Billion dollar LRT CC NOT in Local Best Interest

The discussion of billion dollar central corridor light rail(LRT) has been
involved in details of how. I think we should go back to the basics of
"should". I believe the billion dollar central corridor light rail(LRT) is NOT
in the best interest of local people or local small businesses. Only landowners
adjacent to the line and people outside of St Paul are going to benefit.

1) Any renting small business will have to move, because of decreased business
during construction and increased rents after the construction.

2) The increased value of landowners adjacent to the LRT are receiving an bump
in value that is unearned and also paid for by tax dollars. The increased taxes
is tiny, compared to the free land value increase given from tax payer dollars.

3) The people who live near the LRT will have huge transportation problems both
before and after the LRT is built. Essentially, it will be as if a wall is
built down University avenue dividing the city.

4) The LRT goes nowhere where most of us want to go - so it is a big noisy
inconvenience that provides no service. I don't travel to the downtowns, and I
would rather drive to the mall or airport or take a more convenient bus.

5) Not rich people who live near the LRT will have increased tax valuations
with NO additional money to pay more taxes. The LRT will not be a good local
transportation service with many stops, so the local people will have more
taxes and less transportation service. Then the not rich people will be trying
to move, flooding an already bad housing market.

6) The last 20% of the design is what make the LRT more palatable and appealing
to the local people, and this is the part most likely to get cut. At that
point, I say ZERO percent of city funds should be used in this project. Not one
dime of my property taxes should go for this development. The only value of
this LRT is from connecting LRTs which means that it should be funded 100% from
state and federal funds.

If we as a city are asked to even fund 20% of the LRT, I think we should ask
what is the best alternative use of that 200 million St Paul dollars.

Transportation: Currently our bus fleet is 850 vehicles with 100 extra vehicles
- lets call it a 1000. That would give us $200,000 to spending replacing each
bus, to upgrade to zero emmission, renewable sustainable, quiet, clean and
elegant buses. This would be EVERY bus for EVERY part of the city, with no
construction awfulness nor LRT walls dividing the city.

Or maybe we could just not spend any money and have only have the skyrocketed
property taxes that we currently have.

So maybe we are ought to go back to basics!
Who pays? Who benefits? What values are we serving? Is this the best choice?

Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly
Curmudgeon from Merriam Park

Rest of post

I agree entirely with Kelly. Let's not build this destructive monster.
LRT as planned is the worst of all worlds.

-David Shove

On Thu, 10 May 2007, Kelly wrote:

> The discussion of billion dollar central corridor light rail(LRT) has
> been involved in details of how. I think we should go back to the basics
> of "should". I believe the billion dollar central corridor light
> rail(LRT) is NOT in the best interest of local people or local small
> businesses. Only landowners adjacent to the line and people outside of
> St Paul are going to benefit.
>
> 1) Any renting small business will have to move, because of decreased
> business during construction and increased rents after the construction.
>
> 2) The increased value of landowners adjacent to the LRT are receiving
> an bump in value that is unearned and also paid for by tax dollars. The
> increased taxes is tiny, compared to the free land value increase given
> from tax payer dollars.
>
> 3) The people who live near the LRT will have huge transportation
> problems both before and after the LRT is built. Essentially, it will be
> as if a wall is built down University avenue dividing the city.
>
> 4) The LRT goes nowhere where most of us want to go - so it is a big
> noisy inconvenience that provides no service. I don't travel to the
> downtowns, and I would rather drive to the mall or airport or take a
> more convenient bus.
>
> 5) Not rich people who live near the LRT will have increased tax
> valuations with NO additional money to pay more taxes. The LRT will not
> be a good local transportation service with many stops, so the local
> people will have more taxes and less transportation service. Then the
> not rich people will be trying to move, flooding an already bad housing
> market.
>
> 6) The last 20% of the design is what make the LRT more palatable and
> appealing to the local people, and this is the part most likely to get
> cut. At that point, I say ZERO percent of city funds should be used in
> this project. Not one dime of my property taxes should go for this
> development. The only value of this LRT is from connecting LRTs which
> means that it should be funded 100% from state and federal funds.
>
> If we as a city are asked to even fund 20% of the LRT, I think we should
> ask what is the best alternative use of that 200 million St Paul
> dollars.
>
> Transportation: Currently our bus fleet is 850 vehicles with 100 extra
> vehicles - lets call it a 1000. That would give us $200,000 to spending
> replacing each bus, to upgrade to zero emmission, renewable sustainable,
> quiet, clean and elegant buses. This would be EVERY bus for EVERY part
> of the city, with no construction awfulness nor LRT walls dividing the
> city.
>
> Or maybe we could just not spend any money and have only have the
> skyrocketed property taxes that we currently have.
>
> So maybe we are ought to go back to basics! Who pays? Who benefits? What
> values are we serving? Is this the best choice?
>
> Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly
> Curmudgeon from Merriam Park
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Grace (nicknamed Kelly) Kelly
> Merriam Park, St Paul
> More info: Info about Grace Kelly (nicknamed Kelly):
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/gracekelly

Rest of post

Kelly said:
> I believe the billion dollar central corridor light rail(LRT) is
> NOT in the best interest of local people or local small businesses. Only
> landowners adjacent to the line and people outside of St Paul are going to
> benefit.

Well, Kelly, you're far from alone. I've weaseled my way into speaking
with representatives of every organization involved in this process, and I
have yet to find anyone that will tell you this is a great idea. In fact,
I'll go as far as this:

The Emperor has no clothes.

He's naked, and his hairy backside is not a pretty sight to see.

I've long thought that it was best to just wait this process out, and when
it fails have the "Plan B" in place. After all, we're a good $200 million
north of the Federal Cost Effectiveness Guidelines, and between taking out
a Downtown building and the improvements along University it's only
getting more expensive. Plus, you have to figure that the state is going
to spend about a third of its bienial capital budget on this if it's going
to fly.

I don't think it's going to happen. In fact, I'm rather sure of it.

Let's not wait. Let's organize to kill this monstrosity right now. I
don't see any reason to keep feeding this thing when we know it's a bad
idea for the following reasons:

1) It was planned as a regional rail system, but has been transformed
into a local route. In fact, if you ask the Met Council what it is they
will tell you it's still a regional line, whereas the County folks tell
you it's a local route. They apparently don't understand the difference
between them.

2) It is not appropriate for University Avenue. If anyone wants to argue
this point, I'd like you to get someone from Urban Strategies or anywhere
else to say that this is good urban design (hint: you can't).

3) It is part of a scheme to increase the population of Midway by 12,000
people by fundamentally changing land use around the hubs, which is to say
that it will obliterate the existing neighborhoods.

4) It will require the construction of some kind of monstrous traffic
re-route at Snelling - one of the three options which are all outrageous.

5) It probably won't ever fit into the budgets of the state or federal
agencies that have to fund it.

For these reasons, the sooner this thing dies, the better for everyone.
As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water and you can even
cram a hose down his throat, but when you're done with the operation he'll
never let you ride him down University Avenue.

Who's with me to organize some serious opposition? We have a few items on
the agenda right now:

1) The legislature gave Pawlenty a bonding bill of $334 million that he
vetoed, which included $40 million for the Central Corridor. They will
either trim this down, or let it die. We need to let legislators know
that the Central Corridor portion of the bill should be the first thing
trimmed down, if we do get another bill out this year.

2) The Federal DOT needs to understand the opposition and the nature of
it. Rep. McCollum's office won't like this one bit, but we need to start
writing letters directly to the Feds to make it clear that there is
considerable opposition to this, and they shouldn't give this project any
slack at all.

Let's kill this travesty. Let's let the world know that the Emperor has
no clothes, even if so many people are scared to be the first to say it.
Never forget that the main reason we can kill it is because it's so
obvious to everyone that it needs to be killed - we just have to be the
first happy few.

Is anyone up for a big letter writing campaign? I sure am. I want to
move on to something real. Write me if you're up for it, and maybe we can
organize!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

<email obscured> wrote:

> Well, Kelly, you're far from alone. I've weaseled my way into speaking
> with representatives of every organization involved in this process, and I
> have yet to find anyone that will tell you this is a great idea.

Oh really? Which organizations, exactly? That everyone opposes LRT
sure is news to me, especially given the overwhelming support expressed
at public hearings (and no, it wasn't just from businesses and public
officials).

> I've long thought that it was best to just wait this process out, and when
> it fails have the "Plan B" in place.

My God, you have no idea what you're actually doing, do you. You have
no idea that if this project dies, we can kiss any hope of a decent
transit system in the Twin Cities goodbye for at least another 20 years.
If people in St. Paul kill this project, St. Paul will NOT get another
chance at rail transit. Goodbye, Union Depot. Goodbye, Red Rock.
Goodbye, Rush Line. Goodbye, Robert St. Goodbye, I-94 rail to
Wisconsin. Goodbye, high-speed rail to Chicago, Goodbye, St. Paul
streetcars. LRT will not, not, NOT be replaced with streetcars on
University Ave. any time in the foreseeable future.

Do you honestly think the legislature will allow funding to go to St.
Paul and East Metro corridors after pulling a stunt like this? After
delaying this project the umpteenth time? Do you have ANY idea how hard
YOUR legislators fought to get transit investment in the East Metro?

Hell, do you have any idea how good, ordinary PEOPLE fought tooth and
nail at the legislature over the last three years to get us to a point
today where we're on the tipping point of passing a good transportation
bill than includes dedicated funding for transit? How they patiently
built relationships with their legislators and then put those
relationships ON THE LINE to challenge their legislators to live up
to their stated vision? Any idea of the SACRIFICES these working people
made so YOU can have a decent transit system?

Do you have any idea that people in Maple Grove, Eden Prairie, Apple
Valley, Eagan, Lino Lakes, White Bear Lake, Woodbury, Blaine,
Minnetonka and countless other "city-hating suburbs" are working HARD
to get YOU the transit you say you want?

No, you don't, do you.

And you want to spit in all of their faces.

The Central Corridor is a GOOD project. Don't support it out of a
fear of losing these other projects. Support it because it's a
huge asset to St. Paul and the entire region. Support it because
it is the keystone of our regional transit plan.

But I want to make very clear the consequences of what you propose.

You people claim to want transit and then you do everything you can
to kill it.

Why?

David Greene
The Wedge, Minneapolis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGQ+xBgQsI8xjTYs8RArXbAJ9qYAY4qcd60AWwOlT6YZhd25AgHgCdGSSf
MRx0NQc0ZTdPwdrZtOzHnf8=
=cG3z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A trip to San Francisco Bat Area and Chicago would show the inaccuracy
of Kelly's points. A long term view (not the short term construction
periods) has shown that permanent transportation is a fixed investment
that helps businesses predict the future pathways of their buyers or
users. Land values around the BART stations increased since the BART is
easy to use.

LRT trains are not noisy. They also can be zero emissions.

IF the tracks are raised, the LRT does not interfere with individual
traffic.

Ed

Kelly wrote:
> The discussion of billion dollar central corridor light rail(LRT) has been
involved in details of how. I think we should go back to the basics of
"should". I believe the billion dollar central corridor light rail(LRT) is NOT
in the best interest of local people or local small businesses. Only landowners
adjacent to the line and people outside of St Paul are going to benefit.
>
> 1) Any renting small business will have to move, because of decreased
business during construction and increased rents after the construction.
>
> 2) The increased value of landowners adjacent to the LRT are receiving an
bump in value that is unearned and also paid for by tax dollars. The increased
taxes is tiny, compared to the free land value increase given from tax payer
dollars.
>
> 3) The people who live near the LRT will have huge transportation problems
both before and after the LRT is built. Essentially, it will be as if a wall is
built down University avenue dividing the city.
>
> 4) The LRT goes nowhere where most of us want to go - so it is a big noisy
inconvenience that provides no service. I don't travel to the downtowns, and I
would rather drive to the mall or airport or take a more convenient bus.
>
> 5) Not rich people who live near the LRT will have increased tax valuations
with NO additional money to pay more taxes. The LRT will not be a good local
transportation service with many stops, so the local people will have more
taxes and less transportation service. Then the not rich people will be trying
to move, flooding an already bad housing market.
>
> 6) The last 20% of the design is what make the LRT more palatable and
appealing to the local people, and this is the part most likely to get cut. At
that point, I say ZERO percent of city funds should be used in this project.
Not one dime of my property taxes should go for this development. The only
value of this LRT is from connecting LRTs which means that it should be funded
100% from state and federal funds.
>
> If we as a city are asked to even fund 20% of the LRT, I think we should ask
what is the best alternative use of that 200 million St Paul dollars.
>
> Transportation: Currently our bus fleet is 850 vehicles with 100 extra
vehicles - lets call it a 1000. That would give us $200,000 to spending
replacing each bus, to upgrade to zero emmission, renewable sustainable, quiet,
clean and elegant buses. This would be EVERY bus for EVERY part of the city,
with no construction awfulness nor LRT walls dividing the city.
>
> Or maybe we could just not spend any money and have only have the skyrocketed
property taxes that we currently have.
>
> So maybe we are ought to go back to basics!
> Who pays? Who benefits? What values are we serving? Is this the best choice?
>
> Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly
> Curmudgeon from Merriam Park
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Grace (nicknamed Kelly) Kelly
> Merriam Park, St Paul
> More info: Info about Grace Kelly (nicknamed Kelly):
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/gracekelly

Rest of post

I find this rant an irresponsible attack on the obvious need to put in place
a desperately needed regional transit system - already 60 years too late and
getting later.

It is pure supposition to call this "local," but even if it were, it remains
connected to a much larger vision, something in short supply around here,
apparently.

This is not going to die, no matter Erik's ravings, and I trust other
readers will research this issue outside the confines of this discussion
list before rendering any judgment that would jeopardize this critical
addition to 21st Century Twin Cities.

We need more support for mass transit here, not less. Erik has advanced some
fair ideas about some alternatives (Short Line commuter rail and University
Ave. streetcars), but, in the absence of their implementation, it would be
irresponsible folly to discard the baby with the bathwater.

Andy Driscoll
Crocus Hill

Rest of post

--
Andy Driscoll, Producer/Host
Truth to Tell co-host: Craig Cox
KFAI Radio, Minneapolis/St. Paul
651-293-9039 / Fax: (same, call ahead) / Cell: 651-492-2221
email: <email obscured>
--

> From: <<email obscured>>
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:08:10 -0500 (CDT)
> To: SPIF <stpaul-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
> Subject: Re: [SPIF] Billion dollar LRT CC NOT in Local Best Interest
>
> Kelly said:
>> I believe the billion dollar central corridor light rail(LRT) is
>> NOT in the best interest of local people or local small businesses. Only
>> landowners adjacent to the line and people outside of St Paul are going to
>> benefit.
>
> Well, Kelly, you're far from alone. I've weaseled my way into speaking
> with representatives of every organization involved in this process, and I
> have yet to find anyone that will tell you this is a great idea. In fact,
> I'll go as far as this:
>
> The Emperor has no clothes.
>
> He's naked, and his hairy backside is not a pretty sight to see.
>
> I've long thought that it was best to just wait this process out, and when
> it fails have the "Plan B" in place. After all, we're a good $200 million
> north of the Federal Cost Effectiveness Guidelines, and between taking out
> a Downtown building and the improvements along University it's only
> getting more expensive. Plus, you have to figure that the state is going
> to spend about a third of its bienial capital budget on this if it's going
> to fly.
>
> I don't think it's going to happen. In fact, I'm rather sure of it.
>
> Let's not wait. Let's organize to kill this monstrosity right now. I
> don't see any reason to keep feeding this thing when we know it's a bad
> idea for the following reasons:
>
> 1) It was planned as a regional rail system, but has been transformed
> into a local route. In fact, if you ask the Met Council what it is they
> will tell you it's still a regional line, whereas the County folks tell
> you it's a local route. They apparently don't understand the difference
> between them.
>
> 2) It is not appropriate for University Avenue. If anyone wants to argue
> this point, I'd like you to get someone from Urban Strategies or anywhere
> else to say that this is good urban design (hint: you can't).
>
> 3) It is part of a scheme to increase the population of Midway by 12,000
> people by fundamentally changing land use around the hubs, which is to say
> that it will obliterate the existing neighborhoods.
>
> 4) It will require the construction of some kind of monstrous traffic
> re-route at Snelling - one of the three options which are all outrageous.
>
> 5) It probably won't ever fit into the budgets of the state or federal
> agencies that have to fund it.
>
> For these reasons, the sooner this thing dies, the better for everyone.
> As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water and you can even
> cram a hose down his throat, but when you're done with the operation he'll
> never let you ride him down University Avenue.
>
> Who's with me to organize some serious opposition? We have a few items on
> the agenda right now:
>
> 1) The legislature gave Pawlenty a bonding bill of $334 million that he
> vetoed, which included $40 million for the Central Corridor. They will
> either trim this down, or let it die. We need to let legislators know
> that the Central Corridor portion of the bill should be the first thing
> trimmed down, if we do get another bill out this year.
>
> 2) The Federal DOT needs to understand the opposition and the nature of
> it. Rep. McCollum's office won't like this one bit, but we need to start
> writing letters directly to the Feds to make it clear that there is
> considerable opposition to this, and they shouldn't give this project any
> slack at all.
>
> Let's kill this travesty. Let's let the world know that the Emperor has
> no clothes, even if so many people are scared to be the first to say it.
> Never forget that the main reason we can kill it is because it's so
> obvious to everyone that it needs to be killed - we just have to be the
> first happy few.
>
> Is anyone up for a big letter writing campaign? I sure am. I want to
> move on to something real. Write me if you're up for it, and maybe we can
> organize!
>
>
> Erik Hare
> West End (Irvine Park), Saint Paul http://www.authorsden.com/erikhare
> More info: Info about Erik Hare:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/erikhare
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1SC6EPxAkO870tyFFzsjFj
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Questions about rules violations? Send complaints and items
> for investigation to: <email obscured>
>
> To post, send your message to: stpaul-issues@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> To unsubscribe type "unsubscribe" in the
> subject line and send to: stpaul-issues@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> More info about St. Paul Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Special thanks to our friends at OnlineGroups.Net
> for their technical support in maintaining this site.
> http://onlinegroups.net
>
>

> I find this rant an irresponsible attack on the obvious need to put in
> place
> a desperately needed regional transit system - already 60 years too late
> and
> getting later.

Funny, that is. Among the 8 different agencies that are charged with
installing transit in this corridor, you'll get a number of different
problems it is supposed to solve. It's a regional backbone. It's a local
service. It's all things to all people, and that's why the tab is over a
billion dollars. We couldn't even get the well-paid engineers to tell us
what the purpose is.

And saying so makes *me* "irresponsible". My.

I understand that many people are so hungry for transit they will back the
first thing to be proposed. But that doesn't make this a "responsible"
idea. Not in the slightest.

The Emporer has no clothes. We all know that.

> We need more support for mass transit here, not less. Erik has advanced
> some
> fair ideas about some alternatives (Short Line commuter rail and
> University
> Ave. streetcars), but, in the absence of their implementation, it would be
> irresponsible folly to discard the baby with the bathwater.

Folly? Please, tell me what this rail is supposed to do for us, and we
can judge whether or not it is the opposite of "folly". I'd like to hear
that. In the interim, I refuse to be a tool for the Met Council and their
designs on Midway, which include something akin to a freeway interchange
at Snelling and University and 12,000 more residents in high density
developments. This is Urban Removal, Part II. Have we learned nothing?
Do we have to stubbornly refuse the lessons of I-94 and the "creeping fait
accompli-ism" that cut a deep scar through our city?

We must have learned somewhere along the line that bigger is not better.
We must have learned that it is entirely possible to spend a tremendous
amount of money and actually make things *worse*. Surely, we've seen that
the right scale for an urban project makes all the difference between
success and failure.

If we wait for this project to die its inevitable death from the simple
and obvious fact that it will not be funded, the collateral damage will
have already been done. "Planning" includes many of the drastic changes
needed to get ready for this line, such as moving the Snelling/University
interchange forward. At some point, it becomes too late.

Enough is enough. It is irresponsible to let this continue. Yes, we need
rail transit in Saint Paul - but not any kind of transit anywhere. We
need rail transit FOR Saint Paul. Just because this is the first
technology the engineers considered does not mean it is appropriate for
us. Just because this horribly bad idea got this far does not mean it
can't be stopped. It WILL be stopped, one way or the other. We have to
limit the damage.

Eric asks for an explanation of what rail will do for us. I just read an
opinion piece by Amelia Timbers in Santa Cruz which does a decent job of
explaining what high density mixed use redevelopment can and will do to
strengthen our neighborhoods:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/May/06/edit/stories/04edit.htm

I agree with Eric on his critique of the proposed Snelling Avenue fly-over,
fly-under, fly-around or whatever it is and that it should be scrapped and my
bet is that it will be scrapped. That typed, I disagree strongly with Eric's
fears that the Central Corridor will be a repeat of I94 ripping apart St. Paul
neighborhoods. If done right it will have the opposite effect as eloquently
described by Amelia Timbers in her opinion piece.

Clinging to a car-oriented imitation of suburbia along University avenue will
cripple St. Paul neighborhoods as the cost of car culture continues to rise.

Matty Lang,
Central neighborhood Minneapolis for three more days until the move to a high
density mixed use redevelopment on two transit lines and a pedestrian and
bicycle greenway in Midtown Phillips Minneapolis

The proposal being pushed by the suburban-dominated, Pawlenty-appointed, Met
Council, with a Transportation Committee Chair from Wayzata and a Central
Corridor Coordinating Committee Chair from Arden Hills (currently employed by
New York-based engineering firm DMJM Harris - SEE "Revolving Door" clip

is not a
neighborhood, pedestrian, transit rider friendly concept. The proposal being
pushed by the Met Council and their Big Business, Big Government, Big
University friends, is a Highway-oriented road construction plan intended to
serve suburban motorists, retail warehouses, parking operators, fast-food
franchises, Wells Fargo, the Wilder Foundation and all the rest of the
corporate welfare kings.

Sheldon Gitis
Central Corridor resident
www.youtube.com/centralcorridor

As part of an extended ad hominem argument, Sheldon Gitis maintains
that the Central Corridor project "is not a neighborhood, pedestrian,
transit rider friendly concept."

Sheldon then goes on to say:
>The proposal being pushed by the Met Council and their Big Business,
>Big Government, Big University friends, is a Highway-oriented road
>construction plan intended to serve suburban motorists, retail
>warehouses, parking operators, fast-food franchises, Wells
>Fargo, the Wilder Foundation and all the rest of the corporate
>welfare kings.

Well I had the opportunity to bike to a meeting in Downtown St. Paul
this morning, then on to my office in Minneapolis. I took
University from the Capitol to Washington Avenue. I had a lot of
time to look around (there was a headwind) and I saw a WalMart, three
McDonalds, closed auto dealerships, and tremendous room for
improvement to the neighborhood. The existing layout is a highway-
style attractor for suburban-style driving (missing only grade
separation and that may be coming due to air pollution from traffic
volumes).

As for transit-friendliness, I played tag with a 16 bus at the
Capitol, passed it at Snelling, and it never caught up again (despite
the headwind). There were many folks waiting at various stops,
looking none too happy about the wait. The higher frequency of LRT
and greater customer satisfaction would probably improve their mood.

Michael Lewis
Mac-Groveland

Remember Bike to Work Week ends on Friday (but your biking to work
doesn't have to).

Rest of post

Many, if not most, of the folks waiting for a bus on University Avenue, are not
waiting at the proposed LRT stops. As proposed in the Draft EIS, most of the
folks waiting for a bus on University Avenue will have their wait-time doubled
as a result of the LRT concrete project. The proposed LRT stops are
essentially the same stops served by the route 50 bus. The "same higher
frequency and customer satisfaction" that would be achieved by the $billion
dollar concrete project could be accomplished faster, better, and at a tiny
fraction of the cost by simply upgrading the route 50 to an every 10 minute
service.

On May 18, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Sheldon Gitis wrote:
> The "same higher frequency and customer satisfaction" that would be
> achieved by the $billion dollar concrete project could be
> accomplished faster, better, and at a tiny fraction of the cost by
> simply upgrading the route 50 to an every 10 minute service.

This is all personal opinion and preference. I happen to disagree. My
wife has been riding the route 50 (among other routes) lately and is
generally satisfied. However, last week she took the light rail to
meet me in South Minneapolis and immediately commented on how much
nicer (and more satisfied) that she was with that ride. I'm
relatively certain, that the number of people who use transit will
increase with light rail - in a manner that it will not, simply by
increasing the frequency of busses.

I'm a little confused about the repeated assertions that no one other
than big businesses want light rail. I've lived in the Midway most of
my life (over 40 years) and have been hoping for something like this
for most of that time. I remember the "People Mover" debate from back
when I was in grade school (I think).

http://forums.e-democracy.org/topic/99378

Most of my neighbors are excited about the possibility of Light Rail
in our neighborhood. I expect that some of them will start riding
transit because of it (none of them own big business or fast food
franchises).

Yesterday I read (in your post in this forum):
> The proposal being pushed by the Met Council and their Big
> Business, Big Government, Big University friends, is a Highway-
> oriented road construction plan intended to serve suburban
> motorists, retail warehouses, parking operators, fast-food
> franchises, Wells Fargo, the Wilder Foundation and all the rest of
> the corporate welfare kings.

Today, I read in the StarTribune, that in anticipation of light rail
- the city has proposed:

Light-rail panel reaches for the brakes
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1191246.html

"Under the recommendations approved Thursday, new buildings would
have to be at least two stories high, parking would have to be on
the side or in the back of buildings, and drive-throughs and car
dealerships would be banned. Parking also would be limited based
on current allotments in the city code."

These are all things that "pedistrian" and "transit" advocates have
been pushing in my neighborhood for years. I totally fail to
understand how building two story buildings, banning "drive throughs
& car dealerships, and moving parking off behind buildings conforms
with your description of this as "a Highway-oriented road
construction plan intended to serve suburban motorists, retail
warehouses, parking operators, fast-food franchises."

I just don't understand where these claims/accusations are coming from.

Best wishes,

Tim Erickson
Hamline Midway
(Living 4 blocks from a proposed light rail station at
University and Snelling)

Rest of post

Tim Erickson wrote:

> I just don't understand where these claims/accusations are coming from.

It's coming from anti-transit people who use disingenuous arguments
designed to appeal to transit supporters. The goal is not to "get
transit right." It's to kill it.

People like Wendell Cox and Randal O'Toole make a living at it,
funded by asphalt companies, among others.

People like Michelle Bachmann and Mark Olson use the same tactics
to advance anti-transit political agendas.

Patsys like Deran Zimmerman are duped into thinking they can help
the public by backing projects like PRT which are designed to
siphon time and money from real, practical and proven transit
options.

Paul Weyrich and William Lind are conservative thinkers who have
done extensive research into anti-transit campaigns and have
produced many useful reports debunking them.

David Greene
The Wedge, Minneapolis

It sounds like David and Sheldon and others who have posted on this thread
would
want to come to our Video Kiosk on Monday to get further coverage of their
views!
Rumor has it that at least one "Frequent SPIFer" and on this thread has signed
up
already!

Come one, come all, down to the Rondo Library on Monday to do a video! There
is
free parking, WI-FI, A/C, not free coffee shop, and more....at a destination
point
on the corridor!

Monday May 21, 3-5PM - Issue: LIGHT RAIL on University Ave. Your video to
YouTube?

Another day for our Outreach Video Kiosk will be at the Rondo Library Monday,
May
21, 3:00-5:00 PM.
Light rail has been a very popular and spirited issue on the forum. Now is the
time
to put your mouth (and face) on this issue! You can add your views to the ones
(see
below) that are already on YouTube!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=central+corridor&;search=Search

If you are interested in either, please contact me, Gary Thompson,
(<email obscured>, 651-695-0615), to schedule a short video session during the
above time period. You can also stop by at your convenience and walk-in to do
a
video.

See below the IRV videos that are now on YouTube!

On an experimental basis, once or twice a month St. Paul E-Democracy Outreach
will
extend its tabling work at Rondo Library to a provide a St. Paul Issues Video
Kiosk.
Statements will be informative in nature, following the spirit of St. Paul
E-Democracy's mission (see below). Gary Thompson will be coordinating the St.
Paul
Issues Video Kiosk along with several SPED volunteers. Please contact him to
suggest topics.

St. Paul Issues Video Kiosk will provide those who want to make a short
statement on
that specific issue with an opportunity to tape short statements similar to the
St.
Paul City Council and School Board candidates' statements, to be uploaded on
YouTube, and eventually some on SPNN as a St. Paul Issues Series.

Gary Thompson
Highland

Rest of post

--- David Greene <<email obscured>> wrote:

> Tim Erickson wrote:
>
> > I just don't understand where these claims/accusations are coming from.
>
> It's coming from anti-transit people who use disingenuous arguments
> designed to appeal to transit supporters. The goal is not to "get
> transit right." It's to kill it.
>
> People like Wendell Cox and Randal O'Toole make a living at it,
> funded by asphalt companies, among others.
>
> People like Michelle Bachmann and Mark Olson use the same tactics
> to advance anti-transit political agendas.
>
> Patsys like Deran Zimmerman are duped into thinking they can help
> the public by backing projects like PRT which are designed to
> siphon time and money from real, practical and proven transit
> options.
>
> Paul Weyrich and William Lind are conservative thinkers who have
> done extensive research into anti-transit campaigns and have
> produced many useful reports debunking them.
>
> David Greene
> The Wedge, Minneapolis
>
> David Greene
> The Wedge, Minneapolis
> More info: Info about David Greene:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/davidgreene
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1Mx8pWgFPXpSLL7lkIoU8m
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Questions about rules violations? Send complaints and items
> for investigation to: <email obscured>
>
> To post, send your message to: stpaul-issues@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> To unsubscribe type "unsubscribe" in the
> subject line and send to: stpaul-issues@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> More info about St. Paul Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Special thanks to our friends at OnlineGroups.Net
> for their technical support in maintaining this site.
> http://onlinegroups.net
>

____________________________________________________________________________________Get
the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php

The claim that the proposed concrete project is being pushed by the
"wheeler-dealer" powers-that-be is based on the current development and near
term future development on University Avenue. Do the multi-McDonald's on
University Avenue not have drive-throughs? Will the new White Castle have a
2-story parking ramp behind the restaurant? Will Target, Walmart, Cub, etc.
disappear as a result of the University Ave. concrete project? Does
maintaining "current allotments" of retail warehouse, fast food parking promote
transit and pedestrian friendly environments?

The "task force" recommendations that Tim Erickson refers to are nothing more
than a bad joke, smoke screen, front for maintaining the 1950's and 60's,
highway-industrial, concrete-fixated, status quo.

Bend over. The train has left the station.

Sheldon Gitis
Central Corridor resident
At least one person in my neighborhood would prefer a tree-lined boulevard to a
40-yard-wide strip of concrete.

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

Billion dollar LRT CC NOT in Local Best Interest

Already a member?

Not a member?

E-Democracy is 100% Donation Supported Contribute Today!