Minneapolis/ St. Paul Traffic (Eagan, Burnsville: homes, school, taxes)

[Isaysos]

Actually, it should be of great concern to me, as I must live on this planet for the rest of my life. Maby you dont care about the future, but there are people that do.

[punkerdunker]

Originally Posted by JenLee

It's well and good to want to take a bus; or use Park and Ride; but when mass transit doesn't even come to some suburbs, one is stuck driving. There is a huge area of Shoreview, Moundsview, Arden Hills, Little Canada, North Oaks, Vadnais heights; and even parts of Roseville that have no mass transit.

Why, you may ask?

It's because the Met Council and Metro Transit *say* that this area doesn't have the population density of other areas of the Twin Cities

This is a good point, and its exactly why alternatives to driving in many suburbs are a challenge at best, and largely unfeasable for day to day living. The typical lot sizes and housing desities of suburban communities since WWII are much larger and much more spread out than their urban counterparts, and so typical mass transit models are not efficient to run. If they put a bus system comparable to St. Paul's in Shoreview, they would probably need to charge 5 to 10 times as much for a bus ride in order to make it as cost-effective - there just aren't enough people close enough together. Park and Ride lots are probably the best bet.

Most suburban communities (esp. 2nd ring and further out) have been designed for the automobile. You can't really blame the residents for driving - that's still the only reasonable way to live there. Blame the automobile industry for buying up all the streetcar systems and destroying them so they could sell us cars, making developers very happy to build us ramblers with attatched garages in Roseville.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Isaysos

the city schools would be better off if eveyone that had the means to do so didnt flock out to the suburbs in the first place. I dont think everyone would have to live in condos, but if you took Minnetonka or Eden Praire for example, and designed it how the Highland Park area of St. Paul is desinged, instead of how they develop in Minnetonka or Eden Prairie now, you could fit twice as many people in the same area, with a more effient transportation network (with out all of the cul-desacs and bottleneck roads) and you could still have your yard, good schoos, and not have to drive to do everything! You could comfrotably fit the 3 million people in the metro area in an area half of the size. I use Canada as an example again. Google earth Calgary sometime and you can see that there area nice areas, but are just better planned. When things are planned and take up less space, it is much easier to serve by mass transit, so your not stuck in your energy sucking, polluting car or SUV. Thats the point Im trying to get across with this post. We dont need Manhattan type development, just smarter development. Our population is growing to the point that the way we plan is unsustainable and just plain ignorant of our environment and future needs. If we keep at this rate, where are we going to grow our food if the suburbs of Minnapolis go all the way out to (Marshall). People move out the Waconia because its nice to live in a small countryside town. Yes, its great to look at (or whats left of it) when your stuck in your car on Hwy 5

Excellent points, Isaysos!

[JenLee]

Originally Posted by punkerdunker

...The typical lot sizes and housing desities of suburban communities since WWII are much larger and much more spread out than their urban counterparts, and so typical mass transit models are not efficient to run. If they put a bus system comparable to St. Paul's in Shoreview, they would probably need to charge 5 to 10 times as much for a bus ride in order to make it as cost-effective - there just aren't enough people close enough together. Park and Ride lots are probably the best bet.

Most suburban communities (esp. 2nd ring and further out) have been designed for the automobile. You can't really blame the residents for driving - that's still the only reasonable way to live there. Blame the automobile industry for buying up all the streetcar systems and destroying them so they could sell us cars, making developers very happy to build us ramblers with attached garages in Roseville.

All we want is a place we COULD have convenient Park & Ride lots; decent commuter bike paths; and some say in the future mass transit for this area. If it WAS here 10 years ago; why can't they put in commuter bus routes again to test the response? THAT is all we ask.

[TimtheGuy]

Originally Posted by Isaysos

Actually, it should be of great concern to me, as I must live on this planet for the rest of my life. Maby you dont care about the future, but there are people that do.

Just because you believe the planet is doomed doesn't mean it is so.

[AVguy]

Originally Posted by TimtheGuy

Just because you believe the planet is doomed doesn't mean it is so.

And just because you do not believe the planet is doomed doesn't mean it is so. What does this add to the conversation?

It could be that environmentalists and opportunistic entrapeuneurs are taking advantage of the current climate data. Or maybe there really is something unprecedented going on. I don't think that either side has enough information to tell the other side that they're nuts.

Those in the environmental faction have to show a causal, or a likely causal relationship (similar to the research on the health risks of smoking) before convincing most reasonable people that climate change is occurring. Those in the naturalistic faction (is this fair?) have to show that climate change, if even occurring, is not harmful or unnatural.

These are the logical questions to address in evaluating the issue, in my opinion:

1. Is there climate change?
1a. If so, what is causing the change?
2. Is climate change a threat?
3. If climate change is a threat, can anything be done to mitigate or eliminate the threat?
4. Should anything be done?
5. Who/what/where/when/how should this be done?

Many enviromentalists are at question 5 and believe that anything and everything should be done to stop the apparent causes of climate change. Many naturalists are at question 1 and do not see an issue. It's pretty hard to drive people to action if they don't see an issue. It's up to environmentalists to prove that action is needed and it's up to the naturalists to keep an open mind for all the information. (Question for the naturalists: how much proof is needed before you would believe in climate change? If you cannot answer this question, perhaps bias and skeptism is getting in the way of your perspective. Some people are simply resistant to change.)

That's my take.

[punkerdunker]

Originally Posted by AVguy

Many enviromentalists are at question 5 and believe that anything and everything should be done to stop the apparent causes of climate change. Many naturalists are at question 1 and do not see an issue. It's pretty hard to drive people to action if they don't see an issue. It's up to environmentalists to prove that action is needed and it's up to the naturalists to keep an open mind for all the information. (Question for the naturalists: how much proof is needed before you would believe in climate change? If you cannot answer this question, perhaps bias and skeptism is getting in the way of your perspective. Some people are simply resistant to change.)

That's my take.

Well put. Let's keep the conversation moving forwards instead of backwards. If you think the conversation is invalid then simply don't contribute to it.

[Ben Around]

Nice job, punker & AV! Here's to the conversation!

[Isaysos]

Unchecked urban growth that we are seeing in many american cities does not just contribute to climate change, but also habitat destruction, and loss of land to grow crops. Lets also not forget about the negative social impacts (lack of community, increased time spent in the auto, decreased incentive for physical activity). TimtheGuy, your ignorance frightens me. Perhaps you should do some research and educate your self on the world energy situation and demographic changes before you make your rash, ill-informed comments on this forum.

[punkerdunker]

On a positive note, it seems like there IS alot more interest in "smart growth" these days, and local bodies of government creating comprehensive plans for their communities' growth which they can use to encourage or discourage certain types of development/ redevelopment. Citizen groups have been very active in trying to shape the redevelopment along University avenue to be more transit-oriented in keeping with plans for the Central corridor. They have had some success, especially when companies seek government aid for their projects, which they can use as leverage. The new Super-Target could have pretty much done anything they wanted because they didn't sek any subsidies and already owned the property, but they still compromised to make it more pedestrian-friendly because organized neighborhod groups showed up for city council meetings and voiced alot of concerns.

I think the key to making a good transportation network that functions and does not interfere with our ability to enjoy where we live is to shift the focus onto "moving people" instead of "moving cars". Cars will always be a part of the mix, but mix it with light-rail, bus, bike paths, and walkable neighborhoods. Our congestion will improve and so will our sense of community.