Minneapolis/ St. Paul Traffic (Brooklyn Park, Eagan: cul-de-sac, houses, buy)

[Isaysos]

No, I dont dispute the fact that there are scientist that disagree that global warming is caused by human activity, however, a MAJORITY of scientist agree that climate change is human caused. I think that mass transit would save tax payers alot of money in the long run as these modes of transportation cost less to maintiain than our freeway system, once built. But, Tim, you go on driving your truck and advocating a wastefull type of lifestyle, just as long as when we are in an environmental catastrophe, we can blame you. I am not a liberal, environmental extremest, and no I dont like Michael Moore, im just on the side of logic in planning for our future. If you do research on demographic, energy, and the envionment, you will see that the path we are on is "illogical".
(I dont see how you found my other post a "personal attack golfgal", yet you let Tim label me. Oh well, I dont mind, it will take more than that to hurt my feelings )=

[Minneapolitan]

Originally Posted by TimtheGuy

I am sure you are a big proponent of mass transit. And I am also sure that it (mass transit) would reduce taxes as well since they need so little subsidy to operate. (heavy sarcasm)

YOU HONESTLY DON'T THINK THAT HIGHWAYS RECEIVE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDIES TO OPERATE????!!!! Tell me, how much money does the government get back from a friggin' highway? How much money do YOU get back from a highway? Once you take in account car payments, car maintenance, insurance, taxes you pay for widening lanes, road maintenance, and replacement costs, I bet the answer is YOURE IN THE HOLE. Big time. Now tell me how much money the government, the mass transit users, and the non-mass transit users ALL get back from mass transit lines? Allow me...For one, I pay a fee to use it. That is WAY more than what can be said about a highway in and of itself. Two, I don't have a car payment anymore. Three, I don't pay nearly as much insurance as I once did. Four, my ass is out of my car, making more room on the road for the blood sucking black SUV driving soccer moms that think they own it, THUS helping them get where they want to go a little bit faster, and also saving them some idle gas. Oh, and time too. Talk about subsidies...

[TimtheGuy]

Mass transit requires very high density for the numbers to come even close to working. Density that most Minnesoootans are not willing to live in at this time. Even then the drain on transport funds and subsidies can be daunting.

Can an individual save a lot of money by using mass transit? Of coarse. Especially if they can get rid of their vehicle(s) all together. It just doesn't work or make sense for the average person.

Your taxation and benefit analysis is very hard to follow and does not appear to make a lot of sense.

[TimtheGuy]

Originally Posted by Isaysos

No, I dont dispute the fact that there are scientist that disagree that global warming is caused by human activity, however, a MAJORITY of scientist agree that climate change is human caused. I think that mass transit would save tax payers alot of money in the long run as these modes of transportation cost less to maintiain than our freeway system, once built. But, Tim, you go on driving your truck and advocating a wastefull type of lifestyle, just as long as when we are in an environmental catastrophe, we can blame you. I am not a liberal, environmental extremest, and no I dont like Michael Moore, im just on the side of logic in planning for our future. If you do research on demographic, energy, and the envionment, you will see that the path we are on is "illogical".
(I dont see how you found my other post a "personal attack golfgal", yet you let Tim label me. Oh well, I dont mind, it will take more than that to hurt my feelings )=

I too don't take any offense to the "personal attack". These forum sites get a little jumpy with respect to that. My label (naive) was just as bad as yours (ignorant) IMO. I guess they must have hit you since you 'drew 1st blood'

I don't really condone the wasteful lifestlye. I was 'stirring up the pot' with my statements. I do have a truck and 2 boats though and will continue to keep them as long as I can. If they could make them run on some alternative fuel for the same price with the same performance then I would be the first to sign up.

I do agree that something will probably have to change sometime in the future, but it would take A LOT to make it any kind of abrubt change (eg. gas prices double again) to change the lifestyles of an entire population. I am totally against hasty legislation to try to "solve the problem" (eg. mandate 35 MPG, slapping on large taxes, restrictions on new refineries etc.)

Humans are so adaptable and resourceful. If things change in the future we will adapt. This would include "an environmental catastrophy", running out of oil, coasts flooding from the melting polar caps, drought, locusts...whatever.

"Free markets rule & increased government regulation sucks"

[The Icy River Vagabond]

I ride my bike to work everyday, so the rest of you suck.

[Isaysos]

Yes TimtheGuy, I actually agree with you! The government posing huge changes on us. I just hope that the general public will change the unsustainable aspects of society like sprawl and going beyond their means before its too late and we see disasterous effects that we cannot reverse (i.e, resourse depletion, climate change, serious negative social consequences.) Thats why Im such a big component of smarter growth. More dense living does not necesarrily make it less attractive. I think In the U.S. things are already starting to change in the way we plan, with the gentrification of downtowns and such. This will make mass transit more attractive and thus reduce the problems generated by our auto dependent society.
Thank you.

[Minnehahapolitan]

In your backwards, Tm, you are right. Most Minnesotans don't want to live in the required desnity for decent transit. However, this should not imply that places that do have the required density should not have the best public transportation that we can give them. Imagine what would happen if 90% of the people who lived in Mpls. and Saint Paul used public transportation on a daily basis. 675,000 people off your sacred freeway system. 675,000 people who don't emit car fumes (not a global warming scare, our air would just be cleaner) 675,000 people who don't need a car, what happens to gas prices when demand in the cities drops by 1/3? Transportation will create a healthy city for those who choose to live in it. When the central city is healthier, the metro is healthier. Besides $100,000 what is the difference between your house and the exact same one in Detroit? Detroit proper is a plain disgusting city with no vitality. Your suburb is pretty much the same in Detroit, but someone will pay substantially more for the same house in Mpls. Why? The city proper of Mpls. is a great place to live and people will pay more to live in its suburbs. You choose to live in the suburbs, your God-given right, but don't suffocate the city that gives life to your suburb, or it will have grave implications for YOUR way of life.

[Minnehahapolitan]

I haven't kept up, so i'm going back a page here to respond to SlyFrog, who's unnecessairily sly answer doesn't invalidate facts he obviously does not understand. Ever wonder why you can spend millions of dollars to make 494 a lane wider and the next year the traffic is no better? When a group of people knows that that road is slower than molasses, they don't take it. When they are suddenly told that the road is mended and that it will flow like a river, they (as a group) will all decide to take it. You suddenly have overcapacity and the road is clogged despite our communal troubles. It would be imprudent to make it one lane, that is obvious. However, for the sake of your roadways, it is equally imprudent to add lanes to existing roads. When you get alot of people in a small space (coloquially known as a city) you will have traffic. You can do things to make it flow better, but it will inevitably exist. A city the size of London can exist peacefully because it does not try to combat this inevitability. If it did, it would be disasterous for its citizenry. Don't take my word for it. I will direct you to a series of lectures on Urban Planning form a source known to be more reputable than yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

In your backwards, Tm, you are right. Most Minnesotans don't want to live in the required desnity for decent transit. However, this should not imply that places that do have the required density should not have the best public transportation that we can give them. Imagine what would happen if 90% of the people who lived in Mpls. and Saint Paul used public transportation on a daily basis. 675,000 people off your sacred freeway system. 675,000 people who don't emit car fumes (not a global warming scare, our air would just be cleaner) 675,000 people who don't need a car, what happens to gas prices when demand in the cities drops by 1/3? Transportation will create a healthy city for those who choose to live in it. When the central city is healthier, the metro is healthier. Besides $100,000 what is the difference between your house and the exact same one in Detroit? Detroit proper is a plain disgusting city with no vitality. Your suburb is pretty much the same in Detroit, but someone will pay substantially more for the same house in Mpls. Why? The city proper of Mpls. is a great place to live and people will pay more to live in its suburbs. You choose to live in the suburbs, your God-given right, but don't suffocate the city that gives life to your suburb, or it will have grave implications for YOUR way of life.

Great post, Minne! Tried to give you some reputation but it wouldn't let me, says I need to spread it around.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em, city-data!

[Minnehahapolitan]

/\ Its the thought that counts. Cheerio.