Mr. Anderson says that transit advocates say that the reason for transit in
the Twin Cities is to cure congestion. Those who are not transit advocates
continue to say that transit advocates say that transit will cure
congestion. Transit advocates -- at least as a body -- do NOT say that
transit will cure congestion, at least not in the Twin Cities (in other
cities with well-developed transit systems, the loss of transit quite
clearly WOULD result in complete gridlock). As others have noted in this
thread, there are a variety of other reasons for promoting a vigorous and
sustainable transit system in the Twin Cities.
Driving is vastly underpriced (subsidized) and therefore vastly
overconsumed. Welfare Economics 101. The only cure for congestion is the
proper pricing of driving. If driving is priced properly, over time,
development patterns reflect the actual costs of transportation and become
more compact, and transit becomes steadily more cost-effective than a
single-occupancy-vehicle-based transportation system.
In the short term, I support transit because it is essential for many of the
most vulnerable people to keep their heads above water in this society, and
because it allows at least some people to choose to not be
automobile-dependent. In the bigger picture, I support transit -- as a
long-term commitment of a metropolitan area -- because it is clear to me
that the quality of life in a metropolitan area with an
automobile-preponderant transportation system is not sustainable.
I would suggest that the "70% underfunding" of the Minneapolis school system
reported in the recent school funding study is a result of our
automobile-preponderant system. If you find that obscure, well, then that's
just my obscure comment for the day.
Chuck Holtman
Prospect Park
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:03:45 -0500
From: "Anderson, Mark (GE Infrastructure)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Mpls] Bus strike -- David Strom
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The comment made by David Strom was not a conclusion but merely a comment.
He noted that traffic didn't seem to be affected at all by the bus strike,
which contradicts many of the comments made by mass transit advocates. I
agree that his comment was premature. It also takes into account only the
affects on traffic of mass transit, not the suffering that occurs by those
that normally take the bus. Nevertheless it is a valid issue to talk about.
One constantly hears that building more highways will not cure congestion,
and that the only way to do this is to build more mass transit. So far it
looks like mass transit has essentially zero effect on congestion. We'll
see if that holds up over the next few weeks (if the strike lasts a while,
which looks likely to me). Perhaps the major argument of mass transit
advocates will go out the window.
Mark Anderson
Bancroft
------------------------------
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.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
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
