Twin Cities Transportation Issues (Bloomington, Lexington: home, transfer, mall)

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by MPLS_TC

If federal money is not spent on our transportation network than what will it be spent on? Somebody else's? But hey, we can hold are head up high knowing that we didn't use federal money here.

You are forgetting. The federal money is only PART of the expense. A huge expenditure will be paid for exclusively by local taxpayers. For a good project, maybe its worth it. For a rolling boondoggle, everyone is worse off. We should never approve any project so "someone else doesn't grab the federal dollars". That's part of what makes "government by porkbarrel" happen.

[MPLS_TC]

I'm not a fan of letting my money pay for transportation networks for cities that are far smaller such as Salt Lake City while we sit and do nothing. Everybody has an opinion and that is mine. I disagree with yours.

[Beenhere4ever]

I want my money to pay for transportation networks. But not for giant boondoggles that are designed to enrich small groups of people while damaging neighborhoods and pushing aside proposals that may actually serve the needs of workers better. I'm not at all convinced there is anything optimal about the SW LRT proposal. It is just another thing like the Vikings stadium that has gained momentum without enough rational discussion.

[Beenhere4ever]

Interesting to read the data in this document from 4 years ago. And the cost of Kenilworth ratchets up, I think some of the ratios are probably changing in the process. They say Metro Council doesn't expect additional data to change the economic arguments. But I really wonder at this point, if that's really true anymore. I don't think the Metro Council had the St Louis Park and Minneapolis neighborhood objections in its planning scenario.

SW LRT Route Evaluation | Building a 21st Century transit system, not just one LRT line

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

I want my money to pay for transportation networks. But not for giant boondoggles that are designed to enrich small groups of people while damaging neighborhoods and pushing aside proposals that may actually serve the needs of workers better. I'm not at all convinced there is anything optimal about the SW LRT proposal. It is just another thing like the Vikings stadium that has gained momentum without enough rational discussion.

So you don't like traffic, you don't like people in the suburbs driving to their jobs, you don't like the bus system, you don't like the light rail....what exactly do you think people should do

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by golfgal

So you don't like traffic, you don't like people in the suburbs driving to their jobs, you don't like the bus system, you don't like the light rail....what exactly do you think people should do

You should read what I post, not ignore it. I've said all along, consistently, that we need the most cost effective solution. Not the jazziest one. Not the one that will keep us up with some imagined rival.

Moreover, it is now our experience that every transportation project has exceeded preliminary cost estimates by a big margin. We need to establish a multiplier to apply to the price they present when they initially sell these concepts. Because it is discouraging some people, certainly including me, to see some dollar figure that turns out to be irrelevant in the end. Neither the Blue Line nor the Green Line were built in the same ball park as originally sold. I would like to know who are these planners who miss the cost by hundreds of millions. I think the projects are being sold on sentiment, not sound planning principles.

Another aspect of this is that people seem to think that they can just say "I'll only change if it gives me the option of little change in my life". That's the argument for every mix of transportation modes. In the immediate aftermath of the revolution in Iran, when there were lines at gas stations, people discovered they could car pool and van pool. Those HAPPENED to be partial solutions that did not shift costs to those who chose not to live long distances from their destinations. Carbon emissions were still a future concern. As a result, the fall of gas prices sent people back to dysfunctional transportation. What we're getting nowadays is glamor projects, not behavior change. There's a silence about all the options that don't lead to jacking up sales taxes. I want to see more serious consideration of all options, not just the ones that justify raising sales taxes.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

You should read what I post, not ignore it. I've said all along, consistently, that we need the most cost effective solution. Not the jazziest one. Not the one that will keep us up with some imagined rival.

Moreover, it is now our experience that every transportation project has exceeded preliminary cost estimates by a big margin. We need to establish a multiplier to apply to the price they present when they initially sell these concepts. Because it is discouraging some people, certainly including me, to see some dollar figure that turns out to be irrelevant in the end. Neither the Blue Line nor the Green Line were built in the same ball park as originally sold. I would like to know who are these planners who miss the cost by hundreds of millions. I think the projects are being sold on sentiment, not sound planning principles.

Another aspect of this is that people seem to think that they can just say "I'll only change if it gives me the option of little change in my life". That's the argument for every mix of transportation modes. In the immediate aftermath of the revolution in Iran, when there were lines at gas stations, people discovered they could car pool and van pool. Those HAPPENED to be partial solutions that did not shift costs to those who chose not to live long distances from their destinations. Carbon emissions were still a future concern. As a result, the fall of gas prices sent people back to dysfunctional transportation. What we're getting nowadays is glamor projects, not behavior change. There's a silence about all the options that don't lead to jacking up sales taxes. I want to see more serious consideration of all options, not just the ones that justify raising sales taxes.

You seriously think that other options have not been explored? No, I don't think a light rail line going only into Minneapolis is the right option--I agree, it's pretty stupid given that most people in the metro do NOT work in Minneapolis. The most reasonable solution would be to build a rail line or similar where people drive--around 494/964, etc., which also happens to be where most employers are in the metro...but the city dwellers refuse to acknowledge that, but whatever. Point being, you think everyone should live and work in a 5 square mile radius of downtown and that just is not possible. You think we are "sprawled", but we are not even close. Traffic here is NOTHING compared to other cities. Get out, explore the world some, then come back and realize how good things really are here.

As for your money issues, when you choose to live in an expensive area, you are going to have to pay for it--move to rural MN or heck, Mississippi or some place with low taxes and a low COL...

[Beenhere4ever]

Read the op-ed page of today's Strib. Other people are asking exactly the same questions.

[Bslette]

I'm not a fan of the "LPA" alignment for the SW corridor at all, I think that it misses the most important job, entertainment, residential, and growth centers in the southern part of Minneapolis, along with the densest neighborhoods. They are running it through a rail corridor, in a forest, next to some of the least dense and least walkable neighborhoods in the city, next to many people who do not need public transportation, and will most likely not use it. Once it gets out of Minneapolis, it passes near, but not near enough, to the busiest part of St. Louis park, and finally serves vital employment and entertainment centers in the suburbs once it reaches Hopkins. I think the light rail should definitely go to the southwest suburbs exactly how it is, but they are skipping the part where public transportation is the most necessary - the urban core. Public transportation originated in urban areas, it is made for urban areas, its purpose is to eliminate some of the use of cars and allow people to move around easily in urban areas, yet the new line is defeating the main purpose of public transportation, and is serving as commuter rail. If Minneapolis wants to advertise itself as a world class city and destination, it has to have public transportation that serves the urban neighborhoods of the city and the suburbs, not just the suburbs. They say that they will solve the problem by adding in streetcar systems, but we have no idea if that will happen or not. I do think that the streetcars will work if they build the full system, but until then, neighborhoods are cut off from each other unless you use a car or a bus, both of which are harder to use if you don't live in the city. Meanwhile, money will have already been spent of a line that skips the growth centers of Minneapolis. In the link posted above, the article lists the Basset Creek Valley as a growth area that the Kenilworth Alignment serves, as an excuse to skip Uptown and Midtown. That area is empty, it isn't growing, they are simply hoping that it will grow. Uptown and Midtown have already shown growth.... over the past 50+ years. The Linden yards development has been stalling for a long time. I don't consider a stalled project "growth." Now, if they build a streetcar through the greenway, that could help, but they aren't showing a lot of progress on that, and the streetcar is a mode of transportation that is meant to be built on streets, not lowered viaducts. If they build transit in the greenway, they should at least make it light rail, so that Minneapolis has somewhat of a full, interconnected transit system that serves the city without people having to go back downtown in order to get to the other of the city. I only think the SW Line will work if they also build light rail in the greenway.

Don't get me started on the Bottineau Line. Or the Robert Street Line.

[Beenhere4ever]

Worse than commuter rail. They want to load and unload people in rail yards. If the yards were disused like some others, they could just tear up the unused tracks and build people stations. But they expect freight and LRT traffic to be happening together.

To me it is like some other projects around town. Someone came to a conclusion that there's one way to do it, and now they are fighting for that decision, not for economics or service. I think something of the same thing is happening with the Minnehaha Avenue project. The studies for that were done more than a decade ago, when a lot of factors were different. Someone projected that situation forward in time. But now that it is finally approaching, things have changed. And they have a hard time with the idea they should have a different plan.

They rammed through the Hiawatha reroute. And I think they believe all complaints about their insular concepts are just another fight like the reroute.