Bonding Roads is Right Direction (Or: College Student Understands the Truth behind "Smart Growth")

The Daily’s Nov. 25 story about the Hiawatha light rail corridor development problems, “Light rail’s imminent arrival spurs neighborhood concerns,” shows the purpose of the light rail system is not cleaner, more efficient transportation. Instead, the goal is “smart growth” designed to control our lives.

The Metropolitan Council is deeply concerned over the lack of dense population along the Hiawatha corridor line. Its worries are needless because if its proposed rail system actually works, development will naturally occur. A stereotypical young adult who works in Minneapolis and likes living in a packed urban center would move into such an area.

But the members of the Metropolitan Council are trying to force everyone to live like that. They hate urban sprawl; their cronies want us to all live like sardines in huge skyscrapers along their light rail lines.

Minnesota is facing a $4.5 billion deficit caused by a decade of spending that has nearly doubled our state’s budget. To create its wonder world, the council is pushing an inefficient and costly light rail system that will further choke our state economy and ruin the chance of actually having an efficient rail system.

The only way to increase our state’s budget is to increase production output, creating additional tax revenues. Besides lowering taxes and cutting spending, the quickest method of improving our economy will be to increase state commerce through faster in-state transport of goods and services.

Right now, our groceries sit rotting on Interstate 35. Work hours are lost to increasing commutes. Rather than shopping on my way home, I skip it to beat rush hour. But when is rush hour on Interstate 494, anyway?

Because of traffic congestion, employees are limited in job choice, diminishing comparative advantage. It is not just problematic for Minneapolis workers but also those who work in the suburbs where most of the economic growth will take place.

Our highway money spent on road construction ranks 49th in the nation because we spend it on everything but roads. Traffic volume has increased by 33 percent in the last decade, while road capacity has only increased by 2 percent. Meanwhile, transportation funding has doubled.

In 2002, less than one-third of the motor vehicle sales taxes were earmarked for the road budget. In the next 10 years, $4.5 billion in car taxes will be transferred into transit and the general fund.

Minnesota families pay the fourth-highest state taxes in the nation, on average annually dishing out $16,000 in taxes. But if we want more roads, we are told we must pay the additional proposed 5 cent gas tax the Minnesota Department of Finance estimates would only result in an additional $180 million a year.

The Metropolitan Council’s mass transit plan will not work either. By the time we would actually get enough legs in the right places, our economy will be far behind and we will have a bill we can never pay.

Mass transit, especially light rail, is inefficient and cost prohibitive. More than $675 million is being spent for a small line in Minneapolis that will transport an estimated 24,000 people. For $848 million in increased road capacity, 500,000 daily people would benefit.

Approximately $1.29 in taxes will be spent on each light rail passenger per mile traveled, but even commuter rail costs less at 33 cents per mile traveled, and roads actually bring a profit of 2 cents, according to National Transit Profiles 2000. Roads profit because of increased commerce.

Immediately bonding a few billion dollars for roads will be the fastest and most effective measure to quickly increase state revenue and expand the metropolitan area. It is similar to a loan for a house or college education, which is an investment that pays off. Without it, saving ahead of time for the purchase does not work. New taxpayers and increased revenue will pay for the bonded roads. Schools and cities do the same thing when they bond for schools and other projects.

Building roads to keep up — or shall I say catch up — with population increases will create tax surpluses. Only when our economy rebounds and we regain state surpluses will we have the resources to invest in more costly but environmentally friendly mass transit. And then we should build commuter rail in places that people will actually use it. Not this more expensive light rail, a new, untried technology that is impossible to move with changing population patterns.

By putting moratoriums on road construction, the Metropolitan Council has helped create this congestion problem. Instead of keeping up with transportation needs, the government has created the congestion mess to force us to believe that light rail and “smart growth” are our only ways out.

The Metropolitan Council’s social engineering plans will drown our economy. Without immediately adding road capacity, our metropolitan area will not grow, and the council’s dreams of a web haven of rail will never occur.

Shannon Fiecke is University senior majoring in journalism. Send letters to the editor to letters@mndaily.com

Instead, the goal is “smart growth” designed to control our lives.

The only way to increase our state’s budget is to increase production output, creating additional tax revenues. Besides lowering taxes and cutting spending, the quickest method of improving our economy will be to increase state commerce through faster in-state transport of goods and services.

She gets it!

We can apply a little free-marketness to the problem of road congestion by charging tolls based on the time of day the road is used. During Rush Hour its a certain amount. Other times there's no charge. Maybe split up the rush hour into two different charging periods.
That way the people that use the road when it is over capacity pay for its use. The people that decide to change their schedules, or don't have to be at work at 9AM save money.
Right now everyone sees road use as free and with no cost, except for their time. So everyone's on the road between 8 and 9AM leading to traffic jams.
Plus charging for peak time use makes you less dependant on gas taxes, which charge everyone no matter if you're adding to congestion.

I just had oral surgery yesterday, so I thought I would sign up for some more pain.

Building more roads only makes the problems worse.

There, I said it. I am a native Western Washingtonian (Bremerton) and I remember how the 6th Avenue bypass in Tacoma was going to relieve all that congestion on the Narrows Bridge. I think we had to wait 2 minutes in traffic during rush hour. Years later, we have a direct connect from the Narrows Bridge to I-5, and the problem is infinitely worse.

So, what did we do? We voted in another bridge. If one bridge has a lot of traffic, two must be even better. Now, we are going to sit in two bridges worth of traffic, as the Kitsap Peninsula fills up with yuppie ghettos. All those Californians need a place to go after they destroyed the Golden State, so we will build more roads, more 1/4 acre yuppie hell holes, more cars, more strip malls, more taxes, more government, more pollution, and more politicians promoting more roads to fix the problem.

If I am sitting in two lanes of traffic, do I want to sit in 4 lanes of traffic?

Progress is not always good

"Progress is not always good"

The "Smart Growth" concept is never good. Our biggest problem is the Growth Management Act and the policies associated with the legislation.

For the past 20-30 years there hasn't been enough lane construction to keep up with the need. The lanes that have been constructed were not designed to be user friendly. The WSDOT and WSTC, especially the WSTC, wanted it that way so they could extract more cash from us serfs for failed public transportation fiefdoms.

I'm not a fan of the second Narrows Bridge, it's in the wrong place. The bridge should have been built from Olalla to Vashon to West Seattle. I sat on my hands during Sen. Oke's re-election because of his influence over this bad project.

I don't think we'll see the Pennisula become a yuppie hellhole, where the hell would they work? The GMA will not allow industry in the rural areas.

I have to disagree. There should not be any other bridge connecting Kitsap to King County. Roads = more houses = more people = more government.

You could build an 8 lane floating bridge that extended I-90 across Puget Sound, up Bainbridge Island, across Hood Canal and all the way to Port Angeles. The only thing you would do is to develop every square meter of land and make it look like Manhattan or the SF bay area. Traffic would be horrendous, and we would want another floating bridge to connect Kingston with North Seattle, and on and on and on.

Eventually, the Puget Sound would look like NYC. Is that what we want?

The problem is not too few roads. It's too many people.

Instead of keeping up with transportation needs, the government has created the congestion mess

That's the truth. They don't know at all what they are doing. No more towns, no more communities, local roads become arterials, no place to walk to - got to drive, got to have a car - 14 trips per day.

If I understand you correctly, you are asking how do we keep people out. Correct?

The only reason people move out to the country is because it has become easier for them to commute to the city. If you had to drive on a two lane road from Seattle out to Issaquah, few would make the drive. If you have 5 lanes in each direction on a limited access interstate freeway, many will move to Issaquah. They will build their McMansions, dry cleaners, Taco Time, Isuzu dealership, and all the trimmings. Soon, someone moves further out to get away from it all. The road follows, as do another 10,000 yuppies. The cycle keeps repeating until you run out of land (NYC, SF, LA)

Quit building the roads, and people will not want to sit in 2 hours of traffic to get to their job. Fewer jobs, fewer people, less government, more freedom...

You speak as if there's an unlimited urban space to accommodate the population and the workplace. That's not the case.

Limited supply = high costs. Most people don't want to live in a 800 square foot high rise apartment next to their place of work. Not to mention living like this is antithesis to the American Dream.

Restricting land use requires more government, and more restrictions on our liberties.

Very true. I lived in Honolulu and that is what you have. Building more roads only will attract more people. The end result is a city that looks like NYC, and that's a lot of government.

I never said restrict land use. All I said was building more roads only worsens the condition of urban blight and congestion.

We build the roads with gasoline taxes -- so build mass-transit with gasoline taxes.

I've tried to consider the free-market proposal to charge higher peak-hour tolls on expressways but that would mean that I've paid to build the road through my taxes, and now I'll pay to use the road through tolls. Doesn't sit right with me.

Let's build the rail system and make if free to ride the train. It's simply there, just like the road. Another way of getting to work.

To make things fair for the gasoline taxpayer, perhaps we could allow registered vehicle owners free fares, while those who don't own an insured and licensed car would pay.

Use your car if you have errands to run or if the train schedule's inconvenient -- use the train if it works for you.

Once we established the custom of building roads in common, then I think we also did away with any idea that getting from here to there is a completely independent and free market issue.

We could privatize road-building (wouldn't bother me).
I think that would be a good idea -- in a city that hasn't been built up yet. In most major cities you couldn't buy up all that real estate to lay road. For better or for worse emminent domain has its advantages during construction.

How bout that two other Western WA people on here. I agree with the point that building more roads just equals more traffic equals more roads and so on. That's why I'm keen on the idea of time tiered tolls on I5, 520, 405, and I90 near Seattle. Charge enough to reduce traffic to make it flow easier. Perhaps no tolls for HOV people.
Another aspect of the traffic in Seattle is the total lack of infrastructure to cope with blips like accidents. I5 pretty much shuts down if you have a wreck. And various agencies (Qwest, installing traffic lights, widening the sidewalk, building construction) think *nothing* about shutting down a lane. Hey it doesn't cost them a thing. Meanwhile another 10 minutes has been added to my commute.

Making the roads more efficient only allows more development and more people. Eventually, the roads will fill up at all times on the clock, rather than just rush hour. Political pressure will be brought to build more roads to allieviate the congestion, and we are back at square one.

Bottom line...more roads = more development = more houses = more people = more cars = more congestion = more demand for roads.

More people always creates more need for government and higher taxes.

When I was a kid, I-5 was virtually vacant during rush hour. Washington didn't experience a baby boom, but they did get lots of Californians and Cambodians to come in and snap up all the new homes built off the new roads.

So, what are we building new roads for? Answer: so we can have even more Californians leave the state they screwed up to come up and screw up Washington.

The only thing you ensure when you expand a two lane road to a four lane road is that within a few years you will be sitting in four lanes of traffic.

Face it, the population is increasing just about everywhere anyone would want to live. If those folks want to live somewhere and are willing to pay the taxes to build the roads, I don't really understand the problem. They should have the freedom to live where they want and work where they want and spend the time on the road between the two if they want. I'm sorry that you find yourself inconvenienced, but you should also have the freedom to move closer to work or take a job closer to home to cut your commute time.

Is it really a solution to the traffic problem to pretend it does not exist and to refuse to build roads? I suspect that increasing the number of lanes available really doesn't cause more cars to magically appear.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.