Sorry for the long post, but I think this is pretty interesting...
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 10:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael, I'm returning our discussion back to the listserv, as it seems
we were about finished with it anyway (tomorrow is voting day!) and the
general comments might be of interest to others. Thanks for the exchange
of opinion.
Yeah, it does seem like the discussion keeps returning to transportation and land use issues, which seem to be issues germane to the list. Also, to catch people up a little, here's yesterday's exchange, Mike's post first:
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 06:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for responding to my curiosity. I was got a little mixed up on who
I was sending the message to I guess.
Two quick points in response:
1 - I was never trying to intentionally persuade anyone to vote for
either candidate. Someone else kick off the mayoral debate, so I just
joined in saying why I thought Soglin might be best for my vote. I've
voted for him twice before, but I worked for the Zipperer campaign this
time for the primary, and was left to decide between two candidates who I
believe are both good. I like Dave's overall goals even better than
Soglin's (esp. less auto traffic in city) but neither candidate has shown
how they will get more people to choose mass transportation even if the
service is improved. I'm especially worried about trains, because they
modify the landscape and block bicycle and pedestrian flows, as well as
autos. Unless a candidate is willing to stick their neck out and
activity promote a concept such as financial "rebates" for people who
drive their vehicles significantly less, or don't own motor vehicles, and
work toward getting state gas tax money to support it, that such
investments won't have a chance to succeed in getting a large number of
the existing heavy traffic off the roads. Soglin is a risk-taker and not
afraid to go against the grain, so I'm putting my money (my vote) on him
to make radical changes in transportation and land use in this city, by
using a hybrid form of the market system.
2 - I thought Kathy Falk was going to be the person to promote that
radical but only effective approach that must go along with any major
investment program for transit in my opinion, but she let me down.
Instead, she caved in to the DOT and the Roadbuilder's demands. She did
not even try to fulfill the expectations. She took the safe route, as
most politicians typically take. Calculated moves. I was greatly
disappointed, along with many others who knew how aggressive she use to
be in earlier days in Madison.
Michael Neuman http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/trans/neuman_vmt.html http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/neuman_gw.pdf "The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard." - Gaylord Nelson, Earth Day founder
From: Michael Lemberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 12:40:03 PM America/Chicago To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: C & S Rants on Bikies Listserv
Hi Mike,
I actually was responding to this part of your last message to me:
"Vote for Soglin. He's not afraid to speak his mind. If you don't use your rights once and awhile, you risk losing them."
Which I read as an imperative. There's nothing wrong with imperatives and I certainly respect you for standing up for your candidate of choice. I just felt I should make my reasoning clear.
As for the transportation policies you mention in this message, I have some feelings about those too. The vibe I get from a lot of people is that they know how expensive cars are but drive because they believe motor vehicles to be a "necessary evil" (I don't know how necessary they are, but they're definitely evil!). I therefore believe that VMT will continue to increase until one of several things happens:
1. Fuel becomes outlandishly expensive; 2. Drivers bear the actual cost of driving; 3. People figure out and care about how unhealthy cars are; or 4. Affordable, convenient and speedy alternatives become available.
I'm not betting on 1, 2 or 3. I think government-sponsored VMT-reduction rebates are an excellent idea, but they must be coupled with viable transportation alternatives. We need to encourage people to give up that second car by building walkable neighborhoods and transit networks that present a realistic alternative to car travel. I have no doubt that Paul is a risk-taker. I just happen to like Dave better on this issue.
Also, while I agree that trains "modify the landscape and block bicycle and pedestrian flows," I think they're nothing compared to what roads and motor vehicles do to the landscape. Have you been out to the area between Madison and Verona lately?
Would like to write more, but I have to go. Cheers,
Michael
I just have two points to make.. One, I have never said we shouldn't
have other viable alternatives to auto travel to go along with the
drive-less annual rebates. I think investing in quality transit for the
suburbs is a fine viable alternative. However, the ones who make use of
it should pay for it, not those of us paying high taxes here in the city
already.
I recognize that your plan does not exclude other forms of transportation, but it doesn't make a strong case FOR it either. I fully agree with you on who should pay for it.
Secondly, what makes you so sure all those big wide highways like the
Verona Rd./HWY 151 area aren't going to still be here even if we do offer
rail transit? They will be of course. Putting a alternative systems
like rail will just be more taking of land for transportation purposes.
That's why I think going for just more and cleaner buses is better than
rail. They are also more flexible in getting to places. And if we can
get more people to use them rather than drive, the congestion should go
down on the existing highways as well, because one bus can replace 60 or
so SOVs going back and forth from Sprawlsville to downtown Madison or the
university. And by getting by without rail transit, there will be less
blockages for bicyclists, pedestrians and cars and buses that do still
use the roads. We'd also still have the South West Corridor bicycle
path, too, because we won't have to give it back up for rail
transportation..
It's true that rail will take more land for transportation purposes. The hope is that it will take up less than new highways. Given a choice between having a new road for 60 or SOVs going back and forth from Sprawlsville to downtown Madison or having a rail corridor for Verona or McFarland or Sun Prairie, which would you choose?
What is comes down to is this: people need to live closer to where they
do things every day, so that they can use nonfossil fuel energy sources
(like food for example), for most of their daily living. That's the way
things were before the automobile (except for the farmers and ranchers I
suppose). But it order to go back to that, we have to stop subsidizing
automobile travel, in a big way. It has to become in people's best
interest to not rely on auto travel so much, financial and otherwise.
Either making driving prohibitively expensive by raising gas taxes to
where they should be, in combination with paying people who find ways to
get by without driving so much, would be just the ticket. Perhaps we can
ask the new mayor to give this matter some serious consideration. The
alternative is more traffic, more pollution, more congestion, wider
highways, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions from Dane County.
Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Common hopes. I think we differ in opinion about who's style is better suited to get the job done. Soglin clearly has a passion for Madison, and I think he always has. I still maintain however that Cieslewicz's communication style is better suited to building the coalitions that Madison and Dane County will need very soon.
Whomever ends up in city hall, we should all support better land use and transportation policies for Madison and Dane County.
Michael Lemberger Madison, WI
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
