MP SW Rail This discussion is an exercise in futility, but it does explain how some of the more "Far Left' folks think. Of course the irony is that folks on the "Far Right" often say something similar about Liberals...
"The problem with the mentality that currently dominates the republican/libertarian leadership is that it's driven by dystopian fantasy rather than evidence or reason. This mentality is part magical thinking, and part toxic sociopathic. It's magical thinking in the sense that the assumption is that no planning or policy is actually necessary, growth and prosperity are magical entities that float around and manifest themselves as long as we keep cutting taxes and don't grow government.
This mentality is sociopathic in that it takes an adolescent: "You're not the boss of me" declaration to toxic heights. This notion that any taxpayer or their like minded politicians should be able to veto any project they don't like not only violates the very premise of democracy, it makes civilization and impossible objective.
I don't know what they're doing with County Rd. 101 out in Minnetonka between 394 and Minnetonka Blvd., but it's taken about two years and I know no one ever asked me as a taxpayer whether or not not I support it. It looks like they built a new road and bridge but they had a perfectly good road and bridge already as far as know. The difference I'm not whining about my taxes, I wouldn't veto the 101 project even if I could.
Yet that's exactly how republicans think we should run things, and that's why whenever republicans are given a chance run things it literally falls apart. Remember Kiffmeyer's plan to have the contractors front the money for the 35W - 62 interchange? Yah, that was sooooooooo innovative. Whatever." Paul
"So somebody who disagrees with your position and uses political methods to block that position is Sociopathic?
Does this same concept apply when people work to block tax cuts, right to work, accountability in our public education system, etc?
I have a different view... This is Democracy a work... It may be messy, inefficient, etc but it is the best system of it's kind !!! God Bless America !!!" G2A
"A lot of very nice people disagree with each other all the time, that doesn't make us all sociopaths. In politics we have a concept of: "loyal opposition". The idea is that while we may disagree and fight for different agendas, we recognize that governance isn't a game to be won or lost, and winning elections doesn't make us dictators. The "loyalty" part is about recognizing that we are communities in a nation working towards a common "good" despite our differences. The "loyalty" is for the democratic process.
Sociopaths have no coherent concept of "community", in fact they tend to classify communities as agents of oppression and may even find the notion of being loyal to something other than themselves or their own mentality nearly incomprehensible if not outright immoral. For Libertarians this is actually a philosophy of selfishness pretending to be a fight for liberty. While reactionary republicans share some libertarian disgust for communal governance; they also have an inclination to deploy the levers of government as mechanisms of dictatorial power. In essence neither libertarians or reactionary republicans can actually believe in democracy.
Rather they tend to view democracy and citizenship itself as form of oppression that requires they submit to the will of the people rather than their own interests. Democracy is great as long as they get what they want or believe in, but it's oppression by the majority otherwise. In other words the "republicans" in question don't want to participate in the democratic process, they want to capture it and use it towards their own ends, which of course is a fundamentally undemocratic impulse.
The absence of "loyalty" to the democratic process makes bipartisan progress nearly impossible. We used to have bipartisan progress despite disagreements but in recent decades bipartisan progress has collapsed into partisan gridlock as "toxic sociopathy" has ascended to power within the republican party.
Now I should clarify that when I talk about "sociopaths" I'm describing an intellectual tendency, not labeling individuals as sociopaths per se. This is a socio-political analysis not a psychological profile. Obviously personality traits present across a continuum among individuals and aren't determined political affiliation." Paul
"Of course I disagree, I believe almost all people believe this. "Democracy is great as long as they get what they want or believe in, but it's oppression by the majority otherwise."
I mean look at how unhappy the Liberals were/are when States did not support LGBT rights.
Or when States believe in a flatter tax code, rather than the highly progressive one they prefer.
Or when the Democracy decided that welfare needed to be reformed...
As I repeatedly note, for ~100 years the Liberals have been striving to pull our country towards being a Northern European Social Democracy. (ie 7% of GDP to 37% of GDP) Now they have pulled the rubber band tight enough that the tension has increased. So of course an increasing number of citizens are becoming resistant and people are pulling back harder.
As I often ask, how many percent of your paycheck are you willing to give to the government so they can distribute it as they deem correct? You know my number is 33%... I truly think the government and our public employees should be able to fulfill their assigned duties for 1/3 of our country's GDP. That leaves 2/3rds for families to use as they wish. Or do you think the politicians/bureaucrats can make better spending decisions than us individuals?" G2A
"G2A says:
"Of course I disagree, I believe almost all people believe this: "Democracy is great as long as they get what they want or believe in, but it's oppression by the majority otherwise."
Thank for confirming that this mentality isn't just a figment of my imagination. I would suggest to the readers at large that this isn't just the view of one guy on this comment thread, as I've already stated.
I would point out however that contrary to John's assumption many Americans believe in the democratic process despite the fact that it doesn't always deliver what each of us wants and sometimes delivers stuff we as individuals don't want. We don't in fact considers ourselves victims of tyranny (Tyranny of the masses) every time a vote doesn't go our way.
This is the difference between the loyal opposition I've described, and the "disloyal" opposition we see among reactionary republicans/tea party/libertarians. I don't want subsidized stadiums and nobody asked me about paying for a County Rd. 101 rebuild but I'm not going to shut down government or try to disnenfranchise any voters in order to stop them being built. Sure, we're not always "happy", but that doesn't mean we're being crushed under the oppressive heal of the masses.
As for the movement towards "liberalism", yes, I frequently point out that the best way to get your head around the republican agenda is to accept the fact that they want to repeal the 20th century.
The government/tax percentage thing struggles to but never attains economic coherence because A.) We know our system works better than the Somali model. And B). All this "spending" the government does is the product of a democratic process. Our "government" isn't some independent entity beyond our control that collects taxes and spends money in a separate economy." Paul
"I think this must be a matter of perspective, as long as I have been paying attention / blogging, it seems the Liberals have maintained a continuous narrative that most Americans are victims of a relatively corrupt government and the companies / wealthy people who supposedly have paid for it.
Please also remember that it takes a conscience choice by 2 parties to shut down a government. Either side can sweeten the pot and get things moving again.
As for the ideal "% of GDP" target, I guess I have not heard of any politician who wants to "repeal the 20th century". Please remember that would reduce our spend to ~7% from our current ~37%. Personally I think most Americans would be happy if we could get back to 30% in good times and ~36% during recessions. This should be pretty easy to do if we actually held our politicians accountable for reducing the complexity and size of the governmental bureaucracy, and paying down the debt. And just think how happy people would be to have some more money to use as they wish.
Now I know you like to scare folks with the Somalia comparison. And yet I have to ask if you thought the USA in 1907 was a lawless state fulled with chaos and murder? If so I must have missed that when watching Little House on the Prairie..."G2A
Let's forget the armchair psychiatry and posit a simple, rational explanation of the difference, and that is, for each project or undertaking of government, WHO DECIDES? Liberals almost always come down on the side of government making the decisions, while conservatives believe the individual is best able to decide where the fruits of their labor are directed, and for what benefit to themselves or to others. Those opposites [should] come together only where the "general welfare" and "public good" are clear AND best managed by pooling individual resources and managing the collective effort "from the top."
ReplyDeleteAs a specific example: SWLRT is not a "public good" in any real sense. Only a tiny fraction of even Metro citizens will benefit directly, by riding it, while EVERY citizen will be subsidizing the initial cost AND the ongoing operation costs in perpetuity. The benefits simply are not there and the cost is vastly greater than other available options. It doesn't make sense and rational people (not sociopaths) oppose it. That our elected officials are trying to cram it down our throats marks them as the tyrants and "anti-democratic." THEY want to control and decide.
Well I think a slight majority of "City Folk" are pro-Light Rail, especially since "money from heaven" (ie feds) is paying for most of it.
ReplyDeleteWe Americans do love to be the recipients of bridges, highways, railways, etc (ie pork) rather than letting the money go to some other group of citizens... It must be the capitalist / competitor in us. Or we just think we deserve something for all those Fed taxes we pay...
To bad we are not allowed to use that $900,000,000 to fix our infrastructure problems... As we could if the Feds had less power.
If the feds had less power, we wouldn't have that $900 Million or be able to get our hands on it. Or maybe I'm unclear about which $900 Million you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteJoel
This is interesting...
ReplyDeleteIf the MAC and Counties are coughing up $125M and the Feds give $900M, I wonder $775M are going to come from.
"As with last year’s budget, the FTA wants to fund 50 percent of Southwest LRT’s total construction cost. This year, the feds estimated that cost at $1.77 billion, so they would plan to contribute $882 million over the life of the project."
Fed Funding
"we wouldn't have that $900 Million or be able to get our hands on it"
ReplyDeletePlease remember that like wealthy people, the people of MN pay more into the National coffers than they and the State gets back. In essence we subsidize the poor choices and unfortunate circumstances of people in other States.
Now if all the States and State's citizens were paying less to the Feds, they could afford higher Local and State taxes for things that the State's citizens felt were good and worthwhile.
Instead, the Feds get to dangle that money like pork over hungry dogs to make them do tricks...
"In essence we subsidize the poor choices and unfortunate circumstances of people in other States."
ReplyDeleteMany (or most) of which are run by Conservatives. Weird how that works.
Joel
"I wonder $775M are going to come from."
ReplyDeleteThe new money from last week is in addition to the previous commitments these bodies have made. Total breakdown is:
Feds - $928M
CTIB - $528M
Hennepin County Railroad Authority - $186M
Met Council - $92M
Donations of land by various gov't entities - $69M
State of MN - $30M
Hennepin County and cities on the line - $23M
And every penny down the rathole, whether the thing is built or not.
ReplyDeleteJoel,
ReplyDeleteI think it is delicious irony.
- Liberals take money from successful people and give it to unsuccessful people which enables them to continue their dependency...
- Liberals take money from successful states and give it to unsuccessful states which enables them to continue their dependency...
I wonder if Liberals will ever learn? :-)
Well that is better... I think...
ReplyDeleteFeds: $928
State: $ 30
Local: $898
___________
Total: $1856
It is too bad the Twin Cities aren't self funding, but at least they are paying ~50%.
Tell you what, I will pay half the cost of a car that you never get to drive, if you pay the other half AND put gas in it for life. Deal?
ReplyDelete"you never get to drive"
ReplyDeleteI am sure they will let you ride the train if you want to.
As pointed out many times. Public money is used in many places where we personally may never go. I don't think I have ever been in Bemidji, and yet I am sure that Local, State and Federal money is used to build and maintain roads and trails up there.
I don't think public money should be used for any roads at all. If I want a road to go past my house, I can damn well pay for it myself. However, I will be charging a toll for anyone else to use it. Also, my neighbor a quarter mile down the road, who also paid to have the road extended past his place, will likely charge a different toll. Because, you know, we don't want to be Socialists.
ReplyDeleteJoel
Though I am not against the SW rail, I certainly can not say I am for it. Spending $2,000,000,000 + operating expenses so that ~30,000 people can have lower cost transit seems pretty hard to cost justify.
ReplyDeleteThat is ~$67,000 + operation costs for every rider. And remember that it has fixed hours of operation, a fixed route and can not be used to haul product.
Now I know it will take some pressure off the highways, but since many of these people take buses now, I can not see it being huge.
My point is that there is a good reason this is a contentious issue. There is no clear financial payback.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteFYI. In many cities the developer or the owner pays for the road. It is mostly only the highways / roads that are used for commerce where local, state and federal funds are used.
"That is ~$67,000 + operation costs for every rider. "
ReplyDeleteYou might want to check your math there.
I guess I'll spare myself the inevitable baffled question that will come next and suggest that dividing a $2 billion one-time cost by the average daily ridership for an investment that will last 40 or so years (a typical life span for the light rail line itself) may not really be a relevant number.
ReplyDeleteAnd from an operating cost perspective, LRT achieves the lowest rider subsidy on that basis than the other forms of transit in the metro. Currently, it runs at 1/3 the subsidy that SW Metro Transit (the Eden Prairie/Chanhassen/Chaska bus service) does, and just over 1/2 of typical express bus service.
ReplyDeleteMet Council Data on Subsidies
Let's keep it real simple by ignoring inflation and the cost of money. Probably not a great idea over 40 years. But we are making a lot of assumptions here.
ReplyDelete($67,000 / rider) / 40 years = $1,675/rider/year
($3 subsidy/ day /rider) X 250 days / yr = $750/rider/year
So in essence we are giving each train rider >$2400 / year.
And we are investing $2,000,000,000 that could be used elsewhere. (ie opportunity cost of decision)
How, then, would you spend the $928 million local share of SWLRT to improve metro transportation? What neighborhoods are you going to plow under to expand highways inside the 494/694 loop and how are you going to get cities to sign off on it (they have local consent on such things, you know)? BRT has a rider subsidy 7x that of LRT on an operating basis, and on an upfront cost basis it can be up to 60% of LRT if you give it dedicated right-of-way (and if you don't you frequently lose the "R" part of BRT). Not to mention BRT historically converts fewer drivers to transit than rail.
ReplyDeleteAgain, it's easy to nit-pick but harder to give real alternatives.
Perhaps if I had said "street" rather than "road", you'd have understood my point, but mostly the idea is usually beyond you and other Conservatives.
ReplyDeleteYou don't want to pay for things that other people use. That's just dumb.
Joel
Sean,
ReplyDeleteSimple solution. Let's do nothing.
All we are doing by building bigger highways and/or transit systems is contributing to suburban sprawl.
If you want people to fix North Mpls, and the struggling first tier suburbs... You don't make it easier to avoid them...
Maybe finish the next ring of city bypass highways to keep interstate traffic out of the 494/694 loop.
Joel,
You are correct. Conservatives like to fund things that the majority of the tax payers will use. They aren't into niche projects that are expensive and only help a few. (ie expensive bike paths/bridges, light rail, etc)
They are happy to fund things that promote commerce, jobs and on going tax revenues.
How do these work together?
ReplyDelete"All we are doing by building bigger highways and/or transit systems is contributing to suburban sprawl."
and
"Maybe finish the next ring of city bypass highways to keep interstate traffic out of the 494/694 loop."
That's Trump-level inconsistency right there.
I think you should get out a map. There is a lot of traffic that goes through the cities. The goal of outer ring freeways is to allow that traffic to pass by without adding to congestion in the metro. They are not created to help people to move out from the city.
ReplyDeleteI mean that is what the 494/694 corridor originally was before they became city freeways. My Father told me that in the 1970's the 55 / 494 intersection was out in the corn fields. And Hamel where he worked was so far in the country that he had a hard time getting people to come out and interview there.
"You are correct. Conservatives like to fund things that the majority of the tax payers will use. They aren't into niche projects that are expensive and only help a few. (ie expensive bike paths/bridges, light rail, etc)"
ReplyDeleteI must be missing the part where the government is forcing people to NOT use those things.
However, I'm glad to see that you will be campaigning for government-paid health care. ("Conservatives like to fund things that the majority of the tax payers will use.")
But I'm guessing you'll be inconsistent on that point, too.
Joel
In summary, it is the "spokes", be they freeways or Light Rail that allow people to sprawl easily. Not the rims that connect the spokes.
ReplyDeleteImagine if we had excellent High Speed rail from St Cloud to Minneapolis... I am sure many people would escape the metro for the great NW. Why live in Downtown Mpls when you can get there in 30 minutes?
"I mean that is what the 494/694 corridor originally was before they became city freeways. My Father told me that in the 1970's the 55 / 494 intersection was out in the corn fields."
ReplyDeleteAre you really that oblivious? What exactly do you think allowed people to start living farther from the city center and filling up those cornfields?
Joel
"They are not created to help people to move out from the city."
ReplyDeleteBut that's exactly what they do. How do you think all the congestion around 494/694 happened? It happened because now there was a road there it was easy to get there. If you do that again, you'll just repeat the process further out from the central city.
"In summary, it is the "spokes", be they freeways or Light Rail that allow people to sprawl easily. Not the rims that connect the spokes."
ReplyDeleteSo what, you're going to build the next loop without any exits? Just a walled passageway from Monticello to Hudson?
Joel,
ReplyDeleteBuilding a light rail between EP and Downtown as I said is pretty specific use.
You are correct that the 5.5 million are free to use it. But who wants to drive to EP in order to take a train downtown? Maybe some of the SW sprawl folks will take advantage of it to go to a baseball game...
I would love to support single payer government run healthcare. Unfortunately I see how poorly they run the schools / welfare and can not get there. The Public Schools are expensive and half the kids in some communities are left behind. And single Parent households are at all time highs. That bodes poorly for how another government service monopoly would work out.
Let's have them stick to roads, defense, etc.
Guys, The sprawl was accelerated when 394 and 94 were finished after 1970.
ReplyDeleteAnd just like those spokes, SW LR is another one.
"Building a light rail between EP and Downtown as I said is pretty specific use."
ReplyDeleteYou could say that about most pieces of road, though. The value of any form of transportation -- road, rail, whatever, is the network it creates.
You might not use it, just as I could live without plenty of the roads in Plymouth, but I don't kvetch about my tax dollars going to fund CR 9 because I get the larger picture.
"Guys, The sprawl was accelerated when 394 and 94 were finished after 1970."
ReplyDeleteDude, the "spokes" all existed before 494/694 was built. 100, 169 (then 18), 394 (then 12), 36, 61 -- they were all there before the loop. It was the loop that made it faster to get from one spoke to another.
Sean asked for alternatives. When the previous two LRT lines were built, I did some math. For the cost of the first, we could have put every rider in a chauffeured limousine every day. When ridership exceeded expectations, we would have had to have two of them share. How awful.
ReplyDeleteWhen the second was built, the capital money would have permitted us to run a fleet of hybrid buses up and down that line, with no traffic disruption like the LRT lines, every 4 minutes for the next 700 years. OR we could have given every potential rider a new car and, for the operational costs, put gas in it for life.
And for the cost of the combined LRT system, we could have added two lanes each way to every freeway in the metro. And by the time the bonds are paid off, we will have smart cars and or smart highways that will at least begin to eliminate traffic congestion.
Quite simply SWLRT is a terrible solution in search of a problem. Opposition to it is just common sense.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteYes those roads were there with all their stop lights and lots of intersections.
The modern 394 offers high speed access to downtown for those living in Wayzata, Long Lake, Independence, etc as compared to the old Hwy 12.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you disagree that the SW LR is very specific use? It goes from EP to Mpls and only hauls people part of the day...
The reality is that roads are open 24 / 365 for people, product, services, mail delivery, garbage pickup, etc.
"But who wants to drive to EP in order to take a train downtown?"
ReplyDeleteI think you're forgetting that there are other stops along the route.
Joel
"Joel,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. Conservatives like to fund things that the majority of the tax payers will use." -- John
Actually, neither of you are correct. Government doesn't "fund" ANYTHING whatsoever. They take taxpayer money and then they spend it. The closer they get to what the taxpayers would fund if they had spent the money themselves, the better the government "works." Government is simply a means of managing our generally agreed collective efforts, like roads or national defense, and even then we should expect that those things be done on a cost-effective manner. LRT is not one of those things.
Here's a thought experiment: What do you think would happen to LRT ridership if the fares were raised to pay the full operational cost AND repay the bonds used to construct it?
You think those areas weren't growing before Hwy 12 was upgraded? Seriously? I've lived in the SW quadrant of the metro for the last 40 years. Don't even start with me on that. They had to upgrade Hwy 12 because of all the people who had *already* moved out there, not vice versa.
ReplyDelete"But who wants to drive to EP in order to take a train downtown?"
ReplyDeletePeople already drive to EP to take a bus downtown.
Why have businesses clustered around the 494/694 loop? It's not because of the spokes. A commute from Mendota Heights to Eden Prairie or from Oakdale to Maple Grove is only feasible for most because of the loop.
ReplyDeleteIf we build the outer loop, what makes you think that we won't get sprawl out there? How will that not occur in the same way it did along 494/694?
Your argument is just so, so stupid.
On the one hand, Sean is arguing that development along transportation corridors is undesirable, though that is exactly why they have always been built. Factories sprung up along rail lines or canals, and more recently freeways. Connecting to the transportation network is critical for commerce. AND, a lot of LRT proponents argue that development along the lines is a critical "justification" for them. Between established hubs like the airport and MOA it even makes some sense.
ReplyDeleteAnd the argument against LRT is that the overwhelming percentage of trip miles are between points of the ring, not along the spokes. People live on one spoke and work someplace near the ring.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteExcellent thought experiment. I mean don't us car drivers pay for the majority of our roads via our fuel taxes? Car taxes? Property taxes? Etc? Whereas it looks like a lot of SW LR funding will come from sales taxes and other taxes unaffiliated to the train riders.
Sean,
No one "had to upgrade Hwy 12". They made a choice to make it easier for people to live in the burbs and work / entertain in the downtown. Just like you now are supporting adding more spokes called LRT. With each spoke it gets easier to live further away from the challenges of the areas around downtown.
Joel,
There are quite a few intersections along all the "spoke roads" also. That does not mean that people will choose to live in those communities.
Please remember that I am not for or against the SW LR line. I see pros/cons to it.
ReplyDelete"On the one hand, Sean is arguing that development along transportation corridors is undesirable"
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not arguing that at all. I think it is desirable, but it makes it critical to choose how you develop your transportation corridors.
My dispute with John is over the notion that you can develop an outer loop road and not have it cause sprawl. He seems to think that is possible. I don't. In fact, if we're going to the tremendous expense to build an outer loop road we should want development around it.
"And the argument against LRT is that the overwhelming percentage of trip miles are between points of the ring, not along the spokes."
I agree that the majority of the trips are along the ring. But there are spoke routes with traffic counts that can justify rail investment. I would prefer that SWLRT were routed through Uptown because that would connect another logical destination to the LRT network. But even with the current route, there's a lot of value and a lot of projected usage for this line.
OH, please tell what "pros" you see? I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with even one. I cannot imagine them outweighing the "cons" or coming anywhere near a positive cost-benefit. Nor do I see it being the best choice compared with other alternatives.
ReplyDeleteThe "challenge of democracy" as you put it, is how to keep our elected officials from doing stupid stuff.
John, you still haven't answered how you think you can build an outer ring road without it creating more sprawl. Just look at all the development around 610. How do you prevent that?
ReplyDelete"With each spoke it gets easier to live further away from the challenges of the areas around downtown."
So should we rip up 94 and 35 running through our downtowns, then? What exactly are you proposing to guide us through the next decades of growth in the metro area. You don't want us building new highways (except for the magical outer ring road that's not going to cause sprawl) and you're not willing to invest in transit. How do you expect folks to get around, especially given that the seven-county metro is projected to add 800,000 people from 2010-2040?
Our legislature doesn't even listen to its own experts. We have a world-class transportation expert at the U of M who nails it when he says, "People make their transportation decisions intelligently. If you can take them where they want to go, when they want to go, and for less money than driving their cars, they will use it." He advocates PRT, one of the many better solutions.
ReplyDelete"Government doesn't "fund" ANYTHING whatsoever. They take taxpayer money and then they spend it."
ReplyDeleteI prefer to think of it as We The People decide to pool our resources in order the build and have the things that we couldn't build or make for ourselves on our own.
I get that you think of yourself as an island, but that's hardly American.
Joel
Sean,
ReplyDeleteThe sprawl that concerns me is the creation of bedroom communities around a big city. This is what motivates politicians to make bigger and more spokes, and what makes people commute further and further.
I am fine if more self sustaining communities grow on the edges of a metro area. I mean look at the incredible business powerhouse communities that 494/694 gave us. (ie Plymouth, Minnetonka, Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Woodbury, Maple Grove, etc)
So if Blaine prospers and grows because it has the 610 nearby. Excellent !!!
If the 7 county metro increases from 3.5 million to 4.3 million over the next 30 years, I assume the jobs and housing will be distributed across the 7 county metro. Not sure why people think it will mostly occur in Mpls / St Paul where they have a anti-business, crime, space shortage and poor school problems.
On the contrary, the way you phrase it is exactly right. We pool our resources so that we can do things as a collective-- i.e. through government-- that we could not do as individuals or as smaller entities, like city government or local civic organizations. The local Elks lodge never built an Interstate highway system, for example. But the reverse is also true. An LRT line to Eden Prairie barely benefits Eden Prairie, let alone the whole Metro area and certainly not the whole State. And why should all the taxpayers of the US pick up half the cost? In some places that would be called the undemocratic "ruling class" imposing their will on the unwilling.
ReplyDeleteJoel, Agreed.
ReplyDeleteJerry,
Pros:
Poor people can more easily live, work and/or attend schools in Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, St Louis Park, etc. This may reduce segregation and increase the opportunities for their children. (that is unless gentrification along the line squeezes them out)
If gentrification occurs and wealthier people have their kids in those public schools. They will be improved. (ie more tax revenue, more engaged parents, more good peer pressure, wealthy people do not put up with bad personnel in their schools, etc)
Light rail is clean and convenient if you are travelling the route.
It will reduce the number of cars and buses that use the spoke highways each day. (maybe ~15,000/day fewer)
It may slow the decay of Mpls/ St Paul and prevent them from looking like Detroit at some point in the future.
SW Route
"So if Blaine prospers and grows because it has the 610 nearby. Excellent !!!"
ReplyDeleteI still don't understand how the above and this:
"All we are doing by building bigger highways and/or transit systems is contributing to suburban sprawl."
work together.
What's an example of highway project that just encourages sprawl versus highway project that you endorse? How do I know in advance what a proposed highway project will be?
John, what you say "may be true" may be true, but it is a poor reason to put in a light rail system. Wouldn't it be easier and far, far cheaper to just improve the schools where those kids are already? And if it allows "poor people" to commute further to work, won't that increase the number of people commuting and the effect on total traffic congestion be nil? (It is already nearly zero, and the easiest way you get riders is by cancelling the competing bus service, as Metro Transit has done for the other LRT lines. Very few people are "getting out of their cars."
ReplyDeleteSean, roads go where there is enough traffic to warrant putting in a road, not the other way around. That's why LRT between the airport and MOA is a good idea, but LRT to "spur development" in the SW metro is not. And "encouraging sprawl" allows people the freedom to live where they want, while LRT is one tool of those who want to dictate that people live concentrated near city centers.
"Sean, roads go where there is enough traffic to warrant putting in a road, not the other way around. That's why LRT between the airport and MOA is a good idea, but LRT to "spur development" in the SW metro is not."
ReplyDeleteLRT on that line makes sense because there's a large enough ridership to support it.
"And "encouraging sprawl" allows people the freedom to live where they want, while LRT is one tool of those who want to dictate that people live concentrated near city centers."
I don't see a whole lot of dictating going on here. The suburbs are still growing. And I'm not opposed to building highways in suburban/exurban areas. I've been pushing my Republican State House Rep to get off his behind and support an extension of four-lane 212, and improving 5 and 7 in my area.
As a metro area, we need to be able to walk and chew gum when it comes to supporting roads and transit. If areas like Dallas, Phoenix and Salt Lake can figure this out on a bipartisan basis, why can't we?
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteBy experience we know that improving the academic achievement in schools where the free and reduced lunch percentage exceeds 40% is very very hard and expensive. There just aren't enough good peers to provide positive peer pressure, and the Parental/community support is lacking.
The best thing for the Twin Cities metro would be if we could spread out the unsuccessful folk so they can learn from and model the successful folk. The good thing about peer pressure, it works both ways.
"an extension of four-lane 212,"
ReplyDeleteNow that is an excellent example of a "sprawl proposal", just like when we extended 394/12 highway past Long Lake. The only purpose for these roads is to make it easier to live in the rural areas and commute long distances to work.
As these spokes are expanded, the "financial, headache and time costs" of living far from the city are greatly reduced. Now if the State really wants to increase the population density inside the 494/694 ring, they would cease all of those road expansions that expand beyond them. "Land may be cheap in Carver... But the drive will kill you."
Then people would be more willing to accept the "financial, headache and crime costs" of living inside the ring. Ironically, that would increase the values of the properties inside the ring and likely displace many of the poor. (for better or worse) It would also lead to more of the "old housing stock" being demolished and improved.
"The only purpose for these roads is to make it easier to live in the rural areas and commute long distances to work."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not. The two-lane stretch of 212 between Cologne and Carver, for instance, is one the more dangerous stretches of such highway near the Metro because of the high incidence of truck traffic on it. It's the primary trucking route between the Metro and a good swath of southwest Minnesota.
So if we build the outer ring, should we not connect any spokes to it?
ReplyDelete"the "financial, headache and time costs" of living far from the city"
ReplyDeleteI think the risk of death in an auto accident may be considered a "cost" of living out there.
And what would reduce the cost of living out there? Expanding 212 to a 4 lane limited access road with highly controlled merge ramps...
Since I work just South of 212 and the farm / lake home are near Canby I am very familiar with the stretch you are discussing. Though usually I take Hwy 7 to Montevideo... Fewer towns.
As for outer rings and spokes. There will already be spokes.
ReplyDeleteThe question is do we increase the capacity and number of spokes, or do we leave them be?
If we want to divert traffic from the cities and constrain sprawl / bedroom communities, we would leave them be. (ie keep cost of travelling the spokes higher)
So, are these communities that are beefing up their spokes near 610 doing something good or bad? Would Plymouth be the "powerhouse community" is is today if it had left its spokes unchanged since the completion of 494?
ReplyDeletePlymouth really only has one direct spoke to the downtown area. Hwy 55 which is 2 lanes each way with stoplights. Though Southern Plymouth folks can access 394 pretty easily. Finally, please remember that Plymouth's East boundary is only ~3 miles from N Mpls' West boundary. So I am not sure we would count as sprawl... I think I live ~8.5 miles from Target Field as the birdie flies.
ReplyDeleteI assume Plymouth was successful in part because of 494, the nice lakes, the degradation of the inner city/burbs, available land for modern homes, business friendly government, close proximity to downtown, etc. For these reasons, yes I think it would have been.
Looking at the map, I don't think much has been done to increase capacity between the 610 and 694. And hopefully the MAC/State will keep these constrained, so those communities will develop into more than just bedroom communities.
ReplyDeleteLots of major roads in Plymouth have been upgraded in the last 40 years. 55 used to be one lane each way way back in the day, Rockford Road has been upgraded, Bass Lake Road has been upgraded.
ReplyDeleteIt feels to me like you're just making this up as you go.
"I don't think much has been done to increase capacity between the 610 and 694."
Brooklyn Park did tons of road work from Noble to 169 to facilitate development off of 610. Why do you think the Target in Maple Grove was built where it was instead of over by the Walmart on 94? Do you think they intended to be in the middle of field when it was built and it's just serendipity that a highway is going past there now?
"The best thing for the Twin Cities metro would be if we could spread out the unsuccessful folk so they can learn from and model the successful folk."
ReplyDeleteWhy? It doesn't work, and it's insulting to boot. Don't tell me the only way a black kid can learn is if a white kid sits next to him. We've been trying this "integration" for 50 years and it hasn't wrought any miracles that I can see. And by your own admission, those suburban teachers, accustomed to "lucky kids" have even less idea what to do with a bunch of "unlucky kids" thrown into their classrooms. And I've seen it personally, so don't bet the cost of light rail that you can suddenly make magic.
If poor parents can afford a new house in Wayzata or Edina, they will buy one, but then they wouldn't be poor and their kids wouldn't be "unlucky." Kids staying in failing schools are there because government has offered them no realistic alternatives.
Sean,
ReplyDeletePlease don't confuse "spokes" with local development. I agree that doubling the size of 55, and converting 12 to a limited access freeway (394) were excellent examples of enabling and encouraging sprawl. These are true spokes that start at downtown and help make it easier to live far away while working in town.
I am sure Delano appreciates the Hwy 12 improvements that helped many people to live there and grow their community. Where I am sure the cities in the RDale school district don't appreciate these spokes that made it easier for the young successful Parents to flee Westward and led to the closure of many of their local schools.
I can't go on with this conversation. Your position is so incoherent I can't make heads or tails of it anymore.
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteYou definitely are fixed in your belief system. And please note that I think race has nothing to do with this issue. That is a belief many Liberals hold.
Now we know that the a large number of the kids in schools with high poverty rates fail academically. That is why I am very specific that the community needs to be under 40% free and reduced lunch... And 20% is much better.
Just bussing kids for 7 hrs in a different reality isn't enough when they spend the vast majority in their family's reality.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteSorry I am not making this clearer for you. Maybe I will post an sketch in a future post.
"Don't tell me the only way a black kid can learn is if a white kid sits next to him."
ReplyDeleteWow. Racist much? John never mentioned race.
Joel
"And please note that I think race has nothing to do with this issue." Nor do I, but "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet." We track achievement gap by race, and by that measure, inner city public schools are failing black students in far disproportion. That blacks are also disproportionately from single parent homes and poor households might account for the difference, but that only makes race a good proxy, not a clue to what causes the "gap." So while it makes sense to treat the causes of educational dysfunction caused by poverty and family structure, our "desegregation" efforts are focused on race alone and that simply ignores the real factors involved. So, no difference.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that we can get poor people out in the suburbs where their kids will get a better education simply ignores the fact these people a) don't have jobs at all, much less one requiring a commute, unless they have a job downtown they can already reach, and b) if they have a job it isn't enough to afford a house in the suburbs or they would already have moved to a place with "good schools," just like everybody else does when they have kids and money. There is absolutely nothing about changing the location of unlucky kids that will turn them into lucky kids; you simply make them uncommon failures rather than common failures like everybody else around them.
I know that money doesn't make for good education, but the notion we could spend $2 billion on something as tenuously related to academic improvement as is SWLRT simply defies any notion of "public good."
Since we know the physiology and capabilities of all humans is roughly similar across all races. And racism is much lower than in the past.
ReplyDeleteI prefer to focus on academic results with regard to:
- free/ reduced lunch
- English as a second language
- special ed
- mobility
All of which they also record.
The primary reason race matters from my view point is because of very broad brush social belief systems that some people in the Race sometimes show.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteI am a bit amazed at your denial of the power of peer pressure.
I thought every parent understood how important it is during the developmental years to ensure their children's friends are good influences. Thankfully my wife promoted that early and now the girls purposely avoid the kids who drink, smoke, do drugs, ignore their homework and/or act up in class.
Not sure how she did it, but it is wonderful.
Returning to Race for a minute... Please remember that my daughters have friends from pretty much every race imaginable. (ie Plymouth Middle School and Armstrong High School are very diverse) In fact they straighten me out if I make any inappropriate jokes. But even they understand very clearly that there are kids who make good choices and those who make bad choices. And that one is influenced by those who you choose to hang with.
Exactly right. People of every race that share certain socioeconomic "beliefs" get along well and tend to succeed academically in similar numbers. Picking up kids unlike those already there and dropping them in simply creates "ghettos" within the school. There is minimal peer pressure because nobody considers these new kids to be peers and vice versa. Some of the new kids do better academically because the schools have higher expectations and because additional resources-- tutors, etc.-- may be available, but in my experience it tends to be marginal. It works best when the parents WANT to move to where there are "better schools" but could not otherwise afford it. In other words, where the socioeconomic beliefs are already aligned. In short, if we had school choice for everybody we wouldn't have to move them at all. Those who wanted a better ed for their kids (and I will claim that's a vast majority) could get it.
ReplyDelete