|
»CONTENTS
Categories
» Daily Links
» Arts & Literature
» Business
» Culture & Society
» Film & Theater
» Media
» Miscellaneous
» Moving to MN
» Music
» Neighborhoods
» Law & Politics
» Sports
» Tech & Web
» Submit a Post
» Today's Comments
» Local Blog Aggregator
» 7 Quick Questions
» RSS Feed
»ARCHIVE
» Tags
»MORE
» Contact Us
» Advertise
» Press
|
205 Comments:
"whopping 37.5-percent increase"
That says it all about Colman. Instead of making a serious argument he comes out and throws a pointless phrase meant to shock. Its 25 to 50 cents. Considering how much fuel costs have going up - its a reasonable increase. Get over it.
»» Submitted by »»» yoshi at 10:02 AM on July 1
no, he makes a great point about how keeping fares low now is a great opportunity to bolster ridership with fuel prices increasing. hopefully once governor jackass is gone we can get a met council that actually gives a shit about transit and get some proper funding to expand service, instead of cutting it/keeping it the same and charging more.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:08 AM on July 1
The timing does stink. But the argument that Metro Transit should just attract more riders and that would solve their budget woes is a little simplistic.
It's my understanding that MT gets a large chunk of their money from the sales tax charged when people buy new cars. And because people aren't buying new cars, Metro Transit is also losing big time in that budget area.
also that's 25 and 50 cents each way, meaning 50 cents more now, and another dollar more next year.
not trivial when it's each and every day that you pay this, possibly more than once if you take the bus for errands.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:09 AM on July 1
I agree that it's not trivial, especially because it starts to bring the cost of Express Bus service close to the cost of parking. $7.00 round trip to ride the bus versus $9 to park starts to be a closer call for many.
so maybe it's time to discuss a new funding structure that's more reliable and robust, jason. high gas prices aren't going away, and unless the met council gets off its stupid ass and starts trying to contain sprawl and offer reasonable transit alternatives, this entire metro is doomed to irrelevance and economic timult.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:14 AM on July 1
"whopping 37.5-percent increase"
As long as we're talking percents, the gas tax increase was more than 40 percent. :P And starting today, transit is sucking an additional $95 million out of the metro economy. :( So I think it's only fair to ask actual riders - like me! - to kick in a little bit more as well.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 10:14 AM on July 1
I also don't think it is fair to completely blame the MetCouncil. My understanding is that Peter Bell (who I normally can't stand) came out against Pawlenty on the transportation bill.
But, I don't get how fare increases work. The council votes on it, then they allow public comments. You would think they would allow comments first. I suppose it has to do with the council memeber being appointed and not elected. They have no responsibility to their wards.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 10:16 AM on July 1
Sure kwatt, but will you actually pay more, or do you have a MetroPass that is paid with pre-tax dollars and heavily discounted?
Think about $7.00 round trip for someone who makes $7.00 an hour. One full hour, before taxes, goes to getting to work. That's a lot of money.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 10:19 AM on July 1
I suppose it has to do with the council memeber being appointed and not elected. They have no responsibility to their wards.
ding-ding!
hence once governor ratfink is gone maybe we can get some appointees that actually intend to do their job and plan the metro area properly.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:24 AM on July 1
and kevin, that 40% increase is over the current gas tax, not on the overall price of gas, where the increase was negligable.
the increase in transit fares is the entire cost someone pays.
also, "sucking" money out of the economy? I'm sorry, but an investment in transportation infrastructure is not a drain on an economy, it's an investment.
unless you think glorious highway construction is also a drain on the economy...?
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:26 AM on July 1
ps max, this article is conjoined with the one after it. you should perform emergency surgery and hope they both survive.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:27 AM on July 1
p.p.s. max, the food links disappeared also.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 10:32 AM on July 1
Yeah, what is the story with the Met Council? Why does the Governor appoint the heads? That seems very suspect. It looks as if Portland's Metro, which serves a similar function to our Met Council has elections for its members. This seems like this would be a much better system -- I don't know why I should be comfortable with this position being comprised of political appointments, and not elected officials that would be accountable to their constituents in the metro area.
»» Submitted by »»» andyst at 10:35 AM on July 1
What the hell are you people talking about?
Seriously, the site's buggered.
I blame Nick Coleman.
»» Submitted by »»» andyst at 10:40 AM on July 1
It's fine on my browser. Please describe the problem, and let me know which browser y'all are using.
Highway construction is a great investment. It facilitates the movement of goods and millions of people per day. Transit moves no goods and infentisimally fewer people.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 10:41 AM on July 1
Fine on my Firefox 3.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 10:42 AM on July 1
I'm viewing it in IE7 and it looks like the MTC and Luverne story ate up the food post. Also, everything below the MTC link is in italics.
I'm using IE 7, and the MTC Fare story has Alie's story as its second paragraph.. and everything after that is italicized, and no other stories from today appear.
»» Submitted by »»» chele at 10:44 AM on July 1
transit can move a great number of people with a smaller amount of land and resources, kevin. so once you get any densely built-up area transit is a great opportunity to save resources and move more people without tearing huge gashes through urban fabric to widen highways.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:45 AM on July 1
How does it look now?
fixed
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 10:46 AM on July 1
seriously I can't believe there are people dense enough out there that the very concept of transit has to be defended.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:48 AM on July 1
Oh holy Hannah, does Internet Explorer suck. One broken line break code and it goes haywire!
You're the best, Maxie!
The fare hike proposal is frustrating...the Met Council is proposing fare increases without expanding service. If you check out this policy brief, you'll see that many regions have comparable fares to the Twin Cities, but they also have bigger transit systems...so, in effect, we pay more for less service.
And I'll come clean...the policy brief is published by the organization I work for (Transit for Livable Communities).
»» Submitted by »»» keuks at 10:49 AM on July 1
hell, boston has LOWER fares and way way way way way more/better service.
we get a raw fucking deal here because they expect user fees to pay for so much of the costs.
your gas tax doesn't come close to covering highway costs.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:52 AM on July 1
So where do people propose the money for the budget shortfall come from? (And virtually everyone uses highways, they're critical for interstate commerce, so it's not exactly a fair comparison to the transit situation. Buses and LRT can't carry giant shipments of food and other products.)
My hope is that when MT negotiates the ATU contract they remember all this talk of prices going up and needing to adjust. I will not be happy if the drivers don't get a cost of living raise. Neither will they. We can't afford a strike though.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 10:55 AM on July 1
@derusha- I propose they raise everyone's taxes. Gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, whatever. This should be priority number one. It strikes at the heart of so many things like the environment, the war, people's health, and the economy.
And since I'm prioritzing, health care for all should be second, schools third, and alternative energy forth.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 10:59 AM on July 1
fuck, shitty internet explorer just ate a big response I typed by crashing inexplicably. awesome.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:08 AM on July 1
here goes again:
1) freight rail traffic is at an all-time high. tons and tons (and tonnes?) of freight is moved by rail and off-loaded to trucks for the last-leg of the trip. a good portion of those trucks you see are just delivering things the last bit of the journey, often times on the same highways you commute on because it's taking the stuff out to your suburb.
2) People drive and use highways so much because they essentially have to. We have poorly-thought out development that necessitates the use of a car and poor/little alternatives. Sure those express buses from MG are busy, but how many people are they totally impractical for because of the limited service? I imagine you, for one.
3) Highways are really a poor choice for moving people around any densely built-up area. They're a waste of space, require constant (costly) maintinence and do not scale-up to meet increased demand. If you run into capacity problems on a highway, you have to raze a couple blocks on either side of it for several miles and add more lanes. Transit congestion? Add more buses/trains to the existing lines.
I could go on and on (of course you already know this), but for intra-metro transportation highways just plain suck and the money would be better spent on transit.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:14 AM on July 1
Wayne: 1) Freight rail and transit rail are two different discussions. Private business built the railroads.
2) I agree. More transit would be better. I would be willing to pay more to get more.
3) I also agree. But we are far from dense in this area. While it's a negative on this issue, it's also a positive in that many people choose to live here so they can have some land.
Private business built the railroads.
With millions of dollars in governmental subsidies.
Not to mention, also raking in huge cash by buying up private land on the cheap and turning around and selling it for huge profits as the railroads were built.
Not to mention, also raking in huge cash by buying up private land on the cheap and turning around and selling it for huge profits as the railroads were built.
That never happens with light rail. No siree.
But seriously folks, that's what light rail is all about: Urban redevelopment.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 11:40 AM on July 1
Yeah, fares like that are way too high for an area that is difficult to live in without a car. Combining transit with car ownership can get really expensive if you don't have a nice subsidized pass.
Exactly Kevs, which is why if you can buy a house now, I suggest SLP (hurry up and get here, LRT!).
On the upside, this means that they are less likely to raise gas taxes in order to make more people take the bus...
Yeah, I'm spraying hairspray into the air right now.
»» Submitted by »»» Bixby at 11:51 AM on July 1
Gas taxes do not go directly to transit.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 11:54 AM on July 1
International economy to spoiled Americans: "Everything is getting more expensive. Suck it. You had it too good for too long, now the bill is coming due."
»» Submitted by »»» lunch! at 12:10 PM on July 1
The Metropolitan Councils rainy day fund has $19 million in its reserves. Tapping half of this fund would buy time for the 2009 legislature to decide whether fare increases or service cuts are appropriate or needed. This would buy time to find other funding opportunities in the long run.
»» Submitted by »»» keuks at 12:11 PM on July 1
I know this is pedantic and dumb and I shouldn't even bring it up, but Metro Transit hasn't been MTC for a quite a while now. Like since the '90s sometime.
I have nothing else to add to this discussion, other than, as a driver, I hate rate hikes. Fare disputes are already the number one reason for driver assaults, and throwing a fare increase into the mix makes the job even more difficult.
Metro Transit can put up as many signs as they want, but there is a substantial part of our population that can't even bother to look at the destination sign on the bus to see which bus they're getting on, much less read a whole lotta words explaining a fare increase.
»» Submitted by »»» cjc at 12:12 PM on July 1
Good point. People who can't understand "LIMITED STOP" probably can't be counted on to understand much of anything.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 12:13 PM on July 1
Gas taxes do not go directly to transit.
Not for revenue, for environmental reasons. I was suggesting that they would raise the gas tax to get people to stop driving as much and take the bus.
»» Submitted by »»» Bixby at 12:28 PM on July 1
The majority of feight cannot be hauled on trains. The trains bounce around too much and break things, also most trains boxes are not cooled.
So Interstate freight vs railway isn't a very good comparison.
3) Transit congestion? Add more buses/trains to the existing lines.
Sure, then there's still the fact that it'd take many people hours to get to their job by bus and I'm not talking about suburbs. I live in Saint Paul and work in Roseville, It's an hour and a half to take the bus near to where I work. A three hour commute? No thanks.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 12:30 PM on July 1
Oh, well of course. I just enter into the discussion with that as a given.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 12:37 PM on July 1
Oh and they aren't done with raising the gas tax by the way. They're already bellyaching for another dime.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 12:38 PM on July 1
The majority of feight cannot be hauled on trains. The trains bounce around too much and break things, also most trains boxes are not cooled.
Not entirely true. Previously rail had the capacity to haul anything, but the capacity was lost as Federal subsidies made trucks a cheaper option. As the railroads lost out on any sort of small cargo they went with a niche that trucks could never compete: bulk cargo. Meanwhile they reduced their trackage through legal abandonment etc. to cut costs and now they make good money again. But they have significantly less capacity than they did even 30 years ago. Their primary freight lines are bulk and container cargo. They have nowhere near the number of branch lines and freight depots they used to have. Barring a major infusion of capital, they aren't changing a thing.
»» Submitted by »»» lunch! at 12:40 PM on July 1
Previously rail had the capacity to haul anything
Not true. Think flat screen tv's, glassware, or pretty much anything breakable. Companies will never switch this type of frieght to trains. The claim rate is too high.
But they have significantly less capacity than they did even 30 years ago.
This is true, and not liekely to change without huge fights. No one wants a freight train after freight train roaring through their city at 3am.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 12:43 PM on July 1
I would guess that the flatsceens go in a cargo container in china, get put on either a train or a truck at the port in US and make their way to the electronics distribution company which ever way is cheaper....but definitely still in that same crate from china.
»» Submitted by »»» ryanl at 12:54 PM on July 1
jacc- I've just spent some time googling and I can't find anything about how it is safer to transport things like TVs on trucks than on rail. In fact, my understanding that at least passanger rail is pretty smooth and less likely to have an accident. What are your sources?
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 12:56 PM on July 1
uh, you can package fragile goods for transport on rail.
you think semi trucks don't bounce around like motherfuckers? duhhh.
and hey, I don't like semi truck after semi truck roaring through my neighbourhood at 3am, but that's exactly what happens. there used to be a rail line right under the post office that brough mail in and out, but now they truck it out and it goes right by my window. at 3am, 4am, 2am, all night, really.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 12:56 PM on July 1
I know this is pedantic and dumb and I shouldn't even bring it up, but Metro Transit hasn't been MTC for a quite a while now. Like since the '90s sometime.
Really? I knew there was a downside to constantly moving from state to state, beyond not being able to make or maintain lasting relationships and essentially restarting your career every three years.
Fixed.
Sure, then there's still the fact that it'd take many people hours to get to their job by bus and I'm not talking about suburbs. I live in Saint Paul and work in Roseville, It's an hour and a half to take the bus near to where I work. A three hour commute? No thanks.
That's because our current system is underfunded and, frankly, kind of sucks. If they got more than a pittance in funding they could have whiz-bang routes that would get you there in no-time and cost less than driving.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 12:58 PM on July 1
also, people used to have to give transportation more consideration in choosing where they lived. now that gas is so pricy, they probably will again soon. so if it's not easy or cheap to get to work, you might have to work somewhere else or live somewhere else.
ps, there's a super-fast express bus from DT mpls to roseville that's really frequent. st paul gets shafted for transit in general anyway.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 12:59 PM on July 1
Think flat screen tv's, glassware, or pretty much anything breakable. Companies will never switch this type of frieght to trains.
If it is shipped by intermodal container, it can be safely shipped by rail. It is all about packaging inside the containers. You would be amazed at what railroads like Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific are hauling from the ports of Baltimore and Long Beach respectively.
»» Submitted by »»» lunch! at 1:01 PM on July 1
I like the name of the bus system on Oahu. It's called: The Bus.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 1:02 PM on July 1
You would be amazed at what railroads like Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific are hauling from the ports of Baltimore and Long Beach respectively.
Women from Asia/Eastern Europe to be sold into prostitution?
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 1:03 PM on July 1
Oh also I raised the freight rail issue earlier to highlight that highways are not actually critical to interstate commerce. The fact that trucking is such a huge industry is yet another piece of social engineering to come from the highway system.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:04 PM on July 1
Women from Asia/Eastern Europe to be sold into prostitution?
Brothel Pandas too.
»» Submitted by »»» lunch! at 1:07 PM on July 1
Oahu has a great bus system. I love how you can get off and on all day long.
If it is shipped by intermodal container, it can be safely shipped by rail
Let's not deal in fantasy land. Intermodal containers are mostly used for things coming off of International ships. I am simply telling it like it is, not like it could have been 30 years ago.
Companies will not pack their long haul shipments in intermodal containers. It's cost prohibitive.
I don't even see what your arguement is, aside from hypothetical freight advantages that could happen in an utopian railroad society, the majority of freight cannot and will not be cost effectively shipped on trains. Call your local freight forwarder or logistics company for further proof.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:08 PM on July 1
It is the constant, "we can't, we can't, we can't" that drives we crazy. We can ship things by train. We can develop alternative energies that reduce pollution and are cheap. We can develop a bus/rail system to get JACC to work in less than 2 hours.
We are Americans, damnit, if we put a freakin' man on the moon then we can sure as hell figure out how to get around using gas for everything.
(but politically we don't want to, so we believe that it is all too hard.)
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 1:10 PM on July 1
The fact that trucking is such a huge industry is yet another piece of social engineering to come from the highway system.
Lies.
It came to be so out of cost and efficiency. Take a masters level logistics course while you're still in bubbleland.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:10 PM on July 1
yes, our utopian highway society is doing fucking fantastically, jacc. no problems with congestion, fuel prices or any of that nonsense that comes from the fact that it only works when there's an unlimited amount of cheap fuel and lots and lots of land that's somehow paradoxically close to everything. sweet fantasyland you live in, there.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:14 PM on July 1
Intermodal containers are mostly used for things coming off of International ships.
You mean like most consumer goods made overseas... Foreign companies can and do pack their shipments in intermodal shipping containers. It is a question of scale. If you are only moving a dozen pallets or so, you choose trucks if you are a drop shipper you use containers. Fantasyland is in Anaheim not Long Beach.
»» Submitted by »»» lunch! at 1:15 PM on July 1
For those who were defending Minneapolis placement as the 19th most livable city in the WORLD. Take another look. Seriously.this is a prime example of this city being unlivable to a large part of the population.
1) We have the worst thought out MetroTransit connection system. If someone can explain to me why every single damn bust has to go through downtown before it heads somewhere else lets talk.
2) If you think this is bad, wait until next year, this is not the only hit MetroTranist is getting, they are thinking of cutting the number of stops in half. So say you want the 6 from downtown to Uptown station. You will get only two choices of stops. 14th 24th. The rest you are on your own.
3) Rush hour commute with our buses is a frigging joke. Again, bad metro planning. Waiting on 11th and Hennepin for 30 minutes for a 4 and then suddenly 3 of them showing up back to back is not a rare occurrence, as matter of fact, it happens everyday of the week. Have they heard of alternate stops?
4) Thank god for carpooling.
»» Submitted by »»» Kal at 1:15 PM on July 1
Let's just agree that you both live in bubble-shaped fantasy land and return to civil discourse.
oh I assume you're an expert in logistics? or better yet american planning history?
because the only reason everyone drives and so much freight is moved by truck is because they poured such a massive subsidy into developing the highway infrastructure and crippling rail companies with regulation.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:15 PM on July 1
We can develop a bus/rail system to get JACC to work in less than 2 hours
I don't think anyone has said otherwise, but cost is an issue. We could have a bus that picked me up at my door and dropped me off at work in the same time it takes me to drive, but it won't happen.
"won't" is different that can't.
Just like we could make it so trains could ship the most delicate things in the world, but it becomes impractical and cost prohibitive.
So it won't happen.
We "can't" even figure out how to keep bus pricing cheap enough so that it's affordable for those that really need it and people want to talk about social engineering and redesigning an entire logistics system for which they have little understanding.
Please.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:16 PM on July 1
oh I assume you're an expert in logistics?
I am Wayne, with the 6 figure salary and real world job to back it up.
How you doin'?
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:17 PM on July 1
If it's going to be that sort of a discussion, I'm just going to pull my penis out and put both of you to shame.
As long as you just take out enough to win. That tattoo scares me.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:20 PM on July 1
So what do the contents of international shipping containers have to do with transit fares and whether I decide to bike, bus, or drive to work?
I know it's all related, but a pissing contest over who knows more about the logistics of shipping flat screen TVs from Japan seems a little off topic.
»» Submitted by »»» ericam at 1:20 PM on July 1
Yes, we can figure out how to keep bus pricing cheap, Boston has done it, as have other places.
And you have not provided any proof that we don't/won't ship electronics by rail. I'm still waiting on that. I don't believe it is true.
Again, we waste our money on fighting for oil instead of losing our dependancy on it. I never said the initial start up funds would be inexpensive, but it is much less expensive in the long run than fighting wars over a scare resource.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 1:21 PM on July 1
It's meant to. I had them tattoo the scariest paragraph in the Book of Revelations.
JACC: A former bf imported furniture and rugs from India and it was all rail container transported as trucking was more expensive. This was 5ish years ago so it could have all changed since then. What am I missing?
The funnier thing was that the cotton fabric was all made here (SC, I believe), shipped to India, made into rugs and shipped back because it was cheaper. Never got that.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 1:21 PM on July 1
kal,
I'm pretty sure the shitty rush-hour service downtown is due to a couple things:
1) simple congestion- there are too many buses downtown at rush hour on the same few streets (not to mention a few of them share street space with cars
2) I the lights are timed as such to move cars along the highway feeder streets (the ones that go directly to ramps). Notice how the lights always seem to favour cross-streets on nicollet mall? (or Hennepin for that matter)
I think they should consider not stopping on every block downtown, actually. But I also think they need a bus tunnel under nicollet to bypass all the cross-streets (with limited stops/stations) too. What a fantasyland I live in, where someone would consider investing capital in improving transit! ha ha ha ha ):
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:22 PM on July 1
with the 6 figure salary and real world job to back it up.
no wonder you're such an asshole that hates transit.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:23 PM on July 1
driving is just peachy in jacc's world, so obviously it's a waste of time for anyone to do anything to fix the fact that the whole system is broken for most people. he's obviously an expert at everything and knows what's best for all of us and why nothing will ever work, because of how things are set up now.
not that things were ever different and changed to how they were now. nosiree, they were always like this.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:25 PM on July 1
Did anyone else see the goalposts move?
His initial argument was that freight couldn't be shipped by rail because:
The trains bounce around too much and break things, also most trains boxes are not cooled.
Now, it's because the logistics are too difficult and expensive.
JACC, With oil heading to $200/barrel, it's going to be a hell of a lot cheaper for us to build up our transit system than trying to keep going the way we have been. And yes, that will most likely mean hat it will no longer take 2 hours to go from Roseville to downtown St. Paul.
So what do the contents of international shipping containers have to do with transit fares and whether I decide to bike, bus, or drive to work?
Agreed. I made the mistake of pointing out trains are not the answer for everything and that highways are crucial to freight.
What do they have to do with how you decide to get to work?
Possibly, a lot. When the cost of freight goes up so does the cost that you pay for almost everything. Which most likely affects how you decide to spend your money and money and commutes are related.
Look at the number of people that bike this year versus prior years.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:26 PM on July 1
a lot of people said cars would never work back in the day. a lot of people said trains would never work, or cities or industrialization.
you're just one of those people, jacc.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:27 PM on July 1
Now, it's because the logistics are too difficult and expensive.
Right, put cooled cars onto trains would cost huge amounts of money and would packing everything in magic shock absorbant fairy dust.
The goal posts haven't moved, pretending everything isn't connected is foolish.
Nice try, though.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:28 PM on July 1
I defer to genius Wayne. Truly, when one thinks of someone with answers they turn to you.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:29 PM on July 1
In my fantasy land, we'd all be able to think about where we want to go and just show up there. But my guess is that my logic is faulty because how many people really "want" to go to work?
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 1:30 PM on July 1
that highways are crucial to freight.
no, they're not. they might be right now, but that's not guarunteed to last with diesel prices at, what, $4.50 a gallon?
What do they have to do with how you decide to get to work?
Possibly, a lot. When the cost of freight goes up so does the cost that you pay for almost everything. Which most likely affects how you decide to spend your money and money and commutes are related.
Actually, exactly. The per-weight fuel consumption will always be lower by rail, so the higher the price of fuel goes, the more of an advantage that mode of transportation is. That was my whole point. When diesel prices reach the point of pushing the cost of trucking over that of freight rail, who's going to still want to truck things around? Since fuel consists of less of the cost of rail transport than truck transport, it's insulated against the rise in price a bit more (not that it won't get more expensive too, just at a slower rate).
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:31 PM on July 1
And Kal, there are actually some busses that don't go through downtown. In mpls there is the 2,8,21,23,32,46, and 515
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 1:32 PM on July 1
Right, put cooled cars onto trains would cost huge amounts of money and would packing everything in magic shock absorbant fairy dust.
BNSF ordered 700 reefer cars in 2000, I bet the guy who placed that order is feeling pretty smug right now.
»» Submitted by »»» lunch! at 1:32 PM on July 1
Agreed. I made the mistake of pointing out trains are not the answer for everything and that highways are crucial to freight.
And we're arguing that we can drastically shift away from that. Instead of truck after truck leaving Port of LA heading to Luverne, save the trucks for end point distribution from Chicago, Minneapolis, or even Fargo.
As for fragile freight, if we can develop "air ride equipped" trailers that can protect the cargo on our pot holed infrastructure, we can devise ways to protect it in rail cars.
or how about this:
"A railroad can transport one ton of freight 386 miles on one gallon of fuel,"
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:34 PM on July 1
Will anyone ever make a valid complaint about Metro Transit's service?
1) Wait. 2) Get on. 3) Pay. 4) Ride. 5) Get off.
It's really quite ingenious and simple, and no different from any other mass transit system I've ever ridden.
What is it that everyone (including Nick Coleman) takes issue with here?
I'm flummoxed.
And we're arguing that we can drastically shift away from that. Instead of truck after truck leaving Port of LA heading to Luverne, save the trucks for end point distribution from Chicago, Minneapolis, or even Fargo.
YES! thank you, exactly.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:35 PM on July 1
jacc- still waiting for proof that we don't send electronics by train
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 1:35 PM on July 1
But my guess is that my logic is faulty because how many people really "want" to go to work?
I do, it's where I get my lunch time Mnspeak on.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:36 PM on July 1
tpitman, it's usually 1&3. 1 is too long and 3 is too much.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:36 PM on July 1
I think it's time for wayne to either get off the cross or take a nap.
And 3 is complicated.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 1:38 PM on July 1
@Cat - But my guess is that my logic is faulty because how many people really "want" to go to work?
I do,it's where I get my lunch time MnSpeak on.
KC! - Do some research. I'm not sure anyone has to prove anything to you. Pick up the phone book, look up freight forwarder, ask them if they ship plasma tv's by rail.
See, what happened? I just taught you to fish instead of giving you a fish.
Rail growth issues
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:40 PM on July 1
oh I assume you're an expert in logistics?
I am Wayne, with the 6 figure salary and real world job to back it up.
JACC: I didn't know you were a logician. That must have been very, very satisfying to be able to respond to that question!
Lunch: what is a reefer car? Or is it what I think it is.
cjc: I miss the MTC, because we used to say to each other "MTC you later" when we had to take the bus. We were dorks.
»» Submitted by »»» jane at 1:42 PM on July 1
"MTC you later"
You kill me.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:44 PM on July 1
hey jacc, that article actually illustratred how critical freight rail is to the economy.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:44 PM on July 1
reefer -> refridgerated
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:44 PM on July 1
Oh. Boring.
»» Submitted by »»» jane at 1:45 PM on July 1
no wonder you're such an asshole that hates transit.
I drive to work, too. Does that make me an asshole? You know what would be nice? Is if anyone on this board could disagree with Wayne without him turning into an invective-spewing douche.
I think I'll ask Santa for that for Christmas this year.
Let's none of us be douches, please. Except Douchebag McFanne, who registered yesterday and hasn't posted yet.
no, alie, you're not a rich smug prick talking about why we can't do anything you don't like. you do it because you have to, like so many other people.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:49 PM on July 1
Yes Alie, yes you are. I'm not sure what I am considering I drive an suv.
»» Submitted by »»» mb21 at 1:51 PM on July 1
jacc- first, where would I get a phone book? I'd have to go to the damn library for that. Seriously, pick up a phone book, hah!
Second, I spent quite awhile googling and I could find nothing that said that high end electronics can't be or aren't shipped by rail. Since you are claiming this to be true and the basis of your arguement, you should provide proof. I tried to find it and didn't.
Finally, say I do call a rail shipping firm. How do I know which one to call? What if I call the ONE that doesn't do it because they only ship corn? That's not going to prove your point at all.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 1:51 PM on July 1
It doesn't matter, Alie as Wayne comes out spewing most days, whether anyone is disagreeing or not.
JACC: Interesting article - thanks for the link. And as dire as they make train congestion sound, the article also talks about overloading truck transport so why wouldn't we invest to upgrade our rail system if it saves us in the long run?
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 1:55 PM on July 1
I'm not sure calling JACC a smug bastard for talking about something he is clearly qualified to helps your case.
hey jacc, that article actually illustratred how critical freight rail is to the economy
I agree, I never said it wasn't.
It's just that it's a piece of the puzzle and expecting it to solve problems in other areas is unrealistic when they are having issues solving problems of their own.
@kc Call Manna. They are the largest distributer of flat screen tv's in the world and they are local.
Suddenly, I'm feeling very pro bus fare hike.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 1:56 PM on July 1
Yes Alie, yes you are.
Mb, well I'm probably an asshole because I fuel my car with whale oil.
I found something KC:
One example of possibly misleading results due to failure to disaggregate is for the commodity class of Electrical Machinery". This class included both heavy electric motors and light consumer electronics. So railroads would likely haul mostly the heavy electrical machinery such as electric motors and transformers which they can do most efficiently. A lightweight type of "electrical machinery", consumer electronics, would go mostly by truck, where the truck can haul it with a moderately good energy-efficiency due to the lightness of the truck as compared to the much heavier rail cars. If rail had to haul this lightweight consumer electronics in heavy rail cars, the energy-intensity might be little if any better than hauling it by truck and would be much worse than for the heavy electric motors, etc. rail actually hauls.
So it's not even less efficient, just not as much MORE efficient.
sauce
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:58 PM on July 1
Alie - But he is a smug bastard. You should have seen him on Sunday inviting us to his home, providing cold water, free berries, and wine. The worst part was the engaging conversation.
I hate that guy.
»» Submitted by »»» mb21 at 1:58 PM on July 1
so why wouldn't we invest to upgrade our rail system if it saves us in the long run?
That's a good question, for the same reason we don't build more highways. We'd have to destroy neighborhoods to build more tracks.
ALso, remember that little ordeal down in Rochester a few months back? People fight the freight trains tooth and nail. They don't like the increased traffic, especially in the middle of the night.
For the record, I am pro expanding all manners of transportation right down to building more bike paths. And yes, neighborhoods will be lost.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 2:00 PM on July 1
mb- what a monster!
what a great little circle jerk you have going on here.
I guess arthappy was probably right.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:01 PM on July 1
Somebody slip Wayne a pinky so he'll loosen up a little.
Cat?
»» Submitted by »»» mb21 at 2:02 PM on July 1
We'd have to destroy neighborhoods to build more tracks.
After how much ROW was divested and still sits empty?
I doubt it.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:02 PM on July 1
Wayne, if you're going to be insulting, you could at least be more creative.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 2:03 PM on July 1
I guess you can dish it out, but not take it, right?
Look at the number of people that bike this year versus prior years.
Yeah, I'm one of those people. Partly because Metro Transit offered me the carrot of spectacular prizes if I do so. And I'm not even riding their buses. But my commute is really short anyway. The short commute was actually bigger incentive than high gas prices.
»» Submitted by »»» ericam at 2:04 PM on July 1
MB, shhhhhh.
Also, don't that I talked about everyone when they left.
@wayne - 'no, alie, you're not a rich smug prick talking about why we can't do anything you don't like'
I'm smug? Now that's rich.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 2:04 PM on July 1
no there really is a back-scratching club here that shuns anyone who doesn't come out and be irl bffs.
just like minnesota in general.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:04 PM on July 1
Wayne sometimes makes good points, but his venom can obscure them. Tone it down a bit, your signal is being obliterated by the noise. Winning an argument is more about points from the judges than K.O. punches.
Re: fare hike -> do it. It might get me a seat.
»» Submitted by »»» lunch! at 2:05 PM on July 1
I was under the impression that MetroTransit gets its gas at a reduced price, like the police do, but I can't seem to find anything online to back that up. Anybody know? (cjc?)
mb- what a monster!
You should have seen his wife. What at B*TCH. 8 mos pregnant and forcing me to take all the jam making equipment she washed and prepared for herself. Ugh...
What I'm getting at here is personally insulting someone because they don't agree with your transportation ideas is ludicrous and petty.
»» Submitted by »»» mb21 at 2:05 PM on July 1
I just get really tired of people who continually poo-poo any ideas for improvement and love more of the same. It makes me a little angry.
I probably shouldn't have moved to minnesota if I wanted to be around people who were open to change, though.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:06 PM on July 1
Wayne, let's not forget that you were the first to swing the asshole bat, which some of us think is both highly unneccessary and a rediculous over the top reaction to someone replying to your conjectures.
wayne,
I've been on your side this whole thread, yet I have not called JACC any names so people haven't come down hard on me. And I have never been to a MNSpeak even either.
It is called civil discourse. Try it.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 2:07 PM on July 1
MB: Hell-2-the-Noes! I got other pinky doody heads to attend to. Plus, I liked arthappy's 2nd insult better - I think it was the finger fest of some such thing.
JACC: From the article, it talked about alleviating some of the congestion through technology vs. having to build more track - but my guess is that the solution would be a combination of the two.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 2:08 PM on July 1
I'm not sure calling JACC a smug bastard for talking about something he is clearly qualified to helps your case. -- I think it was the "I'm richer than you" (paraphrased) part.
I completely agree with the points Wayne is trying to make, but he does make it hard to defend him with the "I'm smarter than you, CAN'T YOU SEE?!" and the constant insult-tossing. This is news to no one.
»» Submitted by »»» ericam at 2:08 PM on July 1
no there really is a back-scratching club here that shuns anyone who doesn't come out and be irl bffs.
No, you like to think that so your martyr status raises even higher. I have disagreed with kc a lot in the past, but i've never called her a smug prick. Bixby and I disagreed on several things over the last few weeks, yet we still manage to smile and hug when we see each other. Why? Because it is the mature thing to do... you know, respecting someone's right to their own opinion.
»» Submitted by »»» mb21 at 2:09 PM on July 1
I'm going to calm down now, ok.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:09 PM on July 1
oh mb honey, you've called me plenty of names in the past. I have nothing but love for you, baby.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:09 PM on July 1
You should have seen his wife. What at B*TCH. 8 mos pregnant and forcing me to take all the jam making equipment she washed and prepared for herself. Ugh...
I really hate it when people give me free stuff...ugh.
zippy
»» Submitted by »»» baker at 2:10 PM on July 1
When an unwillingness to challenge the status quo will directly lead to huge problems that I will suffer from I get angry, I'm sorry about that.
Like I said, calming down now.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:11 PM on July 1
Yeah, I'm one of those people
@Erica, I would be too if there was a decent route. I commuted for two months last year and found the 17 miles, one way, to be a death trap. It seems to me that bike path funding is more needed than bus funding.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 2:11 PM on July 1
sandburg- cjc is probably sleeping. he has a fever and is home sick.
But, they negotiate their prices for diesel in large volumes, which means they usually get much cheape fuel. I don't think they pay taxes on it either. But I don't know when they last negotiated. If they are in the middle of negotiating prices now, they could be looking at a very large bill.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 2:11 PM on July 1
I'd probably ride the bus more if no one sat next to me and everyone was silent (and no, I'm not being snarky).
Wayne: Don't pull the victim card - it doesn't help you and then by swooping all Minnesotan's into "no one wants change" takes away any credibility you have.
There are a number of people on this thread who agree with you, but you let your temper blind you to what is really being discussed and people quit listening when all you do is get all freakin' emotional.
Passion is a good thing to have and I think most can appreciate it. Use it to your advantage.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 2:16 PM on July 1
Not to pour more gasoline on the fire, but you know who also challenged the status quo?
Hitler. That's who.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 2:17 PM on July 1
17 miles from Roseville to downtown St Paul? That seems hard to believe. I've biked from St Anthony Village to Downtown St Paul before, I'm pretty sure it was a lot shorter than that.
Hitler built the autobahn, they'd love him here!
wakka.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:18 PM on July 1
Didn't Moussolini get the trains to run on time?
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 2:21 PM on July 1
and here I was decrying fascism in america when I should be embracing it!
Re-elect GWB! 40 more years!
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:22 PM on July 1
I'm not sure if we should mention trains and Hitler in the same post...seems kinda icky...
There are a number of people on this thread who agree with you
Even I agree with some of Wayne's transportation issues, but the simplistic one-size-fits all solutions combined with the-sky-is-falling reasoning just doesn't cut bacon with me.
I do become amused how often some people will try and pick one or two words out of a comment and make that the entire issue. One thing seems to allude some here every single day, context.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 2:24 PM on July 1
I have occasionally ridden the bus, but it averages out to about $0.33 a mile which is a bit expensive. Upping the price will make it even more expensive for us short distance riders. It is getting to the point where they should begin some sort of distance penalty and/or bonus. Perhaps do away with "free transfers" or take some other steps to make it more reasonable for short distance riders.
17 miles from Roseville to downtown St Paul?That seems hard to believe
Did I say downtown?
Did I say where in Roseville?
You are more than welcome to bike from my house to my job and clock it, mainly because my biggest concern in life is makeing mnblrmkr a believer.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 2:27 PM on July 1
The big problem around JACC house is that there is very little in way of biking friendly infrastructure. Not to mention all those damn lakes in the way...
It is getting to the point where they should begin some sort of distance penalty and/or bonus. Perhaps do away with "free transfers" or take some other steps to make it more reasonable for short distance riders.
I completely agree. I've been wishing they'd do a zoned-fare system for routes that go really far out of town for a while now.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:35 PM on July 1
I'm still curious about the role of the Met Council in all of this. I mean, are we really looking at a group of political appointments that aren't directly accountable to the people of the metro area?
Despite what we may or may not believe about the future of transit, this does seem awfully retrograde to me.
Am I missing a nuance here? This is an honest question -- I'm sure a bunch of you know the inner workings of this sort better than I.
»» Submitted by »»» andyst at 2:38 PM on July 1
Not a fair judge: I think mnblrmkr is a speed racer kind of biker, so he could probably get from Maplewood to Maple Grove in 12 minutes on bike.
JACC, your comment on bike paths reminds me, I came up with a brilliant idea this morning: heated bike paths! That way I could bike to work in the winter. (Now don't chide me, you winter bikers. [Thank god vlado seems to be lying low lately.] I'm afraid of falling. The cold I don't mind, it's the ice and snow on the ground.) Sure, it's a major undertaking, but if the economy is tanking so bad it's going to be a Depression, well, didn't they have all sorts of public works jobs created during the Depression? Who's with me on this?
»» Submitted by »»» jane at 2:40 PM on July 1
the met council has always perplexed me too, but from what I understand it's headed by political appointees, yes. no election for any of them. it's like a weird pseudo-branch of the state government, basically, that runs the metro area.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:42 PM on July 1
I try to also remember that, when it's at all feasible for me to take public transit places, that there's more to it than just the cash-flow-out-of-my-pocket part.
The time-out-of-my-day part is a very real concern. The less-pollution part is worth something. The one-less-car-in-rush-hour-traffic part is worth something. The I'm-not-road-raging-right-now part is worth something. The different-experience-of-my-surroundings can go either way.
But I recognize that I have the luxury of having a little more to spend.
@JACC - Yeah, all those lovely lakes are a blessing and a curse.
»» Submitted by »»» ericam at 2:42 PM on July 1
actually if they could find a cost-effective way to heat some bike paths in the winter that would be awesome. I don't bike much in winter because it takes them so long to get the roads clear enough to where I feel safe on them.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:43 PM on July 1
Yep, every one of the 17 member council is appointed by the gubernator, but there is a residency requirement. The structure was designed in '67 when the metropolitan area and the governor were more likely to be of like mind. Now, not so much...
»» Submitted by »»» lunch! at 2:43 PM on July 1
My mistake, JACC. You said St Paul to Roseville. I just found that hard to digest, because as I've said, I've ridden from St Anthony down through St Paul, including south east parts, and I don't remember it even being close to that.
Annette Meeks is Met Council Member for District 7. District 7 is north Minneapolis, downtown and south-central. Some of her accomplishments include being deputy chief of staff for Newt Gingrich and served as chief executive officef for the Center of the American Experiment. Does this sound like someone her ward would elect?
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 2:48 PM on July 1
As energy costs will be a large contributory factor towards a global depression, I doubt that heated bike paths will fly. Plus, the tax payer's rebellion would be ugly as thousands of expensive therms poured upwards into the sky.
Enclosed bike paths could conceivably catch on, I suppose. It would keep the wind off at least.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 2:50 PM on July 1
I'd rather have trains than bike paths anyway
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:51 PM on July 1
See, this strikes me as a big problem. An enormous problem, in fact.
It's not to say having a bunch of people elected by their respective districts would make it magically possible for me to hop a train from my house in Powderhorn and get to downtown St. Paul in a few minutes and never have to use my car again, but it might be a step closer. Or a couple steps?
But man, Meeks. The Center for the American Experiment? Really? My goodness. That's remarkable.
»» Submitted by »»» andyst at 2:54 PM on July 1
keep dreaming, heated bike path wanterz
»» Submitted by »»» baker at 2:56 PM on July 1
Ooh, enclosed bike paths! Like skyways, but on the ground, and longer, and bikes are allowed!
Now we are getting somewhere. Doesn't kwatt work at the capitol? He should bring this up for a vote and get the plan moving.
Ericam: To me, the most underrated part of taking public transportation is JUST SITTING THERE. You can read or sleep or meditate or text your friends, twitter, etc. That is my by far my favorite part of riding the bus.
»» Submitted by »»» jane at 3:01 PM on July 1
How about those tubes they use in Futurama??? Is that a dream I have to let go of as well?
I'm not THAT fast jane.
I have the same deal you do with winter biking: the icy roads.
Also, the fact that the snow berms significantly reduce the width of the roads, and the road salts can really chew up the drive train. I usually bike until the snow stays on the ground.
Meeks: She and her husband were named in a City Pages article a couple months ago as two of the biggest GOP power players from Minnesota.
I actually think the theory of the Met Council is pretty progressive. The idea is to elevate the political discussion beyond just parochial city interests. I'm troubled that they have taxing power without being elected, but I wonder if having elected officials would make things better. We already have elected officials representing the area at the state level. Do we need another tier of elected officials? Not sure.
By the same token, do we need officials appointed by someone who may or may not have the interests of the metro area at heart?
Or, as in the example of Annette Meeks, why should district have to accept representation form someone so clearly out of step with the district's residents?
Since the key to Met Council board is the Gov, who do you MNspeakers would be Minnesota's best "transportation Governor?"
Names? Suggestions? Who should go after Pawlenty's job, with an eye on transport issues?
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 4:17 PM on July 1
Well, R.T. would seem to be a logical choice.
»» Submitted by »»» andyst at 4:21 PM on July 1
I understand the "elevate the political discussion beyond just parochial city interests" concern, Jason. I just wonder if that's happening when the Governor has sole appointment power. Even if they require confirmation by the state Senate, rejections of Governors' appointments gets pretty political awfully quick.
Maybe the Governor should have to make an appointment from a list of nominees selected by the Representatives of the affected legislative districts (or city/county officials, or some combination).
Steve Murphy would have to be a consideration too.
One vote for RT for Gov.
Anyone else?
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 4:27 PM on July 1
It's a contest!!
RT Rybak 1
Steve Murphy 1
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 4:29 PM on July 1
I can't really pass judgment on whether Meeks is at odds with her district, seeing as I have no clue what positions she's taken on the Met Council. I know her background, but I don't know what she's done in her current position.
The council's mission is to enhance transit and regionalism, so I assume her job is to improve transit on the council rather than impede it.
what about solar powered heated bike paths? although then i suppose we'd need a way to keep the snow off the solar panels, and the fact that solar power is weakest in the winter at this latitude.
wind?
geothermal?
plowing them like regular roads?
»» Submitted by »»» vcmc at 4:38 PM on July 1
I think it's time for wayne to either get off the cross or take a nap.
Or as I like to say, get off the cross - we need the wood.
oh mb honey, you've called me plenty of names in the past. I have nothing but love for you, baby.
And he does mean butt love.
HOly f*ck! I have to leave right NOW to catch the bus homE!!!!!
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 4:41 PM on July 1
I can't really pass judgment on whether Meeks is at odds with her district, seeing as I have no clue what positions she's taken on the Met Council. I know her background, but I don't know what she's done in her current position.
The council's mission is to enhance transit and regionalism, so I assume her job is to improve transit on the council rather than impede it.
I'm just going on the fact that she "represents" North, downtown,adn south central Minneapolis. As kc said, does anyone really think that those areas would elect the CEO of the CAE?
I don't have time know to look it up, but I seem to remember Goverenors opposed to transit and the other goals of the Met Council making appointments that reflected said opposition.
You see similar type appointments elsewhere as well: James Watts at the EPA? Linda Chavez at Labor? Clarence Thomas at the EEOC?
I get what you're saying, David... but since none of us really know what we're talking about, it might make sense to hold off slamming someone who may well be perfectly representing her district.
Not REALLY trying to slam her. I was just trying to toss out possible ways to improver representation, while at the same time, trying to insulate the council a bit from parochial politics.
The other examples, just trying to show that just because a person gets appointed by a politician, doesn't mean that they're going to be faithful to the generally accepted mission of the position.
I came up with a brilliant idea this morning: heated bike paths! That way I could | |
