why dont they build more public transportation to more suburbs (Minneapolis: employment, buyers)

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Suburbanites gotta blame themselves for electing people like Tim Pawlenty who hate anything public. Minneapolis and St Paul have battled with suburban legislators for decades over budget issues.

Pretty sure Tim Pawlenty was born in St. Paul and grew up in South St. Paul....I also think he is the worst thing that ever happened to MN....

[dravogadro]

I would be happy to build more roads if the cost of owning a personal vehicle and the fuel to power it reflected the true cost of use and its externalities (e.g. wars).

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by dravogadro

I would be happy to build more roads if the cost of owning a personal vehicle and the fuel to power it reflected the true cost of use and its externalities (e.g. wars).

We pay for wars thru tax dollars that are funneled to the defense department. Defense is 20% of the federal budget.

Also, and this may surprise some people, but a quickly-shrinking percent of our oil comes from overseas. Right now it's only about 40%. Only 1.1m bbl/day comes from the Middle East.

Where the U.S. imports its oil from, in one map

Also:

U.S. oil imports are falling to their lowest level since 1987

Pretty sure Tim Pawlenty was born in St. Paul and grew up in South St. Paul....I also think he is the worst thing that ever happened to MN....

Pretty much nailed it.

[jayhopethismeeturstandard]

Imagine what 1 + Trillion dollars in domestic savings/spending over the last decade could have done to this nation; infrastructure reforms, educational programs, job training, tax breaks... plus a balanced budget... The great recession may have never occurred or would have had lesser implications. Businesses would have been keen to establish manufacturing in this country if namely our infrastructure didn't get like a D- grade on its report card,( what would all you parents do if your kids got a D- in Math which is just as important as infrastructure.)

The 2009 Grades include: Aviation (D), Bridges (C), Dams (D), Drinking Water (D-), Energy (D+), Hazardous Waste (D), Inland Waterways (D-), Levees (D-), Public Parks and Recreation (C-), Rail (C-), Roads (D-), Schools (D), Solid Waste (C+), Transit (D), and Wastewater (D-).

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09...report-card-d/

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Pretty sure Tim Pawlenty was born in St. Paul and grew up in South St. Paul....I also think he is the worst thing that ever happened to MN....

Pawlenty was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 1992, winning 49.1 percent of the vote in District 38B (suburban Dakota County).[18] In the House, he authored bills instituting term limits for committee chairmen, funding for infant parenting classes, minimum sentences for repeat domestic violence offenders, and community notification for sex offenders. In response to a state budget surplus, he advocated for a tax reduction rather than expanded education funding.[19] He was reelected four times and was chosen House Majority Leader when the Republicans became the majority party in the State Legislature in 1998.[20]

Did St Paul ever trust him by electing him?

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Globe199

You think it's "despicable" and "a joke." But the concept wasn't invented by some "liberal planning class" just to plss you off. It's rooted in actual research. Imagine that! It's called induced demand, and it's been recognized as a problem with road planning since at least the 1960s.

Induced demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, that's not to say that our freeway system doesn't need work, because it absolutely does; it's been neglected for over 30 years. Part of the problem is that we have had a state government that's been hostile to any kind of infrastructure improvement. Just look at the long-term response to the 35W bridge disaster -- it's like it never even happened.

The reality is that we need comprehensive transportation funding and planning. We need expanded and improved freeways, but we also need transit.

Your example of school hallways is...umm...not remotely relevant.

Transportation Studies are a waste of money and are prepared by interest groups who have a vested interest in promoting public transportation

I would disagree with everything you wrote, just like I did in every class I took in college, also majoring in Economics, so I'm privy to induced demand.

And the school hallways example is perfectly relevant.

If 494 was expanded to 3 lanes from the MG split down to 394, it's not like someone who currently doesn't drive is going to just say "hmm well I'm going to drive now, just because there are more lanes"

In fact, I see it as big brother manipulating our lives. "HAHAHA, look at these drones. Moving from place to place in organzied communist public transportation, dictated by our schedule.. HAHA.. Let's make those heathens who use vehicles sit in traffic, HAHA let's refuse to add any additional lanes, not because it makes sense, but because it might entice people to drive more, during rush hour! HEHEHE"


I get the logic and theory behind, but it doesn't make sense. The studies usually use data like "Vehicle Trips" and rarely include peak hours, and if they do they are incorrect.

[Beenhere4ever]

let's refuse to add any additional lanes, not because it makes sense, but because it might entice people to drive more, during rush hour!

Lost me at "it makes sense". Except for the bulging pockets of developers, why does it "make sense". We should just endlessly pave so that the suckers who buy homes way out have an easy time getting to the place where they could have lived in the first place? That is confusing "sense" with "I want". Not unique in America. We are really good at mixing up our wants with society's needs. Hey, you can have whatever your voting power can get you. But don't call it "sensible". If anything was not "sensible" in the last half century, it wasn't the Levittowning of America. That was truly a boondoggle for the real estate industry.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Lost me at "it makes sense". Except for the bulging pockets of developers, why does it "make sense". We should just endlessly pave so that the suckers who buy homes way out have an easy time getting to the place where they could have lived in the first place? That is confusing "sense" with "I want". Not unique in America. We are really good at mixing up our wants with society's needs. Hey, you can have whatever your voting power can get you. But don't call it "sensible". If anything was not "sensible" in the last half century, it wasn't the Levittowning of America. That was truly a boondoggle for the real estate industry.

494/696 is a main transit route and also the bulk of the Twin Cities Metro employers have their offices on or very near this ring. Even if everyone lived near their office, there is still a need for adequate lanes on this ring as well as 94 and 35, both of which are main routes not only for employment but general travel for trucking goods, etc. A very small fraction of the metro area works in Minneapolis, as has been discussed many times before. Options have been given here to reduce cars for suburban employment but people here don't see the need--so either put in a reliable transit system along 494-696 and 94 and 35 or add more lanes. You can't have it both ways.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by moving123456

There was a rail line that went West from Minneapolis, through St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Wayzata, Spring Park, Mound, St. Bonifacius, and all the way to Hutchinson that might have been good for a western suburb commuter line.

It is in the process of being turned into a bike trail now though.

Over thirty years ago, I argued in Minnetonka for heavy rail on the abandoned rail line that ran along Minnetonka Blvd., but I was in a distinct minority. Everyone wanted a bike trail so that's what they got. We've had a lot of railroad right of way squandered on bike trails in this country over the past quarter century.

I agree that the layout in the suburbs in not conducive to mass transit, as the issue is how to get back and forth between the transit stop and work. It's too far too walk, too cold to trudge across parking lots in the winter, and too expensive to run buses or shuttles between individual buildings. Without a central business district, mass transit isn't efficient enough.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Over thirty years ago, I argued in Minnetonka for heavy rail on the abandoned rail line that ran along Minnetonka Blvd., but I was in a distinct minority. Everyone wanted a bike trail so that's what they got. We've had a lot of railroad right of way squandered on bike trails in this country over the past quarter century.

I agree that the layout in the suburbs in not conducive to mass transit, as the issue is how to get back and forth between the transit stop and work. It's too far too walk, too cold to trudge across parking lots in the winter, and too expensive to run buses or shuttles between individual buildings. Without a central business district, mass transit isn't efficient enough.

The suburban bus lines are already set up to accommodate a light rail ring around 494/694. There are large parking lots at these transit stations and the buses already pass over 494/694. Adding a stop at a rail station would not be a huge expense. Commuters coming from say Lakeville that work in Eden Prairie could drive to the transit station in Lakeville, catch a bus that is already in place, get off on 494 and light rail to offices in Eden Prairie. Companies could run shuttles--21 passenger buses or whatever from the transit stations if need be. It's just not that complicated really.