|
»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
|
65 Comments:
I'm with Sen. Marty on this one! I would even go as high as a dollar. At $.25 it would be impossible to get on a bus, so perhaps gradually scale down to that. Raising high fairs to even higher is ridiculous!
Marty's a moron. I thought the ridership was already up due to higher gas prices? There's no need to lower fares to attract more riders. In fact, you're losing money on each passenger now. The more passengers you have at below-cost fares the more money you LOSE. Since the market has driven customers to your busses, now's your chance to charge a fare that actually pays for the cost of the trip. God these democrats are stupid.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 9:01 PM on July 23
maz, you're a businessman, shouldn't you understand the concept of marginal cost?
Love the "photo wars" used in the ANWR debate. "Drill Now" crowd uses photos of desolate, wind-swept area covered with snow with no features (or creatures) shown. Environmentalists (and MPR) use glamour shots of a pristine wilderness (including a cute caribou calf in the shot earns extra points) that the Bad Men and Women of Big Oil want to destroy.
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 7:04 AM on July 24
There's just a substantial portion (the majority really) of the population who simply will not take public transportation, whether gas is $4 a gallon and fares for the bus are 25 cents.
You have to ask, how much of a market are they going to capture? And is it worth saddling the system with additional costs?
I don't think as many people will leave the car behind as John Marty might think.
»» Submitted by »»» Rat at 7:22 AM on July 24
You're still going to see a massive increase in use at $.25 rat.
25 cents might be a bit low, but a dollar is reasonable.
maybe someday transit riders will pay the full cost as soon as road users pay tolls for the full cost of all their infrastructure. stfu dennis.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 8:46 AM on July 24
also rat,
There's just a substantial portion (the majority really) of the population who simply will not take public transportation, whether gas is $4 a gallon and fares for the bus are 25 cents.
These people are what I like to call "idiots." These people are the ones who are going to be kicking and screaming when gas is $7 or $8/gallon, crying for politicians to do something about it, bomb someone, just do something so they can keep living their untenable lifestyle.
Times change, and people who can't adapt to that fall behind. Sucks for them.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 8:47 AM on July 24
But what is the percentage of the population that would never take public transportation? Even if it is 50%, which I doubt it is even that high, that is a huge increase in ridership. It would be my guess that it is around 10% that would never ever take public transportation. The remaining are completely under-served. Imagine how nice the commute would be down 94 if 90% of the cars were off of it...
car ownership will return to being a luxury in the future. it's unnatural how commonplace it is today, and how utterly necessary it is to lead even a semblance of a normal lifestyle in this country.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 8:53 AM on July 24
Even if it is 50%, which I doubt it is even that high, that is a huge increase in ridership. It would be my guess that it is around 10% that would never ever take public transportation.
I think that's an entirely unrealistic assumption.
»» Submitted by »»» Rat at 9:18 AM on July 24
Sucks for them.
I don't think most people see it that way. They might be addicted to their cars, but it's generally an addiction they prefer.
They see you riding your bike joylessly in the rain and kicking the sides of cars at intersections and say "sucks for him."
And they'd pay whatever it took not to be you.
Simple reality.
»» Submitted by »»» Rat at 9:24 AM on July 24
Did Rep. Bachmann really visit ANWR? The answer is a bit "foggy," acording to the Strib's Big Question.
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 9:24 AM on July 24
You're telling me that if it cost $.50 a day to get to work and back that people wouldn't do that in droves?
Public transportation is about weighing convenience over cost. You cannot leave when you want, it takes a bit longer, you may have to wait here or there, and you may have to walk a bit when you use public transportation. If you can save $8 a day, wouldn't it be worth it? I would say easily 50% of the Twin Cities population would say it was. If it were ubiquitous, then a great deal more would use it.
Boehner was saying on the radio this morning that he was standing in the immediate vicinity of happy caribou during the trip.
»» Submitted by »»» Rat at 9:28 AM on July 24
rat, all I'm saying is the day will come when they CAN'T AFFORD to 'not be me.'
it'll be easier on me, because I'm already me. they're the ones with the adjusting to do, and they're whiney spoiled brats that will throw a fit about it.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 9:32 AM on July 24
I think transit ridership matricies are probably a little more complex than "I would say...".
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 9:34 AM on July 24
also, I've been taking the light rail a lot lately, and I have to say that it's hella more convenient than most bus routes. they could use more than one ticket machine at some the stops, as it's easy to miss a train if there's a rush of people right before one comes, though. not that you have to wait long for the next one, though.
if only the buses could come by so often and be so much more comfortable ... oh wait, no, they can't.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 9:34 AM on July 24
absolutely, kevin.
preference plays a big part, but at some point the economics of it becomes more important than the preference. we're getting close to that tipping point.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 9:35 AM on July 24
Boehner was saying on the radio this morning that he was standing in the immediate vicinity of happy caribou during the trip.
I'm sure the beasts were thrilled with his "Drill 'n Kill" proposal for wildlife management in the region.
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 9:40 AM on July 24
More likely, you'll probably see drivers in smaller cars.
»» Submitted by »»» Rat at 9:40 AM on July 24
Link I meant to post
»» Submitted by »»» Rat at 9:41 AM on July 24
The Rat is correct. That trend has already begun, as has sharply higher mass transit use nationwide.
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 9:42 AM on July 24
3 of my 4 Grandparents grew up in Minneapolis. They all took public transportation. Everyone did. It was easy, it was cheap, and no one owned cars. There is no reason why this can't be the case again.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 9:45 AM on July 24
I've also been riding the light rail a lot lately. I hate it. The seats are hard and uncomfortable after about five minutes; the whailing sound going through the tunnel is deafeningly unbearable; and worst of all I couldn't listen to AM radio, I think because of all the electrical interference.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 9:45 AM on July 24
Wouldn't it make more sense to lower the fares off peak?
This might drive more people to use the bus other than for rush hour commuting. To lower the price for people that are already packed in like sardines on routes makes so sense.
What we need to do is fill up the buses that are currently running nearly empty. It doesn't make any financial sense to add additional buses to routes since every trip basically loses money even if it is completely full.
You need to stop losing so much money on the routes that are lightly used.
»» Submitted by »»» Dougie_D at 9:46 AM on July 24
3 of my 4 Grandparents grew up in Minneapolis. They all took public transportation.
I think life moves at a quicker pace with different demands than two generations ago.
»» Submitted by »»» Rat at 9:50 AM on July 24
I think life moves at a quicker pace with different demands than two generations ago.
How so? My grandparents all had jobs in different areas of the city, families, and social lives, just like now. And we now have express buses, they just had trollies.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 9:54 AM on July 24
We're not all making $8 an hour, wayne. Some people could afford gas no matter how expensive it is. You can't, but many others can. Less freeway traffic at rush hour is a good thing. heh. Besides, I haven't driven to an office in two+ years. I'm sure workng at home will increase before anything else happens.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 9:56 AM on July 24
Do you think New York, Tokyo, DC, London, Paris run at a slower pace than Minneapolis Rat?
No, not everyone makes that little (and neither do I, you prick). But you are so out of touch with the world, it's laughable.
Lots of people already stretch their incomes too far, and a little thing like a jump in transportation costs can break them. Even if they make decent money, there's only so much they can cut out to offset gas prices. And "some people" being able to afford gas isn't "everyone who can now." There are a lot of people who will fall into that gap as it widens.
And who fucking cares if you drive to an office or not? No one. We don't care about your hollow empty life, Dennis. But guess what? Working from home is not an option for most people. Otherwise telecommuting would have already caught on. It's just a niche perk for a tiny portion of jobs out there, and will remain so.
Fuck, why do I even bother responding to you. You couldn't make a point with a needle.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:12 AM on July 24
Hey wayne. The corner gas station called. Your bike is ready.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 10:17 AM on July 24
that doesn't even make sense as a dig.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:18 AM on July 24
Telecommuting is catching on. It is just employers really want to keep their thumb on their workforce and can't understand that they can do it virutally.
There is no reason why I couldn't work from home two days a week, at least, other than my employer can't grasp it. They make up excuses that don't really matter, like data privacy.
I went to a call center conference last year. Did you know many McDonald's drive thrus have people at home taking your order? Also much of the IRS call center and airline reservation lines are at home workers.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 10:19 AM on July 24
There is no reason why I couldn't work from home two days a week, at least, other than my employer can't grasp it. They make up excuses that don't really matter, like data privacy.
Amen to that!
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 10:21 AM on July 24
Yes telecommuting sounds great, but when the economy is tight and companies are considering laying people off, which employee will get the chop, the one the boss sees working every day or the one she only sees at weekly meetings?
»» Submitted by »»» lunch! at 10:22 AM on July 24
Food for thought to those who are looking for jobs, you may want to consider negotiating for partial telecommuting as part of your salary package. That's what a friend of mine did at Wells Fargo when she was accepting a new position in a department that had not previously had the option. She works from home 2 days a week and makes sure she's super-productive (even schedules phone conferences) when at home so that her supervisors can see that it is a viable option.
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 10:27 AM on July 24
They make up excuses that don't really matter, like data privacy.
I wouldn't say data privacy doesn't matter, but its' also why I have to schlep my a** to this windowless office five days a week during interim. If I could telecommute, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 10:33 AM on July 24
lunch, many people have argued that workers are more productive, happier, and departments are less prone to fast turnover if employees are given the opportunity to work even only a few days from home (presence of young children in the home, notwithstanding). I know I would love it and I only live 5 miles from my office.
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 10:34 AM on July 24
Every study I have seen shows that employees who work from home are more productive than those who work in an office. Of the local county offices here that allow telecommuting, they hold the work completed standard higher for those working from home than those in the office.
I don't remember the number exactly, but a cube in our office is close to $700/month lease when you add in all the bathrooms, meeting spaces, lunchroom etc.
Why keep the in office employee when you can get rid of them? They are more expensive and produce less.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 10:34 AM on July 24
Also, many companies have password protected intranets and remote link, so data privacy isn't an issue if you don't work with a lot of paper.
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 10:38 AM on July 24
Do you think New York, Tokyo, DC, London, Paris run at a slower pace than Minneapolis Rat?
No, it's faster. I've been to all those cities, and I have noticed a car or two on the street.
»» Submitted by »»» Rat at 10:40 AM on July 24
my most successful peers have, by and large, made their living on line and laugh at the outmoded office model. but my father's most succssful peers don't even know how to use a PC. there's a generational gap in telecommuting, and the paradigm is slowly shifting.
»» Submitted by »»» g rote at 10:42 AM on July 24
are you trying to say that driving is the primary mode of transportation in those cities, rat?
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:42 AM on July 24
I understand that the studies all say thumbs up, and I would love to telecommute, but when has management ever done the smart thing? Not being seen as part of the team and not being present would put your career advancement into the slow lane. I know that some of the idea cross-fertilization between divisions here at work would be lost without having everyone in one place.
»» Submitted by »»» lunch! at 10:46 AM on July 24
I don't know. All I know is they are choked with traffic. Trucks, cars the whole schlemiel.
I suppose we could shrink Minneapolis and cut the width of streets by about a third, like they are in the European cities. Build underground railroads that aren't even close to economically feasible anymore. Eventually, we'd bustle.
»» Submitted by »»» Rat at 10:48 AM on July 24
Do you think New York, Tokyo, DC, London, Paris run at a slower pace than Minneapolis Rat?
No, it's faster. I've been to all those cities, and I have noticed a car or two on the street.
They would also grind to a halt if their transit systems shut down.
my most successful peers have, by and large, made their living on line and laugh at the outmoded office model. but my father's most succssful peers don't even know how to use a PC. there's a generational gap in telecommuting, and the paradigm is slowly shifting.
It would be impossible for me to tele-commute.
right, in a lot of cases it's easier to talk to someone in person than to call them up or send an email. when you telecommute, you simply can't do that. while I'm sure a lot of people hate their coworkers enough that it doesn't bother them, there really is some value that comes from that informal interaction.
or say you need to show something to someone right quick to get an opinion/idea or draw a little diagram to help explain what you're talking about? you can't do that very easily from home. the technology exists, but it still kind of sucks and most people don't know how to properly use it anyway.
also, phone conference meetings = snooze. it's so easy to tune out at those even if you don't mean to that they're sometimes not even worth the trouble. plus without the physical presence of people you don't get the normal cues that allow people to cross-talk in a useful way. I assume most people who work from home probably wouldn't want anyone to see their state of dress for video conferencing, too.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:51 AM on July 24
I suppose we could shrink Minneapolis and cut the width of streets by about a third, like they are in the European cities. Build underground railroads[...], we'd bustle.
I agree! Absolutely! Let's do it!
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:52 AM on July 24
right, in a lot of cases it's easier to talk to someone in person than to call them up or send an email.
Large groups that telecommute often have chat capabilities. It is just about thinking outside the box. Clearly many people have jobs that require them to be in the office, but a lot of us don't, expecially not everyday.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 10:55 AM on July 24
They would also grind to a halt if their transit systems shut down.
The IRA sure knew that about London.
»» Submitted by »»» Rat at 10:55 AM on July 24
I work from home most days and I don't run into any problems communicating with my team. We have email, phone conferences and Net Meeting. When it necessary to meet in person, we do, but that's not that often. My project teams are usually scattered across the country (or sometimes multiple countries), so meeting in person on a daily basis is just not going to happen. I have seen no difference in the success of projects based on whether everyone is co-located or scattered about.
»» Submitted by »»» tara_r at 10:59 AM on July 24
Ah, here's a question: how would you meet ADA compliance for something like a video or phone conference?
I would obviously expect a higher concentration of telecommuters on MNSpeak than in the general public too, since most people seem to have less oversight and be more computer-savvy here.
But telecommuting is still an impossibility for most jobs out there.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:07 AM on July 24
Not being seen as part of the team and not being present would put your career advancement into the slow lane. I know that some of the idea cross-fertilization between divisions here at work would be lost without having everyone in one place.
Well, I think most people would like to have the option of working from home only a few days a week, I know I certainly would like some interaction with my peers. Also, it sucks when some employees are allowed to telecommute and others aren't, which I think is another reason why management doesn't like to do it, saves on the resentment factor, I guess (ironically, most managers get the option of working from home).
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 11:09 AM on July 24
Ah, here's a question: how would you meet ADA compliance for something like a video or phone conference?
good question, although if one is deaf or blind they would run into the same sort of difficulties in a regular office environment too.
also 'run into' was not supposed to be a pun about being blind.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:09 AM on July 24
alie, let me fix that for you.
most managers get the option of working
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:10 AM on July 24
good question, although if one is deaf or blind they would run into the same sort of difficulties in a regular office environment too.
Not necessarily. There are a lot of simple, easy things that I and others can do. If I'm sitting in a meeting, as long as it's not too big and unless a quick back and forth breaks out, I know who's speaking, and I can do some speech reading. Someone sitting next to me can repeat what was said or jot a quick note if I miss something. Things like that can't be easily done on phone conference.
true enough, although as I said before I think conference calls are the worst form of communication imaginable. let's add that to the checklist of reasons why they're terrible.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:45 AM on July 24
ADA requires that employers make reasonable accomodations for the employee. That could include sign language interpreter, using chat conferencing instead of phone conferencing, requiring all major meetings be held on a certain day and that everyone comes in to the office for them.
And, for some disabilities, a reasonable accomodation is allowing someone to work from home.
And I would say most office jobs could allow some amount of telecommuting. I can't think of many people in my department of about 1000 that couldn't telecommute some days, aside from the food service workers, the security guards, etc.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 12:09 PM on July 24
That's what I was wondering kc. What kind of accommodations would work with the technology used.
I suspect a lot of people would believe that chat conference would be much more cumbersome than phone conference, and I'm pretty sure that there would be many that would chafe at having to come in to the office for meetings.
I'm just trying to throw as many roadblocks out as I can. :-)
You should come work for the state. They are great at putting out roadblocks.
»» Submitted by »»» kc! at 12:43 PM on July 24
I used to work for the state (or at least the U).
I learned just yesterday that we have a policy against telecommuting... I find it quite odd.
»»» = registered user. click on it to see the user's profile.
|
|
|
|
