The Green Line (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington: 2014, live in, costs)

[Mplsite]

Anytime someone plays the "mass transit doesn't pay for itself" card they've demonstrated their vast depth of ignorance about how our transportation system is funded (same goes for those claiming cyclists don't pay for the roads): leave it to the urbanism and transportation experts (and geeks) who know what they're talking about. It's like a monolingual American telling me, a multilingual individual, how to speak Spanish or Arabic: they have no foundation to even discuss the issue let alone try to school me on the matter.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Mplsite

Anytime someone plays the "mass transit doesn't pay for itself" card they've demonstrated their vast depth of ignorance about how our transportation system is funded (same goes for those claiming cyclists don't pay for the roads): leave it to the urbanism and transportation experts (and geeks) who know what they're talking about. It's like a monolingual American telling me, a multilingual individual, how to speak Spanish or Arabic: they have no foundation to even discuss the issue let alone try to school me on the matter.

Well, since you are a self-proclaimed expert, why don't you share your vast knowledge with us...

[uptown_urbanist]

Yep... those good old money-making freeways and highways that pay for themselves.

Leaving beside the fact that we all pay for roads whether or not we own or drive a car, if one thinks that the cost of driving is too high then there's a solution: don't own or drive one!

And as far as the accusation that Minneapolis is, essentially, mooching off the state: I think it's worth noting that the city still sends more to the state than it receives.

Getting back to the Green Line, besides the obvious transportation benefits that come from moving large volumes of people around, the transit-oriented development implications are huge; now granted, that's exactly what upsets some people -- prices are rising along the line, and there will be both winners and losers from the changes -- but in terms of money, there's already a lot of construction going on, property values are going up, and the two cities are going to be seeing a lot of increased revenue as a result.

The suburbs are getting plenty of their own transit, anyway; they already have the Northstar Line (not that that's exactly a success story), and the next two proposed light rail lines primarily serve suburban locations. So no worries, the 'burbs will get their trains, too.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Because mass transit is a negative operating proposition.

Does negative operating proposition mean that they are not profitable and, if so, which forms of transportation are profitable? I would think that airlines might be the closest but airport facilities are highly subsidized. Certainly highways are subsidized from revenues other than user taxes. I just can't think of a form of transportation that isn't tax subsidized.

[Mplsite]

As far as my assessment of the Green Line I do think it will help a great deal to serve as a magnet for dense mixed-use developments to make this corridor full of walkable retail befitting a major corridor which connects the downtowns of the largest cities in the state, the huge U of M among other colleges in the area along the line. This will essentially help reverse the dispersion of businesses and residents following the removal of previous rail transit (when University was much healthier: just like every other business corridor back when streetcars an down them). University Ave should like its name suggests be oriented to university students and businesses catering to them including restaurants, shops, and bars. With this line being entirely located in the two densest cities in the state it's going to see very high potential for ridership. I'm also glad it's debuting a month earlier than expected.

On the downside, I see no reason why service is going to be cut off at 1AM. Run it 24/7 for a couple months or so and if the demand isn't there scale it back accordingly: don't go and get it stuck in people's heads that 1AM is it because if they go and lengthen the hours later it's going to be a while to adjust from the previous notion that this line is useless after 1. The other issue is University Ave itself should have been adjusted to prioritize transit, specifically for the buses that will still run with a designated bus-bike only lane. On top of that, the city of St Paul has done nothing for easy safe connections bikewise up to University Ave, which if done to a sufficient degree would have given a wide range of residents in the surrounding areas but outside of walking distance another option to reach businesses when construction was going on without worrying about parking (well, not totally now that I think about it bike parking isn't exactly abundant in those parts, but that's easily addressed).

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Does negative operating proposition mean that they are not profitable and, if so, which forms of transportation are profitable? I would think that airlines might be the closest but airport facilities are highly subsidized. Certainly highways are subsidized from revenues other than user taxes. I just can't think of a form of transportation that isn't tax subsidized.

Kind of hard to haul cattle on the light rail....

Never said freeways were "profitable"...but the suggestion was to dump more money into a system that only services a small percentage of the population....

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Kind of hard to haul cattle on the light rail.....

You've said this twice now but what is the point you are trying to make with it?

Kind of hard to haul coiled steel with a car, too. So what?

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

You've said this twice now but what is the point you are trying to make with it?

Kind of hard to haul coiled steel with a car, too. So what?

Highways aren't just for cars to drive on....

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Highways aren't just for cars to drive on....

I don't get the cattle/ light rail conmection. Is there some sudden need to haul cattle from the Mall of America to downtown Minneapolis?

If anyone understands what she is trying to say, could you please clarify?

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I don't get the cattle/ light rail conmection. Is there some sudden need to haul cattle from the Mall of America to downtown Minneapolis?

If anyone understands what she is trying to say, could you please clarify?

If you followed the whole conversation and didn't take my comment out of context like you always seem to do, it was proposed to cut funding to the highway system to fund more mass transit...after that you are on your own...