Mr. Bernstein reports that 2/3 of bus riders would cease using the bus if they had a car or a second car. Conversely, an adequate public transit system would allow our family to DISPENSE WITH our second car, something that we would like nothing better than to do.
To my mind, a transit system has two purposes: (a) in the present, to provide transportation for those who cannot afford, or are not able, to participate in our grand collective automobile fetish; (b) in the future, as an absolute requisite for a livable and sustainable metropolitan area. (No, contrary to the straw argument regularly put forward by the privatizers, at this stage transit is not for the purpose of reducing congestion. Moving toward market pricing of automobile use (e.g., as economic studies suggest, a $10/gallon gas tax, with revenues directed as well as possible toward those bearing the externalized costs of automobile use) is the only way that congestion would be mitigated in the near term. The conversation about fixed rail infrastructure needs to occur after we all have transported ourselves in a time machine (ah! PRT!) forty or fifty years into the future. What should our transportation system look like in 2054? Well, 2004 is the time to get started on it (actually 1954 was the time, but let's not dwell on the past). Alongside the straw criterion that the Hiawatha LRT line must prove itself by reducing congestion, the other straw notion is that LRT needs to "prove itself" in order for further investment in fixed rail to occur. The value and use of the Hiawatha line will be as part of a system, and to build it is to commit to the development of the system over time. If the goal of transit opponents is to use Hiawatha's expectedly moderate ridership to deny further system development (and to deny it operating funds to suppress that ridership), it is engaging in dishonesty and simply stranding a considerable public investment. Chuck Holtman Prospect Park Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 02:27:53 -0500 From: "Jim Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Mpls] Re:lrt operating costs To: "'Bruce Gaarder'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Pretty consistently, surveys of citizens in large metropolitan areas indicate that more than half would never get on a bus no matter how convenient and more than half would gladly use light rail if it were convenient. When I worked on corridor analysis studies for MNDOT (10 years ago now) we found that the largest segment of regular bus riders were people who were transit dependent. Ironically, more than 2/3 would stop using the bus if they could afford a car/second car! LRT does not replace the need for buses nor does it eliminate the need for roadways. It is simply another part of the urban transportation system; perhaps personal rapid transit is another component on the horizon. Jim Bernstein 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
