.pdf file version of it -- bobagain
NEWS ANALYSIS – As Capitol Confab Conjurors Conjoin “do-over” special session
with SWLRT $’s, Mercedes-Benz “Future Bus” with “CityPilot” automated driving
system rolls through Amsterdam; “Better Transit” advocate promotes “SWLRT
Compromise”
Disclosure: “Candidate-Journalist” bobagain, a registered Lobbyist for “We the
People”, an informal association, is the only Republican candidate to file for
the Minnesota State Senate in District 61, and has announced a campaign to win
a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, covering the “unfolding and
unraveling SWLRT disaster”; he has launched a Crowd Funded video series, and is
also launching a for-profit business to offer better transit solutions.
Minneapolis 7/25/16 – “Better Transit” advocate, registered Lobbyist for “We
the People” (an informal association) and “Candidate-Journalist” Bob “Again”
Carney Jr. (“bobagain”) offers the following NEWS ANALYSIS article --
continuing now in the first person -- as a Capitol quartet of “do over” special
session Confab Conjurors -- Gov. Mark Dayton, Lt. Gov. Tina Smith, House
Speaker Kurt Daudt, and Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk -- assembled July 15th,
trying to kickstart a “go-fund-me” late August special session. Note: I will
be resuming my “one person occupy site” activities at Kenilworth Trail (see
photo), starting 7/26/16, once or twice a week, having for the most part
recovered from recent surgery.
The regular session “bonding express” train trying to leave “Capitol Station”
came to a sudden, screeching halt at midnight, Sunday May 22nd, shortly after
the Senate passed an amendment to the last-minute House Bonding bill. The
House adjourned minutes before midnight, and the Senate ran out of time while
an attempt to undo the amendment was underway. See my attached July 8th News
Analysis for a detailed analysis of the blame game associated with the end of
the regular session, focusing on May 22nd.
Gov. Dayton, one of the Confab Four, has significantly scaled back his earlier
list of “demands” for a special session. In spite of the disastrous role SWLRT
played in wrecking the end of the regular session, the Capitol Conjurors Confab
was also apparently seeking to Conjoin a SWLRT financial Caboose to the special
session express they’re trying to schedule for a late August departure.
Although Senate majority leader Bakk said he thinks he sees “a path,” details
haven’t been offered as to how such a financing plan might work. Legislative
minority leaders – Rep. Paul Thissen and Sen. David Hann – did not participate
in the recent Conjurors’ Confab – Lt. Gov. Smith indicated their participation
will be needed for a special session to move forward.
A July 18th Star Tribune editorial asserts: “A bonding/transportation bill
likely cannot pass in the DFL-controlled Senate if Southwest remains stalled.”
That claim appears to be contradicted by the fact that as the Senate ran out of
time to remove the SWLRT funding amendment, the motion to reconsider passed on
a 50-12 vote, including 25 “yes” votes from Republicans. Since only seven
DFLers had committed themselves to not passing a bonding bill without SWLRT
funding, it appears there were (and are) enough Republican votes to pass the
bonding bill without seven hardcore Senate DFL SWLRT advocates.
The Conjurors’ process apparently may include hearings by Legislative
committees prior to the session. One of the issues raised by Republican
legislative leaders -- Speaker Daudt and Sen. Hann – is that there has never
been a legislative hearing on Southwest Light Rail. No relevant meetings
appear to be scheduled, based on the Combined Legislative Calendar.
A Southwest Light Rail Compromise
>From now until any special session is held I will be actively contacting all
legislators to promote “Here’s the win-win solution for Southwest Light Rail,”
the title of my May 26th Star Tribune Commentary. That article is page one of
an attachment to this NEWS ANALYSIS, “A SWLRT Compromise – 5-31-16.” Page two
of that attachment includes the map at the right, and comments on nine major
advantages of my plan when it is compared to the current Kenilworth alignment.
Referring to the map, the Kenilworth portion of the alignment is the light
green line, with three stations marked as “x.” This part of the route would be
eliminated and replaced by either a) the “3C route”, shown in blue, including a
dashed line portion represented a proposed tunnel under Nicollet, or b) my
“modified 3C route,” which replaces the Nicollet tunnel section with about a
1,000 foot extension to a Greenway and I-35W Transit Hub. My “modified 3C
route” would then be elevated in the I-35W corridor, proceeding to a Convention
Hub Station; the “3C route” is then followed to the current Green Line.
One advantage of my plan is that the “3C route” has already been “vetted” – it
was one of the routes discarded when the so-called “Locally Preferred
Alternative” was selected. I say “so-called” because the “Locally Preferred
Alternative was selected with the understanding that there would be no
“co-location” -- freight rail would be moved out of Kenilworth.
The following advantages are excerpted directly from my “A SWLRT Compromise –
5-31-16” Attachment. Here are some major advantages of my “modified 3C route”
when compared to the Kenilworth route:
• It leaves Kenilworth’s “de facto” parkland alone.
• It does not go in a half mile long tunnel with mile long ethanol and Bakken
crude trains running above it – an open invitation for terrorism.
• It serves some of the densest population concentrations in Minnesota.
• It links with major bus routes: 6, 12, 17 & 23 at Uptown, 4 on Lyndale, 18 on
Nicollet, 21 & 53 on Lake Street, 2 on Franklin; U of M routes; I-35W BRT
buses.
• The Greenway & I-35W Hub, and Franklin, are easily accessible to the near
south side, serving large minority and low income populations.
• The existing Blue Line can use the same track, providing a one seat ride
linking the Mall of America, the Airport, and the Convention Center, and
providing five minute service throughout downtown and as far along the SWLRT
route as desired. If the blue and green lines are consolidated, this could be
(and in my assessment should be) the last LRT line in Minnesota.
• The Convention Center Hub will become a reverse commuting “Grand Central
Station” for the 700 commuter buses that now run along Marquette and Second
Avenue.
• The North Hub brings together all current North Minneapolis bus service, and
is linked by 5 minute LRT service with: downtown, the Convention Center reverse
commuting Hub, all I-35W BRT buses, and the south Minneapolis city street bus
grid. This is a giant leap forward for equity, especially transit-to-work
equity.
• The new Chain of Lakes station -- featuring a “land bridge” linking the lakes
provides transit access to the heart of the Minneapolis Park System – it’s
also a great way to bring Convention goers to our parks.
One of the attachments to this NEWS ANALYSIS is the .pdf file: “draft
legislation – Southwest LRT Compromise. Key features of the legislation are:
1) The Counties Transit Improvement Board (“CTIB”) and/or Hennepin County would
be authorized to provide the state’s “missing” 10% of the funding, if certain
conditions are met; the most important are:
2) The route must be moved out of the Kenilworth corridor, must follow the
Greenway at least to Hennepin Avenue, and must reach the Convention Center;
either the original “3C route”, or my “modified 3C route” would satisfy this
condition.
3) The Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) must agree to allow the project
to remain in the New Starts program while the necessary additional
environmental review is completed.
The current route through Kenilworth is a disaster – it’s better to scrap
Southwest LRT than allow it to go through Kenilworth.
Mercedes-Benz unveils “Future Bus” with “CityPilot” automated driving system
Meanwhile, as the Confab Four continue to wrangle over Southwest LRT – 19th
century technology at 22nd century prices – the 21st century just keeps on
coming. On July 18th, another historic transit milestone was reached, when
Mercedes-Benz rolled out its new “Future Bus” – featuring the “CityPilot”
automated driving system. The fully functional “Future Bus” prototype -- with
a driver on board but operating in fully automated mode -- made a 12 mile run
in “live traffic conditions” on part of the dedicated Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”)
corridor linking Amsterdam’s downtown with its airport.
The “CityPilot” automated driving system is based on the company’s “Future
Truck 2025” semi, with its own “HighwayPilot” automated driving system. Of
course, Mercedes-Benz also has automated cars on the way, such as their F 015
“luxury in motion”, pictured below.
Mercedes-Benz talks about a “semi-automated” mode, and appears not to be
planning to simply replace drivers. Frankly, I question whether this is their
real plan. Here’s why:
First, there is a major problem with expecting humans to function safely and
effectively as part of a “semi-automated driving team.” When people are only
very rarely -- or never -- expected to have to do anything, our attention
inevitably wanders. With “semi-automated driving,” if there is nothing to do
99.99999% of the time -- but a sudden need for immediate intervention in what
is likely a life-or-death situation the other .00001% of the time -- it’s just
plain crazy to expect a human -- suddenly a driver in a crisis -- will reliably
take immediate and appropriate action.
Second, of course, economic reality points strongly to a demand to move from
99.9999% system reliability to 100% system reliability. But on our journey
towards that requirement, we cannot and should not design out the ability of
humans to instantly intervene on occasion until we really are 100% ready. This
is especially true for city bus routes – which of course are known paths. Our
challenge prompts us to develop “hybrid automated systems” that include a human
backup, who is alerted to come “on line” only rarely, when the automated system
detects a emerging situation requiring a human backup. If that backup is only
needed a small percentage of the time -- say, 1% -- the driver can and should
be doing useful things the rest of the time. Let’s keep in mind that that this
approach can also be used for driverless cars, like the Mercedes-Benz F015
“luxury in motion,” shown above.
The 21st century will be the century of automated everything – including
automated driving. The interior of the Mercedes-Benz “Future Bus” is an
extreme over-reaction to my part-joke-but-mostly-serious hybrid -- the “sardine
can” model of transit vehicle interiors: cram as many “sardine-people” as
possible during rush hour. The “Future Bus” design – like the Eiffel Tower and
the Statute of Liberty – is not designed to maximize the square footage of
office space – but to show us an idea – what is possible with Steel… and with
Liberty. When automated driving is fully a reality – when bus and truck drivers
have gone the way of elevator operators… and they inevitably will – the basic
economic model of transit will have been turned on its head. Economies will
come not from larger vehicles – but from smaller vehicles. Competitive
advantages over the private auto will derive not from the ability to
economically move hoards of “sardine-people” to and from work, but from
renderings of interior space that enable people – sometimes we call ourselves
customers -- to both ride in maximum comfort, and to engage in the fullest
possible range of activities. Both family outings and shopping are high on
this list. Cars carry us and our stuff – transit needs to give us the same
options. We want to be able to use our gadgets while riding – to make
commuting time productive time. A fundamental reimagining of the interior of
transit vehicles is essential. If we want to work while “in transit,” we
should be able to have a “pop up office” up and running in fifteen seconds.
When automated driving has arrived, a high density of people per square feet in
the interior space is simply not a high priority – maybe it isn’t a net
advantage at all. More people no longer equates to a lower per-person cost for
driver. Here’s the 21st century transit equation:
More Interior Space and Comfort = More People
Millions of us will want to use transit when transit’s amenities become truly
competitive with cars.
The “Future Bus” is a bold illustration of what this means. Its simple message
is: “think differently!” The key is in the contrast – between an almost
park-like interior (the seats resemble park benches) compared to our “sardine
can” model. Over time, the interior of automated transit vehicles will evolve