Too Many Roads? (Arden Hills, Hills: to buy, bankruptcy, maintenance)

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by Slig

I don't think many people would disagree with you that the commuter rail was a mistake. The largest contributor to the roads per capita issue has got to be the surplus of low-density sprawl of windy roads and cul-de-sacs that characterize the majority of the metro area. I would love to see the roads/capita broken down by each suburb.

I'm curious how much the sprawl of MSP is affected by the rural backgrounds of many of its residents. I would bet that MSP has a higher percentage of people who grew up in small towns (or their grandparents still live in small towns, etc) than places like New York, LA, San Fransisco, etc. I think people tend to be comfortable with what they grew up with, or they trend back toward that as they get older. I know that affects me...I grew up ~20 miles from the nearest town with a grocery store, and so spending extended time in a real high-density area makes me feel a bit claustrophobic.

I would bet many people prefer not to more than one 'level' away from the density they grew up with. (i.e. country people prefer the exburbs, city people don't want to go further out than first-ring suburbs, etc)

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by 1stpontiac

I'm curious how much the sprawl of MSP is affected by the rural backgrounds of many of its residents. I would bet that MSP has a higher percentage of people who grew up in small towns (or their grandparents still live in small towns, etc) than places like New York, LA, San Fransisco, etc. I think people tend to be comfortable with what they grew up with, or they trend back toward that as they get older. I know that affects me...I grew up ~20 miles from the nearest town with a grocery store, and so spending extended time in a real high-density area makes me feel a bit claustrophobic.

I would bet many people prefer not to more than one 'level' away from the density they grew up with. (i.e. country people prefer the exburbs, city people don't want to go further out than first-ring suburbs, etc)

Agree. I suppose there are quite a few people like me, however, who grew up in country suburban (most of my childhood was spent growing up in a bedroom community outside of Duluth) who want to go more than one step up to city life, but I notice that growing up how I did really had an impact on me.

For instance, I would love to live a car-free lifestyle (and survived last year without one, though admittedly I'm at the U right now, so it's fairly easy), but I dread waiting for the bus to go just about anywhere but downtown and grocery shopping is just a quick drive up to the Quarry's Target or Rainbow Foods. Growing up in a car-dependent lifestyle has made a car feel convenient to me and free as well - in Duluth, you don't really have much to do without a car. Public transportation is a joke (in fact, our community's closest served location was the mall circulator that made a stop at Walmart before meandering all the way downtown) so up until I really experienced real public transportation in Minneapolis, the car was my way around.

It's definitely a matter of what a person feels most comfortable with, and so hopefully we can continue to push for more density and urbanity in the city and generally increasing walkability and public transportation in the suburbs. That doesn't mean the exurbs have to die...but we need more responsible options that give the choice of a less car-dependent lifestyle.

[GBCommenter]

Well, let me be the crazy libertarian at too late an hour (for himself and not sleeping like he should be), and ask the question: is public transportation on the level being proposed REALLY NEEDED, or are there those who want it because of personal desire or ideology? I'm asking the question sincerely...

If enough people wanted public transportation, they would put their money where their mouth is and pony up the cash voluntarily to make it happen. The absence of that really says the demand is not there and building public transit on the dubious claim of the "public good" is unjustified. Frankly, it's a means of pushing a social engineering ideology or using government dollars to line select pockets (both public and private).

I say let the true free market be the true free market...if the demand is there entrepreneurs will find a way to make it happen (assuming there is not undue government regulation and intervention).

Okay...let the skewering begin if so inclined...

[uptown_urbanist]

What about roads? Would you just stop maintaining or building roads and make people pay if they wanted to use them? A road system is just as much social engineering as is public transportation. I put both in the category of something that people can't (in this day and age) do themselves, but need for the benefit of all of society.

[xandrex]

I have to agree with Uptown. Roads and the Interstate Highway system in general are tied to forms of social engineering as much as public transportation is. People tend, however, to like "social engineering" as a term for liberal policies.

I would love for there to be a huge network of light rail, streetcars, buses, etc. to get around town and admittedly, that's a "personal desire" and "ideology" of mine. But I also want great roads and sidewalks and bike paths too. I think we need to have transportation options for everyone.

A lot of people complain about the large amounts of money going into public transportation and siphoning away from roads. I like to think that what we're doing is bringing other options up to par with roads. It should be just as easy to drive, bike, walk, or take public transportation to any given "hotspot" in town ideally. Obviously, each method has different trade offs (driving will mean paying for limited parking, but you get to travel at higher speeds to the location and in a covered machine, public transportation gets subsidies for tickets but has to stick to a bus/light rail/streetcar schedule, etc.) but one should be able to get to downtown, Uptown, Northeast, and all the other great business centers/nodes in town easily). Let's not limit ourselves to one option.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

What about roads? Would you just stop maintaining or building roads and make people pay if they wanted to use them? A road system is just as much social engineering as is public transportation. I put both in the category of something that people can't (in this day and age) do themselves, but need for the benefit of all of society.

You're ignoring two relevant facts: (1) that roads serve way more people each day, and (2) that roads are way cheaper (how many miles could you pave for the cost of one mile of LRT?). In other words, roads are way more efficient.

Also, if the roads are already serving their function of transporting people (as they are), then there is the additional question of why to build a second (more expensive and less used) transportation infrastructure when roads are already in place.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

I think we're missing the 2nd part of the equation though, which is the density issue. Once density is increased in the metro area, the use of streetcars, LRT, etc. will make alot more sense.

[uptown_urbanist]

Those of you who say roads are "cheaper" are overlooking all the many costs not folded directly into the real cost. Sprawl is incredibly expensive to society, and we are all picking up the costs.

Besides the strictly fiscal realities, there's also the social, political, and environmental costs to consider. Roads certainly have their place, but in this day and age our modern cities need to be moving towards, not away, more options and less auto-dependency. American cities lacking decent public transportation infrastructure risk a downhill slide into second, third, fourth-tier status. And for those living in Twin Cities neighborhoods lacking decent public transportation, your property values could be negatively impacted; more and more people WANT access to public transportation, and are willing to pay more for that privilege. As gas prices and congestion increase that will become more and more valuable, even to those who prefer to use their car for many purposes.

[audadvnc]

Originally Posted by Slig

Once density is increased in the metro area, the use of streetcars, LRT, etc. will make alot more sense.

OTOH, one of the biggest problems with re-implementing a citywide streetcar system is that the roads are already clogged with automobile traffic - there's no room left for rail based streetcars. Imagine all the disastrous traffic snarls we would encounter if, for instance, the city fathers decided to rip up a main thoroughfare like Univer...

Oh, they're already doing that. Never mind.

[west336]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

You're ignoring two relevant facts: (1) that roads serve way more people each day, and (2) that roads are way cheaper (how many miles could you pave for the cost of one mile of LRT?). In other words, roads are way more efficient.

Also, if the roads are already serving their function of transporting people (as they are), then there is the additional question of why to build a second (more expensive and less used) transportation infrastructure when roads are already in place.

I'm not sure roads are cheaper in the long run.....do you have any evidence to the contrary? I say this because I KNOW with freight that trucking is the most expensive form, then rail, and shipping is the cheapest form. I figure this may also be true with passengers. If you think about it, each person buys a car, gasoline, insurance and maintenance at the very least. There is also taxes on all of those things. Rail seems like it's easier to maintain and it's notably safer.

We need both, in reality.