Conservatives, well, make that some conservatives love to use transit as the transportation punching bag and while I definitely think it is a point worth debating, I’m not sure you guys want to get into that debate. First of all, as I’m sure all of you realize, roads are far more heavily subsidized by the government than light rail is. Whereas light rail has the direct fee in the form of the ticket, roads have the gas tax as a direct fee on using roads. BUT the gas tax pays a much smaller proportion of the total cost of roads than do the light rail tickets (over the expected life of the system). Just an initial point to keep in mind.
The main area where the anti-transit arguments fall apart, however, is where one looks at their overall affect on roads. As I’m sure all of you agree that everyone has to get to work somehow, I’m sure that we can subsequently agree that if transit is eliminated those individuals will be in cars on roads. Now, buses and (especially) rail are much higher density conduits; meaning that they can move many more people per square foot than can cars. Moreover, even light rail carries far more people per square foot of rail than do highways per square foot of road (both measured per hour) at any time of the day. So, light rail can relieve more traffic and congestion than can a whole new lane of highway.
Obviously this can only hold true in areas where light rail or bus (or whatever mode of transit) is used at a capacity that removes more drivers from the road than would use another lane of highway. So, high density urban areas are going to be the most prime candidates for light rail. Therefore, light rail clearly does not and can not replace roads in any significant manner; they can only supplement roads.
But if we’re talking about 35W, which, come on, we are, we’re talking about one of the most ideal supplemental situations. The Hiawatha line runs at full capacity during rush hours (and most hours of the day) and this directly (it’s been measured by MNDoT) relieves traffic from 35W (and, obviously, other roads but 35W is the biggest benefactor). So, because of light rail the 35W bridge was carrying significantly fewer cars a day than it would without rail; it’s simply a fact. And, returning to my first point, it was doing so at a cost to the tax payer (over the life of the system) of much less per rider than an expansion of the artery would have cost.
Now, clearly, the light rail is not a repair mechanism. That is, no one in their right mind would argue that building the light rail was an effective way to deal with the disrepair of the bridge. But it is a more effective way to deal with a growing population and a cost effective way at that. So, my large point is that the light rail actually (relatively) frees up more transportation money than would building more lanes onto 35W. Which means that the most cost effective way to deal with these situations is to support the light rail while dedicating supplemental revenue to the repair and maintenance of the roads. Although the option you all are advocating is also an option, I suppose: scrap light rail, move the money to roads, and deal with massive congestion.
Putting aside the issue of subsidizing transit for the sake of argument, how does building more transit prevent bridges from collapsing?
This is the central issue in the debate about responsibility for the bridge collapse. If we are going to say that Pawlenty is to blame for not passing the gas tax (as stated in Minnesota Monitor and by DFL Senators Ropes and Lynch and DFL Representative Tschumper), then isn’t the DFL at fault for investing in transit while not putting money in our current infrastructure?
“But it is a more effective way to deal with a growing population and a cost effective way at that. So, my large point is that the light rail actually (relatively) frees up more transportation money than would building more lanes onto 35W. Which means that the most cost effective way to deal with these situations is to support the light rail while dedicating supplemental revenue to the repair and maintenance of the roads.”
First I point out the Matt is talking out of his ass (yes Virginia, a-gain).
Then I prove it:
http://restraininorder.blogspot.com/2007/05/oh-hell-yeah-we-want-that.html
“Earlier this month, the mayors of Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton held a press conference with Gov. Ed Rendell about the state’s mass transit funding crisis.”
“It’s not just about the mismanaged money pit serving Philadelphia known as SEPTA. It’s about well-run but financially stressed local transit authorities like LANTA, which serves Lehigh and Northampton counties.”
“Before last year’s general election, there were rumors that Gov. Rendell would call for a higher gasoline tax to bail out SEPTA. Instead, the bipartisan Transportation
Funding and Reform Commission released a report after the election that detailed
a much bigger problem.”
“It’s a $1.7 billion annual funding shortfall — $965 million for roads and bridges, $760 million for mass transit.”
Chicago has lots of transit too:
“Huberman said the CTA would still have to divert $56.9 million in federal funds intended to pay for CTA maintenance, repairs and construction to pay everyday operating bills. The CTA is trying to close a $110 million budget gap.”
San Francisco Bay area LOVES it’s transit:
“Dozens of angry commuters Thursday denounced BART’s proposal to raise fares and lay off station agents to cut a $51 million deficit, but some thought a plan to charge as much as $5 for parking was a good idea.”
One of the biggest problem with public transit is the unions that quickly infest it.
As we see in the examples I’ve provided, no one can keep up with a union dominated operations insatiable appetite for money, nor with it’s union inspired inefficiencies.
You can google just about any large cities transit acromnym and find the same quagmire.
So tell us a-gain Matt, tell us about how great the choo-choo trains are.
Matt,
You know I love you man.
But, I must disagree with you on your point about the 35W bridge.
Given that the Hiawatha line runs south from downtown and the 35W bridge carried traffic to and from north of downtown, I don’t think Hiawatha took any pressure off that bridge.
I have a Republican friend. This guy is what I call a “Genuine Republican.” He favors low taxes, smaller government, no intrusion into his private live. But he does believe government has a place. He doesn’t want to “drown it in a bathtub.”
He’s also a high income / high net worth individual.
Most of all, he’s very practical.
He always says he wishes the price of gas would double. That would keep others from driving and reduce traffic for him.
I’m not in favor of doubling the price, but I think providing a financial incentive for people to drive less and use public transportation more would be something Genuine Republicans would support.
Blaming transit spending for the bridge collapse is as stupid as blaming Pawlenty’s opposition to tax increases on the bridge collapse.
It would be prudent for a Transportation Infrastructure system to include Light Rail for the reason that more people can be transited from one place to another in a fashion that saves both time and money, not to mention wear and tear on roads and bridges.
Buses can only do so much to ferry people where they need to go. Light Rail can connect communities together. Like with Chicago, the system’s Hub station is O’Hare Airport. This rail and transit bus system takes people from the airport to the various suburbs, suburbs to Downtown, etc. I have used Chicago’s Rail Transit system numerous times and it is convienent. A similar planned system for the Minneapolis area and suburbs would be successful, as then fees paid for Light Rail goes for Light Rail building and maintanence. But it needs fundiong to get it going.
But nor should the investment be forgotten to care for the roads and Bridges. Putting down more roads does not completely solve the problem. The more the roads, the more traffic occurs. Light Rail is an idea whose time is long overdue. Oh how would I love to take a train to the Minneapolis Apirport from Rochester than getting on the highway. That is me. An increase of the State’s Gas Tax would be that start. A nickel per gallon is an amount people would be willing to pay.
Eurpoe is a good example of high Gas prices and a sucessful rail system that connects communities and countries together. It’s worth looking into.
This is the 21st century people!!! In another 100 years of this millenium, there will be more transit moving people than there are highways. I would bet the farm on it. Though I will not be around to see it.
There is no such argument as “transit vs. roads?” In fact, it obfuscates the argument for transit-advocates to put it in these terms. The argument is actually “roads vs. transit & roads.” There is no transit-only crowd.
AS I stgated, Light Rail Transit is part of the Transportation equation. It is an idea whose time is long overdo.
kathy,
I agree with you that this is the 21st century. Commuter and passenger trains is really a 19th century way of doing things. I don’t agree with you that we’ll be using trains to move people around in another 100 years. We need to really think forward and figure out how we’re going to do things. Additionally, so far there is no evidence that the light rail we have today is taking any cars off the highways.
Neb,
I agree with you that there aren’t any transit only people in the legislature (or at least not many, anyway). I disagree with you that there is not a whole lot of legislators who have been fighting to take money away from road and highway construction and expansion in favor of putting more money into transit. Look at the huge fight that happened over the MVET amendment where metro DFLers fought to have AT LEAST 40% of new MVET monies put into transit (emphasis added).
kathy,
You say that light rail transit is an idea that’s long overdue. That’s because it’s been around for over 100 years. We need to move forward not go back to 100 year old ideas.
Chris O’Reilly.
Cars are an old idea that have been around for about 100 years. We need to move forward not go back to 100 year old ideas.
Chris!!
How in the hell do you think people will be getting from Point A to Point B in 100 years?? The Highways?? It will be more like the ‘The Fith Element’ where there are Rails and Cars that hover above the roads. You and I will not be around to see it, but our great grandchildren will.
You are against Light Rail. I am not. If there is a way to move mass amounts of people to ease conjestion on our roads and bridges, what can be so bad about that?
kathy,
Where is the evidence that light rail eases congestion? I don’t see any — in fact, there are studies about this issue. I am against light rail because it is the least efficient way of moving people around in our state. We need to improve our existing infrastructure before we throw hundreds of millions of dollars into something else.
We need a little eminent domain in action.
Make Highway 10 4 lanes in each direction from Elk River to Minneapolis.
In 20 years, we can add 2 more lanes.
That’s progress.
Chris Aug 10th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Putting aside the issue of subsidizing transit for the sake of argument, how does building more transit prevent bridges from collapsing?
— — —
Then going back to the opening commentary by Matt:
Now, clearly, the light rail is not a repair mechanism.
That is, no one in their right mind would argue that building the light rail was an effective way to deal with the disrepair of the bridge. But it is a more effective way to deal with a growing population and a cost effective way at that.
— — —
Don’t you even READ what you are replying to, Chris????????????????
Just say what the hell ever crosses your mind & then rail about other people staying on topic?
Jan. 7 1991, the day the last democratic governor, Rudy Perpich, left office. Then Republican, Jesse, and republican for 16 years…..
No legitmate transportation packages. Wonder why?
Chris O’Reilly,
DUHHH I DUNNO WHY. Maybe you should enlighten us with your massively partisan opinion…DUHHH.
Gimme a fucking break, scumbag.
The moonbat beaks his raquet and storms off in a fit of uncontrolled, childish anger after being spanked…a-gain.
“DUHHH I DUNNO WHY. Maybe you should enlighten us with your massively partisan opinion…DUHHH.”
“Gimme a fucking break, scumbag.”
Point, set and match: Chris.
Swiftee O’Reilly
Only a right wing troll would see any success in right wing failure.
Nitro = permanent ignore (G-G-F).
The other, other Chris,
What are you talking about saying no legitimate transportation packages? You’re smoking some kind of rope here. 2006 was the biggest road and bridge construction year in the state’s history. 2005 was the second biggest and 2004 was the third biggest. You’re right that Carlson and Ventura did nothing to build roads. Ventura was probably the most destructive taking hundreds of millions and putting it into light rail while taking other money out of transportation when he shifted taxes away from tabs. But Pawlenty has proposed serious money for our infrastructure, including a bill to build $1.7 billion in roads and bridges that got killed by Steve Murphy’s transportation committee in the Senate.
Mockingbird,
It’s pretty clear that the guys on this site are concerned about the focus on our infrastructure taking money out of the boondoggle that is transit. I’ve heard DFL legislators all say the same thing. See, they aren’t really interested in solving the problem as much as they are about protecting their own projects. If solving our infrastructure problem meant shelving transit projects for three or five years, they wouldn’t go for it.
By the way, I object to the phrase “disrepair of the bridge.” We don’t know if the bridge was in a state of disrepair or if there was another cause for the collapse (ie. a design defect). As someone who has seen dozens of design defect tort cases, I would not at all be surprised if that is the ultimate finding, however, we will not know for some time what caused the bridge to collapse.
Right wing failure? heh..
“Fifty-eight percent of Minnesotans said the state should not increase the gas tax to pay for improving roads and bridges in a Survey USA/KSTP poll released Tuesday night.”
Looks like the conservative message has found a home with the majority of Minnesotans.
We pay plenty in taxes, the problem is our Democrat legislators have chosen to waste the resources we put in their care.
Democrats that choose to use the bridge disaster to attempt to pick the taxpayers pockets do so at their peril.
yeah..yeah..yeah..it’s all about pandering to the public. Ignoring infrastructure is neglect - sadly given politicians’ larger concern for their political skin one doesn’t need a crystal ball to know that neglect is going to keep on coming.
Swiftee O’Reilly,
I think there’s probably SOME people who think gas prices are already outrageously high and that those costs are causing them to have less money for other things. Every time I fill the family van it’s like 60 bucks! That has definately had an effect on the family vacation this year, we had a lot less to spend because of gas prices alone.
I think if you think the conservative message has found a home here in Minnesota you are living in some sort of right wing spin dream world….oh wait you already were living in a right wing spin dream world.
LOLS “AT THEIR PERIL??” What is this the Lieberman spin zone?
You are definately a trollie troll-like troll man. Do you live under a bridge somewhere?
The Republican Party and their army of dittoheads continues to lie and spin the American public on every issue AT THEIR PERIL.
Oh, those transportation packages were massive. Let’s build roads by asking company’s to loan us the money and then we will repay them. We saw how that worked — ZERO bids on the 62 project.
I’m glad we have we have Ms. Molnau running out DOT.
This administration when it comes to transporation has said one thing: VETO, VETO, VETO…..
Sometimes, the chickens come home to roost.
The other, other Chris,
Yeah, those packages were massive — bigger than anything the state has seen previously. And the last package that was killed by Sen. Steve Murphy would have built $1.7 Billion in roads and bridges.
You can criticize MNDOT and Molnau all you want. They should be applauded for trying to find ways for government to be creative and more efficient in how they get things done.
By the way, what is the chickens come home to roost comment all about? Are you blaming Pawlenty for the bridge collapse or something? If you are, be prepared to find an ass made of yourself and the others when we find out (1) what actually caused the collapse and (2) when the DFL’s own record on shirking roads and bridges in favor of trains and transit is exposed.
Nitro = permanent ignore.
OK can any of you tell me what exactly a special session is supposed to accomplish?
A. Rebuild 35W Bridge
B. Fix all bad bridgess in MN
C. Fix bridges and improve road safety
D. Pass DFL transportation bill, DFL tax bill, DFL bonding bill, DFL Dream Act, DFL Midnight Basketball, DFL interchanges on both sides of the bridge, DFL light rail across the bridge, DFL Vikings stadium infrastructure, DFL welfare expansions, etc….
How many are going with D?
I think the solution is more tax cuts for Millionaires. The money for infrastructure will trickle down. We must preserve welfare for the rich at all costs.
Interesting read in today’s Strib on Lt. Gov and MNDOT Commissioner Carol Molnau, along with photos of the Hwy 36 bridge near Stillwater that is literally crumbling underneath. Basically, the woman is not doing her job as effectively as she should be as MNDOT head.
Chris - just a hint - if you have Nitro = permanent ignore, you should actually permanently ignore him instead of responding.
Nitro - please get off my side.
I get so tired of both of you and your sandbox antics.
Also, there are great concerns about the 3,000 foot span of the Lafyette St. Bridge (Hwy 52) leading into St. Paul that sees 80,000 cars and trucks daily. That span of bridge over the Mississippi River has cracks and weak spots that have been reported to Mollnau’s Office. What a tragedy that would be should it collapse some day. The damage and death toll would be greater than than of the I-35 collapse. There were photos of that bridge’s undebelly in last Sunday’s Strib showing severe corrosion and weaknesses in various areas of the supporting struts.
A decision on raising the Gas Tax in Minnesota is needed. How much longer can we go before another Bridge falls down and more lives are lost???
kathy,
You’re falling into the typical liberal DFL spin on this issue. We don’t know why the 35-W bridge collapsed. There has been all kinds of money in transportation. How has that money been spent and why are our roads and bridges crumbling, as you say? In 1988 we were one of the states with the highest gas tax. We are still toward the top today. Wisconsin is the highest and they have a gas tax that’s 12 cents a gallon higher than ours. The point is that a knee jerk reaction to raise taxes is not going to solve the problem if the money isn’t spent correctly. That’s not Molnau’s fault no matter how you try to spin it. If you’re concerned about roads and bridges, why don’t you call Steve Murphy and ask him to pass the governor’s $1.7 billion highway and bridge package? If you’re concerned about roads and bridges why did you just spend the last day or so crying about how we need more transit? The point is, we need a state that doesn’t pour money down a rathole and actually solves the problems we have now.
P.S. kathy,
You’re accusing the Lt. Governor and Transportation Commissioner of not doing her job. Exactly what should she, personally - not her department, be doing about the bridge you mentioned?
“Also, there are great concerns about the 3,000 foot span of the Lafyette St. Bridge (Hwy 52) leading into St. Paul that sees 80,000 cars and trucks daily.”
Dire news indeed.
I think we should dedicate two lanes in each direction to bicycle traffic. Then Rep. Oberstar might take some notice.
No way he’s going to risk his own skin on an unsafe bridge.
Kathy,
The bridge you mentioned is being fixed this fall. The project was scored, the money put in place, the contract let and construction is scheduled.
Let’s no forget that we decided to end welfare reform in Minnesota last session. We decided to stop doing what brings families from welfare to work and extended benefits, lowered work requirements and made it easier for people who are here illegally to get on welfare and government healthcare. That’s a priority decision that moved money here that could have gone to any portion of the budget-including road safety.
If the veto is palatable conversation in connection with the bridge collapse, so then is the 44% increase in HHS spending- the fastest growing portion of the state budget that was decided by DFL legislators. The bonding bill also had within it an appropriation to begin work on a high speed train to Chicago. DFL priority choice.
Most or all of that $1.7 Billion would be borrowed or one-time monies, Chris. That is a lot of money to have to pay back, assuming Tax revenue collections remain high. One-time monies do not last for a duration of years to cover the needs of an area of infrastructure. Gov. Pawlenty’s idea of funding is to borrow while not raising a Tax in an area that could ease some of the problem. A combonation of some borrowing and raising the Gas Tax for Roads and Bridges is more apt to be accepted that just borrowing that money alone. It’s about accounting shifts. Take away more from one area and put it into another.
Question: “Why is it that taxpayers so rarely see any of the promised returns on the myriad of vital “investments” that the Democrat party is continually picking pockets to finance?”
“Why for instance, does the Saint Paul Public School District see fit to spend supposidly scarce financial resources on a “GLBT laboratory” while at the same time watching 55% of it’s students failing to graduate?”
“Why, on the other hand, do taxpayes see boondoggles like “green rooftops” and “partner benefits” and the “Paul and Sheila Wellstone Community Center” sprouting up in cities that claim to be so broke that they cannot provide police and fire protection?”
Answer:
“It’s about accounting shifts. Take away more from one area and put it into another.”
kathy,
The $1.7 billion package was paid for by the new monies going into the highway portion of the Constitutional Amendment regarding MVET passed by voters last year. It was not an accounting shift or gimmick. Leveraging our dollars to guarantee big projects and improvements is smart. Paying for roads and bridges a hundred and fifty million dollars at a time is dumb. Raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes is ridiculous. Why isn’t the DFL interested in solving the problem? All they care about is raising taxes for their political constituencies.
Well since the original post was about the roles transit and roads should play in our future maybe I will attempt to hit the reset button a bit.
I say that as a base line we treat all transit modes the same regardless of what form they take. Ideally we would just raise the gas tax to pay exclusively for every road need and fares to pay for all transit needs. This would mean each method is self sufficient and would allow people to make a competitive decision on which method they choose to get to and from work. It would end the arguments about which mode was more cost efficient once and for all. The biggest bonus would be we would start to develop for efficient developments without further interference by people like the Met Council because people would naturally work to consume less transportation.
Maybe to reduce the shock of the increased costs we could start by having the state match the funds raised through gas taxes or fares and slowly reduce them over time. So next year both transit and roads are given from the general fund the same amount as they raised in fares and gas tax and the next year they are given 95% and then 90% and so on.
Just a thought about how to move forward instead of rehashing the same crap that got us where we are today.
p.s.
Each mode would also have to pay for it’s maintenance out of those dedicated funds so the system that is easier to maintain would have a big advantage over time.
It’s MVST AND we are not talking a one time $1.7 billion need. BTW it’s not a DFL vs GOP issue. Representatives Erhardt and Bellanger lobbied hard for needed transit revenue - Erhardt continues to do so. Both openly said “raise the gas tax” The more traditional - “infrastructure is a valuable asset” people get it. The Pawlenty’s and Molnau’s and the DFLers who wimped out on transportation may get it and think “oh well ho ho nothing bad will happen on our watch…let some other legislative session do what needs to be done. That or they really have no clue as to why investing in infrastructure is necessary - neither case is particularly good.
Demure One,
MVST = MVET. Sales and excise taxes are identical. Erhardt and Bellanger are Republicans indeed. But they would be considered outside the majority of their party. To say that the majority of Republicans support transit and support a gas tax increase is a fiction.
So, is there a good Chris - and an evil Chris on here?
The idea that there have been nothing but Republican governors -
depending on what you call Ventura since 1991 seems a strong indicator of something about the roadways, although Ventura was a fan of light rail…
Mockingbird,
Thank you for calling me the good Chris. That was nice of you. And while we’re examining the record for the past couple of decades, let’s really look at the record. Perpich built roads, but they were all on the iron range. Nearly every road up there is a four lane highway even though most only carry about 2,500 cars a day. Carlson was a terrible Governor when it came to being bold on roada and bridges. Ventura was even worse because he abandoned roads in faovor of $700 million+ for light rail and took money out of transportation in favor of other spending. But Pawlenty is building roads and bridges. Look at the record: 2006 was the biggest road construction year in history. 2005 was the second and 2004 was the thrid. They would have been even bigger except for the fact, as demonstrated by Matt’s article and the comments here on this forum, that the DFL controlled Senate would not pass more money for roads and bridges. While we have had Republican Governors, there is no doubt that the legislature, completely controlled by DFLers until 1998, and split 50/50 from 1998-2006, has its own share of blame to carry.
Chris,
Are there posts here by another Chris that are not you?
I would suggest a new post to the host on the scope of a special session. It would be interesting to hear from this blog on that.
The public wants more transportation options. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, supporting light rail and improving the bus system has become popular among the general public. This trend is nationwide, from Houston to Kansas City on up to Minneapolis. Folks can bash transit all they want, but they should know that politicians who bash transit are hurting their chances at winning elections.
This is the becoming the Republican equivalent to Dems going so crazy about gun control. My message to Republicans: embrace transit and road funding. Much of the money comes from the feds anyway. Focus your energy on the things that matter more to you, like income taxes and such. To use the comparison, to voters in places like Eden Prairie (note: planned southwest corridor), you’re only shooting yourself in the foot by standing in the way.
Neb,
I’ve seen a whole lot of polls taken in campaigns. I’ve never seen transit as playing a big role in any election. Moreover, depending where you are in the state, transit would be a big negative.
Barack has said it best!!
A good Transpotation system has both Roads and Transit. There are many in the inner Cities who do not drive or can afford to own a car. They take what is available to get them from Point A to Point B.
Also, there is only so much land in and around the Cities in which highways like 169, 100, 62 that can be expanded. The costs of uprooting homes and businesses becomes astronomical. Then the problem of Emminent Domain comes into play. That would be with Transit also, but trains can be built above ground, like with Chicago, New York, Toronto, Montreal, etc.
I liken those against Transit to those who are againt Wind Generated Electricity. People are said to oppose the Wind Generators because they are expensive, ugly, obtrusive, do not blend in with the landscape, etc. It is easy to oppose somehting despite the advantages they may present.
The problem Barack talks about has nothing to do with roads exclusively. It is due to the fact that we are subsidizing transportation which causes people to move farther away from their jobs then they otherwise would. This will happen no matter with which mode you choose to increase capacity. If what Matt says it true about the Hiawatha line “significantly” reducing traffic on 35W (I question the significantly modifier) then light rail is adding to the problem just as much as an extra lane on the freeway as cars will fill the space vacated by those now on the train.
People want transit option because they don’t feel they have to pay much for them. Somebody that rides the train or drives downtown to work from Lakeville is paying only a fraction of the cost of that trip. The result of this type of subsidization is overconsumption. If you want to help the truly needy to get to and from work there are better ways then massive transit subsidies for everybody. We should not encourage people to live inefficiently.
The public tends to likes new roads and trains because the costs are hidden from them. They feel like since much of the money comes from the Feds it must be free. Politicians take advantage of this by giving people more and more despite the true short and long term costs.
People that argue about trains or roads do so only for aesthetic and cultural reasons. The argument pitting two modes against each other is childish and counterproductive. They are nothing but tools that should be applied where needed and most cost effective. Not treated as just another point in a myopic partisan rant.
kathy,
It’s funny that you mentioned both rail and wind energy. Because both technologies were from about 100 or so years ago. At the turn of the last century, all of our farms had windmills and all of our big cities had rail.
Now, I’m not necessarily against either — especially wind. I don’t really mind the wind turbines. I know the Kennedys fought against them in Massachusetts because it blocked their view. And rail does make some sense in cities like New York and Washington, D.C. that have both population density and a ton of people.
But if we think these technologies that are more than 100 years old are our future, we’re fooling ourselves. There is a better way and we need to be more forward thinking - which has been long lacking in this state. For example, we are the only metropolitan area of our size in the U.S. that has a four lane beltway. We weren’t forward thinking when we built our freeways in the first place. We weren’t foreward thinking when we made every state highway north of Hinckley a four lane road (even though they only carry 2,500 cars a day). We weren’t foreward thinking when we went through the Carlson administration and didn’t do anything for roads then either. And we weren’t foreward thinking when we shifted money out of transportation and built a tourist train under Ventura.
Barack,
The problem with your argument is it’s the slippery slope. Compare Minneapolis and St. Paul to the San Diego Metropolitan area. The freeways in San Diego are five and six lanes in each direction! We have very few freeways in Minnesota that are five and six lanes in each direction. Moreover, we have a lot of freeways that go from four lanes in each direction down to two lanes and back up to three lanes a few miles later. That’s because we weren’t forward thinking when we builr them and we added lanes willy nilly when we scraped up enough money to do it.
We need to be bold when it comes to our infrastructure and Pawlenty deserves a lot of credit for having three of the largest road construction years in the state’s history as well as proposing another $1.7 billion for new roads and bridges.
intersting Commentary on the Transportation issue from today’s Strib that I read earlier. Hits the nail on the head…
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1356413.html
John Gunyou: New motto: Buck passes through here…
Rather than acknowledging any responsibility for the bridge, today’s leaders have perfected the art of the non-apology.
Two paragraphs by John Gunyou grabbed my attention were these ones……
“It’s one thing to try, and fall short; it’s quite another to not even make the effort. It’s increasingly evident the Pawlenty-Molnau administration ignored the advice of bridge experts to take remedial action. Worse yet, the administration still has no viable long-term plan to improve, much less maintain, our state’s critical transportation infrastructure.
After twice vetoing the Legislature’s attempts to put such a plan in place, Gov. Tim Pawlenty offered up a scheme to fund our needs at only 10 cents on the dollar — with 30-year bonds. Worse yet, he wanted to pay off that debt by cutting into already inadequate maintenance resources. That doesn’t build any more roads or bridges over the long run; it simply borrows against the future.”
Borrow today, pay tomnorrow!!! That makes me feel really good.
Kathy,
Today, driving around Minneapolis all day, I couldn’t help but notice rusty handrails on rusty bridges all over the city. I can only imagine what the undersides look like. Unfortunately the worst ones were over the Misissippi, like the 37th st NE bridge, or the 3rd Avenue bridge right by downtown. How much does freakin paint cost?? It’s embarassing.
The inspectors were at almost every bridge I crossed, however. I hope they are not worried too much about how much fixing bridges will cost. Either fix them, or close them, there’s no middle ground.
You are so correct, Nitro!!! There is no middle ground. Nor is knowing that a Department as important as Transportation needs the funds annually to ge thew job done.
It is one thing to expand on an existing road or bridge, it’s another to make sure the road and bridge is in good working order at all times. A coat of paint can do wonders. But what condition is the structure on which the paint is applied is the real question???
A bridge that was well designed and well made is the Golden Gate Bridge that spans the mile over the San Francisco Bay. Not even an 8.3 earthquake can make that baby come down like the one that hit the Bay Area in 1989. There was damage to the Bay Bridge, but nothing like that which brought the I-35 down.
kathy,
What responsibility for the bridge are our leaders supposed to take? We still don’t know what caused the bridge to collapse. And what we do know right now is pointing to a design defect — although that could certainly change.
Before we make a knee jerk political move, shouldn’t we determine exactly what caused the bridge to collapse?
Barack,
Light rail is basically a taxi service to move people around. Roads and bridges provide an economic benefit because they are used not only to move people around but goods and services too. There is a big difference between the two. Even though you don’t live on a particular highway doesn’t mean you don’t get something - like food, clothing, etc. that needed to be transported on that highway. The only people who benefit from Light rail and other mass transit are the people who use it.
Chris,
You use the same logic to support roads that socialists do to support education, welfare, and mass transit. That it is an indirect benefit to everybody even if you don’t use it yourself. This is probably true to some extent in all cases and surely is with roads. My problems is that subsidizing one mode of transit over another encourages behavior that is inefficient. If roads are the best method of transport than they should have no problem paying for themselves through gas taxes, just like mass transit should be funded through fares.
Yes the price of goods and services would go up but those increases would reflect the true cost of what is being consumed rather than a state subsidized amount that encourages overconsumption. If we pay the true costs of transit we will use transportation more efficiently which will free up recourses to fund more productive activities.
Kerosene Hat,
Until your groceries, clothing and every other good you purchase is shipped across the light rail or dropped out of the sky with a little parachute, I suggest it is in your benefit to have more highways and bridges. You seem like a libertarian thinking kind of guy, but you say that you want more resources freed up for more productive activities. I can’t think of a more productive activity for government than building roads and making it easier for people, goods and services to move around from point a to point b.
Barack,
I dispute your 30,000 average ridership a day figure. Nobody knows how many people ride the train because they don’t take the tickets here like they do in New York and Washington, D.C. While they sell tickets at the stations, that figure includes “transfers” from buses. They really don’t know how many people actually transfer from the bus to the light rail versus the bus to another bus. It’s speculation. To the extent that a lot of people ride the light rail line, it’s largely in the evening and largely to get people to and from Twins games, Vikings games, etc. Congestion has not improved one bit since the light rail line came in because they didn’t build the light rail line anywhere that would have actually relieved congestion. In fact, since the light rail line came in, congestion has gotten worse along Hiawatha because of the new stoplights, etc.
Chris,
I have nothing against roads or rail or barges or any other mode. They each have their pluses and minuses. Paying the true cost for each just keeps us from overusing any one of them.
I would also say that if we were to raise gas taxes to completely fund roads we should also do away with all C.A.F.E. standards, tax breaks for hybrids and the disaster in waiting that is the ethanol boondoggle. People paying the true cost of what they consume is the only way market forces have a chance to work. People that live near work or consume little should not be taxed to supplement the lifestyles of those that consume more or commute long distances any more than people driving to Minneapolis from Robinsdale should have to pay for light rail.
Kerosene Hat,
You don’t get it. If everyone lived close to work, which is an impossibility, we would still need the highways and freeways to move our goods and services around. Moreover, in this state we rarely build roads that are paid for by something other than the revenues collected from the gas tax, license tabs and now the Motor Vehicle Sales/Excise Tax. We don’t dip into the general fund to pay for roads, even though we probably should.
Chris,
I get it just fine and I don’t know what part of my comments you have a problem with since I have said repeatedly that I don’t have a problem building roads and freeways as long as they are paid for with suser fees. Why with this do you give up being a fiscal conservative and give up on the market?
Kerosene Hat,
The roads are paid for with the gas tax, MVET and license tabs. Even if they weren’t, I don’t understand this whole idea that building roads isn’t a legitimate government function. In my book, building roads is one of the few legitimate functions of government. I don’t know what your overall view of government is, but the things we spend the most money on: health and human services and education do not have user fees. I would rather build a hundred more roads than pay for many of the programs our government spends money on each and every year.
Transit may be one of the few legitimate functions of government, I agree completely, but we should not abandon market forces. Doing has resulted in huge amounts of waste. The gas tax is the best for of funding for roads. I have no problem bonding for projects when the interest rate is below the inflation rate of the project as long as the bonds are paid off with the gas tax. Paying for roads with license tabs fails to take into account how much that person actually uses the roads and is therefore a tax that corrupts the market. Paying for roads with revenue from income or sales tax removes any market forces from transportation.
Chris! You make the statement that “light Rail is a Taxi service.” What do you think City Bus lines are??? Bus lines a part of the overall Transit/Transportation equation.
I use the Bus lines to get where I need to go because I no longer drive. If I could get from Rochester to Minneapolis and the suburbs via Light Rail cleanly and in a reasonable amount of time, I would use that rather than my husband getting on the highways.
P.S.!!! Chris,
If Light Rail were designed and developed in a manner that benifits people who commute to work, shopping, to visit others, more people would use it rather than get stuck in traffic, pollute the enviornment with exhaust fumes, along with increasing their stress levels.
Light Rail is going to happen in the Twin Cities and outstate Minnesota within the next 20 or so years wether you like it or not.
Kathy,
rail is all fine and dandy but what do you say to using the same funding mechanisms for light rail as we do for roads. All road funding would be through the gas tax and only the gas tax and light rail would be through fares. That way if rail is efficient as everybody claims it will have no problems winning riders. To preempt the “poor people need to get around argument” I am willing to allow for a certain number of dollars to be spent providing free passes to the truly disadvantaged.
Does this sound reasonable or are you really just looking for somebody else to subsidize your choice of transit like some want to subsidize car travel?
p.s.
I would also be willing to include a “pass” that would exempt a person from the gas tax if the are truly disadvantaged.
kathy,
I agree with everything you said. City Buses are no different than light rail. To the extent that we subsidize buses and light rail, the state could buy every bus rider and light rail rider a car every year.
I understand that buses have a legitimate function. It’s a quality of life issue for a lot of people and I appreciate that. The problem with this whole issue is that we are behind in building roads and bridges and siphoning money off to build more light rail and other transit isn’t going to solve the problem. First things first, second things second. We are the only metropolitan area of our size in the nation that still has a four lane beltway. Now Pawlenty has been trying to solve that problem by expanding our freeways. The truth is they should have never been built the way they were in the first place — nor should they have been neglected for 20 years.
In this whole damn debate, nobody seems to think of the social and entrepreneurial investment that is made when we invest heavily in public trans. Portland is a great example:
“Portland’s total local rail investment (so far) is about $512 million. But, stimulated by that investment is about $3.8 billion in new real estate investment within walking distance of a MAX rail station (defined as 1/4 mile). That would represent something like $76 million per year in property taxes alone (at 2%). By itself, this is a payback rate of about 7 years for the local investment ‚ better than my high-efficiency furnace.”
Source: http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_por_2006-01a.htm
Also, don’t forget the absolutely massive health and environmental benefits of high quality public transit. When I was in Hungary on vacation, I walked an AVERAGE of 1.7 miles per day, just going around the city doing pretty normal stuff. I had already lived there, so I was not doing extensive touristy stuff, like walking just for the sake of walking either. Anyway, the reason I walked so much is because we didn’t drive anywhere, except for when we were going well outside of the city. And that is a country that is quite poor. This is saying nothing about the massive contribution public trans can make toward combating dirty air.
It’s not a market investment, it’s a social/environmental investment that just happens to reap huge benefits that do bring back tons of money if operated and built efficiently. Highways no longer do that, because we are running out of room to build them. Rail - in its myriad forms - is like the gold rush if we do it well.
A35,
Just a few facts about Portland along with the name of the recent book where the research is published.
Portland created a urban growth boundary to increase density in order to make light rail viable. This had the effect of increasing property costs in the city which in turn forced many low income people outside the boundary while higher income people stayed or moved in. This is the reason there were major developments in the city, not just light rail. The problem outside the obvious one of segregating the population is that the wealthier folks tend to drive no matter what the costs are because they can afford it. This is born out in the numbers. Before light rail 2.5% of trips in Portland were by bus while now 2.2% are by bus and light rail. Before light rail 9.8% of commuters used mass transit and after the train it is 7.6%. All this for a system that provides less than 1% of the transit needs of Portland while consuming almost 50% or their transportation resources.
A quote from the summary of the book.
“Portland‚area residents have expressed their opposition to these plans by voting against light rail and density and voting for a property‚rights measure that allows landowners to claim either compensation or waivers for land‚use rules passed since they purchased their property. Opposition turned to anger when a 2004 scandal revealed that an insider network known as the “light‚rail mafia” had manipulated the planning process to direct rail construction contracts and urban‚renewal subsidies to themselves.”
Also while you quoted the cost to Portland of the rail system the actual cost has been much higher. From the site you sent me it ends up at around $1.7 billion. That changes the return on investment pretty quickly to 22 years all while assuming those taxes not get spent on any other social services or infrastructure. The people of Portland didn’t have to pay but somebody, most likely the countries next generation, will.
My point with transit is that if people pay the true costs of either roads or rail they would tend to live more efficiently, and walk more, which is better for everybody. Overconsumption of transportation isn’t good just because it is on a train. The money spent to move that less than 1% of Portland around could have been spent on much more important things. Remember I also think the gas tax should be raised to pay for every dollar of road construction and maintenance so it is not as though I favor roads over rail.
The problem with strict urban planning is that they go about it backwards. The things you like about European cities happened in a much more organic way. It was harder to get around so people lived, worked and shopped near their homes. The typical American method has been to fight nature by subsidizing one method in this case roads, and then trying to counter it by subsidizing another, rail. It ends up being the same as giving people money to grow tobacco while suing the tobacco companies. If we made transit cost what it costs it would solve most of these problems.
Almost forgot, the book is “Debunking Portland: The City that Doesn’t Work”
I find it amusing that you are devoting so much time to this discussion of wheeled vehicles, and using an alphabetic system of writing to do so. These technologies were both developed at least 6,000 years ago.
In the late Neolithic age, farmers used wagons to carry goods to the city-states of Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley, where scribes recorded their transactions on clay tablets. Nothing has changed!
If we think that these Bronze Age technologies are our future, we are fooling ourselves. We truly need to be more forward thinking.
Dinosaurs.
KH: Thanks for the info. To be honest, didn’t really get to read much of what was on the site, just wanted to make the point that return on investment isn’t everything, and in some cases there actually is return on investment that doesn’t come in the form of big fat profits. Displacement is certainly horrible, and I would hope that we would not be going down that road here. Of course, fact is, when reliable and efficient transit is put in place in any city, there will be a lot of folks who will have to move on. That is our own damn fault, because we in this country chose to become a car culture instead of a train/bus/subway culture.
You are very right about the health benefits and the environmental benefits. The sticky part is certainly the displacement and finding the most logical way to pay for it. Unfortunately in this country, I don’t think we will do it, because everyone is afraid of paying real taxes. Until we have a progressive tax system in place, in which the the filthy rich are paying an even higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor and middle class, social investments and public works will suffer. In America, the me me me culture always tends to win out. Sad.
anonymous,
I am glad we are a car culture. I would hate to depend on a government-run service to get along in my daily life. My car doesn’t belong to a union, can’t go on strike, can’t be late or call in sick.
That said, there is a place for transit - particularly buses. There are people who can’t have a car and can’t drive themselves and I understand the quality of life issue for those people. But the function of government isn’t supposed to be providing a way for the majority of people to get back and forth to work when they can find a way on their own.
Chris,
The thing about our car culture is that it is just as dependent on government as trains. Not in a moment to moment way but over the long haul it is and has all the same problems you talk about for rail as construction workers, cops and other support are state run. Government builds roads and it takes taxes from sources other than direct user fees to pay for them. Philosophically it is the same thing as rail, just a different box the people go in. In the end if cars are better they will be more popular than rail if given the chance to compete equally. Just make both modes self sustaining financially exclusively with direct user fees.
Kerosene Hat,
If you take your argument all the way to its logical conclusion, we’re all dependent on government. Whether it’s regulation of commerce, plowing snow off of the roads, controlling traffic with stoplights, recording deeds when we buy a home, etc. The difference between you and me is that I believe building roads is one of the few legitimate things government does. My philosophy of government is boiled down to this idea: government should only do things for people that they cannot do for themselves. People can’t just go out and build roads.
You keep talking about user fees. Most functions of government don’t operate by user fees. For example, there is no welfare user fee. There is no education user fee. There is no Medicaid user fee. I’m not sure why building roads should require a user fee.
Chris,
Take out the word roads and replace it with light rail, welfare, Medicare, and the argument you present won’t change. People can’t build light or a welfare system either.
I still don’t see why you don’t think having roads paid for exclusively by user fees would be bad. It isn’t as though funds from other sources are “free”. We still pay through other channels which allow funds to be diverted to other project like bike trails and trains. Pure user fees also encourage smart behavior and development. It would increase land values, reduce energy consumption and might actually spur enough technological development to get U.S. automakers off their asses and make things salable in areas outside this country. All this while reducing the amount of regulation rather than increasing it.
Kerosene Hat,
I agree with you that we need less regulation and more free enterprise. However, building roads is one of the few things that government should be doing. You can’t build a road. I can’t build a road. What would this country be like if we didn’t have roads? It would be like Little House on the Prairie. I just think the user fee thing idea is a bit carried away when it comes to providing something everyone uses and gets benefits from - even if you don’t have a car. Look, everything in our economy is transported over the road. We don’t drop little packages out of airplanes.
All true Chris and I am only talking about the funding mechanism for those roads. I have not said to eliminate roads or even privatize them just to have the costs of the roads be transparent and attached to their use. The costs for the transport of goods would be paid for by the consumers of those goods as the seller would include the increased cost in the price. It is a much better system than to have artificially inexpensive goods (welfare) and tax random people to pay for it.
You seem to avoid the fact that nothing I said would keep government from building roads as long as people are willing to pay for them.
Most people would have no problem paying for roads if there was some kind of oversight in place that guaranteed the work would get done in a reasonable amount of time, safely, and creating jobs with reasonable working conditions in the process. Everyone likes to bitch about unions, but let’s face it, all the evidence points to the unions when you talk about better quality work. Better working conditions - which include health care, pensions, and other basic rights that unfortunately are not guaranteed to those not in unions - ALWAYS produce better products. Furthermore, workers stay in positions longer, as a direct result of workplace satisfaction. In California, where I originally come from, much of the road work done in the smaller cities is farmed out to private contractors, and I can say without a doubt, that the vast majority of the workers are immigrants, who are being paid a pittance, with little to no job security and health care is a dream. Meanwhile, the roads are built with inferior integrity. Cal Trans, on the other hand, does a pretty amazing job considering the challenge they face. Those are workers with damn favorable conditions.
KH: One problem I have with your proposal of user fees is that it works a lot like Gravel’s sales tax proposal, in that the working class - what we might as well now call the working poor - end up paying the brunt of the costs, as they travel the most day to day. Also, don’t you think the economics of the Twin Cities would change in a very positive, indeed competitive, way if public transit was made more effective, available, and faster? This is in the interest of everyone, not just the people who ride. Furthermore, how about people like me, who go out of their way NOT to drive? I pay my taxes - which are much higher than any rich person’s as a percentage of income - but I only utilize the roads three days per week on average. The rest of the time I am taking public trans or riding my bike. Shouldn’t I then get a break, considering I induce less wear and tear? No matter what, everyone pays, so why don’t we just drop the American individualist crap and just pay, as Americans, for something that will make America a better place to live? How the transit is run; how effectively the money is used, etc. are electoral issues if you ask me. If we keep electing credit-card legislators, nothing will ever be done in the best interest of the many.