|
WJH
|
Myself wrote: I am so sick of the roads vs trains comparisons and this article continues to propogate the logic. Additionally, this article is most definitely written/edited by a DFL partisian which is sickening.
Roads/Bridges and LRT are not comparable in either cost or in their usage. You cannot subsititue tracks for roads or vice versa so just stop with the comparisions. It simply demonstrates the level of petty foolishness that one will stoop to in the obsessive support of a project.
Roads transport not only people, but goods and support inter and intra state commerce. LRT does not and never will do that. It will move people. Period. Roads are general use, LRT is single use. We will always have to support the maintenance and even expansion of roads no matter how many LRT lines we have. We will never be able to "Stop building roads". They are here to stay. Period. That must be considered as it is significant to understand that LRT will always be an INCREMENTAL cost to roads.
LRT should be built, but it must be done responsibly or it will do far more harm than good. You can have all of the infrastructure and amenities that money can buy, but if the cost of those items drives the tax burden to a critical point, we will loose jobs and will not be able to sustain our community. By many economists account, we already reached that pinnacle and we are already loosing jobs in droves (NWA, 3M, Ford to name just a few and there are a considerably larger list that is continuing to grow). Further, short changing existing infrastructure that is critical to supporting our economy (roads/bridges) also serves to undermine the local economy.
In short, it should be built slowly and responsibly. Yes, it is an important part of the future of transit in this state. It is not so criticial that we have it IMMEDIATELY that we should be irresponsibly increasing the local tax burden or neglecting existing infrastructure.
It's not that hard folks, just stop, take a step back and use your common sense. Well said Myself, When I drive or even ride my bike through Minneapolis, I avoid at all cost the light rail area, for me it's a huge bottle neck. Minnehaha Parkway is now becoming a major commuting route for cars because it is one of the few ways of getting over the light rail without sitting at a light for 5-10 minutes trying to get across. I say fix the roads and bridges 1st, when your done with that, we can talk light rail. Glad you also noticed the DFL slant to this editorial. I once called up Thom Fladung at the Pioneer Press and politely asked him if he could tell me the political leanings of the Editorial board. He refused, his answer was, their all rich white guys who live in the suburbs. Guess he told me didn't he? Sometimes you just gotta laugh
|
|
Barney
Saint Paul, MN
|
Judged:
1
CyBear wrote: <quoted text>
I suppose the souls who paid with their lives were taxpayers. Oh, did you want to have a discussion of death rates from different modes of transportation? Let's!
|
|
Barney
Saint Paul, MN
|
It was a simple fix wrote: Crude prices are controlled by the speculators on the market, no link to Iraq or its funding. Have you always been this clueless?
|
|
richard schumacher
Dallas, TX
|
If the governor won't make this work it will be time to give him the boot. The state can't afford any more of his obstructionism and eccentric priorities.
|
|
Myself
Mount Prospect, IL
|
WJH wrote: <quoted text>
Well said Myself,
When I drive or even ride my bike through Minneapolis, I avoid at all cost the light rail area, for me it's a huge bottle neck. Minnehaha Parkway is now becoming a major commuting route for cars because it is one of the few ways of getting over the light rail without sitting at a light for 5-10 minutes trying to get across.
I say fix the roads and bridges 1st, when your done with that, we can talk light rail.
Glad you also noticed the DFL slant to this editorial. I once called up Thom Fladung at the Pioneer Press and politely asked him if he could tell me the political leanings of the Editorial board. He refused, his answer was, their all rich white guys who live in the suburbs.
Guess he told me didn't he?
Sometimes you just gotta laugh All rich white guy's who live in the burbs, LOL. Typical response from an urban DFL'er. I certainly don't begrudge the editors and writers for their own personal opinions, I simply find it extremely unethical for them to color the NEWS with their OPINIONS. Their sense of righteousness and their perpensity to report opinions as facts is a great indicator of the level of arrogance that passionate partisians posses. There's really no place for that in our country and it is exactly what is erroding our way of life. People who feel that their opinion is the only truth and is above all else are dangerous and should be called out and the power that they wield removed from their grasp as they do not have the responsibility and integrity to use it fairly and appropriately.
|
|
Myself
Mount Prospect, IL
|
richard schumacher wrote: If the governor won't make this work it will be time to give him the boot. The state can't afford any more of his obstructionism and eccentric priorities. Are you that niave that you really think that the Governor is the only reason that the CC project is struggling. The stakeholders can't even agree on a route for the line and we should be falling all over ourselves to fund the project? The legislature funded local portion of the bill in the transportation bill (a) without a solid route plan (b) in a manner that put the state funding at risk (aka via an override of the governor) and (c) without an overall plan for the project. They then continued to aggrivate the governor by refusing to work with him on the bonding or the budget and sending him a bonding bill that broke state borrowing guidlines witht he clear intent of forcing the governor to either veto the entire bill and be subject to another override or line item veto specific initiatives with the intent put him at odds with the local governments that the line items impacted. They all but begged him for a fight and then when he responds they act as though they had no idea why he would do such a thing. Instead of reading an op-ed with a DFL partisian slant and forming an opinion, why don't you try to follow the details of the project seeking out information from multiple points of view and forming your own opinion. If you actually took the time to do that, you wouldn't look such the fool with an errant comment such as the above.
|
|
Barney
Saint Paul, MN
|
Myself wrote: <quoted text>
Are you that niave that you really think that the Governor is the only reason that the CC project is struggling.
The stakeholders can't even agree on a route for the line and we should be falling all over ourselves to fund the project? The legislature funded local portion of the bill in the transportation bill (a) without a solid route plan (b) in a manner that put the state funding at risk (aka via an override of the governor) and (c) without an overall plan for the project. They then continued to aggrivate the governor by refusing to work with him on the bonding or the budget and sending him a bonding bill that broke state borrowing guidlines witht he clear intent of forcing the governor to either veto the entire bill and be subject to another override or line item veto specific initiatives with the intent put him at odds with the local governments that the line items impacted. They all but begged him for a fight and then when he responds they act as though they had no idea why he would do such a thing.
Instead of reading an op-ed with a DFL partisian slant and forming an opinion, why don't you try to follow the details of the project seeking out information from multiple points of view and forming your own opinion.
If you actually took the time to do that, you wouldn't look such the fool with an errant comment such as the above. The governor submitted a $70 million budget proposal for the Central Corridor a few months ago, after agreeing to that number with the various stakeholders. The only "partisan slant" is the one which portrays him as being fiscally responsible, when in reality he was vetoing his own proposal that was reached a long time ago after many parties conceded to his wishes.
|
|
****
Saint Paul, MN
|
Barney wrote: <quoted text>
The governor submitted a $70 million budget proposal for the Central Corridor a few months ago, after agreeing to that number with the various stakeholders. The only "partisan slant" is the one which portrays him as being fiscally responsible, when in reality he was vetoing his own proposal that was reached a long time ago after many parties conceded to his wishes. Just imagine what else could be done with that $70million?
|
|
|
|
Barney
Saint Paul, MN
|
[QUOTE who=" **** "]<quoted text> Just imagine what else could be done with that $70million?[/QUOTE] Imagine what could be done with the $800 billion we've spent on the Iraq War (so far).
|
|
Myself
Chicago, IL
|
Barney wrote: <quoted text>
The governor submitted a $70 million budget proposal for the Central Corridor a few months ago, after agreeing to that number with the various stakeholders. The only "partisan slant" is the one which portrays him as being fiscally responsible, when in reality he was vetoing his own proposal that was reached a long time ago after many parties conceded to his wishes. Your last name doesn't happen to be Fife, does it? This flip/flop insinuation and Evil Pawlenty mantra of the left leaner's is laughable and I'm not sure how many more times people will need to be reminded that Pawlenty's request for the 70mil in the bonding bill WAS AN OFFER OF COMPROMISE THAT CAME WITH CONDITIONS. The central corridor is not and never has been a Pawlenty agenda item. He simply agreed to support the project and in return was expecting to get a DFL legislature willing to work with him to accomplish a fiscally responsible budget bill and bonding bill. When the DFL sent him a bonding bill for signature that was exceeded state borrowing guidlines and when they passed budget bills that increased corporate taxes and raided the state resesrves, he withdrew his support by line item vetoing the central corridor line item from the bonding bill. If anyone displayed a lack of integrity, it was the DFL legislative leaders that happily took Pawlenty's offer of compromise and greedily offered absolutely nothing of substance in return. Not only did the slimy slobs refuse any meaningful compromise, but they made attempts at partisian attacks on the governor by taking a divisive override approach on the transportation bill and by sending a bonding bill that was over state borrowing guidlines with the clear intent of forcing him to either veto the entire bill and be subject to another override or to line item specific projects (which prioritizing the projects IS the legislatures responsibility) intending to put him in conflict with the local governments impacted by his line item vetos. In short, the Governor has tried to play nice and the DFL leaders have taken cheap shot after cheap shot. The funny part is their (faked) shocked surprise at Pawlenty's response (and your ignorance in falling for their games). Wake up and smell the roses, bub. Your living on mars.
|
|
Red Ryder
Omaha, NE
|
just imagine if we could teach howler **** to build LRT and lizards to be legislators!
|
|
Curt
Andover, MN
|
Judged:
1
1
What king of a governor plays politics with needed infrastructure? Let's keep Minnesota's best intests at heart, not continuous and unproductive political grandstanding.
|
|
Myself
Chicago, IL
|
Curt wrote: What king of a governor plays politics with needed infrastructure? Let's keep Minnesota's best intests at heart, not continuous and unproductive political grandstanding. First, the governor is RESPONDING to politics which is quite different than PLAYING politics. Care to explain to me why the DFL controlled legislature sent a bonding bill to the governor that was nearly 200 million over state spending guidlines? Additionally, to your point, let's discuss what's "In Minnesota's Best Interest". Do you think having the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the country is in MN's "Best Interest"? Or how about throwing our states bond rating under the bus by borrowing to much and spending down our state reserves? Is that in MN's "Best Interest"? The governor is the ONLY state leader that is looking out for the states best interest. Your band of angry solicists is interested in their agenda, not our state. Wake up, read, think.
|
|
Sonny Bono
Omaha, NE
|
Judged:
1
1
Metrocrats are hardening at the thought of more boondogglolishis spending.
|
|
Ned Campbell
Saint Paul, MN
|
Judged:
1
The lumpenproletariat has returned.
|
|
geoff
Saint Paul, MN
|
The current route on washington avenue through the U is a non starter. This restricts emergency vehicle traffic, waste hauling traffic and pedestrian traffic. The NE corridor option needs to be considered for the project to be a success. Lets do it right. We do not need another poorly engineered highway 62/35W crosstown mess.
|
|
Myself
Mount Prospect, IL
|
Prediction:
Central Corridor project is killed during the legislative session as no agreement on the budget emerges causing the state funding for CC not to be authorized.
As a result, they'll go to the back of the line for federal dollars and the initiative will come up again in a couple of years.
Here's the laugher, when it does come back up, the metro area sales tax will be forgetton and they'll levy yet additional taxes to support the project.
Isn't our government great!!!
|
|
Pat
Saint Paul, MN
|
Myself wrote: Prediction:
Central Corridor project is killed during the legislative session as no agreement on the budget emerges causing the state funding for CC not to be authorized.
As a result, they'll go to the back of the line for federal dollars and the initiative will come up again in a couple of years.
Here's the laugher, when it does come back up, the metro area sales tax will be forgetton and they'll levy yet additional taxes to support the project.
Isn't our government great!!! Considering that every year delay adds millions to the final budget, this WOULD be likely (and understandable), except for the fact that if the project gets any more expensive, it will not meet federal cost-effectiveness guidelines and will not be eligible for federal funding. If it doesn't somehow get funded this year, it is most likely dead, not just delayed.
|
|
StPaul
Minneapolis, MN
|
Why don't we just rip up all the pavement in our fair city and go back to dirt roads?
Seriously, we keep building highways that are too small (three lanes on 494...really?!!?) because we lack the foresight to realize that more cars are hitting the roads, not fewer and decreasing bus routes among other things...
Since we all **** and moan about everything from funding education to transportation 'till we're blue in the face, why don't we just go back to horse and buggy and call it a day. Progression costs money. Deal with it.
|
|
Har
Sacramento, CA
|
Judged:
1
Thanks Minnesota, especially your gov., we have a much better chance to secure funding for our light rail expansion. Our ridership is double the initial projections. (Sacramento)
|
Judge it!
TwinCities.com Forum