Living The Fantasy Life
One problem with that assumption Dave. Scott County was not in line to get anything out of the "transit tax" anyway. Even if the county had signed on to that fiasco they would still be facing this problem. The other problem that Apple Valley resident Mindeman has is the assumption that mass transit would solve rural Scott County's problems. Let me clear that up for you Dave. It won't! Light rail going from Shakopee to Minnepolis won't help the Belle Plaine resident who works in Plymouth get to work. It won't help the Prior Lake resident who works in Minnetonka get there faster. It also won't help the Savage resident who works in Eagan get their car off of the road either. Most Scott County residents work in either the first ring suburbs (Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan and Plymouth) that are not served by light rail.
Mindeman's next comment is one that needs to be exposed for the fallacy that it is....
I will get to Rep. Beard's comment shortly, but I simply have to jump in here and say flat out that Scott County's representation are HARDLY anti-transit. As a matter of fact, Rep. Beard was one of the co-sponsors (along with Rep David Bly of Northfield a DFLer) of HF 3440 that would have allowed the Met Council and the cities of Northfield and Prior Lake and Savage and Burnsvill and Lakeville to talk about the possibility of allowing a commuter rail corridor to be built on existing tracks through their communities....a bill that was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Claire Robling of Scott County and Sen. Kevin Dahle of Northfield. The bill was defeated in both conference by Hennepin County legislators (Republican and Democrat). While Senator Robling was (at the time) still torn on the need for commuter rail she was at least willing to talk about it - unlike her Hennepin County colleagues!
Now to the apparently egregious remark made by Rep. Beard.
Let's take a quick look at the context for that comment as provided by the Star Tribune....context that Mr. Mindeman conveniently left out of his screed.
But there also is high-level dissent over what Scott should do next. The Shakopee legislator who describes himself as allowing a bill for transit planning for the county to be drawn up "under my name" confesses that he worries about a heightened emphasis on transit.
"I don't want the transit people to run away with this, and undermine our chances to get another lane of traffic," said Republican Rep. Mike Beard.
Rep. Beard has been on of the few Minnesota legislators who has been all in favor of allowing the cities and the counties to decide FOR THEMSELVES which form of transit works best for their communities. As I mentioned before, he co-sponsored a bill that would have been a start to establishing commuter rail in the district. He has also been one of the very few in the legislature who are for a combination of transit answers - he has not been wedded to just one answer as the Hennepin and Ramsey County reps are. He "gets" the fact that there is no "one size fits all" answer to the transportation needs of the 7 county metro area.
Which leads us back to Mr. Mindeman's biggest assumption....that what works for Apple Valley or Eagan or Minneapolis will work for rural Jordan, Belle Plaine or Credit River Township. Simply put, Scott County is not nearly as developed as the northern half of Dakota County is. Any form of mass transit is only going to work for small portions of Scott County and only if that transit goes from where the people in Scott County live to where they work. For the majority of Scott County, the thing that gets people from where they are to where they need to be is ROADS. No amount of wishing and hoping and train related money is going to change that basic fact of life.
Labels: Transportation
posted by The Lady Logician at
2:04 PM
5 Comments:
interesting...
By
tsh, at 5:45 PM
Horsebreeders used the same logic you use here to oppose the adoption of "horseless carriages" by city departments. And it was equally as unreasonable when they attempted the argument then as it is when you attempt it now. Opposition to progress is futile, and a crutch of the weak minded (not to mention easily frightened).
By
Anonymous, at 9:27 PM
Jennifer - what the heck are you talking about? I've said noting in opposition to transit as a whole - what I am saying is that the locals need to be the ones to decide what works best for them!
For Apple Valley - light rail might work. For Scott County - commuter rail seems to be a better fit.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 9:53 PM
Actually, BRT or just plain express service are probably better fits for both Apple Valley, and Scott County - it is cheaper and more flexible, while having the same "amenities" that are expected these days for rail travel.
LRT in Apple Valley would require the reconstruction of the Cedar Ave Bridge over the Minnesota River - which is not going to happen any time soon.
Other areas of the country have been able to quickly and successfully implement BRT, while we have been stuck in the "well Mpls got one, I need one too" attitude.
Transit in general only works where you have a concentration of people who are all going to the same area. You can concentrate on one end with a parking ramp, but you need a concentration of destinations or a string of concentrated destinations at the other end to make it work. So far, the region has struggled with how to serve the very large employment concentration along 494.
Many of the people who criticize the suburbs with regards to transit have little understanding of the underlying forces in state government that have kept the suburbs from getting any infrastructure money - for roads or transit; or money for general government, such as LGA. Some of them actually believe that the core is subsidizing the suburbs.
If you don't have any understanding of the overall picture, it is impossible to understand any of the sub-parts.
By
Anonymous, at 7:23 AM
Great points Wendy - especially this one:
"You can concentrate on one end with a parking ramp, but you need a concentration of destinations or a string of concentrated destinations at the other end to make it work. So far, the region has struggled with how to serve the very large employment concentration along 494."
I would say that, more than anything else, explains why transit works so much better in cities like Chicago, New York, LA and Salt Lake (yes we have it here and it ROCKS). When the majority of the employers are concentrated in a small downtown type area, it will work much, much better.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 11:20 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home