The Green Line (Minneapolis: school, colleges, subsidized)

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by golfgal

They don't...why would you think they do...they do hate PAYING for something they can't use but people in the suburbs bike, walk, etc. and have cohesive, close communities--probably more so than in the urban sector. Why do the urbanites think otherwise??

It's as silly to assume a lack of urban community as there is to assume a lack of suburban community.

Putting aside money arguments of who pays for what, there's no reason to berate someone who choose the city or the suburbs. Many people experience both in their lives, and the both have their merits and issues, and both can have warm, welcoming communities.

[FierySun]

Originally Posted by golfgal

They don't...why would you think they do...they do hate PAYING for something they can't use but people in the suburbs bike, walk, etc. and have cohesive, close communities--probably more so than in the urban sector. Why do the urbanites think otherwise??

Go check out the neighborhoods of SW and South Minneapolis, the Victory neighborhood of North Minneapolis, and the neighborhoods west of DT St. Paul and see if those areas are "lacking community".

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by golfgal

They don't...why would you think they do...they do hate PAYING for something they can't use but people in the suburbs bike, walk, etc. and have cohesive, close communities--probably more so than in the urban sector. Why do the urbanites think otherwise??

If people in the burbs don't want to pay for mass transit (during games Downtown the light rail is packed with suburbanites btw), than should urban properties have to pay for MN DOT's massive budget allocated to upkeep and expansion of freeways?

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

If people in the burbs don't want to pay for mass transit (during games Downtown the light rail is packed with suburbanites btw), than should urban properties have to pay for MN DOT's massive budget allocated to upkeep and expansion of freeways?

You pay relatively little if you don't drive a car....unlike the rest of the state that pays for most of the light rail, bus transport and even the schools in Minneapolis..it is what it is..

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by golfgal

You pay relatively little if you don't drive a car....unlike the rest of the state that pays for most of the light rail, bus transport and even the schools in Minneapolis..it is what it is..

There's an awful lot of local property tax and general fund income that goes toward roads...

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by xandrex

There's an awful lot of local property tax and general fund income that goes toward roads...

Well, if you live in Minneapolis then your local property taxes wouldn't cover much since you don't have the highways/freeways that the suburbs do

[dravogadro]

Highways are paid for by the Feds, gas taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and other DMV fees. Not locale specific.

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by dravogadro

Highways are paid for by the Feds, gas taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and other DMV fees. Not locale specific.

Why not take more funds from these federal income sources and reallocate them from freeways to more sustainable mass transit and increase DMV fees and gas taxes for those that still want to drive everyday? Transit could reach more people, we wouldn't be as reliant on autos and oil and it would encourage a much more sustainable development pattern. A win, win, win!

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

Why not take more funds from these federal income sources and reallocate them from freeways to more sustainable mass transit and increase DMV fees and gas taxes for those that still want to drive everyday? Transit could reach more people, we wouldn't be as reliant on autos and oil and it would encourage a much more sustainable development pattern. A win, win, win!

Because mass transit is a negative operating proposition. Even in cities with the best mass transit, ridership is "low" 50% or lower. It's not a sustainable form of transit when it only goes from point A to point B. If it were sustainable it wouldn't have fallen out of favor over the car. Plus, it's pretty hard to haul cattle on the light rail...

And, as I've been told here many times, mass transit only makes sense in Minneapolis for some reason and running a rail line around the 494/694 loop and along Cedar, 94 and the 35's doesn't make sense because 10% of the working population in the metro works in Minneapolis and 80+% works along the 494/694 loop

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Because mass transit is a negative operating proposition. Even in cities with the best mass transit, ridership is "low" 50% or lower. It's not a sustainable form of transit when it only goes from point A to point B. If it were sustainable it wouldn't have fallen out of favor over the car. Plus, it's pretty hard to haul cattle on the light rail...

And, as I've been told here many times, mass transit only makes sense in Minneapolis for some reason and running a rail line around the 494/694 loop and along Cedar, 94 and the 35's doesn't make sense because 10% of the working population in the metro works in Minneapolis and 80+% works along the 494/694 loop

And freeways make money? Transit fell out of favor and auto came into favor only because auto infrastructure became heavily subsidized by the tax payers after WWII, oil was cheap and funds for transit got cut in order to plow freeways through neighborhoods and farm fields.