Sean Wherley wrote:
While the Star Tribune's support for light rail is encouraging, it is
difficult to square the paper's enthusiasm for the Hiawatha line with its
advocacy for more highway construction in south Minneapolis.
Carol Becker wrote:
I would argue that they are eminently reconcilable.
Folks also need to understand the limitations of both approaches, highways
and transit. Transit functions well in the urban areas where the trolley
car was the organizing principle for development. Houses are close
together, commercial densities are high enough to support transit, and a
large number of people are going to concentrated destinations like downtown
or the University. In the suburbs, the automobile was the organizing
principle for development and houses are far apart, with streets that are
not on a grid, and not convenient for transit. People are also going from
multiple origins to widely spread destinations, also a model that does not
work well for transit. In short, urban form works well for transit because
it was built for transit while suburban form doesn't because it wasn't.
There is a lot of truth in what Ms. Becker wrote, but there is one fatal flaw in the first sentence supporting the Tribune's disparate editorial positions. From Ms. Becker's own arguments, we see that transit models do not work as well in the suburbs (though I would argue not nearly as poorly as she claims), and highway models do not work in the urban areas.
Where is this big new highway project located that the Star Tribune supports? Smack dab in the middle of some of the most concentrated urban areas, precisely where Ms. Becker argues transit makes more sense.
Perhaps if they were arguing for a second ring road outside the 494/694 loop, their positions would make more sense.
I see no reason to pave over more valuable residential, commercial and green space real estate in Minneapolis simply for the convenience of suburban dwellers "cutting through" the city to get to some (often suburban) destination on the other side -- which is what the majority of the traffic on 35W in south Minneapolis is doing.
Even better than that, I agree with a Commentary piece in the Star Tribune from last week wherein the writer wrote that we do not necessarily have to accept as inevitable the adding of one million people to the Twin Cities. We will be spending immense amounts of money to even triage the congestion, much less hold even with today. The state ought to be looking at bigger, more creative plans, such as finding ways to encourage those people to locate elsewhere in the state, particularly where there has been a net loss of people.
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.
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
