I've written before on this list of the intersections of 25th and 27th and Lyndale Av So. When I requested y councilperson look into the possibility of installing lights at those intersections she referred the matter to Mike Monahan who at the time was in Public Works in charge of Tranportation issues. The story I got had facets. First there was mention that Lyndale was to go through a makeover in the near future. From this I inferred, correctly or not, that semaphores might be something looked at in a redesign. Second, and probably more relevant to our conversation regarding warning lights at intersections that could be triggered by pedestrians, was COST. It was pointed out to me that the cost to install semaphores would be $70k/per. Though warning lights may cost less I am certain the question of cost would be paramount especially given the fact we have put off repairing bridges on the 29th Street corridor and can't find money to collect garbage on city streets. It was also pointed out to me that "studies show" that streets with semaphores get more traffic. I suppose that may be true as suddenly it becomes easier to make left turns. My thought was, "would that necessarily be a bad thing, and if so would it be offset by the new safety one felt crossing the street?" The fact is that for the foreseeable future we will remain a car culture but that we will always have people who walk, ride the bus, and bike. The challenge then is to arrive at some solution that provides the reatest satisfaction to all groups with the 'adult' understanding that none of us may be able to get everything they want. This is often what challenges our government and city leaders on a daily basis. It is what William Moorish wrote about in this week's issue of Southwest Journal. It was at issue yesterday in Zoning and Planning. There is one consideration that must always come first in any discussion of policy. The Environment; be it the earth, public health(mental,physical,spiritual) or a myriad of other categories subsumed in the greater definition of environment. This was at issue yesterday in the decision about Minnehaha Academy. I was not present at any meetings prior to yesterday. I understand this decision has been two years in the making. Others know much more than I. I must say though that as I stood on the corner of 5th and Nicollet breathing exhaust fumes from a trunk and recall times when I spent eight hours at a stretch working in truck garages with constant traffic coming and going the argument against expansion of the school and increased traffic for more hours of the day due to extra-curicullar activities plus the felling of 27 mature trees, some of them 46" diameter oaks, to bereplaced by 100 some odd saplings gave me pause. We are insulating and air conditioning homes in the flight path of MSP and yet those people closest to the Academy seem to have been given nothing for what to them will be every bit as much a degradation of their environment as those in south Minneapolis and Richfield. Minnehaha Academy won on this one though it took them a long time. And in the end I'm struck by Alyce_____ who quoted the surrounding communities from which the school drew their students and the point she made that the people who had moved out the city in part probably because of improved environments were now driving back into the city befouling the air even more. Go figure. Does any of this make sense? How I got here from there I have no idea. Tim Connolly Ward 7 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
