Census Results! (Minneapolis, Nicollet: best city, new home, buying)

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by west336

You're right, it's completely efficient and a good use of time and resources. As an American, you have the right to do whatever you want and you take every advantage of that right. Good for you!!

much more efficient driving my car 35 miles in 35 minutes at 2000 rpm than a S Minneapolis NIMBY driving that same vehicle 7 miles in bumper to bumper traffic poking along stop n go for 20 minutes, guess those people shouldn't be allowed to make their personal choices in your world either.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

Ha Ha Ha these post make me enjoy my 35 mile commute more every time I read this self-righteous drivel.

LOL... love it... I wanted to just give you a reputation boost for this comment, but C-D wants me to spread some love around first.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

much more efficient driving my car 35 miles in 35 minutes at 2000 rpm than a S Minneapolis NIMBY driving that same vehicle 7 miles in bumper to bumper traffic poking along stop n go for 20 minutes, guess those people shouldn't be allowed to make their personal choices in your world either.

The difference is that a more centralized, compact development pattern means that fewer people HAVE to drive those miles, and can instead take mass transit, walk, or bike. More compact living also means less duplication of services, fewer miles of roads to be maintained, etc. etc. There's also some economic considerations; when one takes on a very long commute in a car, one feels a much greater impact when gas prices soar. I think people should be able to make personal choices, but at the same time there's no reason that we as a society should have been subsidizing sprawl (through various policies and incentives) that do have detrimental effects for society as a whole. If people want to live a very long way from work, the rest of society shouldn't have to fund it.

My husband once had to have a (short-lived, but longer than we'd have liked -- we moved as soon as we could!) very long commute, and the wear-and-tear on the car was tremendous, the gas bills high, and he felt like so much of his time was spent commuting and not being at home and part of his community. It was a bad situation. We obviously chose to put up with that (for a time, anyway), but that was not a choice that should be encouraged or subsidized by government policies.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

The difference is that a more centralized, compact development pattern means that fewer people HAVE to drive those miles, and can instead take mass transit, walk, or bike. More compact living also means less duplication of services, fewer miles of roads to be maintained, etc. etc. There's also some economic considerations; when one takes on a very long commute in a car, one feels a much greater impact when gas prices soar. I think people should be able to make personal choices, but at the same time there's no reason that we as a society should have been subsidizing sprawl (through various policies and incentives) that do have detrimental effects for society as a whole. If people want to live a very long way from work, the rest of society shouldn't have to fund it.

My husband once had to have a (short-lived, but longer than we'd have liked -- we moved as soon as we could!) very long commute, and the wear-and-tear on the car was tremendous, the gas bills high, and he felt like so much of his time was spent commuting and not being at home and part of his community. It was a bad situation. We obviously chose to put up with that (for a time, anyway), but that was not a choice that should be encouraged or subsidized by government policies.

last I remember, my personal choice trumps your self-centered perspective of civic duty.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

last I remember, my personal choice trumps your self-centered perspective of civic duty.

I don't care about civic duty (well, I do, but don't think it needs to be mandated -- and I think it's the opposite of "self-centered") but I DO care about economics. No reason the government needs to pay for a personal lifestyle choice that negatively impacts the state.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I don't care about civic duty (well, I do, but don't think it needs to be mandated -- and I think it's the opposite of "self-centered") but I DO care about economics. No reason the government needs to pay for a personal lifestyle choice that negatively impacts the state.

... Like an inefficient light rail system? "Green" light bulbs/cars/appliances/windows? Above-market public sector compensation packages? Abortion?

[DaPerpKazoo]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

... like an inefficient light rail system? "green" light bulbs/cars/appliances/windows? abortion? above-market public sector compensation packages?

I've never had the chance to actually have a reasonable conversation with anyone who actually considers the LRT to be a boondoggle. Explain to me, how is the LRT a boondoggle?

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by DaPerpKazoo

I've never had the chance to actually have a reasonable conversation with anyone who actually considers the LRT to be a boondoggle. Explain to me, how is the LRT a boondoggle?

Well, if you are advocating LRT, I think it's really your job to sell it to everybody--not the critics' burden to show that it wouldn't be good.

So, I'll give you a rough template to use in demonstrating the financial prospects of LRT. I am keeping it simple here (there would be many more consequential costs and benefits, but since we are talking economics here, we will stick to easily forecast numbers). Make whatever assumptions you want, and specify a reasonable time horizon:

Cost of construction + operating costs (including employee pay and benefits) + maintenance costs = rough cost estimate

(Ticket price) x (number of riders) = revenue

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Well, if you are advocating LRT, I think it's really your job to sell it to everybody--not the critics' burden to show that it wouldn't be good.

So, I'll give you a rough template to use in demonstrating the financial prospects of LRT. I am keeping it simple here (there would be many more consequential costs and benefits, but since we are talking economics here, we will stick to easily forecast numbers). Make whatever assumptions you want, and specify a reasonable time horizon:

Cost of construction + operating costs (including employee pay and benefits) + maintenance costs = rough cost estimate

(Ticket price) x (number of riders) = revenue

hey! our needs for mass transit are not a result of our inability to provide for our mobility needs because government is obligated to provide us a means to get around and the rest of you should pay for it.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

hey! our needs for mass transit are not a result of our inability to provide for our mobility needs because government is obligated to provide us a means to get around and the rest of you should pay for it.

Are you referring to extensive and expanding road infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of modern Twin Cities sprawl?