Bus Rapid Transit on 35W community meeting
If you're interested in the Metro area's transportation future, this sounds like a good meeting to attend.
I don't think BRT is a replacement for LRT, but the Twin Cities do need better bus service.
Representatives from the City of Minneapolis,
the State of Minnesota, and the Metropolitan Council have asked Transit
for Livable Communities (TLC) to inform members of our Transportation
Choices Network of an upcoming meeting discussing...
Transit Options For I-35W
Date: Monday, February 27, 2006
Time: 7:00 pm
Location: Martin Luther King Park,
4055 Nicollet Avenue South , Minneapolis
Join your municipal, state and regional leaders to engage in a
community dialogue about Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on I-35Wwhat might it
look like and how can it serve our neighborhoods?
Nacho Diaz, Director of Metropolitan Transportation Services for
the Met Council, will be a featured speaker.
Sponsored by:
* State Senator Scott Dibble;
* State Representatives Frank Hornstein and Neva Walker;
* Minneapolis City Council Members Elizabeth Glidden
(8th), Robert Lilligren (6th), Ralph Remington (10th), and Scott Benson
(11th);
* The Field Regina Northrop Neighborhood Group;
* The Kingfield Neighborhood Association; and
* CANDO
Questions: Call Andrea Jenkins, 8th Ward City Council Office,
612-673-2208
posted by Luke Francl @ 8:19 AM |
| 
11 Comments:
Well, if it was going to work, it might look like untangling 62 and adding two lanes in each direction.
Oh wait, I was trying to solve a traffic congenstion problem, not a "create a government boondogle" problem.
Where does this persistent belief that more centralized planning is needed come from?
-Censored
Kind of like the recent editorial/Brookings study that says you can save thousands of dollars by using public transit. The detail they just touch on is you get most of the savings by only have one car per family. Even those I know who carpool or use transit still have two cars and would never think about having just one. Most retired couples I know still have two cars.
http://www.startribune.com/561/story/261662.html
Just another bogus study to support a desired outcome.
Dave
My family only has one car. Works fine. We save an enormous amount of money by doing so.
There is no question YOU save money because of public transportation.
The question is do WE ALL save money because you use public transportation?
And its a fair question as long as we ALL pay for it.
-Censored
There is no question YOU save money because of public roads.
The question is do WE ALL save money because you use public roads?
And its a fair question as long as we ALL pay for it.
You almost took the peeble from my hand bar-hopper. Almost.
We all save money because of public roads, but unfairly we don't all pay directly for public roads.
For example, People who exclusively use public transportation. They certainly benefit by having a means for organic produce to reach the local co-op, yet the do not contribute directly by payment of fuel or highway excise taxes that maintain roads.
Sure there's an indirect contribution, but as I recall your team is fond of denying "trickle down" economics. So let's say they just get benefit without contribution.
Put another way, public transportation is taking from all of us, to give to some few of us, while further diminishing the contribution that few makes.
Of course, if you take out the subsidies and tax public transport as any other enterprise is taxed, all the arguements against it vanish. (Except maybe viability.)
As soon as you set up a venture that can only succeed outside the free market, you've stolen from our collective potential.
-Censored
The gas tax and motor vehicle tax don't pay for all the roads. The extra comes from the general fund.
In this country, roads have always been built by the government for the benefit of all the people. It was one of the few powers the Articles of Confederation gave the national government. Without the power of eminent domain, it is extremely unlikely a privatized road system could be successfully built, so by your logic: "As soon as you set up a venture that can only succeed outside the free market, you've stolen from our collective potential."
Public transportation likewise benefits all of us, by getting people off the overcrowed streets, promoting more interesting streetscapes (and thus higher property tax receipts), and getting poor people without cars to Micky D so you can buy a damn hamburger from them for 59 cents.
Luke how many other married couples do you know who run with one car? Would it be fair to suggest that your family is an exception? If you where to run a poll how many families would choose to live with one car? I know of many two driver families that have more than two cars, the third car is used in a normal manner (not a collector/sports/plow truck etc..)
Dave
It's true that we're an exception, but wasn't that the point of the study? That if you live in a place with public transportation, you can save money by only having one car?
It's not always easy, but like I said, we save a lot of money and actually like riding the bus...
My dad, who makes an income that easily outstrips mine, lives in a one-car household family of 4. He has the means to have 2 cars, but transit is available to get to his workplace.
I would have a single car if not for two things:
No 'close' transit on a reasonable schedule and cold winters.
If it didn't get so darn cold and snowy here, I probally would just bike, but I'm weak and I hate the idea of biking in the snow (tried it, nearly hurt myself badly once, gave it up). Transit in this area may improve this year and if the schedule of nearby bus is improved enough I may be willing to take it on a regular basis.
Still! Two car families with one 'dormant' car have amazing money savings. I don't have much to do for car maintance since I've driven less than 10k miles in 4 years. I've spent amazing amounts less on gas and nothing on parking.
In another vein, the attacks on what funding comes from what goes where really start to look stupid when stadium funding comes into play. Public transportation is waaayh less of a hard issue in that respect than money for millionares.
More relevant to the issue: The push for 'larger semis' on highways in MN is a far worse issue since it takes money (highway maintence dollars) to reduce the cost of shipping for multi-millionare companies. That seems to be another many for few problem.
So its irrelevant as to how many cars someone has, its relevant how much they have to drive them and how often.
You're confusing the interstate highway system with the local/county road network. These are two different things.
The point about highway use Scott makes is exactly right. That's why fuel tax is consumption based (well, at the time of purchase) and in MN $0.22 per gal. Gas or Diesel, doesn't matter. Drive lots? Pay more. It'd be nice if all taxes were so fairly applied.
-Censored
Post a Comment
<< Home