government costs seems pretty GOP to me.

Matos provides background on Minneapolis’ false alarm response costs:

[Minneapolis] used to give alarm users two free false alarms in a year and charge $200 for the third, with each additional alarm costing an additional $100. But heavier fees were implemented in 2007 after the city estimated it was spending more than $800,000 to respond to them. In 2006, police responded to 15,600 false alarms.

The article seems to suggest that Minneapolis’ false alarm fees are ridiculous, while St Paul’s are far more fair because they’re cheaper for businesses that waste extraordinarily large amounts of police time (yes, you read that right).

It looks like Minneapolis spent $800,000 responding to 15,600 false alarms at businesses operating in the city in 2006.

If I divide $800k by 15,600, I come up with an average false alarm response cost of $51.28. The problem the city appears to have been trying to address wasn’t that it spent $800k on false alarms. The problem is that the costs of dealing with false alarms exceeded the costs businesses generating them were paying. This isn’t a gross cost issue. It’s a rate problem that the StarTribune didn’t explain.

The article continues:

When an alarm is triggered, the alarm company must try calling the key holder, often the home or business owner, twice before they ask for police response. If that person can’t be reached, the police usually send two squad cars to respond to the alarm. If the officers find nothing wrong, they can designate a false alarm.

Is it just me, or do these numbers seem extraordinarily reasonable? What does it cost to have a plumber or Geek Squad show up at your house? The last time I called a plumber for an emergency it was a lot more than $51.28 with a 12 hour response time. The last time I called Geek Squad, the costs were more than double that, and that was well before 2006. Yet, Minneapolis sends TWO squad cars with at least two cops to address an active alarm and the cost is less than $26/person? I’m pretty sure that the cost per hour per police officer is at least $50/hour after equipment, training, and benefits, so these cops are somehow responding to alarms and writing up their cases in under 30 minutes? That seems unlikely.

The article mentions that the cost of clerical processing of an alarm statement alone can be $27. Yet we can send multiple cars with fully equipped, trained officers for less than $26 per cop per call?

To me, based on the information presented in this article, it sounds like Minneapolis was severely underestimating the cost of responding to alarms in 2006.

I would like compare the $800k figure to what Minneapolis is bringing in on average now after updating their fee structure, but the StarTribune didn’t provide that information. The article does mention that response calls have dropped:

False alarms have dropped 24 percent in the six years since the stiffer penalties were put in place. Although city officials say they are pleased by that, local business owners are not.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but a 24% drop in false alarms sounds like a $206,000 savings in otherwise wasted police time based on the reported 2006 false alarm response cost figure. You may have a hard time finding that $206,000 savings in the StarTribune’s column because it’s not mentioned.

Matos many paragraphs explaining that fees have gone up in Minneapolis while they’re cheaper in St Paul (under certain circumstances if you read closely enough).

Matos offered an explanation of St Paul’s system:

St. Paul requires all alarm users to purchase a yearly permit for $27.

Ricardo Cervantes, director of St. Paul’s Department of Safety and Inspections, says this system anticipates that alarm users will have at least one mishap. St. Paul gives residents and business owners two free false alarms, then charges $35 for the third. Adding all the fees together in one year, a seventh false alarm will cost a user $427. In Minneapolis, the cumulative cost would be $2,130.

Matos didn’t explain how much St Paul brings in through those yearly permits, how that compares to Minneapolis, and how that breaks down on a per-false alarm basis. And, she didn’t offer any quotes from business owners in St Paul who has to pay a yearly fee of $27 even when they have no false alarms.

What did we learn from this article? Nothing. To learn something we’d need comparisons of 2006 numbers vs 2014 in Minneapolis. Or Minneapolis’ numbers vs. St Paul’s. Since no actual, honest, relative comparison was presented, I can only assume that the goal was to sell a bias for Glen Taylor that’s not supported by the numbers.

Basically, her editor – assuming their was one – wasted the StarTribune’s reader’s time with a handful of non-apples to apples comparisons that give the perception that Minneapolis’ fees are outrageous compared to St Paul’s without actually proving that point. Was misleading readers the editorial goal of Glen Taylor’s StarTribune with this article? The StarTribune was better than this article.

Lyft and UberX Receiving Permission to Legally Discriminate

If you don’t own a smartphone in Minneapolis, keep an eye out for pink mustaches on cars. Those cars are driven by people who will soon be able to legally discriminate against you. No matter how much you want or need a ride, they won’t be allowed to pick you up:

Despite a push for one ordinance to cover both industries, the final language delineates clear differences. Only taxis can pick up passengers who hail them on the street…

Here’s a breakdown of smartphone ownership rates from Pew:

Pew Research on Smartphone Demographics

Lyft and UberX have amazingly good lobbyists. They’re managing to legally deny service to poor and poorly educated people.

Critics of the proposal said that Lyft and Uber, now known as “transportation network companies,” will . . . discriminate against certain passengers.

Like, the majority of people making less than $30k/year.

The proposal’s sponsor, Jacob Frey, countered that the city will audit where the companies have been accepting and denying rides. Plus, he noted, taxis are already discriminating.

This sounds like a great deal for Lyft and UberX. They can’t be accused of denying rides from the majority of people making under $30k/yr because they’re not capable of requesting rides since they don’t have smartphones.

“As a cab driver, I cannot raise my rates,” said driver Fred Anderson. “And I’m obligated to take all customers unlike [transportation network companies]. This is not a level playing field.”

Sounds like Fred Anderson and his fellow drivers need UberX and Lyft’s deep pockets in order to hire better lobbyists so they can discriminate too. Or, UberX and Lyft could be held to the taxi standards and already exist.

The city will impose a license fee of $35,000 a year on transportation network companies, and another $10,000 as a surcharge if they do not have handicap-accessible vehicles.

Here’s a breakdown of the licensing costs for traditional taxis in Minneapolis:

Minneapolis Taxi Licenses

As I read that, it sounds like the annual licensing costs for a taxi include:
$59 taxi drivers license renewal
$475 per vehicle
$135 per inspection
____________
$669 per year total

Assuming Lyft or UberX have more than 52 drivers, the differences in licensing costs appears to be another example of the advantage of having good lobbyists on your well-funded side.

Listen up, Poors. If you want access to all forms of government regulated transportation in our world-class city, you’re going to need a smartphone with a data plan. We’re not discriminating. That’s just the way it is because world-class cities welcome innovators.

LRT Speeds Vary by Station Pairs

Is the new Green Line slow? Well, that depends. Where did you start and where did you end?

Bob Collins has a post up on Newscut about his decision to NOT take the Green Line from the 10th Street Station in St Paul (the 2nd stop on the line heading west) to a Twins game (the last two stops on the Blue Line). With four in the car on the 4th of July when there is hardly any traffic between cities, that’s a really easy choice.

Talking about time time it takes to traverse the entire LRT line seems overblown to me since that use case is so limited. Are there really that many people who live at or east of Union Depot in St Paul who want to get to Target Field or points north? I’m sure it happens, but must be a small fraction of all rides, assuming other 22 stations have any popularity at all.

To illustrate this, I used MapMyRun.com to trace out quick estimates of distances between each station on the Green Line and divides them by the scheduled time for a westbound train (weekday, arriving before 9am) to get a feel for how fast the train moves throughout its route. This isn’t a measure of max speed, but average speed between stations:

Average Green Line LRT Speeds between Stations

What this tells me is you’ll experience diminishing returns on commute speeds when you’re in the downtown core of either city. This makes sense. We see the same thing any vehicle operating at street level.

The easiest way to shave 17 minutes of the commute between downtowns (and increase the train’s speed by nearly 50%) is to define the commute between downtowns as when one leaves the first and arrives at the second (Robert St Station in St Paul to Downtown East in Minneapolis).

This is even more pronounced on the Blue Line, which has higher speeds between stations outside of downtown:

Average Blue Line LRT Speeds between Stations

Putting the station speeds of the Green and Blue lines on the same chart helps illustrate how much faster the Blue Line is over most of its route compared to the Green Line. (Northbound Blue vs Westbound Green with the same set of stops once they merge in downtown Minneapolis).

Green vs Blue Line Average Speeds by Station

Personally, when I travel on an LRT to downtown Minneapolis, I hop off at “one of the state’s largest corporate welfare projects off all time station”, then hop on a NiceRide for the rest of my trip. That’s much faster than the 6 MPH average speed (10MPH) of either train through downtown. For example, I can NiceRide to Brit’s far faster from Downtown East than taking the train to Nicollet then walking or NiceRiding from there. Google Maps seems to agree with me on this. They estimate 16 minutes for LRT to Nicollet followed by walking:

LRT from Metrodome to Brit's

Compared to 8 minutes biking:

Biking from Metrodome to Brit's

But, the bigger takeaway to me is that trains are painfully slow in downtown cores when they’re built at street level. If they’re above or below ground, they don’t have to compete with everything else going on at street level, which is better for everyone. At this point, I suppose we’re stuck with the decisions we’ve made for the next generation or two. Longer term, perhaps we’ll straighten things out?

And, if I was going to park and ride to Twins or Saints games from the suburbs, I’d probably hop off the Cretin/Vandalia exit of I-94 and ditch my car near The Dubliner. That combined free parking, cutting the LRT trip in half, and provides a cool spot to drown postgame sorrows. That neighborhood is also home to some new craft brewpubs worth checking out, including Bang Brewing. Strategery.

Watch Lyft Redlining in Minneapolis

Considering the criticism that taxis received for not being willing to pick up individuals based on race or fares in this StarTribune article, it seems like a good time to point out that Lyft is redlining entire neighborhoods of Minneapolis.

If a taxi is going to operate in Minneapolis, it’s expected to serve the entire city rather than cherry pick certain neighborhoods. But, “disruptive” companies like Lyft seem to take a different approach to serving the city by only serving portions of it. Watch movie online The Transporter Refueled (2015)

Here are two animations that illustrate this. Notice that there are Lyft cars available for pickup when I tell the Lyft app that I’m south of Dowling. But, if I move myself north of Dowling, no cars are available:

output_C09ceM

Lyft Redlining in North Minneapolis

In Northeast Minneapolis, 30th Ave NE appears to be Lyft’s redline (note the message switch from a car being 12 minutes away to “available” [but not hailable]):

Lyft Redlining in Northeast Minneapolis

Imagine what would happen to a licensed Minneapolis taxi company if they refused to serve customers north of Dowling Ave? Why is Lyft any different?

Forbes reported in April that Lyft raised $250 million. It sounds like it’s quite lucrative to outsource drivers, cars, and insurance coverage while cherry picking neighborhoods to serve.