Comments on: Tax First Ask Questions Later http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/ A Stream of Consciousness by Andy Aplikowski on His Life, His Politics, His Dogs, His Truck, and Whatever Pleases His Fancy Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:50:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: montanaliberal http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39179 montanaliberal Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:26:45 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39179 basically people like myself don't want them to just quickly throw up a replacement bridge that's gonna last another 40 years either, regardless of what options it has on it. sure i want it up by the end of '08, but i'd rather they not skimp either, look where that got us (not a political jab either, it's the truth) basically people like myself don’t want them to just quickly throw up a replacement bridge that’s gonna last another 40 years either, regardless of what options it has on it.

sure i want it up by the end of ‘08, but i’d rather they not skimp either, look where that got us (not a political jab either, it’s the truth)

]]> By: montanaliberal http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39178 montanaliberal Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:25:14 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39178 i didn't say it should, but building the bridge to SUPPORT LRT options in the future won't cost much at all, certainly when you consider how much it'd cost to retrofit a solution later. i'm for 2 lanes of BRT too, but that doesn't even seem to be on the table at this point... also, i'm gonna be pretty bummed if they at least don't build a pedestrian lane on both sides. that would take up virtually nothing in terms of space and cost. i didn’t say it should, but building the bridge to SUPPORT LRT options in the future won’t cost much at all, certainly when you consider how much it’d cost to retrofit a solution later.

i’m for 2 lanes of BRT too, but that doesn’t even seem to be on the table at this point…

also, i’m gonna be pretty bummed if they at least don’t build a pedestrian lane on both sides. that would take up virtually nothing in terms of space and cost.

]]> By: Andy http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39175 Andy Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:45:07 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39175 If we had millions and millions of people who headed into a fixed or centralized point (like EVERYONE worked in downtown Minneapolis) then mixed mass transit would make sense. BUT Since we have a population that lives in all corners of the Metro and outlying areas, and works in all corners of the Metro area, having a train that goes from point A to point B makes no sense..... unless of course we're trying to dictate how and where people live. Due to our split urban cores, we have a split economic engine, and huge suburbs that employ lots and lots of people. There are other bridges over the Mississippi. there will be more built. Why 'up' build the 35W bridge, when there is no space for it to output north and south of it on a whim? The 35W corridor north and south is crammed in, and I happen to know of a few die hard liberals who wretch at the idea of taking more space along that part of 'their' city. Are you saying we could make it a subway heading up? Or are you talking about an "L" style train? OK, if you are, what about all the bridge crossings of 35W on the north and south sides..... Are we going to build a super sky train that towers over all these? If regional planning via rail is the motive, Highway 65 is your key. Not that I am advocating. Oh and as for your little 'he's never been anywhere so he is too stupid to know how to ...' meme. We have unique transportation needs that can't be solved by mimicking what other cities have done. We can't wait for the social engineers to figure out how to deal with us NE sprawlers. The entire Twin Cities is suffering from this bridge being down. "bridges in America don't just fall down" I'd add to that, why they heck are we dragging our feet in rebuilding the dang thing? The only real and sensible way to provide mass transit in the twin Cities are busses. But nope, the MTC and Met Council folks make it harder to commute on busses. Oh and as for your under idea, that means the 35W highway bridge would need to be built higher, as you have road and rail lines that pass underneath it. If you want the option to put LRT to the North, why don't you figure out the details on where the train needs to run, then propose a real plan for doing it. Just because you, the civil engineer says it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. If we had millions and millions of people who headed into a fixed or centralized point (like EVERYONE worked in downtown Minneapolis) then mixed mass transit would make sense. BUT

Since we have a population that lives in all corners of the Metro and outlying areas, and works in all corners of the Metro area, having a train that goes from point A to point B makes no sense….. unless of course we’re trying to dictate how and where people live.

Due to our split urban cores, we have a split economic engine, and huge suburbs that employ lots and lots of people.

There are other bridges over the Mississippi. there will be more built. Why ‘up’ build the 35W bridge, when there is no space for it to output north and south of it on a whim? The 35W corridor north and south is crammed in, and I happen to know of a few die hard liberals who wretch at the idea of taking more space along that part of ‘their’ city.

Are you saying we could make it a subway heading up? Or are you talking about an “L” style train? OK, if you are, what about all the bridge crossings of 35W on the north and south sides…..

Are we going to build a super sky train that towers over all these?

If regional planning via rail is the motive, Highway 65 is your key. Not that I am advocating.

Oh and as for your little ‘he’s never been anywhere so he is too stupid to know how to …’ meme. We have unique transportation needs that can’t be solved by mimicking what other cities have done.

We can’t wait for the social engineers to figure out how to deal with us NE sprawlers. The entire Twin Cities is suffering from this bridge being down.

“bridges in America don’t just fall down” I’d add to that, why they heck are we dragging our feet in rebuilding the dang thing?

The only real and sensible way to provide mass transit in the twin Cities are busses. But nope, the MTC and Met Council folks make it harder to commute on busses.

Oh and as for your under idea, that means the 35W highway bridge would need to be built higher, as you have road and rail lines that pass underneath it.

If you want the option to put LRT to the North, why don’t you figure out the details on where the train needs to run, then propose a real plan for doing it.

Just because you, the civil engineer says it can be done, doesn’t mean it should be done.

]]> By: Wendy http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39173 Wendy Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:20:01 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39173 Or, you could just run BRT in an HOV lane with NO extra cost, and NO costly rails to be installed. Or, you could just run BRT in an HOV lane with NO extra cost, and NO costly rails to be installed.

]]> By: montanaliberal http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39169 montanaliberal Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:53:38 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39169 but my point still stands... build it underneath. as a civil engineer myself, the design has been used 100's of times succesfully and is actually more stable than those bridges which run rail alongside traffic. but my point still stands…

build it underneath. as a civil engineer myself, the design has been used 100’s of times succesfully and is actually more stable than those bridges which run rail alongside traffic.

]]> By: montanaliberal http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39168 montanaliberal Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:52:52 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39168 actually i might be thinking of the Williamsburg bridge, the Manhattan might run them alongside traffic.... actually i might be thinking of the Williamsburg bridge, the Manhattan might run them alongside traffic….

]]> By: montanaliberal http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39167 montanaliberal Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:49:03 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/2007/08/19/tax-first-ask-questions-later/#comment-39167 "And as I noticed last night on my way home from the Twins game. there’s no room for a light rail option. Where would it go? There’s already NO extra room where the 4 lanes north and south of the river go. And the new bridge is planned to have 5 lanes each way…. so where do the social engineers plan to run the never before dreamt light rail?" hey Andy, ever been to NYC? ever ridden the Subway into downtown... say over the Manhattan bridge... ever notice where the train goes over that bridge? ever driven the Bay Bridge in San Francisco? *shakes head* “And as I noticed last night on my way home from the Twins game. there’s no room for a light rail option. Where would it go? There’s already NO extra room where the 4 lanes north and south of the river go. And the new bridge is planned to have 5 lanes each way…. so where do the social engineers plan to run the never before dreamt light rail?”

hey Andy, ever been to NYC?

ever ridden the Subway into downtown… say over the Manhattan bridge… ever notice where the train goes over that bridge?

ever driven the Bay Bridge in San Francisco?

*shakes head*

]]>