> practical to implement on major roadways (US 52, US 169, MN 100, I94, et >
My guess is that communites along US Highway 10, one of the fastest growing corridors in the state -- if not the fastest, will reject congestion pricing. Current law allows local lawmakers to do so, and I expect that local preference would reject such efforts in this area -- bringing us back to how the heck do we bring the actual costs of transportation to road users? One upside to doing so would be that transit would be far easier to implement -- the fare revenue would be able to be priced higher. (of course, then those taxes you're paying less of are either going into fares or road user fees) Also, whats to prevent business owners from driving their fleets on nearby, less congested but somewhat slower side streets? For example, Hwy. 252, East River Road, University Ave. and Central/Hwy 65. Or Hwy 10 and Coon Rapids Blvd. When the price for the faster roads pushes capacity out to side streets, what compensation options, aside from higher property taxes or LGA (since thats not politically available anymore), do local commnities have? I remember all the hoopla about people driving through Osseo instead of taking 169 -- if they do it now because the traffic is bad -- wait until we start charging for roads selectively. -- Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/ _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Metropolitan Issues Forum http://www.e-democracy.org/tcmetro Rules: Sign posts with real name. You may not post more than twice a day.
