shotbanner.jpeg

June 29, 2006

The Patricians, Part IV

Taking a look at the next graf of the Patricians' scold to the peasants:

We need more transportation options, to stop the steady rise in traffic congestion.
One of the old saws among the transit-at-all-costs crowd is that "you can't build your way out of congestion".

This saw is actually true. If you build roads, people will move where the roads are - and they'll all pour out onto those roads at 7AM.

But if you're a marketeer, the same sentence holds; the stress is on the word "build". Look at the cities with the biggest, best-developed transit systems; New York and Chicago are transit dreams; their roads are nightmares, too.

The fact is, eveyr exercise we've had in transit-building so far has been a matter of building trains (or scheduling buses) to take people from where they want (or have) to live, to where their jobs are. Every morning, as the inbound freeways are clogged with finance managers and lawyers and HR directors driving downtown or to the Strip from Burnsville, the outbound buses are clogged with people going from their homes in south Minneapolis to their jobs at malls and garages and hotels in Eden Prairie and Bloomington.

So far, people find the inconvenience acceptable - or at least within the curve below which they continue to accept it rather than chuck it all.

But let's say that someday congestion worsens. Drastically. What then?

What do you suppose will happen first?

  1. Government will develop the will - and coerce a tax-weary people - to condemn land and buy right of way and destroy enough businesses and neighborhoods to build enough transit to fill the bill, or...
  2. Businesses, aware of how congestion is killing their bottom lines, start making allowances: moving the jobs to where the people are, or moving to where the people can afford to live by work, or making it easier for people to commute less. It's happening already - at my own company, people in many IT-related groups frequently work from home via the 'net, but many people telecommute from cities with neither company offices nor commutes; my own group has people from Duluth and Green Bay, employees, mind you, not remote contractors. All by way of saying the market will probably solve the congestion problem on its own, long before the Twin Cities manage to spend their way out of congestion.

    Of course, some of those solutions are not great for the Twin Cities; if companies move to Texas or North Dakota, that's jobs leaving the Twin Cities. Of course, that's been going on for years, and has seemed to slow only with the people who signed the open letter being ushered from power.

    And in any case, what the solutions will likely do - at least in the mid-term - is make the Twin Cities less valuable as a workplace, and lead companies to either move out or at least have fewer of their employees drive in. Which will take bodies off the roads, but will also reduce the tax and spending bases for the cities. Of course, there's no replacing the sheer infrastructure of a major city; there'll always be a Minneapolis, and for a very good reason. But as the economy continues switching from manufactured goods to information, the value of having a mass of bodies in a centralized location will (slowly) drop.

    Which, Now, given that most of the 203 signers of the open letter were DFLers (details coming soon), the party that depends on having masses of people conveyed to centralized locations by the good grace of government, might explain the push to "invest" in something that will only perpetuate the status quo - and then only if it works!

    Posted by Mitch at June 29, 2006 05:00 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Just to be picky, what happened to part III?

Seriously, as someone who grew up in Chicago with Metra, I can tell you all of the good and the bad about it. Commuter rail is a much better solution to the problem (as opposed to this light rail garbage that is being foisted upon us). Communter rail can move thousands of people into and out of the city easily. When the Logical Husband worked for MCI's Midwest HQ (in downtown Chicago) he rode the train in and out and it was always PACKED from 6am to 9am and 5pm to 7pm. However you still have to have the expanded roads to go along with the rails. Commuter rail is something that should have been in the states transportation plan 20-30 years ago, when the land for the rails was available and cheap. To try to add it now is going to be a bankbuster.

I have said from day one when I moved here, that the 394/494 ring was poorly planned (based on what I knew in Chicago) because they allowed too much to be built right up against it - thus guaranteeing the use of condemnation/eminent domaine. The transportation problems that we are experiencing today are a direct result of poor planning back by the state back in the 60s and 70s. What is the solution? I don't know for sure, but to for these folks to sit back and demand that "something" be done is insane. They should have made these demands of their fellow DFLers that were running the state 30 years ago! Now their ideas are outdated and too expensive.

Posted by: The Lady Logician at June 29, 2006 10:36 AM

So the republican answer is to complain how stupid this idea is to put money into transit and how it is too expensive? sounds like you are taking that right from the pages of the current Democratic playbook, complaints w/o alternatives.

While I agree with TLL that the TCs are way behind on transit planning, while adding commuter rail and light rail now is very very expensive, IMHO it is still cheaper to do it now that not do anything for the next 20-30 years.

And Mitch, of course Chicago and NY have massive automobile congestion, the sizes of the areas they serve are huge. But imagine how bad it would be without a good mass transit system. While the TCs are never going to be as large as those cities, population projections show the metro area growing rapidly, and the state can not afford to sit back and not try to add transit options.

Posted by: Fulcrum at June 29, 2006 10:58 AM

The market *is* an alternative.

And when you say "But imagine how bad [Chi and NYC] would be without a good mass transit system" - that presumes transit was the best, or even a good, answer. Had government not pumped billions into moving people from where they wanted to be to where their jobs wanted to be - in effect, subsidizing lifestyles and corporate locations - the free market would have caused those involved to react accordingly. In NYC's case, it would have accelerated the move of companies to other cities (and adaptations on the part of the companies that *remained* there). It might have caused some of the things that the left wants - affordable housing in the 'burbs, distribution of money-earning potential - to have happened, on their own, without the need for government...

...oh, wait. There's the catch, isn't it?

Posted by: mitch at June 29, 2006 11:15 AM

I agree that too many popliticians are trying to solve a 21st century problem with 19th century technology (trolley cars?)

I have worked from home and commuted to Maple Grove and Santa Clara, CA. Both required some face time, but most of my work is done on a computer, so I was able to be productive while out of the office.

I predict more companies will have to adopt work rules liek these as the boomer retire and there is a shortage of experienced labor (10+ years experience).

I think that prices in the city will continue to climb, just like NYC and SF. The burbs may peak and then decline as demographics shift and people no longer need to "close" to downtown.

If you're going to move out and telecommute, why stop at Blaine, why not live in Brainerd?

Posted by: Tracy at June 29, 2006 11:15 AM

Just a quick note, from arguing about mass transit and light rail on the Strib BBS a few years ago.

You can't compare cities like NYC, Chicago and L.A. to the twin cities. Population differences aside, all three of those have one huge limiting factor that we don't. They all butt up against vast amounts of water in at least 1 direction. That, and L.A butts up against mountains opposite the water. That's one big reason why there is so much more vertical building in those cities than there is here. Chicago has precisely 1/2 the ability to expand outward that we do.

Atlanta, Nashville, Dallas, St Louis, Kansas City, and Phoenix are more more valid comparisons geographically speaking.

But that's neither here nor there. We already have light rail, no pushing the camel back out of the tent.

Posted by: Bill C at June 29, 2006 01:04 PM

What other options are there other than mass transit, besides telecommuting? Only a small share of workers can afford that luxury...


Posted by: Fulcrum at June 29, 2006 01:11 PM

Bill - when you consider that "Chicago" now covers almost the entire northern third of the state of Illinois...saying they have no where to go just doesn't cut it.

Fulcrum - telecommuting is not a "luxury". It is actually quite affordable - especially if the employer is "on board" with it. All of your office expenses (internet access, phone lines, etc) are tax deductable and even a percentage of your utility charges are deductable. The employer sets up the security and tunnling as part of their IP security and provides the computer and most PBX's are set up for VoIP access now. The "problem" is with the availability of high speed access. If you have high speed internet, working remotely is a breeze - if you're on dial up.....

Posted by: The Lady Logician at June 29, 2006 01:24 PM

TLL: how many workers countrywide can do it? How many work jobs that are solely computer based? While that number is rising there are a large number of workers, who by trade, can not telecommute. So what are their options?

Posted by: Fulcrum at June 29, 2006 01:27 PM

Fulcrm - you are doing what you just accused us of doing - complaining about how "stupid the idea is"!!!!

In answer to your question - a vast majority of the desk jobs downtown can easily be done via remote access.

Posted by: The Lady Logician at June 29, 2006 02:14 PM

Not at all. You mentioned there were other possibilities outside of mass transit. I just inquired what they were and pointed out that telecommuting, while part of a solution, is not the full solution. I believe that the solution involves multiple modes of mass transit and alternative forms of work (ie telecommuting, shifting work hours, etc).

Posted by: Fulcrum at June 29, 2006 02:35 PM

Mitch argues that without Government intervention in transit planning, the free market would find its own solution to the problem.

Since I can't think of any (at this moment) largish cities in the industrial world which don't have government transit planning of some sort, that leaves cities like Mexico City, Rio, Athens, and Cairo, which ... while not all strictly under the full sway of free market philosophy are probably adequate for this thought exercise since both businesses and people are free for the most part to determine where they can set up shop or live.

Just curious, really.

What I suspect is the case, is that transit planning merely enables a higher population, and a more concentrated one - such as we're seeing in the buildup along the LRT line, and the massive growth of the southwest surburban area following the construction of Hwy 169.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at June 30, 2006 12:41 AM

Should have made that "Just curious, really -- how're they doing?"

If I recall other studies correctly, we're actually half decent when it comes to transit times compard nationally. But since we're a regional population magnet we're just going to keep growing like Chicago and New York (obviously not to their scale) so we're going to grow up (vertically) or out (horizontally) and if its the latter even if we keep pouring concrete there'll be consequences. Just how many Ham Lake to Eagan commutes are practical?

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at June 30, 2006 12:53 AM


Football Betting Football Betting with Free Account Activation. Join today and take advantage of our 20% Free Bonus Cash

Posted by: football betting at July 4, 2006 04:04 AM

football betting on the Internet is easy! There are 24-hour wagering lines for College Football Betting and many other popular sports.

Posted by: football betting at July 4, 2006 04:06 AM

All season sportsbook offers the best baseball betting lines. Enjoy 24 hours access to live sports betting. Open account now!

Posted by: baseball betting at July 4, 2006 04:07 AM

Great job http://lds-young-woman.s4buy.info lds young woman http://rand-mcnally.com.s4buy.info rand mcnally.com http://chevy-lift-kit.s4buy.info chevy lift kit http://english-to-italian-translator.s4buy.info english to italian translator http://mcloy-randal.s4buy.info mcloy randal

Posted by: ldsyoungwoman at July 8, 2006 03:16 AM

massage schools in chicago - http://www.thanksguide.info/massage-schools-in-chicago.html

Posted by: massage schools in chicago at July 15, 2006 03:47 PM

wagering wagering

Posted by: wagering at July 26, 2006 02:44 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi