Pawlenty hints light rail could be alive

Paul wrote:

<quoted text>
The governor has lost about a dozen percentage points since he vetoed Central Corridor. Many people recognized it for the childish game it was. "You give me my park, or you're not getting your train back. Wahhhhh!"

Thats the way this has worked.... Its a game... st.paul mayor, and pawlenty did that with the Bridges of St.Paul deal!

Howie wrote:

<quoted text>
The earliest studies indicated that we are too dispersed here for LRT ever to work well.

Ok, so how do you explain the wildly successful Hiawatha Line?

Guess what? We have enough population and density for rail transit. If the proof right in front of your eyes is not enough, nothing will be.

Sandy wrote:

We need to listen to Mr. Pawlenty, he will most likely be our Vice President.

Don't even joke about that kind of thing!

Howie wrote:

<quoted text>
The most "useful" transit systems operate in cities hemmed in by water, like our seacoast cities and Chicago -- hemmed in by Lake Michigan. The Twin Cities don't qualify. The earliest studies indicated that we are too dispersed here for LRT ever to work well.

The old rail-based trolley system that once existed here worked very well. And it went out as far as White Bear Lake even back then.

So Pawlenty says he wants to be fiscally responsible. And then he goes on to advocate more borrowing for his personal pork projects and raiding the health care fund to balance the budget. And he refuses to build inflation into this budgets. If he worked for a corporation, he would be laughed out of the conference room with that idea. The truth is, Pawlenty just wants keep his VP resume pristine, and he doesn't really care how he does it. He doesn't care about the long-term consequences for Minnesota.

NYC and Chicago have had rail systems for decades. Those cities were built around their rail system. The Twin Cities were built around roads and highways and now we want to plop down a light rail system?

Do you pro LRT fans realize we're talking about 1 BILLION DOLLARS? And that's just to build one 10 mile route connecting the downtowns? And that's just to build it. Throw in the costs to maintain it. Those things don't exactly fix themselves.

I wasn't even a big fan of the Hiawatha line, but now we have it and have to deal with it.

You think building a light rail system is magically going to remove thousands of cars off I-94? People like the convenience of getting in their car and driving to where they need to go.

David wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok, so how do you explain the wildly successful Hiawatha Line?
Guess what? We have enough population and density for rail transit. If the proof right in front of your eyes is not enough, nothing will be.

It loses 19 million a year and it is wildly successful? Thank god for that, how much would it lose per year if it was a failure?

Franklin Adams wrote:

<quoted text>
It loses 19 million a year and it is wildly successful? Thank god for that, how much would it lose per year if it was a failure?

Transit is always subsidized. Always. Go anywhere in the country - subsidized. It's a public service and doesn't operate on the same rules as a private business, nor should it.

Wildly successful means that ridership numbers are significantly higher than initial projections. This always happens with light rail, all over the country - no matter how they conservatively adjust expectation based on other metro areas' successes, people still surprise planners and ride it in droves.

Forget about the choo choo! The street is not wide enough to handle it.

I can't stand Pawlenty, but in this instance he is correct on this issue.

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
Transit is always subsidized. Always. Go anywhere in the country - subsidized. It's a public service and doesn't operate on the same rules as a private business, nor should it.
Wildly successful means that ridership numbers are significantly higher than initial projections. This always happens with light rail, all over the country - no matter how they conservatively adjust expectation based on other metro areas' successes, people still surprise planners and ride it in droves.

Why is it always subsidized?

Franklin Adams wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is it always subsidized?

Because pricing fares to cover costs is prohibitively expensive and pretty contrary to the point of public transit.

I, frankly, don't see much difference between the funding of transit and the funding of roads. No matter where the funding comes from, it all comes out of our pocket somehow - and we all end up paying for stuff we don't use in either case.

And there is, of course, the argument that we ALL use roads even if we don't drive, because our goods are brought to market on the roads. Likewise, low-income workers are brought to their service and other jobs on transit very often, and we would all suffer the loss of them.

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
Because pricing fares to cover costs is prohibitively expensive and pretty contrary to the point of public transit.
I, frankly, don't see much difference between the funding of transit and the funding of roads. No matter where the funding comes from, it all comes out of our pocket somehow - and we all end up paying for stuff we don't use in either case.
And there is, of course, the argument that we ALL use roads even if we don't drive, because our goods are brought to market on the roads. Likewise, low-income workers are brought to their service and other jobs on transit very often, and we would all suffer the loss of them.

Where does the funding for roads come from?

How much money are they going to throw into more "studies".

Stop the madness NOW!

Franklin Adams wrote:

<quoted text>
Where does the funding for roads come from?

Property taxes.

Gas prices are mostly driven by supply and demand. Gas stations will charge what they can get. If the gas tax holiday is implemented and a station can get $3.50 per gallon, it will still charge what it can get. The only difference is that instead of putting 20 cents per gallon into our roads, it will be extra profit for Exxon. Wisconsin has had a state gas tax a full 10 cents higher than ours, but their gas prices are not 10 cents higher than ours. So the prices are similar, but in Wisconsin, more of it goes back to the people, and in Minnesota, more of it goes back to the oil companies. When Republicans want a gas tax holiday or don't want to implement any new gas tax, realize that it won't change your price at the pump, it will just mean more profit leaving the state for the oil companies.

Alec Timmerman, St. Paul

Alec wrote:

Gas prices are mostly driven by supply and demand. Gas stations will charge what they can get. If the gas tax holiday is implemented and a station can get $3.50 per gallon, it will still charge what it can get. The only difference is that instead of putting 20 cents per gallon into our roads, it will be extra profit for Exxon. Wisconsin has had a state gas tax a full 10 cents higher than ours, but their gas prices are not 10 cents higher than ours. So the prices are similar, but in Wisconsin, more of it goes back to the people, and in Minnesota, more of it goes back to the oil companies. When Republicans want a gas tax holiday or don't want to implement any new gas tax, realize that it won't change your price at the pump, it will just mean more profit leaving the state for the oil companies.
Alec Timmerman, St. Paul

Alec-your a bird brain

David wrote:

<quoted text>
Property taxes.

None from the gas tax? Where does that go then?

Franklin, sweetie - stop the goading and just make your point already. Save us all some time. I'd like to get around to refuting it and move on.

Pat wrote:

Franklin, sweetie - stop the goading and just make your point already. Save us all some time. I'd like to get around to refuting it and move on.

Pat sweety, you already know what my point is and you cannot refute it.

Franklin Adams wrote:

<quoted text>
Pat sweety, you already know what my point is and you cannot refute it.

Actually, no, I don't know where your little leading questions are going this time. But as I've never agreed with one of your conclusions in the past, I'm guessing this will be no different.