Central Corridor Opposition (Rice: 2014, buying, construction)

[fashionguy]

I think your point of view only works if a large system of rail lines are built at the same time covering the whole city. One line every 10 years would not change people's lifestyle much. And since the construction speed is inevitably so slow because of lack of funding, etc, you will have to consider the majority of people who are not able to use the benefits of the very few lines being built, until an extensive network of lines is formed. Besides, if an extensive network is formed, they will have to consider crossings issues within the rail system also. Such problems cannot be neglected for efficient transportation. I am all for public transportation, but Central Corridor crossing even Snelling Ave at grade level will be a disaster for traffic. There are too many crossing traffic, left turns, etc. at that point.

Originally Posted by DaPerpKazoo

While the 42,000 daily riders aren't all coming off of University, that sure is a hell of a lot of traffic being pulled off the roads. I bet 94 loses
more cars than University does.

Also, the transit mall was the U's idea. They could have had a lane of public road each way if they wanted. I personally think that the transit mall will be a huge success. University is way too dirty, the sidewalks are too narrow, and the cars drive too fast coming off the bridge for it to be comfortable to the hordes of pedestrians.

Public transitis about more than alleviating traffic. It's also about increasing livability in the core cities to discourage sprawl. Public transit also levels the playing field for lower income residents, enabling them to travel the city without pumping (lit&fig) cash that they don't have into cars.

The United States as a whole would be much better off if the Interstate Highway Act had never been passed, and it's time to realize the folly of past generations and start to build our cities in a responsible, ethical manner.

[eastside38]

I'm opposed to LRT completely (don't shoot me please!!) for a litany of reasons, but I'm not opposed to public transportation at all. How about they put elevated trains along the freeways, like in Chicago? Then you will really see people ditching their cars for more efficient transportation.

And to all the people that write off cars as inefficient transportation: This summer, I drove to Cleveland and visited family there. My 1999 2.8L BMW 3-series used up only half a tank of gas by the time it got to the Illinois border at 75 MPH on I-94. The onboard computer said that I got 34 MPG between my house and that point. It's all in how you drive and what you drive according to your need.

MPG for the round trip: 31.5

[fashionguy]

Because Minnesota doesn't have money at the current point. I don't think other states are well off either. The cost has gone up so much compared to the old days. All the newly built lines across the whole country are favoring light rails now. I believe cost is the only reason. Old cities like New York, Chicago, DC were lucky that they built their extensive subway system long long ago. If New York didn't build its subway till now, it wouldn't be able to pull off the system either.

Originally Posted by smith21

why is minnesota so cheap when it comes to spending money on improving public transportation? why not have an elevated train down university? im all for public transportation but minnesota is cheap just like not having the southwest rail go thru uptown the most densely populated area in the state. why cant minnesota do things right instead of cheap.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by eastside38

And to all the people that write off cars as inefficient transportation: This summer, I drove to Cleveland and visited family there. My 1999 2.8L BMW 3-series used up only half a tank of gas by the time it got to the Illinois border at 75 MPH on I-94. The onboard computer said that I got 34 MPG between my house and that point. It's all in how you drive and what you drive according to your need.

MPG for the round trip: 31.5

OK, let's try this: Take 300 passengers off the Amtrak Empire Builder and Lake Shore Limited trains between here and Cleveland and put each in a car like yours. Assume each driver gets the same mpg as you did. How much gas would be consumed by the 300 cars on this trip? How much fuel is consumed by the trains? Now which do you think is more efficient?

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

OK, let's try this: Take 300 passengers off the Amtrak Empire Builder and Lake Shore Limited trains between here and Cleveland and put each in a car like yours. Assume each driver gets the same mpg as you did. How much gas would be consumed by the 300 cars on this trip? How much fuel is consumed by the trains? Now which do you think is more efficient?

Moreover, we had 31.5mpg cars in the late 1970s. That isn't saying much.

[eastside38]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Moreover, we had 31.5mpg cars in the late 1970s. That isn't saying much.

Great point as far as efficiency, Ben Around, but I took a peek at the Amtrak website to look at the length of a trip. I typed in that I would be leaving MSP and head to Cleveland. The website said that a train departing MSP reaches Chicago in 8 hours (compared to 6 hours by car) followed by a 3 hour layover (11 hours total so far). Then, from Chicago, it takes 6 hours to get to Cleveland (same as in the car if you drive at night to miss the Chicago traffic). But in total, this takes 17 hours when a car takes 12,13 hours!!! It all depends on what you want, I guess. Maybe a train trip would be more comfortable.

Cars in the late 1970s, with the exception of (going to generalize here) foreign sports cars and Cadillacs, both lacked in performance and ride and build quality. My 11 year-old car with 134500 miles, still beats many comparable modern sedans to 60 MPH, corners better than most of them (rides through Afton are the best), rides like new, looks relatively new, and still achieves the same fuel economy as the poorly made cars from that era when they were new. Not trying to brag here, just making a point.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by eastside38

My 11 year-old car with 134500 miles, still beats many comparable modern sedans to 60 MPH, corners better than most of them (rides through Afton are the best), rides like new, looks relatively new, and still achieves the same fuel economy as the poorly made cars from that era when they were new. Not trying to brag here, just making a point.

Don't worry, we're all very impressed by your 1999 2.8L BMW 3-series.

[kcitti]

I drive a dodge stratus!!!

[DaPerpKazoo]

Originally Posted by eastside38

Great point as far as efficiency, Ben Around, but I took a peek at the Amtrak website to look at the length of a trip. I typed in that I would be leaving MSP and head to Cleveland. The website said that a train departing MSP reaches Chicago in 8 hours (compared to 6 hours by car) followed by a 3 hour layover (11 hours total so far). Then, from Chicago, it takes 6 hours to get to Cleveland (same as in the car if you drive at night to miss the Chicago traffic). But in total, this takes 17 hours when a car takes 12,13 hours!!! It all depends on what you want, I guess. Maybe a train trip would be more comfortable.

Cars in the late 1970s, with the exception of (going to generalize here) foreign sports cars and Cadillacs, both lacked in performance and ride and build quality. My 11 year-old car with 134500 miles, still beats many comparable modern sedans to 60 MPH, corners better than most of them (rides through Afton are the best), rides like new, looks relatively new, and still achieves the same fuel economy as the poorly made cars from that era when they were new. Not trying to brag here, just making a point.

I know I for one wouldn't want to be in a car going that much over the speed limit.

Again, it's about more than energy. How much money is the gov't spending in highway construction and maintenance? How much money are you and everyone else on the road spending on insurance and car payments?

[eastside38]

Originally Posted by Slig

Don't worry, we're all very impressed by your 1999 2.8L BMW 3-series.

I don't expect, or even want, anyone to be. Just trying to make the point that a well-used car with a decent sized engine can have good performance and fuel economy at the same time, contrary to what some seem to believe. Maybe I should have left out the BMW part. Sorry if I sound conceited. The car's worth less than $10000 at this point.