Why suburbanites are slower bikers

[Trevize1138]

And urbanites are faster (or, at least, lighter) :crazy:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1556/4067919.html

[Brick]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
And urbanites are faster (or, at least, lighter) :crazy:


Gee....and all these years I thought it was the water....

[manual63]

"A new study released in national medical journals Thursday found that people living in sprawling areas walk less, weigh more and have higher blood pressure than those who live in denser neighborhoods where residents find it easier to walk to the corner store for a gallon of milk."

My wife has discovered this. Not only does she walk less since she came to the U.S., but the food is fatter and worse for her. I wanted us to live in Edina near Southdale so we can walk places to shop and do things, rather than drive. So now we live in a condo right by Centennial Lakes. It's a nice area and should not cause lazyness.

I have always been active and love riding my bike, so I have remained in shape for the most part. I have also lived in the West suburbs most of my life now. Chris and this article are correct to a certain degree, but people still have a choice. If their choice is to be lazy and fat, so be it! As for diet, my wife and I now shop at Whole Foods and buy Organic foods and non-hormone dairy and meats. Sure, it's a little more, but it's our health and well worth the extra costs, which isn't much.

Blame all you want on society and urban sprawl, but no one is forcing people to become this way, they choose to do it.

I choose to be healthy, so I am......................

[EmL34]

Hey, how does sprawl fit into your views on transportation issues?

I'm of the opinion that the world would be a lot better off if we took all of the 494's of the world and bulldozed them - for a lot of reasons.

I'm sure we could think of something better to do with the space....Tim, Dale?

EmL

P.S. That's a heckuva a bike ride with groceries from Whole Foods to Centennial Lakes.

[zerpy]

I don't think it is the urban sprawl, I think it is the choices that people make.

I haven't looked at the demographics, but going by the people I know and the people I see, generally you have a higher concentration of younger, single people living in urban areas. As people get older they move out and away, and the same for family. People want a yard for their kids to play in. Younger people tend to be in better shape and single people have more freetime because they don't have family commitments.

For me, I was always fat when I was a kid and I biked everywhere. I was very very active, always out and about. I just had a lousy diet and ate too much. I'm sure there are some genetics involved too. Now that I'm almost 30, I'm getting more active again (first season back on a bike since I got my drivers license). I've also been studying martial arts and been doing quite a bit of other exercising. When I went in for a physical and tipped the scale at almost 400 lbs, my doc put me on a low carb diet which I've mentioned on here before helped me shed almost a hundred pounds.

I live about 10 miles from work and try to bike to work quite a bit. I also will bike to the store to pick up odds and ends. I can see that in an urban environment it actually becomes a pain -in-the-a$$ to drive around and would be doing more of that. But just because someone lives in the 'burbs doesn't mean that they become couch potatoes.

Actually, I'd argue that when I did live in minneapolis that I stayed in more often, it was safer than going out. In one year alone I was involved in about half a dozen fights, a stabbing and two shootings while living in minneapolis. Of course, that's just me - the experiences of one person. As our media proves all the time, you can always dig up an individual that proves your agenda.

The only real noticable difference I have found with my friends and co-workers that live in an urban area is they are really stuck up about it. They are constantly trying to "prove" they their life is better and somehow everyone that lives in the suburbs is a lower life form. Noone really challenges them or ever brings issue, they just somehow have this inadequacy and constantly are trying to come up with reasons why they think life in the city is better.

[EmL34]

I hope you didn't get that interpretation from me...

I actually think way out suburban life has advantages for the person living there. I live in the city and Minneapolis is too expensive, the taxes are too high, you get little for what you do spend. Moving to the 'burbs is strongly encouraged by economic realities: Houses are more affordable. And, all of the great riding is in the 'burbs.

However, it leads to a lot of things that I think we as a society should discourage: 1. Longer Commutes, 2. Traffic, 3. More city infrastructure (roads, schools, water, sewer), 4. Big Box retail with acres of parking and a lot less character.....

This is my issue, but it isn't the simple snobbery you mentioned. I travel for work. When I get to a new city my wife will ask me about where I am...9 times out of 10 I am in Eden Prairie, Texas or Illinois or California. Sometimes I think if we keep going like this there will be no differences from city to city anymore. I fear the corporate juggernaut will take over!

I've lived in Phillips for several years, Uptown, and now I have a house south of Harriet. In 10 years I have never had a single altercation in the city. I drove a Taxi at night to pay my way through college and I have never seen a gun or knife 'in the wild'. The city is not safer than most of the 'burbs, but it is by no means dangerous.

[zerpy]

Ohh yes I did, you are definately an SUV burning, nazi militant environmentalist freak...

Just kidding:)

No, not you or anyone in particular (well maybe a few of my co-workers). Just my take on the "whole" thing, noone in particular. At least not yet anyway:)

[socrates]

Originally posted by EmL34
Hey, how does sprawl fit into your views on transportation issues?

I'm of the opinion that the world would be a lot better off if we took all of the 494's of the world and bulldozed them - for a lot of reasons.

I'm sure we could think of something better to do with the space....Tim, Dale?

EmL

P.S. That's a heckuva a bike ride with groceries from Whole Foods to Centennial Lakes.

Errr.....m-u-s-t r-e-s-i-s-t..........b-u-t c-a-n-'-t l-e-t liberal point of view go unanswered...ok bulldoze the freeways, see what happens to the economy as we know it

[socrates]

Originally posted by zerpy
I don't think it is the urban sprawl, I think it is the choices that people make.

I haven't looked at the demographics, but going by the people I know and the people I see, generally you have a higher concentration of younger, single people living in urban areas. As people get older they move out and away, and the same for family. People want a yard for their kids to play in. Younger people tend to be in better shape and single people have more freetime because they don't have family commitments.

For me, I was always fat when I was a kid and I biked everywhere. I was very very active, always out and about. I just had a lousy diet and ate too much. I'm sure there are some genetics involved too. Now that I'm almost 30, I'm getting more active again (first season back on a bike since I got my drivers license). I've also been studying martial arts and been doing quite a bit of other exercising. When I went in for a physical and tipped the scale at almost 400 lbs, my doc put me on a low carb diet which I've mentioned on here before helped me shed almost a hundred pounds.

I live about 10 miles from work and try to bike to work quite a bit. I also will bike to the store to pick up odds and ends. I can see that in an urban environment it actually becomes a pain -in-the-a$$ to drive around and would be doing more of that. But just because someone lives in the 'burbs doesn't mean that they become couch potatoes.

Actually, I'd argue that when I did live in minneapolis that I stayed in more often, it was safer than going out. In one year alone I was involved in about half a dozen fights, a stabbing and two shootings while living in minneapolis. Of course, that's just me - the experiences of one person. As our media proves all the time, you can always dig up an individual that proves your agenda.

The only real noticable difference I have found with my friends and co-workers that live in an urban area is they are really stuck up about it. They are constantly trying to "prove" they their life is better and somehow everyone that lives in the suburbs is a lower life form. Noone really challenges them or ever brings issue, they just somehow have this inadequacy and constantly are trying to come up with reasons why they think life in the city is better.


Ding Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner folks!

Media will take any position as long as it sells their product, (oh my gosh...I'm starting to sound like Shad now?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)

[socrates]

Originally posted by EmL34
I've lived in Phillips for several years, Uptown, and now I have a house south of Harriet. In 10 years I have never had a single altercation in the city. I drove a Taxi at night to pay my way through college and I have never seen a gun or knife 'in the wild'. The city is not safer than most of the 'burbs, but it is by no means dangerous.

Danger in most big cities seeks out those that aren't street smart. The majority of Detroit is as safe as Minneapolis, but if you don't know which areas to stay away from it can also be much more dangerious as well!

[EmL34]

Let me explain.

I was pointing out that criticizing SUV's (which I drive without guilt) for their fuel economy and then living in the burbs is inconsistent. If I drive 12,000 miles a year at 16 MPG, and someone else drives 18,000 miles a year at 24 MPG - it's pretty much the same thing.

Tell me you don't drive more in your suburb, and I don't care. The facts are that suburban drivers as a whole, drive more. I'm not telling you to change, and I'm not suggesting that anyone should do anything about it and I certainly have not ripped on anyone for living anywhere they choose.

On another note, I think only a superficial examination of issues leads one to classify points of view as liberal or conservative. For instance, I am biased against suburban sprawl not because I am a communist city dweller with envy of bigger houses and yards. I hate traffic and sprawl leads to more people driving more miles, more frequently, which means - more traffic. It also means we are more dependent on arab oil.

While there is an environmental impact here that I am also concerned with, I am very interested in a world where OPEC and its member states are of no significance. Most importantly I hate it that it can take me 1.5 hours to drive 12 miles.

Is that Liberal?? Let's not require labels in order to understand issues.

[socrates]

Originally posted by EmL34
Let me explain.

I was pointing out that criticizing SUV's (which I drive without guilt) for their fuel economy and then living in the burbs is inconsistent. If I drive 12,000 miles a year at 16 MPG, and someone else drives 18,000 miles a year at 24 MPG - it's pretty much the same thing.

Tell me you don't drive more in your suburb, and I don't care. The facts are that suburban drivers as a whole, drive more. I'm not telling you to change, and I'm not suggesting that anyone should do anything about it and I certainly have not ripped on anyone for living anywhere they choose.

On another note, I think only a superficial examination of issues leads one to classify points of view as liberal or conservative. For instance, I am biased against suburban sprawl not because I am a communist city dweller with envy of bigger houses and yards. I hate traffic and sprawl leads to more people driving more miles, more frequently, which means - more traffic. It also means we are more dependent on arab oil.

While there is an environmental impact here that I am also concerned with, I am very interested in a world where OPEC and its member states are of no significance. Most importantly I hate it that it can take me 1.5 hours to drive 12 miles.

Is that Liberal?? Let's not require labels in order to understand issues.

Hmm...you had redeemed yourself in the first paragraph (I agree completely) but I think the conservative organizations would argue your 2nd point is exactly a liberal point of view, besides stating urban "growth" is causing a greater dependency on Middle Eastern oil seems to be a rather unthoughtout, I mean automobiles as a % of petroluem used is down over the past decades and continues to decline while energy generation is up substantially (it's cheaper and more cost effective to build natural gas/oil fueled electric generating stations than coal fueled ones, why because of the EPA mandates on the emission control devices)

[jkalla]

Originally posted by socrates
Hmm...you had redeemed yourself in the first paragraph (I agree completely) but I think the conservative organizations would argue your 2nd point is exactly a liberal point of view, besides stating urban "growth" is causing a greater dependency on Middle Eastern oil seems to be a rather unthoughtout, I mean automobiles as a % of petroluem used is down over the past decades and continues to decline while energy generation is up substantially (it's cheaper and more cost effective to build natural gas/oil fueled electric generating stations than coal fueled ones, why because of the EPA mandates on the emission control devices)



Fuel efficiency for vehicles has improved over the last few decades but fuel consumption was higher in the last ten years compared to the previous ten years due to increased number of miles driven per vehicle.

Also energy consumption used for transportation is climbing as a percentage of total energy consumption.

Furthermore the percentage of petroleum used for motor vehicle fuel has been slowly climbing over the last few decades.

See these pages from the DOE's website for more info:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_17.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec2_3.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0511.html

[SickBoy]

This thread is ridiculous. I'm sorry, but I have lived in Eden Prairie AND Minneapolis in the last three years and can probably beat any of you on any given day.

This is a waste of bandwidth that I will not contribute to further than this sentence.

[socrates]

Originally posted by jkalla
Fuel efficiency for vehicles has improved over the last few decades but fuel consumption was higher in the last ten years compared to the previous ten years due to increased number of miles driven per vehicle.

Also energy consumption used for transportation is climbing as a percentage of total energy consumption.

Furthermore the percentage of petroleum used for motor vehicle fuel has been slowly climbing over the last few decades.

See these pages from the DOE's website for more info:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_17.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec2_3.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0511.html

Neat info but I don't see a chart showing the relation of motor vehicle fuel (non-commercial) vs total energy used

[EmL34]

Thanks for your thoughts. Hope I see you on the trail and can take you up on your challenge.

[zerpy]

Hey if we keep goin' then maybe this will evolve into another suv discussion:)

I'm sorry, couldn't resist.

[funky-funky-chicken]

"A new study released in national medical journals Thursday found that people living in sprawling areas walk less, weigh more and have higher blood pressure than those who live in denser neighborhoods where residents find it easier to walk to the corner store for a gallon of milk."

If all it takes to live a healthier life is to walk to the corner SA to get a gallon of milk every week, I will inform my wife. We'll take milk off the list of groceries.

Doctor, how many weeks do I have to be on this new program to increase my general fitness level? Should this new lifestyle offset or replace my evening walks around our sprawling neighborhood to the park with the kids? I am curious and really looking forward to riding faster.

“new study,” crap I tell ya… News flash: 32+ year study of people finds that they're generally lazy and make poor life choices.

[Trevize1138]

And to think, I was going to post the study from The Onion that linked pot smoking to sitting around and getting high ... :crazy:

Relax, people! I thought it was a goofy article about a goofy study. Admittedly, I do have a decent degree of "urban snobbery," but I try my best to keep it in check. :)

Anybody catch the PBS show last night: New York: A Documentary Film? Quite interesting. The city planners in the '30s decided that the automobile was the future, and built expressways, bridges, limited-access highways ... They started the whole notion that you no longer had to be limited by neighborhood. You could just drive to whatever part of town you want. For about a decade it was a paradise for this ideology where a car meant freedom to go wherever you want. I say for a decade because that's how long it took for traffic jams to tear down the idealistic image.

The rest of America wanted to be like NY, so urban sprawl was born. And, here we are, it's the future the city planners of NYC dreamed of in the '30s. The '39 New York World's Fair even had a GM exhibit that showed an America criss-crossed with highways. Pretty interesting stuff. :)

You have to wonder, though: is this still the vision for the future? If so, what's the end of it? Will America one day no longer have cities surrounded by countryside, opting instead for nonstop suburbs? Could make an intriguing sci fi premise.

I also can't help thinking of the movie Office Space. Ask yourself this for a moment: in which suburban area does this movie take place? Considering it's Mike Judge's work, you could assume it's his home state of Texas, so maybe suburban Austin. But, it could just as easily be Eden Prairie.

Doesn't that idea frighten anyone? Doesn't it seem the least bit "Borg"-like? An America where there's no true distinction between different cities, states or even North vs. South! Just suburbs. No matter where you are in the US there are aluminum-siding houses 5 miles from a Sam's Club with new, clean streets and perfect lawns everywhere. You could drive 1000 miles and get the eerie feeling that you only went across town.

I don't know, guys. Sounds awfully dystopian to me.

[jaybird]

I've had the oppurunity to grow up in Burnsville, but had my college and post college years in smaller towns. Marshall, MN was a perfect example of what 'small town' living was like. You could walk/ride to a store for your shopping. The town had a main street that was the central focus of the community. I look back at growing up in Burnsville and the closest thng we had to a Main Street was Burnville Pkwy and Nicollet Ave - not quite the same.

While I don't want to get into the suburban SUV argument, if you look at the Twin Cities as a whole you now have a lot of little towns now being connected to each other. This is only going to raise the amount of miles driven by almost any given person.

Back in high school (as you hear the dreamy/yesteryear music play in the background) it was considered a long ass hike to go from central Burnsville to where Leb Hills is now. In 15 years that whole area has shifted from several individual towns to one big conglomerate area.

Bottom Line - Our building habits changed our driving habits, which just reinforced our building habits. Do yourself a favor, leave the Cities and move to a small town - you'll live a longer and healthier life. :laugh:

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by jaybird

Bottom Line - Our building habits changed our driving habits, which just reinforced our building habits. Do yourself a favor, leave the Cities and move to a small town - you'll live a longer and healthier life. :laugh:

Or, as a commedian from a small town (whose name escapes me) once said about where he grew up:

"If you have only a year to live, go there; because every day is a freaking eternity!"

:crazy:

[manual63]

I missed out on this debate a lot.......

Here is my measly 2 cents.

Public transportation needs to be improved in most cities and states. Here in Minneapolis, the Public Trans sucks @ss!

We need trains using corridors that are already there from the old train system. The Detroit three lobbied to ruin our great system in the 40's and 50's and now we need it back.

Go to any city with a decent public transportation system and it's a breeze. You don't even need a car if you don't want to and if you own one, you can drive it a lot less. Boston, NY, Bucharest come to mind. In fact, in Romania, I took the train everywhere and never needed a car......same with NY City.

Nuff said..........

[socrates]

Originally posted by manual63
The Detroit three lobbied to ruin our great system in the 40's and 50's and now we need it back.


I hope you didn't mean to suggest that this was all caused by the Auto Industry. Afterall if it wasn't for the Auto Industry the vast majority of our country's wealth wouldn't have been created in the first place and gosh I'd hate to think what our society would be like without it.

[jkalla]

How important is the creation of wealth?

[nicnac]

How important is the creation of wealth?
It only seems as important as one's definition of comfort.
Most people don't tend to ask that question though untill they've been comfortable for a while.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
I hope you didn't mean to suggest that this was all caused by the Auto Industry. Afterall if it wasn't for the Auto Industry the vast majority of our country's wealth wouldn't have been created in the first place and gosh I'd hate to think what our society would be like without it.

I certainly wouldn't place a value judement, good or bad, on the obvious fact that the auto industry had a very big hand in creating suburban America. They're no different than the rail industry's effect on America in the 1800s of bringing the two coasts together and settling the West, for all the good and bad that did.

Still, be very careful when the only value you place on something is the wealth its brought people. That's an argument cigarette manufacturers use all the time to point out why their product isn't completely without merit. ;)

However, like the rail industry, everything has its time and place, and I certainly foresee the auto industry heading toward some major changes, if not obsolecense easily within our lifetimes. I won't pretend to know what the next big step is that will replace the conventional motorcar, but its time has certainly passed, just as the rail inudstry before it and the riverboat industry before that ...

[socrates]

Originally posted by jkalla
How important is the creation of wealth?
Take a look at your paycheck and let us know

BTW: I wasn't referring to an individual's personal wealth but the overall wealth of the economy

[gopherhockey]

I haven't been really paying much attention to this thread, so I apologize if this is a bit off topic...

Your comments about the auto and suburbs made me think of what it is like when I go to Chicago (in-laws live there, go there often.. )

Driving downtown Chicago to a person who lives in the cities makes one wonder why anyone would want to live out in the suburbs in a metro any larger than ours. We talk about an hour trip accross the metro in rush hour traffic... I've sat in traffic for hours there only to get between two suburbs that boarder eachother.

Then I was introduced to the train. I LOVE the train! You park your car, get on.. then sit and enjoy the scenery and you're downtown in no time.

Yes, it still takes about an hour from the outer burbs... but you can do a lot of work or drink a lot of coffee on the way.

I guess I just wanted to say I love the train and hope that the concept isn't totally dead.

[zerpy]

I agree, I think a train would be great here. Especially if it reduces the number of busses on the road, BUT....

It has to be privately funded. My tax dollars should not be funding a dime of it. The company running the train can fund it (of course I don't mind the state helping with bonds and tax incentives, not to mention cheap land) and they can charge what they need to make a profit. If the demand for a train doesn't support that, then fine we don't need it. I'm sick of subsidizing politicians pet projects with my familys grocery money so that some drug dealer can get from north minneapolis to the MOA.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by zerpy
I agree, I think a train would be great here. Especially if it reduces the number of busses on the road, BUT....

It has to be privately funded. My tax dollars should not be funding a dime of it. The company running the train can fund it (of course I don't mind the state helping with bonds and tax incentives, not to mention cheap land) and they can charge what they need to make a profit. If the demand for a train doesn't support that, then fine we don't need it. I'm sick of subsidizing politicians pet projects with my familys grocery money so that some drug dealer can get from north minneapolis to the MOA.

What private organizations are footing the bill for the countless highway projects in this city?

Tax dollars built the highway infastructure and the suburban lifestyle of this country. Ironic that it also created an entire culture of people who seem to be the first to whine and complain about paying taxes, even though Americans still pay the lowest taxes in the industrialized world ... but, that's a whole other subject ;).

Another thought I had about Suburban America yesterday. As urban sprawl continues, and the franchise market spreads and cities lose their uniqueness, we become more and more like the Soviet Union.

Think about it: you're no longer working for your local business where the hard work you put into it directly affects where you live. You work for a multi-national corporation and the work you do makes a difference, but it's so small that you're likely to never see anything appreciable as a result.

The effect: sure, you might be making an OK living, but so's your neighbor, and he has the same kind of house, car, everything ... the same. What's your main drive to do a good job, then? You work your butt off and the company's profit goes up one thousanth of a percentile, spread out over all the branches worldwide. "Today, ask what you can do that's good for The Company," -Lundberg in Office Space.

That was the downfall of Soviet Russia: nobody had decent motivation to work. Yes, the living conditions were certainly worse, but the basic premise remained: no reason to work harder because there wasn't anything more rewarding to it than a paycheck.

Believe it or not, productive workers need more than monetary compensation. Menial tasks were meant for robots.

[ole bul]

i see your point, but it would be swell to mindful of the major differences between the US and the old soviet union...the motto (was it stalin who first said it?) "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need." at least our work doesn't all get used paying billions to out-of-date and non-incentive welfare programs...oh, hey, wait a second...

[manual63]

Originally posted by socrates
I hope you didn't mean to suggest that this was all caused by the Auto Industry. Afterall if it wasn't for the Auto Industry the vast majority of our country's wealth wouldn't have been created in the first place and gosh I'd hate to think what our society would be like without it.

Looking back you may see that. But if our creation of wealth didn't come from the corrupt auto industry, it would have come from something else.......what, I don't know, but maybe building more tracks and train cars.......who knows but there is always something. So don't go thinking the auto industry was key to our success as nation, because it wasn't.

[manual63]

Originally posted by socrates
Take a look at your paycheck and let us know

BTW: I wasn't referring to an individual's personal wealth but the overall wealth of the economy

My paycheck does not come from the auto industry. As a matter of fact, if there was good public transportation, I could have more of my paycheck to spend. My car payment, expenses, and fuel cost a lot more than a weekly or month transit pass like they have in NYC.

[manual63]

Originally posted by zerpy
I agree, I think a train would be great here. Especially if it reduces the number of busses on the road, BUT....

It has to be privately funded. My tax dollars should not be funding a dime of it. The company running the train can fund it (of course I don't mind the state helping with bonds and tax incentives, not to mention cheap land) and they can charge what they need to make a profit. If the demand for a train doesn't support that, then fine we don't need it. I'm sick of subsidizing politicians pet projects with my familys grocery money so that some drug dealer can get from north minneapolis to the MOA.

So your okay with publicly funding roads which people drive their privately owned and operated cars on, but not publicly funding a train system........sorry, the logic isn't there.

[manual63]

Originally posted by ole bul
i see your point, but it would be swell to mindful of the major differences between the US and the old soviet union...the motto (was it stalin who first said it?) "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need." at least our work doesn't all get used paying billions to out-of-date and non-incentive welfare programs...oh, hey, wait a second...

Oh, you mean the incentive get off wellfare program Michigan uses when they take people off wellfare and bus them two hours out to a rich suburban community to work for $5.40 an hour in a Mall. Some work two jobs and can't afford rent. Yeah, that's a good plan to get people off of wellfare, make them work their @sses off and underpay them for doing it!

See "Bowling for Columbine" for more details.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by ole bul
i see your point, but it would be swell to mindful of the major differences between the US and the old soviet union...the motto (was it stalin who first said it?) "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need." at least our work doesn't all get used paying billions to out-of-date and non-incentive welfare programs...oh, hey, wait a second...

It is true: no analogy comparing two different things rings entirely true. However, I think the key difference between Soviet Russia's system and suburban America's is do you want your cage rusty or gold-plated? ;)

You can see the example of this everywhere in the burbs. Sure, there's lots of money, but what are they doing with it? I ate at the Eden Prairie Redstone for lunch a couple weeks ago to celebrate a fellow employee's birthday and found it very unimpressive. Oh, it was obvious they spent a lot of money making the place look like ... well ... to make it look like they spent a lot of money on it. But overall it had this plastic feel. And then there's the food: just like Applebees or TGI Fridays but for 2X the money!

Everything's like a futon: it's new, it's clean, but it's not really that nice.

But, maybe that's the destiny the suburbs need to fulfill. Maybe they'll end up being the production end of the American economy, and downtown areas will be the idea end. Back to the New York documentary: at first it was a huge manufacturing and shipping town, then all those businesses moved to the suburbs because it was cheaper and there was more space. The city went into major decline as a result, but eventually became great again in the late '80s and '90s as people rushed back to NYC as a great place for ideas and people power. This led to NYC booming again through the '90s.

And, if you look at the history of this country as it relates to NYC: what happens first in NYC catches on second in the rest of the country. So, that's the next big step for the TC area: the idea business is poised to explode downtown.

As for the suburbs ... well, some people were meant to play the piano and others were meant to move the piano ... just kidding! :crazy:

[manual63]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
You can see the example of this everywhere in the burbs. Sure, there's lots of money, but what are they doing with it? I ate at the Eden Prairie Redstone for lunch a couple weeks ago to celebrate a fellow employee's birthday and found it very unimpressive. Oh, it was obvious they spent a lot of money making the place look like ... well ... to make it look like they spent a lot of money on it. But overall it had this plastic feel. And then there's the food: just like Applebees or TGI Fridays but for 2X the money!

I actually find much better food in Minneapolis for much less the cost and wait in line. Living in Edina near Southdale is the worst. You have to wait an hour to eat out sometimes just to pay a lot for crap. I like small resturants in Minneapolis. They make much better food at much less the price. Sure, it's not all shiny, but who cares.


Oh, it was obvious they spent a lot of money making the place look like ... well ... to make it look like they spent a lot of money on it. But overall it had this plastic feel.


Kind of like domestic cars, trucks, and SUVs. Man, I had to rent a Trailblazer for a week once and it was just fancy plastic. I had to slow way down for corners and parking it was a pain. Make it look cool and expensive, but functionality and quality is of least concern.


Everything's like a futon: it's new, it's clean, but it's not really that nice.


:laugh: :laugh:

[zerpy]

Originally posted by manual63
So your okay with publicly funding roads which people drive their privately owned and operated cars on, but not publicly funding a train system........sorry, the logic isn't there.

The roads are supposed to be funded by your motor vehicle tax and your taxes you pay at the pump. And I'm fine with that, it's basic infrastructure. Also, it is paid with user fees, the people that license their cars and buy the gas pay for the roads. Now what is really happeneing is that the funds are being robbed and put into other programs so we don't have the funds to properly build and maintain our roads but that's a different issue. However, the state does not own my car. I paid for my car, other taxpayers did not pay for my car. While the govt. may provide basic infrastructure that our cars drive on, noone is entitled to own a car and therefore there isn't a redistribution of income to buy people cars.

The train on the other hand is state owned. I could maybe argue that it would be a good investment for the state to build the rail infrastructure and it is paid back and further funded by usage of the rail system. However, the trains themselves should not be state owned. It should be left to the private ownership (multiple companies involved not a monopoly) where the market can drive efficiency. Taxes on the compaies running the rails can go back to fund the infrastructure that the state maintains. The people using the resource pay for the resource, that is fine.

The same applies to our bussing. I don't have a problem with it if it is self funded. People that aren't using the benefit should not be funding it.

The same analogy doesn't hold up for things like schools. Even if you don't have kids it is in your best interest to invest in the education of our next generation. So I can argue that in that case, a usage tax isn't appropriate because everyone benefits. However, society doesn't necessarly benefit from Johnny down the block playing soccer. Soccer really doesn't have a whole lot to do with reading, writing and math. Noone has an entitlement to play soccer, or saxaphone, or football, etc... Therefore, parents should fully fund their kids participation in those extras.

We are free to live where we choose. Noone really cares if someone doesn't want to own a car and live in minneapolis and walk or ride a bike into work. Great! Good for them. The problem comes from this socialist mentality that we should all be happy riding on the state transportation system, we should give up personal property rights and live in an "optimum" density urban environment.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by zerpy

The same analogy doesn't hold up for things like schools. Even if you don't have kids it is in your best interest to invest in the education of our next generation. So I can argue that in that case, a usage tax isn't appropriate because everyone benefits. However, society doesn't necessarly benefit from Johnny down the block playing soccer. Soccer really doesn't have a whole lot to do with reading, writing and math. Noone has an entitlement to play soccer, or saxaphone, or football, etc... Therefore, parents should fully fund their kids participation in those extras.

Your reasoning isn't entirely consistant here. For one thing: you seem to suggest that children learn nothing from school-sponsored sports or other extra-curricular activity? Wrong. School-sponsored activities are vital to teaching students what they cannot learn from books and are a great resource for application of what they learn in class. Extra-curricular activities more often than not tie in directly to the general education of students. Therefore, it qualifies under your "everyone benefits" clause.

But, to follow your "everyone benefits" reasoning, wouldn't the same be true if a rail system helps decongest highways and provides access to workers who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford transportation? And, considering the MOA is Minnesota's #1 tourist attraction, doesn't it make sense to continue to strengthen that cash cow with better access to it from the airport? Add to this the line from the airport to downtown, and you get a side-effect of more business downtown.

It would seem to me we all stand to benefit from this and the cost to you, individually, isn't that much when it comes from a tax base.


We are free to live where we choose. Noone really cares if someone doesn't want to own a car and live in minneapolis and walk or ride a bike into work. Great! Good for them. The problem comes from this socialist mentality that we should all be happy riding on the state transportation system, we should give up personal property rights and live in an "optimum" density urban environment.

Who said we should *all* ride the train? Isn't one of the goals of better public transit that it frees up room on existing roads? I don't see where you take the leap from building better public transit to being forced to sell your car and take the train everywhere. If you're afraid Apple Valley's going to look like the East Village some day, don't flatter yourself! It's not that hip of a neighborhood ;).

[manual63]

Originally posted by zerpy

We are free to live where we choose. Noone really cares if someone doesn't want to own a car and live in minneapolis and walk or ride a bike into work. Great! Good for them. The problem comes from this socialist mentality that we should all be happy riding on the state transportation system, we should give up personal property rights and live in an "optimum" density urban environment.

This is a statement you made up. I didn't say this. I said people should have a choice. I like owning a car and would choose to own one even if I didn't have to. But, I would like the option to not have to use it to get around if I didn't want to. I don't have that option here in Minneapolis. The bus system is very poor and not efficient enough. Your statement is making it out to be that there has to be one extreme or the other and that's not true. There needs to be a better balance. I am for paying taxes to have a better balance..........and to save the environment which I need to sustain a healthy life and go mountain biking in.

[Kingbozo]

This is a statement you made up. I didn't say this.

It's called a Strawman argument. Attack an argument that has not been made.

[cheese4brains]

Get out and vote if you/we don't agree with the decisions being made. We can debate until we're blue in the face, but it's the politicians that decide how to spend OUR money :sick:

There are several nice bike paths in the metro including one that goes from Chaska to Hopkins that are designated "LRT". After a little research, I found that these are future Light Rail Transit routes. If LRT continues to move forward, I assume we'll see these paths disappear. This won't have the same effect of losing choice single-track such as Lebanon (at least to us!), but it is something to ponder. Then again, would these trails even exist if it weren't for LRT. I dunno ...

[zerpy]

Originally posted by manual63
This is a statement you made up. I didn't say this. I said people should have a choice. I like owning a car and would choose to own one even if I didn't have to. But, I would like the option to not have to use it to get around if I didn't want to. I don't have that option here in Minneapolis. The bus system is very poor and not efficient enough. Your statement is making it out to be that there has to be one extreme or the other and that's not true. There needs to be a better balance. I am for paying taxes to have a better balance..........and to save the environment which I need to sustain a healthy life and go mountain biking in.

I did not claim that YOU said that, althought there are plenty of people that do believe in this sort of thing. I had one for a pol sci prof.

However, you are accusing me of being one extreme or the other which isn't true. I'm all for a rail system and a bus system (and I'll agree our bus system sucks). However, tax money from people not riding it shouldn't pay for it (not counting initial help from the state to get the infrastructure set up). Nothing entitles you to extra conveniences for getting around paid for by other people's work.

If EVERYONE rode "the train" it would also be too crowded. However, you aren't going to see anyone hollaring that we should have tax subsidies for people to own cars as it would also benefit those on the train by lightening the load so that there is enough room to ride it.

I think the option to use a train to go downtown would be nice. Therefore, I'm willing to pay for it in the form of a pass or fee to ride it if I decide to ride it. I'm sure that there are many people that would like it, my wife used to work downtown and it really sucked to drive down there. She was lucky though, she had free parking. I think that there would be plenty of demand for a train, and if there is enough then the market should be able to sustain its operation if it was done efficiently enough.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by cheese4brains
Get out and vote if you/we don't agree with the decisions being made. We can debate until we're blue in the face, but it's the politicians that decide how to spend OUR money :sick:

There are several nice bike paths in the metro including one that goes from Chaska to Hopkins that are designated "LRT". After a little research, I found that these are future Light Rail Transit routes. If LRT continues to move forward, I assume we'll see these paths disappear. This won't have the same effect of losing choice single-track such as Lebanon (at least to us!), but it is something to ponder. Then again, would these trails even exist if it weren't for LRT. I dunno ...

The trails wouldn't exist if it weren't for rail lines, that's for sure, considering they're built on old railroad beds. That's the key reason they make such an obvious choice for the LRT. While I can certainly empathise with the signs along the trail that read "Save our trail No light rail!" I do think it's better to have the LRT there 'cause there are *lots* of good bike trails in the metro.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by zerpy
I did not claim that YOU said that, althought there are plenty of people that do believe in this sort of thing. I had one for a pol sci prof.

However, you are accusing me of being one extreme or the other which isn't true. I'm all for a rail system and a bus system (and I'll agree our bus system sucks). However, tax money from people not riding it shouldn't pay for it (not counting initial help from the state to get the infrastructure set up). Nothing entitles you to extra conveniences for getting around paid for by other people's work.

If EVERYONE rode "the train" it would also be too crowded. However, you aren't going to see anyone hollaring that we should have tax subsidies for people to own cars as it would also benefit those on the train by lightening the load so that there is enough room to ride it.

I think the option to use a train to go downtown would be nice. Therefore, I'm willing to pay for it in the form of a pass or fee to ride it if I decide to ride it. I'm sure that there are many people that would like it, my wife used to work downtown and it really sucked to drive down there. She was lucky though, she had free parking. I think that there would be plenty of demand for a train, and if there is enough then the market should be able to sustain its operation if it was done efficiently enough.

There's an initial investment cost here that you don't currently have with the highway system. When this country was first setting up highways there weren't enough cars and use-based taxes to pay for it, so people without cars were taxed to pay for it. I'd say we got our money's worth on that deal, wouldn't you? :)

The same with LRT: there's an initial investment to make, but they're banking on it being self-sufficient over time so you are only paying for it when you buy a ticket. Add in the extra revenue for the state due to better access for workers, shoppers and tourists and you end up getting back much more than the small tax money you put in.

[jaybird]

Heaven help us when we all get together for the MORC annual meeting!!!!!! ;) :hit: :p

[zerpy]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
There's an initial investment cost here that you don't currently have with the highway system. When this country was first setting up highways there weren't enough cars and use-based taxes to pay for it, so people without cars were taxed to pay for it. I'd say we got our money's worth on that deal, wouldn't you? :)

The same with LRT: there's an initial investment to make, but they're banking on it being self-sufficient over time so you are only paying for it when you buy a ticket. Add in the extra revenue for the state due to better access for workers, shoppers and tourists and you end up getting back much more than the small tax money you put in.

Looks good on paper, but we tried that with the bus system. They are now a big tax drain. It is because they are inefficient and there is not motivation for them to increase efficiency without any competition - they are a state sponsored monopoly. My father-in-law used to work for the MVTA and it was rather frusterating for him to watch the stupid antics going on that wouldn't be able to exist had there been a free market. In fact there are acutally laws set up that keep some of our public transportation systems from going into each other's areas and creating competition.

They've got this great gravy train of tax money coming in and they work hard at making sure they are inefficient enought to keep it flowing.

So while you can't make the infrastructure come from nowhere, it has to be paid back by the users. And if the market isn't willing to support it then it goes away rather than being indefinately dependant on tax subsidies.

[jkalla]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
The trails wouldn't exist if it weren't for rail lines, that's for sure, considering they're built on old railroad beds. That's the key reason they make such an obvious choice for the LRT. While I can certainly empathise with the signs along the trail that read "Save our trail No light rail!" I do think it's better to have the LRT there 'cause there are *lots* of good bike trails in the metro.

I ride that trail to work. I see other people on the trail who I assume are commuting also. Surely the majority of the trail use is recreational, but not all.

There are express buses that run on essentially the same routes as the light rail lines would. There is a nice transit station in Eden Prarie. I know someone who takes the bus from there into downtown each day. If people don't take the bus then why would they take the train?

[cheese4brains]

I just had a thought, and it made me smile. The arguments against it are many, but it put the cost of LRT into perspective for me.

The light rail segments that are currently budgeted for cost somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars, if memory serves me correctly. According to KARE-11, the metro population is about 2.8 million. If I'm off a little, just humor me.

With the money currently being used for light rail, we could buy a $300 bike for every person in the metro, and have $160M left over to build new trails.

This made me smile, mainly because I knew it would never be done. I also had a cartoon bubble of a 10 bike pileup after a January snow ... :laugh:

[gopherhockey]

Originally posted by cheese4brains


With the money currently being used for light rail, we could buy a $300 bike for every person in the metro, and have $160M left over to build new trails.


I think we could possibly build a small portion of trail with 160M... I'll ask the trailsource guys if that would buy a little dingo/bobcat time ;)

[manual63]

Originally posted by zerpy
Looks good on paper, but we tried that with the bus system.

The bus system has to deal with the traffic and a bus can only hold so many people. Buses are not efficient and not fast enough. A train is more direct, cleaner, and can hold a lot more people. More people would ride a train and the buses could then be used to link to the train route. It's done successfully in many other cities. You can argue all you want, but a good train system is what Minneapolis and any other large city needs. Taxes would be better used in a rail system and we would benefit in the end by having roads that lasted longer and would not need to be made to handle higher volume. This would substantially reduce the money spent on road contruction and maintainance.

Like I said before, it's about a good balance. When I was in Boston, I drove some places and took the train to others. If I went downtown, I took the train. When I went to the beach, I drove. I could leave my car and get around and enjoy the day. It was a nice option to have. You don't have that here and that is one reason I would actually consider moving out East if I could find a good job there.

In LA, you have to drive. No option but to drive on massive highways. It took about an hour and a half to get from our Motel in Anaheim to Hollywood when there was low levels of traffic. Once in Hollywood, there was nowhere to park. I had to find some funky lot that looked like my car would get stolen or broken into, then walk 5 or so blocks to get to the main streets in Hollywood. It's almost like that here downtown. If you use a parking ramp, they charge you a ton. Even uptown is getting overcrowded with cars and it sucks. Minneapolis will be like LA soon if we don't add a publicly funded train into the mix.