Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2015
(183)
-
▼
May
(21)
- Employment Fairness
- MN Fixing the Gap
- Vetoed MN Education Bill
- MN Cities vs Rural
- Iraqi Will to Fight for Their Country
- Policy vs Money
- Potential Roadmap Out of Early Ed Impasse
- Well Dayton is Going To Do It
- The Challenges of Moderating
- Methods: Carlson vs Dayton
- Dayton Stands Up For Education Minnesota
- Domestic Terrorism: What to Do?
- Improving Urban Schools
- Possible MN Budget Compromise
- Social Security: It is even worse than you think
- Rich and Powerful Get Their Way
- Supplemental Poverty Measure
- MN Universal Pre K Reservations
- Supporting vs Becoming Co-Dependent
- MN Education Updates
- Another ACA Disagreement
-
▼
May
(21)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
55 comments:
It all sounds fairly reasonable as a compromise, but compromise is almost never the right solution to a problem, especially a budgetary problem. Start with that. We have one group, the DFL, who raised taxes $2B last session and now finds they raised taxes by $2B too much-- they have a surplus. The other group, the GOP, says the sensible thing is to rescind those taxes and put the money back where it belongs, in the hands of the taxpayers, rather than spending that much AND MORE! So, a compromise in which we raise taxes significantly in addition to not giving back what was already unnecessarily plundered, would be unprincipled and unwise. Yet when the GOP offered exactly that to the DFL, it was rejected. It seems the DFL WANTS a government shutdown in the belief they can get everything they want, WITHOUT a compromise of any kind, and score political points against the GOP in the process. So, one side insists on political posturing while the other seeks solutions. This "compromise" hasn't a chance, and shouldn't.
Technically the last budget session was 2 years ago. I believe the $2 Billion "extra" is without a normal budgetary inflation adjustment. Which makes no sense.
The reality is that fuel MPG has doubled with no change to the fuel tax, which means revenue for transportation has dropped significantly. And the GOP wants to make up for this by taking money from the General Fund.
So both sides are being very difficult...
Still not sure why we need to fund expanded Medicaid, ACA (ie MN Sure) and MN Care? However it looks like we will continue to pay for the health insurance of many.
MinnPost MinnCare off the Table
By the way, I had a neighbor who was on MN Sure. Neither the husband or wife liked to work much and they were ok living real cheap. Needless to say their house / yard is a bit different from those around them.
"The reality is that fuel MPG has doubled with no change to the fuel tax,..."
Just another in a long line of excuses as to why the DFL cannot find a way to prioritize the budget and live within the State's means. Remember we had that constitutional amendment a while back that was going to DEDICATE additional money to roads and bridges? And how that was going to solve the problem in perpetuity? Remember how the gas tax was raised just a few short years ago, and that was going to solve the problem? It's the typical old bait and switch from the plutocrats. Pay close attention: When Republicans say they can fix "roads and bridges" with money sloshing around the general fund, the DFL claims that ONLY higher taxes can fix "transportation." That's code for that stupid light rail system. Did you know that for the cost of light rail, we could add 2 more lanes, each way, to every freeway in the metro? The money is in the budget, the DFL just refuses to put it where it ought to go.
Given that the state has paid 10% of the construction costs on the existing lines (about $170M), and an ongoing subsidy of $23M per year, I suspect you'd have to scratch together decades of operating costs to build that sort of capacity metro-wide.
Oh, I see what you're doing. When the State talks about a "billion dollar" light rail line, you're presuming that all of that federal money somehow comes from someplace other than the taxpayers of Minnesota. I take them at the word that the bloody thing costs a billion dollars, and that such a huge sum would be better spent on 98% of commuters rather than 2%.
"Did you know that for the cost of light rail, we could add 2 more lanes, each way, to every freeway in the metro?"
Which will be clogged with traffic the moment they open. That's quite the solution you've discovered. *snort*
Joel
If our light rail line doesn't get built though, the money doesn't go back into the pockets of Minnesota taxpayers. It just goes to building a light rail line somewhere else, so you can't apply that money to building roads here.
"Which will be clogged with traffic the moment they open..."
So, instead of adding 40-100% more commuting capacity, we spend as much or more on light rail which adds essentially ZERO to the commuting capacity of the metro?
That's quite the math you're using, there, sport.
Sean is right, though. Federal funds don't necessarily flow to the best solution to any given problem. So is that the reason to choose the worst solution to the problem?
"So, instead of adding 40-100% more commuting capacity, we spend as much or more on light rail which adds essentially ZERO to the commuting capacity of the metro?
That's quite the math you're using, there, sport."
Your 'solution' contributes to the problem. See Houston, for example.
Joel
Try starting here:
http://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2011/09/26/why-adding-new-roads-does-not-improve-traffic-congestion/
Joel
Roads and Congestion
Hi Joel,
I think your source is a bit bias since it links to bicycle universe...
Now I agree with you that just expanding existing roads is not the full answer, however creating new roads that allow I94 traffic to stay out of the heart of the city may help.
As for light rail, I am not against it since I have seen the important roll it plays in the huge cities in China. Now the question is how can we build a good system for a more reasonable cost.
This guy likes bikes which of make little sense in MN.
There are some good comments on that link. And here is a link to Move MN.
Finally, Briana is reporting that a rough consensus has been reached on the budget.
I don't think "consensus" even begins to describe the deal. Consensus is when everybody agrees on those elements of the solution that are acceptable, and leaves the contentious issues out. That's sometimes described as the "kicking the can down the road" or "wishy-washy" solution. I don't think that applies here; but rather the word "compromise" is correct. Republicans compromise their principles and sacrifice the ability to solve the problem sensibly, and the DFL sacrifices its political grandstanding and power trips. The best solution is not, as Bakk says, "where everyone walks away grumbling." It's where everyone, including the public, is patting each other on the back for doing the job right, rather than the usual result that looks the same, but involves knives.
This seems a bit more even-handed regarding roads and transit. I'm interested in a solution, but I also think that having multiple options for transportation is a good thing, so I support bike paths, light rail, buses, and street cars, too.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
Joel
That is an interesting article.
However I think most Liberals would be against raising the costs of driving or parking. Their rationale would be that it is unfair to the low income people.
I think it is a bit simplistic for them to say that roads cause traffic, otherwise it was pretty well balanced.
I can support light rail, however relying on street cars and biking in MN seems silly when the weather isn't conducive 5 months of the year. It would be like me relying on my motorcycle and getting rid of my Suburban.
MN is the #2 state for biking and Minneapolis, I believe, is the #1 city.
"I think it is a bit simplistic for them to say that roads cause traffic..."
Except that is what the data shows. What other conclusion would you draw?
I apologize if I've taken us off-topic.
Joel
I think the notion that "roads cause traffic" is backwards. I take as an example the building of our new church sanctuary. It was observed that worship attendance had been the same for several years, but that we wanted to build to accommodate "our share" of the growth in population in this area. I suggested that the reason our attendance had been the same was because of "pent up demand" for worship space and that, the day the expanded space was opened it would be full, with no room for the growth we were expecting. I was right.
As for multiple choices in commuting, that's fine, but light rail simply cannot be one of those choices. There is a world-recognized transportation expert at the U of M who says "people make their transport decisions intelligently. Take them where they want to go, when they want to go, with less time and cost than driving themselves, and they will choose it." He is a huge proponent of PRT (personal rapid transit) and such a system could be built to serve ten times the number of people that light rail does, for the same build cost and lower operating, and meet the criteria of choice. Alternatively, bus systems are far cheaper and more flexible. Light rail gets built for reasons having nothing to do with solving the problem.
There is also pent-up demand for light rail transportation, as is evidenced by the ridership numbers on the blue and green lines consistently beating expectations.
Just because you don't see the value, doesn't mean it isn't there.
And let's not forget that there are people who will take the 'train' but would never take a bus.
Joel
I guess I like the idea of the Light rail being the spokes of the wheel, and the buses, bikes walking, cars, taxis, etc giving the flexibility. Having park and rides out in the far Burbs seem to be popular.
I am always amazed by the number of friends who are bus riders. The travel time is longer, but with wifi and cell service they can work while someone else drives.
Is this what you mean by PRT. Really? Looks very expensive to me.
By the way, your pent up demand concept makes sense.
Also if travel cost significantly more in money and time, where would all the low income folks live if the wealthy seized the close to downtown property? Or would the businesses just move out of downtown to where the nicer houses, lots, etc could be purchased more reasonably? I get a sense that that is what happened to Detroit.
"There is also pent-up demand for light rail transportation, as is evidenced by the ridership numbers on the blue and green lines consistently beating expectations."
Of course there is. Any time I can get a $7.50 ride for $1.50, with the taxpayers picking up both the HUGE capital cost AND subsidizing me by 80%, I suspect I would take it as well. But why should we favor the 2% who take light rail when, for the same amount of money, we could improve the travel of the 98% who don't and can't? Why should the 98% pay taxes to subsidize the 2%?
John, PRT is less expensive because the guideways use far less space, the cars are far less expensive and automated, and they take people where they want to go, when they want to go, increasing ridership. Busses are a similar solution, but busses are bigger. More flexible in terms of geography though.
And that's your answer about poor people. They don't need a billion-dollar light rail line when a $50,000 bus line will do just fine and can go through their neighborhood with ease after the LRT-side property has been "gentrified."
You probably should know that only about 2% of commutes are anywhere near the LRT. Why should that consume half of the transportation budget?
"Any time I can get a $7.50 ride for $1.50, with the taxpayers picking up both the HUGE capital cost AND subsidizing me by 80%, I suspect I would take it as well."
I'm not sure if you're talking about highways or railways. It's all subsidized. You're getting as much of a 'free ride' as anyone else.
Maybe, but if LRT is subsidized by $1B and serves 2%, while roads are subsidized by the other $1B and serve 98% of us (much more if you count outstate), I don't think my "free ride" has anywhere near the value of your "free ride" on the LRT.
Please support your numbers.
Joel
Sure. I will say that all this is simply common knowledge, or you can recall that each light rail line costs [very] roughly $1B and our recent constitutional amendment requires us to spend no MORE than 50% of highway revenue on highways. Then you can compare total LRT ridership with total daily commutes. All common knowledge, or should be.
Okay...it's common knowledge.
So...off the top of your head, without looking it up, how many car trips, on average, are taken in the Twin Cities metro on a daily basis. If you have to look it up, it's not common knowledge.
I could point you to a Minnpost article that tried to break down the cost and subsidies of different modes of transportation per trip. By the author's measurements, our light rail system fares quite well against light rail in other cities and against the other modes of transportation in the Twin Cities.
So, please, either prove your numbers or move on.
Joel
Joel,
I am with you on this one. Pulling numbers out of one's posterior is never a good way to convince others. We need facts, data and sources.
And since I am lazy...How to Link 101
My recollection is it's about two million, and light rail carries 20-40,000/day. That's 2%.
Question: how "inaccurate" do I need to be before my basic premise, that LRT is terribly cost-INeffective transportation, is disproven?
Subsidies per passenger/trip for the MSP system (2008)
Urban busses, local - $2.17
Suburban busses, local - $4.98
Express bus - $2.48
Light rail - $1.44
Automobile - $2.56
My numbers have a source. Do yours?
Joel
Joel,
Is this your source?
MinnPost Subsidies
We may want to look further, or I am going to study his simple assumptions a bit further.
By the way, I found the writers yr 2000 source.
Transportation Center
Yes, John-
My point isn't really what the source is. I'm illustrating how silly it is to post numbers as if they're accurate without anything at all to back them up.
As for the article, I think the author's methods can and should be questioned. The entire thing seems rather imprecise. But I think it's reasonable enough of an exercise in order to call into question jerry's claims that a "$7.50 ride only costs $1.50". One has to wonder why he doesn't tell us the actual cost of his automobile commute.
Joel
Your numbers have a source. I found the same one. The math is severely flawed, in several ways. Look at it more simply. If LRT accounts for 2% of passenger trips (on which we DO have numbers, from your source), they should get 2% of the funding, not 50%.
One commenter was ridiculed for suggesting that LRT didn't "go where I want to go" because lots of people go TO where LRT goes (stadium, mall, downtown, airport). Unfortunately it does not go BACK to where you want to go (home). It's just simply not suitable for people whose principle destinations don't lie on the line. Busses are better. PRT is better. Cars are better at what matters, getting people where they want to go when they want to go. Give them a lower cost and equal alternative and they will take it.
John, I won't tell you the cost of my commute because there is no alternative to compare it with. It doesn't matter. I CAN compare the cost of a light rail line with the cost of giving everyone their own car and free gas, and you know how that comes out. I can also compare an LRT line with hybrid busses confined to the same line (which would be foolish but), and you can guess how unfavorable THAT is to LRT as well.
LRT is great in large, densely populated and highly centralized cities. Bemidji isn't one of them. Neither is Minneapolis.
"I CAN compare the cost of a light rail line with the cost of giving everyone their own car and free gas, and you know how that comes out."
No. How does that come out?
Cite an unbiased source, please.
You make a lot of assumptions about what people know or don't know. Again, I have read sources and studies that show your assumptions to be incorrect. You're living in a conservative fantasy land.
Joel
Be nice, however you do have a point. The irony of course is that Conservatives usually accuse Liberals of not using data, facts and sources. And in this case we a Conservative doing the hand waving touchy feely leap of faith thing.
I personally think answering this question will be very very difficult because you are comparing a method where a huge amount of money has already been invested into the infrastructure to support it, against something that needs a similar investment before it becomes more cost effective and useful.
If the SW line costs $2 Billion, how long do we amortize that out for? Over how many customers? How does one quantify the environmental costs/benefits of each?
I will need to do some research if I get some time.
You know, it is amazing how much real information can be teased out of a few known facts, just with a bit of math. Take the known cost of an LRT line, say $1B, divide by the projected (not necessarily actual, since we evaluate things before we build them, supposedly) ridership, and you get the number of dollars which could be spent buying each potential rider their own car. When I did the math, I found I could buy those cars, with a lot of money left over. And the projected operating costs would about cover the gas (or electric) charges. You can do similar math with busses, with a similar result.
Instead of quibbling about sources and numbers which support an ideology but little else, why not just prove, mathematically, that LRT is not a cost-effective transportation solution, compared to other alternatives like cars or busses? No hand-waving involved, that way.
"...and you get the number of dollars which could be spent buying each potential rider their own car."
But you conveniently leave out the cost of having the road space and maintenance for the miles those cars drive on the road, and the subsidies for the fuel those cars will use, and the environmental cost of having all of those cars on the road.
The SW light rail is a steal at twice the price given all of those factors.
Joel
Joel,
Now you are joining him in making statements with little facts, data or sources to back it up...
Have fun one upping each other...
I leave out nothing. The roads are already there. The reduced congestion has already been studied and it is essentially negligible. Those tracks have to go somewhere and they are environmentally destructive, not to mention all the material that goes into making the whole line, and the "environmental" savings are minimal. If you already had the line and the train cars, and all you had to do was operate them, you might have an argument, but to spend $2B in capital for something you could do with existing infrastructure for 1/2 or less of that money is sheer folly. Ever wonder why, if there was a "return on investment," that private industry didn't JUMP at the chance to put in an LRT line? How long before the "returns" of LRT pay off the initial investment of building it, through fare collections?
John-
I didn't give numbers. I only pointed out that the opposing view never takes ALL of the costs into consideration.
"Twice the price" is hyperbole. It has its uses. I'm sure you're familiar with "...government small enough to drown in a bathtub."
Joel
I was making fun of your statement.
"The SW light rail is a steal at twice the price given all of those factors."
Here's some more useful math:
$1B initial cost, divided by 20,000 riders/day, 250 days per year, each paying $1.50 fares NOT for operations, but for capital cost, and ignoring interest. That comes to a payoff period of 133 years. A heckuva investment at twice the price, yes?
Setting aside the fact that you are apparently pulling those numbers from your posterior, they are useless unless and until you compare them to other forms of transportation and their associated costs.
Sincerely,
Joel
You think my numbers are wrong, correct them. My math is right.
And there is absolutely zero reason to compare LRT with other forms of transportation because we already HAVE those other forms, while SW LRT is a new proposal, for new dollars, presumably to perform some task that the other forms cannot. Nobody is proposing that we build "a system" of roads and bridges OR a system of LRT lines. The choice here is to build LRT or not build LRT, and save the money, or perhaps allow the money to go towards something that better solves the problem.
Jerry,
You don't get to ignore the cost of road expansions in your calculations. Going from 2 lanes to 3 lanes up near me is not cheap.
And as the cities grow, more of something will need to expand further.
494 upgrade
Technically, I can ignore road expansions, unless you are willing to suggest that we restate the problem as a decision to spend money on that INSTEAD of LRT. I've done the math, and road expansions are still FAR cheaper, and of course serve vastly more people, than LRT.
My premise would be to forget LRT altogether, expand a few roads as necessary and maintain the ones we have. Otherwise, by the time the bonds are paid off (with taxes from auto drivers, not LRT fares), we will have smart cars and/or smart highways that will carry far more traffic on the same lanes, and neither LRT OR road expansion will be necessary.
I think I will write more about it later.
Post a Comment