All posts in the topic What does $70 million buy? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 13 posts — by 6 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Erik Hare at May 13 21:49 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Sheldon Gitis | cash flow 3.jpg | Apr 18 17:25 UTC |
| Sheldon Gitis | dibble moving forward studies qt conv full h264.mo | May 10 20:51 UTC |
Today on MPR, the Mayors Coleman and Rybak repeatedly stated that the $70
million in this year’s bonding bill for the Central Corridor Project would
produce more than $400 million in Federal grant money for the State. The FTA
grant that the Metropolitan Council claims it is seeking requires the State and
the Counties to raise more than $450 million. So far, the State and the
Counties have raised less than $40 million. The $70 million that the Governor
vetoed in this year’s bonding bill does not come close to meeting the more than
$450 million requirement for the FTA matching grant.
The following file was added to this topic.
- Name: cash flow 3.jpg
- Type: image/jpeg
- Size: 379.72KB
What does $70 million buy?
In 2001, the University of Minnesota Board of Regents recommended a northern
alignment through Dinkytown for the Central Corridor light-rail line. 7 years
later, a preliminary study of the University’s preferred route has finally
begun.
According to State Sen. D. Scott Dibble, the $70 million in this year’s bonding
bill for the Central Corridor is to “continue to keep the Federal Government
engaged in moving forward on our studies.”
At the rate that this project is moving with its studies, no public transit
improvement is going happen any time soon. Rather, as Federal, State and
County funds, intended to support public transit, continue to get eaten up buy
road construction projects, public transit service will continue to decline and
fares will continue to increase.
The following file was added to this topic.
- Name: dibble moving forward studies qt conv full h264.mov
- Type: video/quicktime
- Size: 176079.07KB
What 70 million dollars buy?
A central corridor project with an additional $450 million of federal funds
that will not be spent destroying a foreign country, and which will also
stimulate the economy with the local jobs effects that we all hope for.
In a few years, I can take a two $2.50 rides instead of paying for a half
gallon of gas (probably $4.00) and paying for parking ($6.00). If I can do that
300 days a year, that is $1500 tax free dollars in my pocket, the equivalent of
a $3000 raise.
Is that dollars and *sense* enough?
Otherwise we can take the Republican solution and promise to something about
the cost of transportation by 2050, when all current politicians are out of
office.
Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly
Wet curmudgeon in Merriam Park
Good post Kelly. With the price of oil going up with no end in sight, it's the
height of foolishness to oppose LRT. I can see criticizing the details; how
many stops, etc., but it's so clear we need this project.
Thank you Charlie Swope and Grace Kelly:
Even if cars were to soon be manufactured to not use gasoline, there would
continue to be serious land use problems, traffic problems, and impediment of
human access for walk, bike, and handicapped. Facility for walk, bike and
handicapped fit well with cost effective transit, like electric rail that
simply treats us as human beings better than *just* busses that are in fact
*not* cost effective, and just auto use that does not invite universal
all-the-time love, safety, and cost effective utilty.
We have some very serious deficiencies here in Saint Paul for walk, bike,
handicapped - ADA access, and transit (for cross city and cross metro/state
mobility). We have a MN State Governor that clearly knows little about
transportation and corresponding economic stability for our cities, metro, and
the state.
The more intense the cause and irresponsibility of our problems are, whether in
an elected individual or other issue, the greater must be our resolve to
correct whatever must be corrected; without fail.
All The Best
Paul Nelson
Ward One
D-7
Hyde Park
Opposition to the one-size fits all replacement of the current bus routes on
University Ave. and I-94 is not opposition to LRT. Opposition to the
Pawlenty-Met. Council one-size fits all reduction of the most frequent, most
heavily-used, most cost-effective public transit in Minnesota is opposition to
a $billion concrete project which limits public transit ridership on a line
serving both downtowns, the State Capitol, the Midway, and the University of
Minnesota to just a little more than 40,000 daily riders (there should be more
than 40,000 riders getting on and off the train at the University alone), and
places those 40,000 riders in the middle of a city street in rail cars designed
to travel 70 mph and requiring a distance of 2 football fields to come to a
complete stop. The train in the middle of the street reduces local transit
service, is a safety hazard for motorists, pedestrians and bicycle riders, and
requires a 40-yard wide strip of concrete with no accommodation for bicycles
and very poor accommodation for green space and other pedestrian amenities.
Everyone can bemoan the duping and the rip-off that resulted in the loss of the
Twin Cities streetcar system, but getting duped and ripped off again by another
transit reduction scam isn’t going to bring the streetcars back.
Mr. Sheldon Gitis wrote:
"Opposition to the Pawlenty-Met. Council one-size fits all reduction of the
most frequent, most
heavily-used, most cost-effective public transit in Minnesota..."
That statement is factually false in morte ways than one.
The 16A bus line as well as the #50 and the I94 are *not* cost effective. I
know the financials of the MTC bus system. There are no cost effective bus
lines in the MTC. In fact, Mr. Gitis contradicted himself when in a recent post
he stated he avoided getting on the 16A because of crowding, and decided to
wait for the more expensive #50. Discouraging ridership is not cost effective.
All over the country people are taking *rail* transit in increasing numbers
greater than any kind of bus system. Here the Hiawatha LRT is moving twice as
many passenger trips per day than the #50, #16 and the 94 combined. In fact the
Hiawatha LRT is moving passengers at a significantly lower cost per passenger
ride than the afore mentioned busses combined.
I am pressed for time, so I will not repeat figures here. I would encourage Mr
Gitis to reesearch the financials himself.
In addition, I will state that Mr. Pawlenty in concert with the Met Council *is
not* supportive of transportation, transit, and particularly rail transit. That
is my firm assessment of history and intuitive judgement, as well as public
documentation. Mr. Pawlenty, I think hates rail transit, and he clearly
demonstrates a dim view of cities, and particularly Saint Paul. Mr. Pawlenty
was quoted recently as stating: "I am not necessarily opposed to the project
(The Central Corridor)". I have no ideal what that statement means; a very poor
expression to the public.
More later if I have time.
Paul Nelson
Ward One - D7
Hyde Park
I welcome anyone to question the accuracy of anything I state, but I do not
think Mr. Nelson's facts/"financials" are accurate. Having ridden the almost
empty Hwy 55 light-rail twice in late afternoon into DT Mpls, and having ridden
the always crowded 16A into DT St. Paul several times in the late afternoon, I
find it hard to believe Mr. Nelson's claim that "the Hiawatha LRT is moving
twice as many passenger trips per day than the #50, #16 and the 94 combined."
As far as cost-effectiveness is concerned, any form of mass transit, whether
bus or rail, is a lot more effecient, a lot safer, and a lot less costly than
moving masses of single-passenger vehicles.
Paul said:
> In addition, I will state that Mr. Pawlenty in concert with the Met
> Council *is not* supportive of transportation, transit, and particularly
> rail transit. That is my firm assessment of history and intuitive
> judgement, as well as public documentation. Mr. Pawlenty, I think hates
> rail transit, and he clearly demonstrates a dim view of cities, and
> particularly Saint Paul. Mr. Pawlenty was quoted recently as stating: "I
> am not necessarily opposed to the project (The Central Corridor)". I have
> no ideal what that statement means; a very poor expression to the public.
I am very pleased that we agree on this. I think it is very important.
We need transit in Saint Paul. Buses are cost effective when compared to
cars, but the operational cost of an electric rail line is substantially
lower. We clearly have to move that direction for the effciency,
cleanliness, and capacity that will be necessary for the next generation
of Saint Paulites.
How do we get there? I have never though that the Met Council and their
various cronies such as URS are capable (or even interested) in delivering
this effectively. We all may not like the Federal Cost Effectiveness
Guidelines and how they limit what we can do with Federal money, but they
are a reality.
Our supposed "leadership" on this issue inflated everyone's expectations
to an unrealistic level rather deliberately, knowing that they couldn't
deliver. Now, representatives of the University are insisting on a
dual-track approach and generally creating mayhem at a critical time for
what's left of the proposal for the Central Corridor. I happen to believe
that this was done by design; the alternative, that it's pure naivite, is
hard to buy.
Once again, I will restate my core belief: Cities and Counties are going
to have to find a way to build rail transit themselves with as little
interference from the Met Council as possible. The Minneapolis Streetcar
Plan is a good example of what needs to happen. I realize that this will
not build a regional system that incorporates the entire "metro area", but
that's the reality.
We in the city have to do what we can, and damn the rest of them.
Leadership is badly needed on rail transit, and as the Central Corridor
dies a slow, twitching death we can see that no one is actually willing to
step up and save it. We have to find something smaller that we can
nurture along to show the naysayers how terribly wrong they are.
Pawlenty tried very hard to let this project die of its own weight without
bloodying his own hands. That didn't happen, which is good; he deserves
the blame. But it also shows that even he knows how popular rail transit
is, since he's clearly afraid of it even as he tries to have his cronies
kill it off. Let's use that for the next round. Let's do something
that's not firmly in his hands in the first place so that he can't wrap
them around the neck of another rail project.
A few thoughts that are bouncing around my head. Perhaps of some use,
or not at all...
First, the Pioneer Press reported as fact something very interesting:
because of the location the U chose for their new football stadium,
amdist the sea of nearby parking lots, the Central Corridor had to be
rerouted and the tunnel lengthened, adding about $100 million to the
cost of the line.
Well, I'll just say that if there's any truth to that, any remaining
charity I feel toward the U of M on this matter quickly fades away.
We need the U of M to be an honest actor, and own up to their own
responsibility in the crisis they surely seem to have helped create.
Which brings me to an observation. Along most of Washington Avenue
between University and Coffman Union there is extra right of way that
is used for passive green space - grass and shrubs. I haven't gotten
out a tape measure, mind you, and I am no engineer, but I'm quite
familiar with this section of roadway. And my eyes have heretofore
told me there is enough room between buildings to keep the existing 4
lanes of traffic and 2 lanes of light rail, and sidewalks of almost
exactly the same width.
The only place that seems not to be especially true is the two
narrower blocks between Oak Street and Huron Boulevard, which is where
most business are. But luckily, and a quick look at an aerial view
would demonstrate this, there is a clear and quite graceful right-of-
way from University Avenue a block north of Washington (behind Stub
and Herbs), and plenty of room for a station in the green space in
front of the U of M's new MacNamara Center at Oak & Washington.
I'm sure the U would prefer not to lose any green space, but this
could work quite well in terms of design. Perhaps their nearby
architecture school students could help. And in light of what I've
read, I see absolutely no need or desire to sacrifice the line's
objectives for the U of M's objectives. (I should note that the
nearby neighbors in places like Marcy-Holmes are basically innocent
bystanders in this all, and they certainly still have my sympathy).
Anyhow, these are just a few off-the-cuff observations. More
conversation is warranted. The University of Minnesota darn well
needs to be part of the solution already. We can't all have our cake
and eat it too, and these conversations are always very tough. Some
of us will never be perfectly happy, and that's the nature of the
game. But working together we definitely have a decent shot at
getting most folks a little bigger slice of the pie.
In defense of the University, it seems to me that they were on board with the
original plan that included the Washington Ave. tunnel. When, late in the day,
that plan was changed to provide for surface tracks on Washington Ave. and its
closing to other traffic, it's hard to blame them for wanting to rethink the
Washington Ave. route. Although the Met Council had good reasons for changing
the original plans, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the University
would question the specific revision that's been proposed.
> In defense of the University, it seems to me that they were on board
> with the original plan that included the Washington Ave. tunnel.
> When, late in the day, that plan was changed to provide for surface
> tracks on Washington Ave. and its closing to other traffic, it's
> hard to blame them for wanting to rethink the Washington Ave. route.
Charlie, you are missing a key connection. The plan had to be changed
"late in the day" BECAUSE OF the University of Minnesota's own
decision. The University's own choice of where to build their
football stadium doubled the cost of the tunnel, thus making the
tunnel infeasible under even the most generous of estimates.
So, just to restate, a very predictable consequence of the
University's own decision was that we could no longer afford to build
the planned alignment and tunnel for LRT. The University's actions
directly helped kill the tunnel.
And that's fine, as long as the University is prepared to face the
consequences of that choice. And one of those consequences is that
they have a responsibility to help proactively find solutions. Major
transportation projects are bound by timelines, and the University
knew what those timelines looked like years ago, and did little to
further it's apparent interests in the conversation until it was too
late. That should be the University's tough luck, not the tough luck
of every other stakeholder along the line that played by the rules.
If the University doesn't begin to act more responsibly, the
University won't just be blamed for killing the tunnel. The folks at
the U of M will sacrifice a regional transportation project decades in
the making, and advance economic stagnation through much of the Midway
and the heart of St. Paul.
Not exactly the kind of legacy that helps advance personal or
institutional reputations.
Bob
PS And importantly, given the threadbare state of the City budget -
and more problems looming this year - there is little realistic hope
of money for rail projects through the Central Corridor without the
help of the federal, state and/or regional government for many, many
years. Funding theory hits political and economic realities pretty
quickly. This is probably the Central Corridor's best hope until at
least the 2020s, just to be clear about what is at stake here.
People, this has been something like a con.
I've been wondering all along how this project got so far with inflated
expectations, and it's pretty clear to me now. Pawlenty allowed it to
keep going because he assumed it would doom transit for a long time. That
was the plan.
A big part of this, like any con, is an appropriate patsy. The University
is a great patsy because they don't have any reason to care - they have
more than enough power no matter how you feel about them,
tankooberrymooch. They can absorb all the blame and it is properly
deflected away from the person who really is responsible.
The thing is that this con had multiple ways of paying out, because
keeping everyone bizzy was a great diversion away from miscellaneous other
problems. I mean, in 20 years there hasn't been a single change in the
technology, precise route, or any detail other than the turn at Fourth and
Cedar (and that only happened because it was impossible as drawn). All
that time giving "public input" was just a glorious waste of time that
kept everyone from making real trouble.
If we wind up all fighting amongst ourselves, the con will have been
perfectly successful. That's what was supposed to happen in the end.
It's the best way to make sure that all momentum for transit is utterly
lost and we all feel completely defeated.
Let's not blame anyone. Hell, you can all blame me - I've been the
loudest critic of this line of anyone I know. Blame me, ostracize me,
make it all my effing fault. Then, go out and try to get something done.
Just keep bastards like me away from it so that I can't screw it up, OK?
Bob said
> PS And importantly, given the threadbare state of the City budget -
> and more problems looming this year - there is little realistic hope
> of money for rail projects through the Central Corridor without the
> help of the federal, state and/or regional government for many, many
> years. Funding theory hits political and economic realities pretty
> quickly. This is probably the Central Corridor's best hope until at
> least the 2020s, just to be clear about what is at stake here.
Ah, but you left out the County - the one agency that can at least LEAD
the next effort. Yes, the Federal money will have to be routed through
the Met Council, but I think it's best to have all our ducks in a row
before we force them to quietly act as a pass-through. I think we can get
the Legislature to do that if it costs them little to nothing. That's the
plan I have now - a "Small Start" Streetcar system that does an end-run
around the Met Council.
Wait, I said you should leave me out of this. Nevermind. ;-)