It's funny how the only arguments being made for mass transit are toI'm not seeing any supported arguments from you or people with similar viewpoints that not building mass transit is somehow going to cure the problem. It is infeasible to build our way out of our congestion with roads only. There's no way to argue against that.
complain how expensive and impossible highway construction is. Those
arguments would be a lot more credible if they'd include the cost and
possibility of reducing congestion by building mass transit. Berg had an
article in today's Strib that said it would cost $20 billion to build enough
lanes to make congestion "reasonable." His only reference to the cost of
mass transit was to say that $20 billion would build 20 Hiawatha lines. But
I seriously question whether 20 Hiawatha lines would make congestion
"reasonable." What I'm concerned about is we will spend something in that
range for mass transit over the next 10-20 years, and it'll still take hours
to get from one side of the metro to another, by any means. I think mass
transit advocates are afraid to come up with a comprehensive study, because
then we'd all see the enormous costs of lowering congestion with all the
trains and buses needed to do so. It's much easier to take potshots at
highway costs.
Steve Berg's $20 billion price-tag for nearly doubling the existing roadways is an admitted wild guess on his part, and there's lots of evidence to indicate that it is far lower than what it would really cost. Even then, there would be no support for such a thing. Can anyone imagine there being support for making I-494 sixteen (16) lanes wide from the airport to Eden Prairie? Making I-94 twelve (12) lanes wide from St. Michael to U.S 169? How about 12 lanes for I-35 from the southern border of Dakota County to the 35W/35E split, and then enlarge both 35W and 35E to double their widts through Burnsville and Eagan?
Not going to happen.
The former Met Council tried to put a plan into place to encourage metro area growth in such a way that transportation issues would be easier to solve (via development corridors) in comparison to solving them using the willy-nilly development preceding and now about to follow since the new Tim Pawlenty Met Council decided to throw out that 30 year plan. (Does anyone else think it completely bizarre that the governor of the entire state gets to pick all 17 members of the Met Council, an organization which is concerned with only the 7-county metro area? Talk about taxation without representation.)
So do we just learn to live with congestion and like it?
I suppose all the cities around the world with good mass transit, expecially those which don't experience congestion as bad as we do, don't count as any evidence whatsoever as supporting the idea that mass transit might help reduce congestion? Or that the physics of the whole question of single driver automobiles versus a variety of higher occupancy mass transit options make it irrefutable that mass transit can move more people per unit area or unit time? Or that reducing congestion is not the sole reason for building mass transit -- that perhaps there are other reasons such as providing mobility to people who cannot drive automobiles such as the rapidly growing elderly segment of the population as baby boomers age, or those who have disabilities that preclude driving, or people too young to drive, or people who can't afford to drive, or people who shouldn't be driving (e.g. under the influece of legal and illegal chemicals including alcohol).
I'm pretty sure that 20 well-run rail lines would significantly improve congestion in the Twin Cities, but Mark Anderson can put aside his worry that we will build such a thing over the next 10 to 20 years. I've lived here 24 years, and they have been battling over LRT since before I moved here and we are just now getting our first and only line -- due in a large part to having elected Jesse Ventura in anger with professional politicians whose aim is to fatten their larder rather than serve the public.
Think their is a congestion problem in Minneapolis, don't think we can build enough roads to solve it, and don't like riding busses crowded with "those" people? Then instead of whining about it, or claiming mass transit proponents need to come up with alternatives and more "comprehensive stud[ies]"(!) how about coming up with alternatives oneself? Take a look at PRT (personal rapid transit -- http://www.cprt.org/) and see if maybe that fits your bill -- rapid transit without the "mass" of humanity in the same vehicle with you, flexibility in destination and schedule. Or some up with something else. Maybe even -- gasp -- visit a city with good mass transit and see what it's like.
Chris Johnson Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
