Explain McGough’s 43-acre, $700 million mixed-use development that is going in Bloomington along the light rail line, and was specifically planed to go there because of the light rail line? Light rail is already causing considerable housing to be developed along its line.


http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/...bf/ 12_04bf3.pdf
Harold | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:06 pm | #

What was the mpls housing tax raised to this year 12% if I recall correctly.

Move to S Mpls? Does the study include the firearms and training that will be required to go to the local mini mart for a gallon of milk?

PS.. The outer ring isn't all that cheap anymore. The main benefit is you actually get a yard instead of a green colored stamp next to your house.

But I spose I could chuck it all, buy a condo and partake of the diversity of living in an urban environment.
Casual Reader | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:08 pm | #

I guess I can't say that urban renewar isn't happening along the light rail line, because I think it is...but what I have to question is weather or not it is worth the cost.

I have little doubt that the Northstar line will cause a housing "boom" along 10 because it will increase the ease of getting from Monticello to MPLS to work...but it makes me laugh to think that the same people who bick about urban sprawl are also the ones pushing for this line that will be a contributing force to it.

Sorry if this is babbling...I just woke up and I'm still wating for this mud they call coffee to kick in.
Shark Bait | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:10 pm | #

For more information on projects in Bloomington

http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/...ng/ planning.htm

BTW isn't Bloomington a burb?
Casual Reader | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:14 pm | #

I don't think we can escape the sprawl. We have no natural geographical hindrances, such as mountains, to stop it, and we have a long history of it (remember the trolley lines that went from Excelsior to Stillwater?). But we can make it cheaper for everyone to commute. I think rail is much cheaper than building roads.
Harold | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:23 pm | #

Possibly, but that's debateable.

Roads serve more people than rail.
Badda-Blogger | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:24 pm | #

I guess the Brookings institue didn't have any sociologists on staff this week.

One thing that isn't mentioned is that the US is a mobile/free/Car culture. We are not Europe.
A look at the following; Peter Wollen and Joe Kerr, eds. Autopia: Cars and Culture. Reaktion, 2002. and,
Daniel Miller, ed. Car Cultures. Berg, 2001.
would be a good start. Real or imagined Americans are from early childhood instilled with the idea of car=freedom. Everything from SpeedRacer cartoons to the toys we play with (Barbi Corvette/Hot Wheels) incorporate the auto as more than just a mode of transportation.
Why else would we have this huge push to create hybrid cars, electric cars etc? Because we demand our freedom. If we were worried about saving money we'd all live in super towers, and commute to work on the lift or tube with maybe a short walk to the mega corp building we work in.
Casual Reader | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:34 pm | #

Harold...there is a reason why roads are needed over rails...it's becuase for us to transport out goods we need to have something for the trucks to drive on.

I also think that we have a love afair with our cars and that no about of trains will be able to change that.
Shark Bait | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:36 pm | #

I wonder how much you would save moving out of Farmington, buying a condo at market rates along the rail line so you could save a few bucks a day.
How much are those new condo'sanyway? Will they be government subsidised, where will the kiddies play, and will the spandex wearing bike riding yuppie neighbors get pissed at the Farmington rubes with the screaming kids?

Are people with a gaggle of kids going to trade that single family house with a one acre lot with the swingset in back and the bikes laying on the front lawn for one of those New urban lofts?

This is just silly.
sequel | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:41 pm | #

Rail costs the same or more than Roads to build.

Costs per passenger mile is way higher for Rail than roads.
Tracy | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:41 pm | #

Few people will actually ride light rail. Even in densely-populated Boston, which has the highest use of light rail in the country, the daily passenger miles per directional route is 9,942. But USDOT reports that for the top 50 urban areas in the country, the average passenger miles per lane mile of freeway is 26,370. So even the most optimistic forecast on light rail ridership comes nowhere close to the normal capacity of a freeway mile.

Light rail is not cost-effective. The construction cost for a typical light rail project is about $25 million a mile, more than twice that for the typical freeway lane mile.

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.or...le.php/ 367.html

Why do so many people think that 19th century technology will solve 21st century problems?
Tracy | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 4:46 pm | #

Why do so many people think that 19th century technology will solve 21st century problems?

Well said Tracy.

As I said a few weeks ago, "build more roads"
Larry | 02.22.06 - 4:56 pm | #

Harold I never meant to imply that there would be no development along the line, quite the opposite. There will be development, and prices will rise as a result. The nature of a subsidised stuff is that people will move there so they can get free shit. In this case almost free transportaion paid for by me. Meanwhile what I and 99% of the rest of the commuters use gets neglected because the rail line eats up the funds.
sequel | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 5:04 pm | #

Some sources....

$17 million per lane mile [is] not an unreasonable price for urban freeway construction in Minnesota

http://www.stride-mn.org/ newspap...st20billion.htm


A typical urban freeway costs about $5 million to $10 million per lane-mile, or $20 million to $40 million per mile of four-lane road.

http://reason.com/9901/ fe.ro.den...ethinkers.shtml

LRT in the Hiawatha corridor: 11 miles for roughly $50 million per mile in long-term investment (includes planning, construction, stations and the trains.) Infrastructure lasts 60 to 75 years vs. a highway's 25

Interstate Hwy. 394 between Minneapolis and Wayzata: $500 million (adjusted for year 2000 dollars) for about 10 miles of highway considered congested at peak travel times within months of completion.

http://www.commondreams.org/view.../032300- 101.htm
Harold | Homepage | 02.22.06 - 7:05 pm | #

I may rue this day, but Harold's right. Rail is cost-comparable, and also tends to have an attractive tendency to renew property values along its line. It also takes up much less room than a freeway, and lasts much longer. I would be tickled pink if MSP had more rail around here... I absolutely hate fucking traffic.

What a strange libertarian I've become...
Sean | 02.22.06 - 9:37 pm | #

Tracy mentioned Boston as a city where light rail is heavily used. Boston is densely populated, but I think another factor that makes light rail appropriate for that city is the massive population of students. They often have no cars, and depend on light rail for everything. They might make multiple trips per day due to a broken up class schedule. Moreover, students usually have routine transportation needs, and often only have to make special trips here or there for recreational purposes.

These are just a couple factors that make light rail a good choice for Boston.

As far as Minneapolis goes, I'm open to the idea of a light rail system. But we're not a very densely populated city...so a light rail might be cost comparable, but under-used by the population. The idea that light rail will increase development along its lines only makes sense if our city's growth trend is toward denser development. What if companies continue to build in outlying areas because it's cheaper for them? In that case, business growth will not occur around the light rail, but the opposite, which will make the light rail less likely to be used.

It's also unlikely that most city resident will ever give up their car entirely, for the same reason...the city is not densely populated.

I guess my biggest concern is that the liberal leadership of the city is heady about the idea of mass transit and will throw money at any project, regardless.
Spectator | 02.23.06 - 8:15 am | #

Then let's build a rail system that exclusively sends FedEx packages, cargo for Marshall Fields, Target, and all sorts of places.
Badda-Blogger | Homepage | 02.23.06 - 8:30 am | #

Roads obviously can't be -ignored- altogether, because as it's been pointed out, they serve more of a purpose than simply carting a cargo of people from place to place.

However, I -do- live along the Hiawatha line (near 38th st) and the light rail is absolutely -great-. I don't work downtown but am now kind of wishing I did. I still have my car and even if I did ride to work on the LR, I'd still want/need it. However, if there was a decent light rail system in place over most of the city, I think a lot of households could go from being 2-car to 1-car.

The other thing to mention is that traffic is getting worse here at a faster rate than it is anywhere else in the country. Sure, there's worse gridlock in other cities... but it's been that way, and it's staying that way. I think in the next 5-10 years, with oil prices not falling and traffic getting much worse, you're going to see a greater population pining for a more thorough and efficient public transportation system. Yes, it does require a cultural change and a move away from the "freedom" norm that led us (TC residents) to permit the systematic removal of rail infrastructure in the 50's and 60's, but I think the coming oil and financial climate will be a pretty good motivator of cultural change.

(or else do what I do and ride a bike to work 2x a week)
andy | Homepage | 02.24.06 - 7:47 am | #

I forgot to make my point - maintain existing roads but divert most of the earmarked money for "new" projects into mass transit and light rail rather than new superhighways.
andy | Homepage | 02.24.06 - 7:49 am | #