falsely-describes road expansion projects as âStrategic Capacityâ that
âreduce delay and crashes, and improve travel options for people
walking, biking, and rollingâ? If road expansion is what the Met
Council is doing to reduce crashes and improve travel for bicyclists,
pedestrians, and motorists, Iâd hate to see what theyâd come up with
to make walking, bicycling and driving more dangerous and unpleasant.
Meanwhile, alleged expanded transit service, or the allegation that
such a thing is even considered, is simply called âTransit Expansionâ.
What makes more highway lanes âStrategic Capacityâ while more transit
service apparently is not? Obviously, if youâre spending nearly $3
billion public transit dollars to connect a highway hellhole in the
2nd ring suburbs to a billionaireâs baseball stadium in downtown
Minneapolis, the strategy is less transit service, not more.
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MNORGMETC/bulletins/325b80a
https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2022/03/the-500-million-question-where-exactly-is-the-met-council-going-to-come-up-with-the-money-to-cover-southwest-lrt-cost-overruns/
Utilizing frequently operating, relatively low-cost, electric transit
vehicles, how many free or very low-cost rides could be provided on
every Minneapolis-St. Paul commercial corridor/arterial route for $3
billion dollars?
https://www.karsan.com/en/e-jest-highlights