July 27, 2008 -- Sunday morning at 12:10am, I began a mile hike to Cub Foods to buy some groceries. Walking at night causes me to become nervous sometimes, however, my tension increased when I met a stray dog of unknown acquaintance a mere two minutes after my departure from home. The details I’ll omit; I wasn’t harmed, and I apologize to the driver who had little time to see me running back across the street, heading for home. I called Northfield’s Finest, and after a search they couldn’t find the dog. As for my shopping, I paid a taxi.

Normally I utilize the Northfield Transit when I shop, but, regrettably, they don’t have a 24/7 schedule. I’d like that to change, and include at least two regularly scheduled routes during the day and one during off-peak hours.

Firstly, expanded transit would give more options to minors, parents, people in general, senior and disabled citizens. I’ll disclose that I fall into the disabled category. Physically, I’m 35 and fit -- the disability is mostly due to clinical depression (for those who don’t believe in depression, call me lazy, but afterward think of the other people I mentioned). Consumers of alcoholic beverages would also have more choices.

Secondly, many events in our community occur after 4pm. Reasons not to walk or bike outside of the Transit hours include the following: Dark, rain, hail, ultraviolet rays, and other inclement weather or atmospheric conditions. Having the ability to travel or get groceries only part-time feels very crippling for those who don’t own a car or can’t drive.

Thirdly, more than half the times I ride the bus, I am the sole passenger. Taxes are the source of funding for the Northfield Transit, and having only one or a few passengers denies the financial advantages to mass transit. If a regularly scheduled 24/7 route were promoted well in advance of its implementation, it could begin with several riders, not just a few. We could start with a small number of bus stops, and build on that after an increase in ridership and promotion. With energy costs rising (not just in dollars, but also cost to the environment and the geopolitical landscape), now would be an excellent time to step into modern times and start packing the Northfield buses full of people.

As for my experience with the Northfield Transit in the three years I’ve lived here: I believe the fare of one dollar to travel a mile is reasonable (beats paying for insurance, gas, car repairs, or risking an accident), the drivers are helpful, friendly and well-trained, and Leann’s scheduling is artistic. Proportionately, any problems I’ve had with them are well within range of being acceptable and never caused me any long-term mental anguish.

I hope the city council members, community members, taxpayers and city staff will consider the benefits of mass transit, public transportation, energy conservation, and oxygen. I also hope the dog I encountered found his way home.

Digital Technology Laboratory Corp., a high-tech machine tool research firm, received the Davis Planning Commission’s approval to begin construction on a new headquarters in East Davis …..

“We’re kind of growing up as a company and we’re thinking about what image we want to portray,” he said. “The city of Davis has a unique image of being an intellectual city, a progressive-thinking city and so we thought that fits our philosophy of how we run our business.”

The new building will be approximately 70,000 square feet and includes a large glass panel entryway to maximize natural sunlight, a landscaped inner atrium and an outdoor rear patio. The site will also include indoor and outdoor bike parking and frontage and road improvements.’

Full Article: http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2008/01/25/CityNews/HighTech.Employer.Moving.To.Davis-3168107.shtml

And hey, nice to see you and your Northern Letter blog quoted in today’s Strib editorial page Blog House column. I’m not sure but you might be the first member of the Northfield civic blogosphere to grab a mention there.

I highly recommend the web site streetfilms.org, which has video of street infrastructure in many cities around the world. StreetFilms is a non-profit in New York City, part of the “New York City Streets Renaissance,” which includes the Project for Public Spaces and Transportation Alternatives. The latter is run by Paul Steely White, who has conections to Northfield (he is Dan Bergeson’s son-in-law, I believe).

I’ve seen three “streetfilms,” all about 8 minutes long:

“Physically Separated Bike Lanes”:
a somewhat contentious subject, but when Steve Clark of Transit for Livable Communities was here, he recommended something like this for Division St.
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/

“Ciclovia: Bogota, Colombia”
Bogota, Colombia, closes off selected streets/highways for Sunday morning use by folks; an amazing video
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/ciclovia/

“Davis, California: Adventures in a Platinum Bike City”
Hard to believe this place is in the U.S.
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/adventures-in-a-platinum-bike-city-davis-calif/

The Internet truly makes it easier to share and see good ideas.

Davis, California

Well, I’m not so sure with all the privatization going on--prisons, military, etc. Instead of tax dollars going to the gubmit, increasingly we have them going to corporations. Huge subsidies go to corporate farms, and then we dump grain on little countries and ruin their agricultural economies, so they can’t pay their debts. Capitalism is winning, democracy is losing.

Transportation: In the days of the founding fathers, landowners had private roads, and some charged tolls for people crossing their land. With the real estate bubble bursting, I figure the US could become more like Central and South America, with a small minority of land-owners. They could all have toll roads and make a killing.

Not literally. I’m not in favor of disappearing people, like in Chile or Nicaragua. Or at least not some people. Ya gotta draw the line somewheres.

But just think: If all the roads around Northfield were toll-roads, then citizens and businesses would not complain about taxes and assessments!

The Gubmit could even require that the toll-roads include Roundabouts (keep Bruce Anderson happy).

They could charge a reduced rate for school buses and kids walking to school on the sidewalks built along the toll-roads.

Think how much our property taxes could go down if we were paying for all our roads via tolls! Reduce my taxes by 20% and raise my transportation costs by 400%, just to give me the illusion that it’s a good reform. It could work.

I appreciate that you’re one of those people, Carol, who still thinks public roads and utilities should be for the public, but I think that’s soooo 20th century. In the years to come, it may all be about profits.

“Democracy!” may be the sit-com we watch, like Hogan’s Heroes reruns.

I’m not saying it’s a sure thing. But I’m bracing myself for the possibility.

The gas tax had the support from the State Chamber of Commerce, the Dems and many Republicans including former Sen. Neuville, who said it should be larger, and, at one time, the Governor. Why did the Pawlenty change his mind? It seems to me the gas tax fits in with Pawlenty’s support of user fees to raise revenue. If you don’t want to pay the tax, then drive less or drive a car that gets better mileage.

I’ve been an advocate of roundabouts for years, and have blogged about them a couple of times, including today (Roundabouts redux; http://www.sustainablecommunitysolutions.com/index.php/2008/02/27/roundabouts-redux/).

Please, when designing the Northfield area roadway infrastructure of the 21st-century, let’s not build 20th-century major intersections with four-way stop signs or traffic lights. Let’s choose the efficient, smart approach that’s been proven in innumerable international studies to be safer and allows more efficient and smoother, faster flow of traffic: roundabouts. Pretty please!

David Olson -- President (651) 292-4655 dolson@mnchamber.com

Bill Blazar (651) 292-4658 bblazar@mnchamber.com
Senior Vice President, Public Affairs & Business Development

And remember to send a big thank you to the R’s who voted for the veto override. I sent that you note the second I heard!!! They could use some support.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/15958317.html

Privatize Bridge Square (charge an entrance fee). Make all our bridges toll bridges.

It’s the hot new thing. There’s nothing governments do for the common good that private corporations couldn’t do for a fee, and make a nice profit.

Who needs government by the people, for the people, if we could have government for private profit?

That’s the other transportation fix. And hey, they’re doing it in France. After a toll-road or toll-bridge is paid for, the government gets it back. It could be so European of us.

You could charge the bikers too. No one would get over the toll-bridges and toll-roads for free. It would be un-American. How could the Chamber complain then? A Chamber member could be the company collecting the tolls!

It could be the transportation plan of Dick Cheney’s wildest dreams! Right here in Rice County! He wouldn’t even have to come here to shoot anyone in the face to achieve it: Privatization could do that metaphorically to the poor, while Dick was safe, miles away!

If we really want to be forward-looking, maybe we should look into privatization as the transportation plan of the future. Taxpayers would still pay substantial amounts, but a small number of very rich people could profit greatly, and we’d still have tolls to pay on top of all that.

If it’s coming anyway, maybe Northfield could volunteer to be the first?

And yes, Dan Patch may be subsidized transportation, but so are roads. Yet mass transit can be far greener than a bunch of SUV’s, usually with a single driver and no passenger.

And who is going to encourage local residents, who came here for the schools and quality of life, to move to the Cities? Who will evict them so we might avoid having to build Dan Patch? It may not be as ideal as living closer to where they work, but if they’re going to commute anyway, Dan Patch is a far better option.

And Northfield is part bedroom community, like it or not, so why chase away part of the tax base and further hurt the local real-estate market by driving residents away? Makes no sense. Who is going to move to the Twin Cities or suburbs and serve on the school boards, and do the needed kinds of urban planning, to convince those folks who would otherwise rather live here and ride Dan Patch that they would do just as well to get themselves out of town and live near where they work? Where is the glut of housing in the Cities and Suburbs, close to where they work, ready to handle them?

We already subsidize gasoline in a huge way. Wars with oil-rich countries are one way. We’re still paying for overthrowing Iran’s government in the 1950′s.

Our dependence on foreign oil is also a huge part of our trade deficit. The technology is available for more locally-generated renewable energy, and for electric-cars and electric-powered public transportation. These would inject huge funds into local economies. The Chamber should love the idea. Keeping more energy dollars local would mean more money for local businesses….

Some estimate the extra costs for gas, above and beyond what we pay at the pump, to be between $1.50 and $4.15 a gallon. Some estimate more than that.

We need more public transportation options like Dan Patch, not more dependence on autos.

Trucks are vitally important to commerce; Highways 19 and 1 are the most important truck routes in need of improvement. That is why these transportation issues are the Chamber’s highest concerns.

Ross: I suggested when you were working on the Development Principles that you just adopt the NIC report as the chapter for Transportation.

Consultants should tell us what we need, not necessarily what we want. However, I contend that we have enough brain power in this town to skip most of the consultant work and figure out on our own what we need to do.

PS. Ripon College in Wisconsin…where I attended for 2 years…is now giving away high quality bikes to their students if they do not bring a vehicle with them to college. The town is similar to Northfield in that students do not need a vehicle to get around…but do need some form of transportation to get to surrounding cities.

PPS. There was a letter in the Strib today or yesterday noting that the Dan Patch effort is simply an effort to create tax payer supported systems to allow people that elect to live in outlying areas a way to travel fast, cheaply and on the taxpayers nickel to metro areas. It argues a better plan is to have these people move to the metro area closer to their work.

Even the smallest streets have lanes and the large traffic moving streets have lanes on both sides of the street and are clearly marked. The bike lanes turn corners at the lights in an arc just like car lanes do. They are marked as well. It seems that both these cities have done a good job of incorporating all modes of transportation into the street scape.

I’m not philosophically opposed to a bike tax if the money goes into bike infrastructure.

On the issue of the gas tax: correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the gas tax does not pay for all of our road building and maintenance needs. The transportation behemoth requires other state and local funds, all of which come from taxpayers. Thus, a taxpaying cyclist or pedestrian who doesn’t own a car is subsidizing the road system (and a transit system or any other transportation system that the govt. funds). I believe this fact is not widely known.

Way back in 1971 Oregon passed the “bike bill,” which requires state, county and local government to spend at least 1 percent of state highway funds on bike and pedestrian facilities (with some exceptions for rural areas where such facilities would get little use). This is one reason why Oregon has a lot of pedestrian and bike infrastructure.

Here is a paragraph on the bill from the Oregon DOT:

“ORS 366.514, aka the bike bill, was passed by the Oregon Legislature in 1971. It requires the inclusion of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists wherever a road, street or highway is built or rebuilt. It applies to ODOT, cities and counties. It also requires ODOT, cities and counties to spend reasonable amounts of their share of the state highway fund on facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. These facilities must be located within the right-of-way of public roads, streets or highways open to motor vehicle traffic. The funds cannot be spent on trails in parks or other areas outside of a road, street or highway right-of-way. ”

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/bike_bill.shtml

What bothers me in these discussions is the motorized transportation should be heavily subsidized by all taxpayers and only non-motorized transportation should not. Tax the bikers from Larry, don’t spend a dime on it from David L. But build more, bigger highways without a gas tax to help pay for it. We can only bond our way so far.

I agree with Bill, bikers are not the problem here. Proper funding methods are. Add shoulders and turn lanes and you’ve made 19 much safer for cars and trucks. And yes, bikers will benefit too. But, you have not added any cost to the project. Imagine trying to change a driver side flat tire on Hwy 19 now. You are a hazard to everyone on the road. Add a shoulder and you have solved a problem.

If you don’t like the gas tax, drive less. It is an option.

David L, what is the Northfield Chamber’s position on a gas tax?

I happily pay the modest Minnesota fuel tax (no change since 1988, not even inflation indexing, which would have turned 1988′s $.20 into $.36 today…) on the diesel fuel I put in my car, and the annual registration fee. I hope Governor Pawlenty’s Friday veto of the proposed piddly nickel increase (followed by 3.5 cents in the future) is overridden pronto. I think we should all pay a LOT more fuel tax to pay for the infrastructure cars and trucks need, not to mention to help pay for the external costs of burning gasoline and diesel fuel and gobbling up prime land for transportation infrastructure. You can’t expect to get something for nothing, a concept that no-new-taxes advocates seem reluctant to admit. More efficient use of government resources can only be carried so far. At some point we need to pony up for the public goods we all want and need. If we want bikers to pony up (in an appropriately minor way), I say fine.

Paved shoulders on Hwys 19 and 1 have utility for both motorized and nonmotorized traffic. They provide a usable lane for nonmotorized traffic, a safety outlet for motorized traffic, and they stabilize the entire roadway. See this online document, “22 Reasons for Paved Highway Shoulders”:

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/22reasons.htm

I think the Chamber will get what it wants with regard to Highway 19. What stands in the way of the Chamber’s goals is not the work of nonmotorized advocates, it’s the lack of state resources available for transportation. Now we need lawmakers to vote as recommended by the Minn. Chamber of Commerce on the state transportation bill.