The June 6 article "Looking for a traffic scapegoat?" conveys a view from Randal O'Toole and the Center of the American Experiment on the cause of traffic congestion that is partly correct. O'Toole's report "Twin Cities Traffic Congestion: It's No Accident" makes a strong but narrow case that the only way out of traffic congestion is to build more roads and more lanes of freeways. The article goes on to state that money spent on "trains and bike paths that will never carry more than a fraction of commuters" reflects a policy that "must change."
Maybe. But while simply stated solutions to complex problems are enticing, they are seldom sufficient and workable. This is one of those cases. Yes, we need more roads, bridges and traffic lanes in the years ahead; this is especially true here where our demographers tell us that about 800,000 more residents are likely to live in the next 30 years or so. But O'Toole's solution would have everyone become car-dependent. Can everyone own and safely operate a car? No. Should they? No. Must they? No. Will driverless cars be our utopia? Probably not.
A cars-only approach is increasingly not a sole viable solution. Transit and transportation alternatives are also needed in a healthy metropolitan area in addition to, not in place of, more and better highway driving options. My conclusion is, yes, add to our roads, but also provide robust transit and other getting-around alternatives. The Metropolitan Council is right to think now about adding transit lines of various sorts, and not wait decades until the problem becomes even more difficult. Transit is needed to give people options for getting around, not only to help alleviate congestion.
David Lingo, New Hope
• • •
Please connect the dots, Hennepin and Ramsey County commuters and taxpayers: More big taxation is coming soon, as documented June 7 in the Star Tribune ("Hennepin, Ramsey counties mull tax increase for transit"). If you commute to your job by car, or use a car to get to school during rush hour, the following costs are coming your way to support the expansion of the light-rail system and bus routes to the tune of $1.275 billion ($906 million in the first installment, an additional $294 million in mass transit expansion, and mass transit operating costs deficits of $74.8 million)! This information needs to be considered in light of the Center of the American Experiment report on the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Met Council. The proposed increase in transit sales taxes is from a quarter-cent to a half-cent — true enough. However, it is also a $1.275 billion tax hike.
Questions: Did you vote for anybody at MnDOT or the Met Council? Did you directly vote to pass any bonding or tax increase bills to build the current or future light-rail lines? Did you enjoy your commute this morning? Each county will vote on the increases on Tuesday. I suggest you let your county representatives know of your preference. (Go to http://www.hennepin.us/your-government or https://www.ramseycounty.us/your-government/leadership/board-commissioners and click on "Find Your Commissioner.") Or just sit in traffic. It's up to you.
Dennis Sellke, Minnetonka
• • •
I thank Randal O'Toole for his bravery in going against the Met Council and MnDOT. I've been a business owner for more than 20 years and have watched the Met Council make rules without oversight. It has been shoving the light rail to Eden Prairie down our throats. Now that the state Republicans have rejected the transit funding, and it looks like federal funding will not be coming through, there is an attempt to get state and county money to make up for the lack of funding. I am not against light rail, but am against it going to Eden Prairie, which does not have enough businesses to support minimum-wage workers coming from Minneapolis. We need to pay attention to the report that O'Toole authored. We are throwing good money after bad, and continue to do so. We have to stop the madness.
Nancy Newcomb, Edina
• • •
Center of the American Experiment President John Hinderaker's June 9 commentary "The sad truth behind our congested mess" was completely undercut by his outright lie about past transportation funding. He said, "We know that when Gov. Tim Pawlenty boosted funding in 2004 … ." That's pure horse pucky. Pawlenty took the Grover Norquist pledge of "no new taxes" and vetoed several transportation bills. Courageous Republican legislators joined with DFLers and passed one with veto-proof numbers, because our roads were so starved for funds that even the Chamber of Commerce supported an increase in the gas tax. (Some of those brave legislators lost their next election.)
So don't give Pawlenty any credit for doing the right thing. He had Potomac fever, and we paid the price — in fact, we're still paying it, with roads that have never caught up with demand. We can't build our way out of this, except with transit. And don't fall for Hinderaker calling them "trains" instead of "transit." Light rail bears little resemblance to the traditional trains that carry our freight and a few passengers. Let's have a little more respect for the truth in the public forum of the Star Tribune's opinion pages.
Mary McLeod, St. Paul
• • •
I recently visited a friend in Dallas and gained a new perspective on the arguments regarding light-rail updates. When I arrived at my friend's home, I realized that the light rail had a stop right outside, and I was excited to be able to get myself around the city for cheap and with very little hassle. It was easy to look up a map and prices online, and to compare the stops to the location of sights I was considering visiting. It was much more comfortable taking the train and walking rather than using buses once I arrived in downtown Dallas. Finding the stop and fumbling with an unfamiliar ticket system in front of a bus full of people felt very intimidating, even though I consider myself comfortable with public transportation and have been riding the buses in Minneapolis alone since elementary school.
I imagine that people who have little to no experience with public transportation would feel a lot better with trains, given the fixed station locations and the time available to figure out the ticketing machines and look over maps at the station. This goes doubly for people from other states or countries. Our state's economy is highly regarded for the number of Fortune 500 companies that have chosen to locate here and, given globalization, we ought to make ourselves hospitable to out-of-towners if we want to continue to be a magnet for multinational corporations. Rapid bus transit may be cheaper to set up in the beginning, but fixed infrastructure attracts more riders and makes our cities more appealing.
Hannah Miller, Minneapolis
• • •
Regarding the transportation mess in the Twin Cities: Most states do not allow heavy vehicles and/or vehicles with more than four tires in the left lanes; they restrict them to the right-most lane. By doing the same thing here, we could also help speed up rush-hour traffic. You do see a lot of slow-moving trucks in the left lanes here, and this slows traffic. I am sure most commuters would be able to save considerable commute time if we restricted slow-moving traffic to the right-most lane.
