Bob's "Transit Revolution"
- There are 24 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
Posts with files From File Date Bob Carney Jr. 3:06pm, May 22 Bob Carney Jr. 10:30am, Jun 09 Bob Carney Jr. 7:01pm, Jun 21 Bob Carney Jr. 8:46pm, Aug 18
- Latest post made by Bill Kahn at 6:43pm, Aug 19
From: Bob Carney Jr. Date: 3:06pm, May 22
A quick up-front note -- there is Midtown Transit Alternatives open house tomorrow – I’ll be there, and will pass out info on my own proposal -- along with Carol's suggestion in the Longfellow forum. The open house is: Thurs, May 23, 6-8 p.m. Whittier Clinic 2810 Nicollet Avenue S., Minneapolis
------------------- My main plank in my Mayoral campaign is what I call a "Transit Revolution" -- consequently, I'm starting a thread on this, which I personally plan to add to as my proposal is rolled out in phases. Of course I'm very interested in what people and organizations think about it. Here’s what the Farmer Labor Alliance recently published in Southside Pride – as part of their assessment of Mayoral candidates: “Bob Carney Jr. is a center-right independent who is also an Occupy activist. He virtually defines himself as single-issue (the Transportation Revolution, which we found to be brilliant) and yet has surprisingly broad vision in his answers. He came fourth out of nine with a C+ grade. As an Occupy activist, some of his replies to questions on the foreclosure crisis and homelessness were in step with the FLA!” My most recently updated two page info sheet on phase one of my Transit Revolution is attached (both .pdf and .docx). Here’s the basic idea: From 7 AM to 10 PM seven days a week, provide 5 minute service on all Minneapolis city bus routes by supplementing (not replacing) bus service with 15 passenger vans between the busses. You won’t wait for more than five minutes for a bus or a van on your route. Of course, you don’t have to worry about missed transfers and a wait of up to half an hour. There are five phases to my proposed Transit Revolution. I’m working on patents for some of them, and won’t roll them out until they are filed. However, regarding Lake Street, I can tell you this. I have driven it, and as Carol Becker notes, the congestion is awful. One of the phases of my Transit Revolution includes elevated lanes above streets like Lake Street, which can accommodate both 15 passenger vans and bikes. They will be linked to ground level with elevators, not ramps. This is an expansion of the Sky-Bi plan I introduced during my 2009 Mayoral campaign. The system will quickly become electric – specialty electric vehicles can and will be developed -- but we can start with internal combustion vans. I’ll have this part of the plan rolled out in the next two months, and I’ll be pushing for the MTC to consider it as an additional option. Note regarding the FLA article – I am a Republican – although I will state on the ballot a political principle rather than “Republican” – which the City has ruled cannot be combined with any other words as part of a political principle. If I get three words I’m gonna use ‘em! Bob Carney Jr. “candidate-journalist” and candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis East Lake Harriet Farmstead
The following files were added to this topic:
From: Bob Carney Jr. Date: 10:30am, Jun 09
I was late in contacting the sponsors of the June 6th Mayoral Forum at Sabathini, but they did let me speak at the beginning on my Transit Revolution, and told me I’d be included in their future forums. A link to the Uptake video (it starts with my 90 second speech,) and a transcript, are at the end of this post. The candidates at the June 6th Sabathini Forum have been asked to provide written answers that will be posted to questions that weren’t asked at the forum. I’ll be providing those answers. We’ve heard a lot about education and the achievement gap in the current campaign. I respectfully submit that the issue of transportation has at least an equal if not a greater impact on the opportunities and life prospects of the poor, and more generally of minority and immigrant communities in Minneapolis. Simply put: the need for a high quality, affordable METRO WIDE transit system is one of the biggest equity and social justice issues we face as a society. We don’t have this today – outside of rush hour the service beyond the city street routes in Minneapolis and Saint Paul is woefully inadequate. Here are two paragraphs on transportation costs (EMPHASIS ADDED) – from smartgrowthamerica.org “Transportation is the second largest expense for American households, costing more than food, clothing, and health care. Even before the recent run-up in gasoline prices, Americans spent an average of 18 cents of every dollar on transportation, WITH THE POOREST FIFTH OF FAMILIES SPENDING MORE THAN DOUBLE THAT FIGURE. The vast majority of this money, nearly 98 percent, is for the purchase, operation, and maintenance of automobiles. Drivers spent $186 billion on fuel last year, and without improvements to fuel economy, Americans will spend an estimated $260 billion in 2020 on gasoline.” “This high cost is unavoidable for those who live in sprawling areas that lack sidewalks, bike lanes, and convenient public transit. Incomplete streets leave many commuters with no alternatives. Families living in auto-reliant environments, such as Houston, spend an even larger percentage of their household income on transportation, about 20 percent. In communities with more transportation options, costs are as low as 14 percent.“ A 2006 study published by Harvard titled: WHY DO THE POOR LIVE IN CITIES? -- THE ROLE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION identifies public transportation systems as the single most important determinate in segregating poor people into urban cores. Here’s the conclusion of that article: “None of this is meant to suggest that transport mode explains everything. First, the housing market surely matters. The centralization of older housing and in particular apartment buildings in central cities certainly helps explain the centralization of poverty (as in Brueckner and Rosenthal ). Any initial tendency of the poor to centralize which is the result of housing and transportation has surely been exacerbated by the social and political consequences of poverty. The marginal well-to-do suburbanite assuredly thinks more about school and crime than driving. We do not mean to minimize these forces, but rather suggest that these are, in many cases, outcomes that reflect an initial tendency of the poor to locate in central cities, and we join LeRoy and Sonstelie  in thinking that public transportation plays a major role in initializing this process.“ “The ability of different transportation modes to explain the urban concentration of poverty was surprising to us. But perhaps it shouldn’t have been such a surprise. After all, cities arise from the desire to eliminate transport costs for goods, people and ideas. From this point of view, it follows naturally that transport technologies will determine the structure of cities.” I’ve attached three two page information sheets – on the first three phases of my Transit Revolution. I expect to have an introductory video up on this on youtube – my channel is transitrevolution – by early next week. Here’s the link to the Uptake video – it starts with my 90 second speech. http://www.theuptake.org/2013/06/06/minneapolis-mayoral-candidates-address-race-issues/ Here’s the transcript: “Hi, thanks everybody, welcome… microphone works. I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak here. I’m Bob Carney Jr., running for Mayor. I started a political career after getting hit hard by the economic meltdown. In 2010 I ran against Emmer in the GOP primary – got about 10,000 votes. Last year I got about 17,000 votes in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate.” “I am promoting one issue in this campaign, and that is what I call a Transit Revolution. The goal is to make a dramatic step forward in our transit system in the Twin Cities, and also to start a business that will be a world wide business.” “Phase One is five minute bus service on all Minneapolis bus routes by running vans – 15 passenger vans – between the busses – so you don’t wait more than five minutes for either a van or a bus on any city bus route. Phase Two is going to be expanded by adding trailers and also Neighborhood Taxis, so that you can go to and from a Transit stop using a taxi. Phase Three is going to be a system of being able to use the freeways – to have five minute service on all the freeways.” “You may wonder – well how do you transfer at a cloverleaf? Well I’ve got a plan for doing that… I’m filing a patent on that. “ “This is what I’m going to be promoting. I’ve been campaigning downtown – telling people about it at bus stops – they love it, and I think you’ll love it too. It’s going to be on Facebook at Transitrevolution, Twitter is Transitrev, the web site is Transitrevolution.com.” “Thank you.” Bob Carney Jr., “candidate-journalist”; Candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis East Lake Harriet Farmstead
The following files were added to this topic:
From: Connie Sullivan Date: 3:08pm, Jun 09
At 10:31 PM +1200 6/9/13, Bob Carney Jr. wrote: >"We've heard a lot about education and the achievement gap in the >current campaign." Not meaning to avoid Bob's emphasis on transit, I want to emphasize one point: that those mayoral candidates who, in forums and debates and campaign literature, keep going on and on about the school district and education are playing to the emotions of an ignorant crowd. Ignorant about what our mayor does. If questioners bring up the learning gap, they're plants or just uninformed. The mayor has only a bully pulpit on schools, like the one our lame duck R. T. was trying to use last week in an email to supporters about how earnestly he wishes we could eliminate the learning gap in Minneapolis (he sent his kids to private schools). You can say you want cooperation and collaboration and dialog and shared commitment with the school district, blah, blah, blah. But only the School Board and the District's administration, and maybe pushy parents, can influence what happens in the schools. I wish teachers had more clout, but.... A mayor might be able to leverage some private money (i.e., ask business to fund the program) to provide summer jobs, maybe, but that doesn't have anything directly to do with learning in the pre-K-12 schools. The Mayor of Minneapolis does not appoint anyone connected with our schools, nor does she/he control budgets or curriculum. Being eloquent on the learning gap and proving that you care sure beats having to explain your views on the nuts and bolts of a mayor's job, though. That's where the rubber hits the road (pardon all the metaphors!), along with infrastructure questions (like those Charley Underwood has been emphasizing) and other labor force issues (like those Bob Carney is addressing). So somebody ought to make our many candidates for mayor talk about the job. Not what happens to be "selling" among Minneapolis voters ignorant of what the mayor actually does in our city. Any mayoral candidate who keeps reiterating fluffy, superficial, feel-good stuff about schools just doesn't want you to look at their positions on what's really important to the office they seek. Connie Sullivan Como, in East Minneapolis
From: Jim Mork Date: 8:32pm, Jun 09
Why are mayoral candidates spending a lot of time on transit or schools, neither of which are matters they decide? That really should be central issues for legislative candidates. What do council members and mayors decide? What is worth borrowing money for? How do we improve public safety? How do we maintain our necessary infrastructure in order not to let it deteriorate to a crisis condition? How can we have liveable neighborhoods? Those are things that our elected officials will be forced to confront and make rational decisions on. If you have candidates spending serious time on things they don't get to decide, then they probably don't want to verbally commit to deciding in the interest of residents when that conflicts with the interests of people who can favor their future careers out of office. I'm quite certain we have people running who want their options open. Voters need to zero in on that so they can cast their #1 vote for people who plan to make public service NOW their career choice. Jim Mork Cooper
From: Jack Ferman Date: 9:40pm, Jun 09
Jim has with efficiency and accuracy distilled the truth of most if not all mayoral candidates. Both the Strib and the SW Journal have published the results of reporter interviews. It would be well to formulate a battery of questions to pitch to those candidates, either before or after the convention, and certainly after candidate filings have ended. Sent from my iPad John Ferman Kingfield Neighborhood Minneapolis, MN Email in header On Jun 9, 2013, at 3:32 PM, "Jim Mork" <email obscured>> wrote: > Why are mayoral candidates spending a lot of time on transit or schools, neither of which are matters they decide? .... If you have candidates spending serious time on things they don't get to decide, then they probably don't want to verbally commit to deciding in the interest of residents when that conflicts with the interests of people who can favor their future careers out of office.
> Jim Mork >
From: Bob Carney Jr. Date: 12:04pm, Jun 10
Here’s my response to the general question of the Mayor’s role, in the context of Transit. First, we have a “Weak Mayor” system. What does that mean? To me, it means that using the “bully pulpit” is a big part of the Mayor’s job. The Mayor can and should influence and drive policy that is set by other groups and entities. There’s nothing wrong with doing that – including in the field of education. You can agree or disagree that having a Vikings stadium in downtown Minneapolis is a bad idea – but is there any question that Rybak drove that issue and has earned the credit or blame for making it happen? The 46th Street transit station on I-35 is another example of Mayoral leadership. Rybak had some leverage, and used it to demand that station be built. I think it will be an increasingly valuable element in our transit infrastructure. Regarding streetcars, in general I think they’re really a bad idea – the one possible exception would be using them on the greenway to bypass congestion on Lake Street. But regarding the City’s role, at an open house on options for the Lake Street corridor I talked with Peter Wagenius, Rybak’s Policy Director about the new funding – a form a tax increment financing – for putting Streetcars on Nicollet. He told me the City has been lobbying the legislature for this for a long time, and the funding can only be used for Streetcars on Nicollet Avenue. This is a mandate from the Legislature to do something specific regarding transportation infrastructure in the city. I would like to shift that money to my Transit Revolution plan. As you all know, the Minneapolis School Board is an elected board. However, because Metro Transit is a part of the Metropolitan Council, our city’s transit infrastructure and operation is effectively controlled by a non-elected entity. For this reason alone, I think the Mayor of Minneapolis is the elected official WE THE PEOPLE of Minneapolis should most logically and properly look to for leadership in advancing the transit agenda of Minneapolis. Let’s not forget that “the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is a core First Amendment right. In promoting my Transit Revolution I am working to organize WE THE PEOPLE of Minneapolis to petition the Government to address a grievance – a Transit system that is woefully inadequate. I’m putting this grievance on the ballot by putting myself on the ballot. If I’m elected Mayor, my election will be a de facto petition by WE THE PEOPLE of Minneapolis to do something about this grievance. Finally, let’s keep in mind the Mayor currently has a staff of eleven people. Of course I plan to work on the entire range of issues and responsibilities that come with the office. But I don’t intend to do any micromanaging outside of the area of Transit. Bob Carney Jr. “candidate-journalist”; Candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis East Lake Harriet Farmstead
From: Bob Carney Jr. Date: 6:55pm, Jun 11
I just posted the first video for my Transit Revolution -- produced separately from my Mayoral campaign, but related to it. Of course, I'm convinced what I'm doing is legal and constitutional. Over the next day or two, I'll be re-reading the Citizens United decision, which I assume many of you are not happy with. I'll plan on posting something on the relationship between that decision, and my decision to launch two separate but related initiatives, a political campaign, and a for profit business. Meanwhile, check out the video. Bob Carney Jr. "candidate-journalist"; Candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis East Lake Harriet Farmstead
From: Jim Mork Date: 7:32pm, Jun 11
Here's a link to an interesting article on transit in Minnpost. They say just build enough dense housing and transit happens almost automatically. The other way around doesn't necessarily work and can be quite expensive. http://alturl.com/o7jt7
From: Bob Carney Jr. Date: 7:01pm, Jun 21
This post is to attach the six page information handout I provided to the City Council on Tuesday, during the hearing on the Nicollet/Central streetcar line. Any comments on what I'm proposing in "Phase Now" are of course welcome -- either on or off list. Cam Winton sent me his letter to the Hennepin County Auditor on his theory that the TIF Statute requires the City to look back 18 months for permits on the five parcels, and set the starting values based on all permits issued. I'll be sending a letter to the Hennepin County Auditor responding to Winton's theory, and will post it here. Bob Carney Jr. "candidate-journalist"; Candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis East Lake Harriet Farmstead
The following file was added to this topic:
From: Karlie Cole Date: 9:25pm, Jun 21
Looks like a well-thought and do-able plan. Wonder if we could shoot for using renewable energy more in the vehicle choices? Seems it could be a good platform for electric vans and incorporating charging stations that could help build that infrastructure for everyone. Alternatively, at least hybrid fuel like some of the buses are now would be preferable. Karlie Cole
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Bob Carney Jr. <email obscured>> wrote: > -- Attachment links are at the end of this email -- > > > This post is to attach the six page information handout I provided to the > City Council on Tuesday, during the hearing on the Nicollet/Central > streetcar line. > > Any comments on what I'm proposing in "Phase Now" are of course welcome -- > either on or off list. > > Cam Winton sent me his letter to the Hennepin County Auditor on his theory > that the TIF Statute requires the City to look back 18 months for permits > on the five parcels, and set the starting values based on all permits > issued. I'll be sending a letter to the Hennepin County Auditor responding > to Winton's theory, and will post it here. > > Bob Carney Jr. > "candidate-journalist"; Candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis > East Lake Harriet Farmstead > * > * Attachment - File or photo with this post: > > Link: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/file/5qm5vmPybQvPD2oWOdpcTzc66jU-2SDC-2pK2Cr5 > Name: Transit Revolution -- phase now -- 6-18-13 ver.pdf Type/Size: > application/pdf, 670KB > > > Bob Carney Jr. > > About/contact Bob Carney Jr.: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rO7xMMGIDUY3TvnD17jWF > > View full topic or share: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6e7p6QsD3xucQPWxIzsHU5 > > * Welcome New Members - With outreach in full swing, we have many new > members. > > * How to Start New Topic - Email: <email obscured> > Or post via web help: http://e-democracy.org/howtopost > > * Want Less Email? Change to Daily Digest > Email: <email obscured> > In SUBJECT, only write: digest on > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Post: <email obscured> or "Reply-to-All" to comment. > Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no > quotes) > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: > http://OnlineGroups.Net > > 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules. > If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at > <email obscured> before continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. >
From: Bob Carney Jr. Date: 9:09pm, Jun 22
Thanks for the comment Karlie -- I'm all for going to electric vans and electric vehicles. One intent of my plan is to get some vehicle production going in Minnesota. My designs for trailers (phase two) include hybrid features -- the trailers will have electric power, and will recover energy lost by braking. One big issue at this point is cost. The vans are about $35,000 right now -- right off the showroom floor. Some modifications I have in mind will probably increase those costs. The main point is to get started -- the sooner we do this, the sooner economies of scale kick in. Jim -- I read the article you linked to on density and transit. Here are my main issues and concerns regarding what I see as the current "density approach"
-- I put the Nicollet/Central streetcar plan in that category. First, there is a tendency towards gentrification -- this drives up a lot of costs for poor people -- who already live in large percentages in areas of relatively high density, where transit is established. Second, and more generally -- when transit systems are limited in geographic scope -- poor and lower income people who have trouble affording cars are limited in the job market they can reach. Third, to achieve economies of scale, Transit must become a preferable alternative to large numbers of people who currently prefer cars. The goal must be to get a significant percent of all households to own either one less car, or no car. Obviously, that's a very ambitious goal. I don't see the "density approach" as moving in that direction. The Transit Revolution I'm laying out is designed to greatly expand transit options -- and to cut what I call the "Transit Time Tax" to five minutes or less waiting for a vehicle -- throughout the 494-694 beltway. Initially, the emphasis is on the West side of the Mississippi. One additional aspect I'm working follows from the greatly expanded geographic area where I propose to make 5 minute service is available. One of the main effects of current transit systems is to segregate the poor geographically. When you add in lower housing costs -- and much of this can be accomplished by relaxing regulations on the number of people living in houses -- the Transit Revolution is intended to reduce the geographic segregation of poor and low income people. Bob Carney Jr. "candidate-journalist"; candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis East Lake Harriet Farmstead
From: Jim Mork Date: 9:39pm, Jun 23
Bob. Please don’t run for mayor where all you can do is jack up Minneapolis taxes more. Run for the legislature and tell them that the STATE needs to jack up taxes to pay for your “revolution”. You seem determined to spend a lot more money with the only financing option being higher property or sales taxes. Minneapolis has had that kind of mayor for at least two decades. And we’re trying to get away from guys who have “neat ideas” that finally break down into “how we can spend more money, claim we’re helping the poor, and then put more straws on the camel’s back because we all KNOW the camel isn’t feeling any pain, right?”
From: Bob Carney Jr. Date: 2:40pm, Jun 24
Jim – this is in response to your recent post. I’m running for Mayor – like it or not – primarily because this is the best available way to put the Transit Revolution on the ballot. As a Republican, my chances of being elected to the Legislature in Minneapolis… let’s just say I’m pretty sure it’s illegal, or will be soon. But, I have good relationships with many in the leadership of both parties at the Legislature. My perception is that for the next decade, we may be heading for system where the second (even year) session of the Legislature becomes a “bonding and transit” session. The upcoming session will certainly be a transit session – the approach was “lights on” for this session, with the biggest exception being a significant amount to keep the Southwest Light Rail moving forward. You write: “You seem determined to spend a lot more money with the only financing option being higher property or sales taxes.” I’ve already provided quite a bit of preliminary information regarding costs and financing for the system I’m proposing. Going forward, I’ll be fleshing these out, and developing additional options. In addition to the property and sales tax sources you identify, I’m including variations on the Go card, including subsidies for card users. I’m also advocating viewingTransit as a utility. In Minneapolis, we are currently required to buy water and solid waste removal services. A Transit utility fee of $20/mo for adults, $10/mo for seniors, can go a long way towards covering the total cost of the Transit system I’m proposing. Transit rate payers will of course receive a Go Card, with the unlimited ride and stored value features to be determined. Whether I’m elected this year or not, I plan to be at the Legislature advocating for the Transit Revolution, and for a significant state role in paying for it over the first five years. However, as part of this, I believe I can show that when economies of scale have really kicked in, the primary users – people inside the 494-694 beltway – can and should be paying for most of the total cost, up to a range of 50% to 75%. People outside the beltway will benefit significantly, and should pay accordingly. Right now, here are some of the main parameters I’m working with. The U.S. average cost per vehicle hour for bus service is about $129. The plan I’m promoting has an average cost per vehicle hour in the range of about $40. Part of this comes from the extraordinarily high cost of busses compared to vans. Another part comes from the relatively lower total labor cost I’m advocating for drivers -- $18 per hour fully loaded, including benefits. What I have in mind is a system that will provide thousands of part time jobs, mostly for young people, and for people who want flexible schedules. My understanding is that the current top end for MTC drivers is about $27/hr, and of course all benefits are added on top of that. Here’s the bottom line: the Transit Revolution is a jobs program – and in today’s economy, $18/hr is good compensation. So… similar to what the auto companies did at one time, there will be a lower tier for Transit Revolution drivers that are driving city street routes, and not on freeways. I’m using $1/mi as the fully loaded total vehicle cost, including depreciation. This is significantly higher than the rate the IRS allows, about $.58 per mile. Maintenance will be outsourced, the vans will just be sent to local garages. Let’s help small businesses by certifying local shops to do the maintenance work. Here’s some additional data reality to mull over: The U.S. average vehicle cost per year for every man, woman and child is $2,746. The current MTC pass for unlimited rides at $1.75 is $59/mo, or $708/yr. Of course, the MTC budget includes about 1/3 from fares, and about 2/3 from “subsidies.” Don’t get me wrong: I’m IN FAVOR of the subsidies – the savings in less fuel burned per passenger mile, less pollution, less congestion more than offsets the subsidy amount. But having said that, if a way can be found to drastically lower the cost per vehicle hour, I’m strongly in favor of that, and I think I’ve found it. What I call the “Transit Time Tax” is the biggest piece of this puzzle. Below is a typical “Transit Time Tax” schedule – the data is from a Harvard study. The “Transit Time Tax” – tax rates in minutes: Car travel: Fixed = 5.6 minutes, per mile = 1.6 minutes Bus travel: Fixed = 22.2 minutes, per mile = 3.0 minutes Subway: Fixed = 18.4 minutes, per mile = 3.3 minutes Here’s my question: for Transit users, is the “Transit Time Tax” more of a flat tax, or more of a progressive tax? I think it’s clearly a flat tax – there is a high fixed time cost for everyone. This “Transit Time Tax” system is highly regressive – it hits poor and low income people hard, and (by reducing congestion) lowers the “Transit Time Tax” for people with more money. When you compare cars and Transit, the marginal cost of using a car is pretty low, and the marginal time cost compared to Transit is very low. In order to give people incentives to switch in large numbers from cars to Transit it is absolutely essentially that we slash the Transit Time Tax for everyone. At least when we’re starting out, it is also crucial to reduce the marginal cost of Transit as much as possible. Doing these things will encourage a large number of people to take a really close look at the very high fixed cost of owning a vehicle. When people see it’s practical to own one less vehicle, or no vehicle, we can expect to see a huge change in the household budgets of everyone who makes the switch. That’s what this is all about. My plan for 5 minute service is designed to dramatically slash the Transit Time Tax – for everybody. The additional time people spend waiting, and moving slower than cars, is the biggest barrier preventing large numbers of people switching to transit as a major or primary way the use to get around. I’m in favor of reducing the overall cost of transit. I’m also strongly in favor of a system that is much more equitable. For poor and low income people this means: faster service, low cost, and access to a much bigger geographic area of the job market. Bob Carney Jr. “candidate-journalist”; Candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis East Lake Harriet Farmstead
From: Jim Mork Date: 3:32pm, Jun 24
Transit as a "utility"? That's creative. We only have utilities because we have home functions that require it. Are you saying "utilities" now cover those who need them as well as those who DON'T? I mean, this smacks of Tim Pawlenty's fascination with labelling taxes as something else, just to keep them from being considered part of the tax total. Right now, riding transit involves a user fee, the fare. The fee is kept low in order to keep transit from shutting down. And the large subsidy also insures that transit doesn't grow too large because legislators will resist increasing the subsidy. To me, the flaw in all the proposals for transit is that they want to build it to reach places where the demand for it is lowest. And politics insures with that low demand, the political support for paying the cost will be negligible. Transit activists constantly try to avoid dealing with that reality because basically, they want more transit in a political environment that seems not to want more. So your problem is not selling transit to Minneapolis and St Paul. That is where the biggest support resides. You have to somehow create support elsewhere so that they will PAY FOR IT. Don't do like Zygi Wilf and say "Minneapolis can pay for this, too". Getting suburbanites into town is not that central an economic goal of Minneapolis property owners. There are already park and rides from which suburban workers can use the existing system. Additions which you and others propose are not needed at all. But the gaps are out in the surrounding areas, so those areas should step up and support more taxation.
From: Debra Ramage Date: 5:53pm, Jun 24
Jim, I think you miss the point about expanding transit options outside the city. The point is NOT to get people who live in the suburbs into the city. As you point out, a person who lives in the suburbs and works in the city, for example, uses park and ride. The point is that there are jobs in the outlying areas that poor people cannot access because they don't have a car. So Bob's program is a jobs program in two ways. It adds semi-skilled jobs in running it, and it opens up new areas to jobseekers that they currently don't even look at because they are inaccessible.
From: Matt Steele Date: 6:17pm, Jun 24
Maybe the fact that jobseekers do not look at outlying jobs is the labor market at work. I see this with my generation who will refuse to take jobs at distant office parks and corporate campuses and who prefer urban jobs even if the pay is slightly lower. This is a critical feedback loop in the marketplace that will convince employers that they need to either locate downtown or on transit spines, or risk losing out on access to quality labor. Regarding the jitney proposal, I think it will only be feasible a) when we have driverless vehicles (transit drivers are already one of the top two marginal costs for operating cash flow, along with fuel) and b) fuel-agnostic vehicles. But at that point, we'll probably be adopting a land use pattern that isn't so inefficient so low-density transit service would have diminishing marginal ridership per dollar of capital investment.
From: Bob Carney Jr. Date: 8:46pm, Aug 18
My e-book laying out my proposed Transit Revolution is attached (about 150 pages, about 5M, we'll see if it uploads. Debs Ramage has volunteered to review it -- if anyone else would like to, of course, please do so, and feel free to post the review here. By the way, a week or two ago Debs posted something referring to a "heated discussion" we had on the phone. My own perception is that I don't actually engage in heated discussions -- I think she'll confirm this is a reasonable view -- although I do admit to having interrupted her a couple of times, but only in the interest of saving time. Please be assured that I'm actually quite boring as a person -- move along -- nothing to see here. I filed for Mayor with the Political Principle "Demand Transit Revolution." Bob "Again" Carney Jr. "candidate-journalist"; Candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis; Writer-wing Republican East Lake Harriet Farmstead
The following file was added to this topic:
From: Bill McGaughey Date: 2:23am, Aug 19
About twenty years ago, there was talk of another "transit revolution", so to speak, in a concept called the "smart jitney". Basically, this was a way that pedestrian commuters could order a ride with their cell phone. Some people going from Point A to Point B had excess capacity in their automobile. They could take on riders as paying customers through a computer-based system that linked passengers and drivers. The goal for the transit system was to cut down on demand for commutes in the peak times so that a smaller staff of drivers needed to be on hand to handle demand at this time. Bob Behnke of Portland, Oregon, was the chief proponent of this concept. He was a former Control Data employee. Although Behnke's concept had the backing of the MnDot commissioner, he was unable to get financing for a pilot project and this idea died. At the time, I was quite excited about it.
From: Jack Ferman Date: 3:48am, Aug 19
A long time ago a UM professor was doing research on Personal Rapid Transit. The idea was small vehicles that were more route flexible than busses. Anybody remember much about PRT. Sent from my iPad John Ferman Kingfield Neighborhood Minneapolis, MN Email in header On Aug 18, 2013, at 9:23 PM, "Bill McGaughey" <email obscured>> wrote: > About twenty years ago, there was talk of another "transit revolution", so to speak, in a concept called the "smart jitney". Basically, this was a way that pedestrian commuters could order a ride with their cell phone. Some people going from Point A to Point B had excess capacity in their automobile. They could take on riders as paying customers through a computer-based system that linked passengers and drivers. The goal for the transit system was to cut down on demand for commutes in the peak times so that a smaller staff of drivers needed to be on hand to handle demand at this time. > > Bob Behnke of Portland, Oregon, was the chief proponent of this concept. He was a former Control Data employee. Although Behnke's concept had the backing of the MnDot commissioner, he was unable to get financing for a pilot project and this idea died. At the time, I was quite excited about it.
> William McGaughey > Harrison, Minneapolis >
From: Bill Kahn Date: 4:25am, Aug 19
Ho, ho, ho; it's Ed Anderson, again; doesn't seem like such a long time ago, but personal rapid transit won't die. Some people think that Dean Zimmerman got a bad rap, but given his PRT support, were okay with his sentence. Maybe we can shove the PRT in with all of that LRT in tunnels. Perhaps the taxi hailing apps like Uber can provide a little of what Bob is after without bothering with any City of Minneapolis or Metropolitan Council involvement; when I read Bill's post about the "smart jitney," it reminded me of stuff I'd been reading in the NYTimes about the ride apps. I think Uber is coming here and already running into resistance. There's also Lyft, Hailo, SideCar, and others https://www.uber.com Maybe our city and the other taxicab and cabbie licensing towns can fix their ordinances to provide for some customer and driver sanity. Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of some of those cab stands and park some cars there, instead? Maybe get another lane of traffic. On Aug 18, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Jack's USI <email obscured>> wrote: > A long time ago a UM professor was doing research on Personal Rapid Transit. The idea was small vehicles that were more route flexible than busses. Anybody remember much about PRT. > > Sent from my iPad > John Ferman > Kingfield Neighborhood > Minneapolis, MN > Email in header > > > On Aug 18, 2013, at 9:23 PM, "Bill McGaughey" <email obscured>> wrote: > >> About twenty years ago, there was talk of another "transit revolution", so to speak, in a concept called the "smart jitney". Basically, this was a way that pedestrian commuters could order a ride with their cell phone. Some people going from Point A to Point B had excess capacity in their automobile. They could take on riders as paying customers through a computer-based system that linked passengers and drivers. The goal for the transit system was to cut down on demand for commutes in the peak times so that a smaller staff of drivers needed to be on hand to handle demand at this time. >> >> Bob Behnke of Portland, Oregon, was the chief proponent of this concept. He was a former Control Data employee. Although Behnke's concept had the backing of the MnDot commissioner, he was unable to get financing for a pilot project and this idea died. At the time, I was quite excited about it.
>> William McGaughey >> Harrison, Minneapolis >> > > Jack Ferman > Kingfield, Minneapolis > About/contact Jack Ferman: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnferman > > View full topic or share: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/12wWALqK5Wwt8kONaQQ5o4 > > * Our BeNeighbors/E-Democracy email newsletter - Stories from the Sidewalk > http://blog.e-democracy.org/posts/2061 > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Post: <email obscured> or "Reply-to-All" to comment. > Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no quotes) > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net > > 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules. > If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at > <email obscured> before continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
From: Debra Ramage Date: 5:25am, Aug 19
I remember PRT. It was a hot topic when I left the Cities in 1998 but hardly anyone remembered it when I came back in 2011. That's how it goes. I have got targeted ads to me on Facebook to join Lyft, where you can apparently earn money using your private car to give people rides like a taxi. I am considering doing it, but the application process seems burdensome to me right now (I must not be desperate enough for the money. Give it time, ha ha.) Debs
From: Dyna Sluyter Date: 12:37pm, Aug 19
On 8/19/13 12:25 AM, Debra Ramage wrote: > I remember PRT. It was a hot topic when I left the Cities in 1998 but hardly anyone remembered it when I came back in 2011. I attended a presentation on PRT by Professor Anderson back around 1970... Yes, it's been around that long. But like a good conspiracy theory or cult it gets dragged back from the dead every decade or so to haunt us again. PRT won't work until you expand the cars to the size of a streetcar, and then it isn't PRT anymore. > That's how it goes. I have got targeted ads to me on Facebook to join Lyft, where you can apparently earn money using your private car to give people rides like a taxi. Lyft and it's clones are an attempt to run an unlicensed taxi service. The existing regulated taxi service can't even provide minimum wage jobs, so how is lyft et al going to make the taxi biz viable by adding hundreds more out of control cabs to the streets? > I am considering doing it, but the application process seems burdensome to me right now Their "screening" process is too loose, intentionally designed to let a surplus of drivers through to glut the market. > (I must not be desperate enough for the money. Give it time, ha ha.) You'd have to be pretty desperate... lyft hints at $20 an hour, and from my experience in the transportation biz I know it costs at least that much to put a car on the street, never mind pay the driver. Then your insurance company finds out you're using your car for business and triples your rates or cancels you... In general, the transportation business from bicycle couriers to tractor-trailer rigs is saturated with excess capacity, and unless you own a railroad there's little profit in the business. Lyft, uShip, etc. are just skimming off a bit of revenue and creating some buzz so the founders can get bought our by dumb "investors" and retire young. from mile 83 on the BNSF Marshall sub, Dyna Sluyter
From: Jack Ferman Date: 3:09pm, Aug 19
After my first post on PRT, went to WikiPedia to read up on PRT and Prof J Edward Anderson instead of the other way around. The opposers and scoffers of PRT appear to be uninformed of that of which they spurn. Sent from my iPad John Ferman Kingfield Neighborhood Minneapolis, MN Email in header
From: Bill Kahn Date: 6:43pm, Aug 19
I pretty much know what I'm dissing, Jack, but I'm not sure you know what your are praising; I doubt that this was your first and second PRT post, either. PRT is a strange attraction for many of us, including me, but you have to put it into a context that makes sense for where you want it used. Recently, it has only been useful to Republicans attempting to sabotage LRT projects, sort of a distracting bright, shiny object to swing around and dazzle folks while real transportation tech is defunded and derailed. I first heard of Ed Anderson's personal rapid transit when I worked in fundraising for a local environmental group and our supervisors showed us some early documentary video from when Anderson first introduced PRT in the Eighties; he and his disciples, like Dean Zimmerman and apparently Jack, have been keeping it alive. We all thought it was cool, like a Disneyland ride in tomorrow land, and some of us thought that was probably about as far as it should go barring a school or large business campus; personally, I'd like to see it doing the circuit that trams moving at a fast walk and nearly running down some MN State Fair goers run now, as it makes more sense there for a whole lot of reasons. Folks interested in transportation and land use issues were all impressed by Anderson's PRT control software, but the infrastructure necessary to have the larger PRT system would make large cities with elevated trains look like the wide open prairie. It we are to consider the real advantages of PRT, I think we need to use the existing infrastructure (our roads) with the increasingly impressive computer controlled automobile technology combined with Anderson's control tech to get people out of the over burdened parts of the system we have now. (Frankly, I'm surprised with Jack's attraction to PRT as he has expressed great trepidation on this forum at other technology dependent on computers running one software type or another running our lives). As far as Dyna's comments, seven years ago when I was a Cabbie, my leases for cars from Taxicab companies averaged a little over $70 per 10 to 12 hour shift, so I guess that was about what it cost them to keep a car on the road less whatever net profit they got from me (your guess is as good as mine, but if Dyna is right, they made $50 a shift on me. If I was not making over $20 per hour after gasoline and lease payments, I figured I was wasting my time. I quit the job because the company I leased from canceled my contract because I could not walk or drive and make the required minimum lease payments per month, and I haven't driven cab since; I don't mind, though, because "I was wasting my time" save but a little less than half of my shifts. I really think we need to rethink work, especially when work depends on folks who soak both their employees and customers. As far as PRT goes, picture a person pressing a button at a kiosk or fiddling with a smart phone to order up a ride, having a driverless car some company sent out on the road pick them up after a moment or two, and being dropped off at their destination. Perhaps Ed Anderson and his followers would be satisfied with that. On Aug 19, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Jack's USI <email obscured>> wrote: > After my first post on PRT, went to WikiPedia to read up on PRT and Prof J Edward Anderson instead of the other way around. The opposers and scoffers of PRT appear to be uninformed of that of which they spurn.
> > Sent from my iPad > John Ferman > Kingfield Neighborhood > Minneapolis, MN > Email in header > Jack Ferman > Kingfield, Minneapolis > About/contact Jack Ferman: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnferman > > View full topic or share: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/SSzpSXfObauDofi3wVwV2 > > * Our BeNeighbors/E-Democracy email newsletter - Stories from the Sidewalk > http://blog.e-democracy.org/posts/2061 > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Post: <email obscured> or "Reply-to-All" to comment. > Get digest or leave: Put "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in Subject (no quotes) > Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net > > 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules. > If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at > <email obscured> before continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
You cannot post because you are not logged in. Please login or join to post.