President Barack Obama is apparently a supporter of expanded light rail in the Twin Cities area.
The Obama Administration announced today that the Southwest Light Rail project is one of two projects in the country that will be expedited due to the "We Can't Wait" initiative.
That initiative aims to speed up the various processes required to get a big project off the ground. In the case of Southwest LRT, the Federal Transit Administration is using an enhanced coordination process with other federal agencies as well as exploring using the NEPA/Clean Water Act merger process, which is estimated to save several months by aligning multiple permit and review processes to work concurrently instead of sequentially.
The target date for completing federal permits and reviews is November 2014.
The Southwest Light Rail line, which will connect downtown Minneapolis with Eden Prairie via a route through the west metro suburbs, is anticipated to open in 2018.
Costs are estimated to run around $1.25 billion. The FTA is expected to pay for up to half of the line, with local sources picking up the rest. To date, local legislators have failed to secure $25 million in bonding bill funding. Gov. Mark Dayton did approve a $2 million grant for Southwest LRT last month.
The project has also received $47 million from the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority, the Counties Transit Improvement Board and the state.
Hennepin County commissioner Gail Dorfman said the announcement definitely comes as good news.
She said for the FTA to make the project a priority is "very significant," though she added that she didn't expect the anticipated opening date to move up.
"But you never know," Dorfman said.
As far as dollars and cents, the commissioner said Monday's announcement "certainly sends a signal" to the legislature that more funding should be approved.
Ultimately, Dorfman said she thinks the process is going well.
"It kind of seems like things are lining up," she said.
On behalf of the state’s five largest local chambers of commerce (TwinWest, the Edina Chamber of Commerce, the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce), TwinWest Chamber Director of Government Affairs Judy Johnson issued the following statement:
This is great news for commuters, workers, and job providers in the Twin Cities. Southwest LRT is strongly supported by Minnesotans, the business community, and cities in the southwest metro.
In today’s announcement, the White House confirms this is one of the most important transportation projects in the country and they're going to do everything they can to help move this project along as quickly as possible.
We need more transportation options if we’re going to grow jobs and stay competitive with other regions. Southwest LRT will help serve 60,000 new private sector workers, provide 10 million rides a year, improve our region’s quality of life, and reduce traffic congestion.
Met Council chairwoman Susan Haigh said, in a statement, that "the announcement affirms the status of the Southwest LRT Project as a high-ranking and viable project, and the work we are doing with all the involved and committed partners to create a 21st century transit system."
You can read Haigh's full statement here.
Can you share with us which transit system line in the state is operating in the black without taxpayer subsidies? Or name any in the five state area that are operating in the black? Can you point out any real economic activity? Specifically, provide examples of newly operating “powerful economic engines” that exist where LRT is operating today? If there was to be all this economic activity, wouldn’t you think private enterprise would already be willing to support the cost of a train? As a taxpayer, I am not getting sucked in again over empty promises. In fact, I am still waiting to see that “powerful economic activity and redevelopment” around the HHH Metrodome promised by WCCO Sports reporter, Sid Hartman and others, in the early 80’s. Other than a bar named Hubert’s, the economic activity in that area looks sort of thin. It is apparent to many taxpayers that the Met Council is simply replacing existing bus routes, some successful and some not, which is hardly a recipe for new self-sufficient development.
Who is auditing the estimated ridership numbers for 2030? The Met Council? Or is it other faceless special interests of LRT? Bold assertions were also made at the start of the Central Corridor, yet it appears to need subsidized tickets to maintain ridership. I believe these subsidies are a direct result of LRT failing to meet ridership estimations. The taxpayers are left with the bill. Even if ridership meets that quota, can anyone explain why the opportunity cost comparison of busses appear to be MIA? Anyone disagree with the obvious fact that buses can do the same job (transportation) at a fraction of cost of $1.2BB train route? (Has anyone even heard of a billion dollar bus proposal?) Wonder why? Why is no one putting a number on the efficiency of capital usage comparing trains vs busses? It doesn’t exactly take a transportation engineer to realize the ROI of capital spent on busses is significant better vs capital spent on trains. ROI Example: we can easily reallocate underutilized busses to other routes for maximum capital usage. During slow periods, we can reallocate or using DFL’s favorite word, easily ‘redistribute’ buses. ROI Example: Speed to adjust: Bus transit management can respond within the hour to move transit capital to new areas where the specific need exists. (ie. State Fair Time or highway construction, bridge repair)
What about the 800 pound gorilla in the Met Council Chamber? What do you do with a train and tracks and depots when the demographic need changes? If we maintain a bus system, you can simply change the bus route. Ever try to change railroad tracks and bridges? Imagine the horror if the same people that designed US169 are in charge of this. It has been almost 18 years and MNDOT is still ‘fixing’ 169 to make it drivable. Again, taxpayers getting stuck with the tab. How many believe if we build the train once, the train exists permanently forever? Let’s not even get into the repair and replacement cost of infrastructure due to frost wedging. The train infrastructure will deteriorate like our MN roads, whether they are used or not. Taxpayers again will be on the hook for replacing every bolt, track & bridge. Even if 75% of road traffic is removed from city streets, deterioration issues with roads still occur and MN taxpayers will need to continue to pay for repairs of roads in addition to rail infrastructure. Is there Federal financial help already lined up to pay for replacement maintenance in the out years? In 1982, how many of you thought we would have been replacing the Metrodome? I didn’t.
In short, what does a train do that a bus cannot do at a fraction of the cost? Until these questions are answered and fully understood, discussed and debated by the taxpayers there should no approval to move forward.
Interesting points. But aren't taxpayer dollars already being used to subsidise roads, and bridges, and tunnels? Those are part of our transit system. And a recurring expense at that. I'm pretty sure we don't have any toll roads in MN, so I'm wondering if you consider those infrastructure costs to be "in the black." Don't we rely upon 'government' to build, grow, and maintain our local, regional, and national infrastructure? I don't expect Target to build a road from thier store to my house if I want to purchase some groceries, that would be silly. Our country was built on free enterprise, but the foundation of that enterprise was constructed with Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System. That system has been estimated to cost over $400 billion in today's dollars, just to construct. That doesn't include the annual costs of maintaining that system. Target and Walmart and K Mart don't have private roads they built to move their goods around the country. They use our public infrastructure that was built for everyone to use. I understand that part of my tax dollars are spent to invest in the infrastructure that benefits everyone. And beyond that, I also understand that those funds, which I contribute via taxes, are also used to grow and maintain that system of transportation so that everyone can benefit. Also, as someone who apparently has been reading Sid for the last 30 years, I think you can only blame yourself if you take anything he says seriously.
I'm not anti-bus, they're an integral part of any mass-transit system. What concerns me about LR is that Metrotransit doesn't seem to understand the best uses for each type of high occupancy transit (HOT). One of the reasons LR should be faster is that 80% of the time it should have its own dedicated path (i.e. not share a transit path with traditional traffic). The Central Corridor (CC) line runs down University which is packed with traffic, stop lights, accidents etc. In addition to that it has 18 stops. In my opinion they're trying to use the CC like an expensively supped-up bus. It would have been better to have several stops in downtown St. Paul and then maybe 4 additional stops besides the already existing Mnpls stops and the line should have had its own dedicated path or a path shared only with other HOT types of transit. Cities shouldn't try to use the LR like a supped-up bus. It operates best as a fast, direct line to the city centers; from there individual cities like SLP/Hopkins etc can and should adjust the existing bus inventory we have to serve as "intracity" transit which would then funnel people to the single LR hub for their area. If this project isn’t executed properly, it will be a terrible boondoggle and will make the metro gun-shy about investing in additional lines.
That was one of the most logical and polite comments I've seen on a message board. Thank you for sharing. I think your point differentiating lightrail and bus transit was excellent. Busses can, and should, service many routes and many spots. LR provides a dedicated path from an outlying area to a city center. It willbe the combination of the two systems (along with taxis, bike sharing, and inviting walking paths throughout the city) that produce the easiest and most inviting method of public transportation.
BTW, you need to update yourself with what is going on in Portland. For all the same soft reasons outlined above they also built LRT lines. No one is using them. There is no development. Now the taxpayers are being forced to not only to subsidize rail, they are now being taxed to fund new housing and retail development. I see you people love to toss around the word 'investment'... well can someone show us the return? So far all I hear is emoting and very little comparative facts. At one time I guess the public utility for the pyramids seemed like a good idea by someone, but I wouldn't want to live in Egypt either.
Let's try to keep your arguments seperated here so that they can be easily addressed. The southwest region of the Greater Twin Cities area is NOT 16, trillion in debt. That is the National Debt. I never said all spending is good spending, I said I support the SW LRT. I also didn't say that the SW LRT would generate a profit. I said it was an investment. Hwy 169 doesn't generate a profit, but 'David' seems pretty excited that it is being improved. I'd love to hear your definition of "better" I think the LRT is "better" than busses because it will be faster, it will reduce wear and tear on the road, and it will provide destinations within communities that draw outsiders to areas desinged for commerce. I'm a taxpayer in Hopkins, and I am thrilled to see the forward thinking and progressive planning that the City of Hopkins is undergoing in anticipation of the SW LRT. Slaves built the pyramids. Maybe you are an Egyptologist who studied the socio-economic and public support for the Pyramids dring ancient Egyptian times, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I REALLY doubt that anyone but the Emperor who decided to have a Pyramid for a burial place thought it was a good idea. Those were single occupancy death housing units. Hardly a good investment by ANY measure. Also, I'm not a "DFLer" I'm independant. That means I use critical thinking instead of labels to make my points.
And it's not just startup costs. LRT costs more to maintain than roads and buses, services only a fraction of the area and only a fraction of tax payers. And study after study from Macalaster College here to Investors Business daily have shown that the Twin Cites has neither the population density nor the infrastructure need for LRT, making its building a matter of ideology, not necessity.
This is nothing but progressive social engineers, who use the mantra 'get out of your cars and onto the train', trying to force us to live as they see fit. And the $16 trillion in debt matters because another talking point of these utopians is that we have to act NOW, NOW, NOW to get 'free' money from the Federal Government. No money is ever free and that money can be used for ANY transportation need so I say, if we take it, let's use it to benefit the majority of taxpayers by improving our roads, bridges and buses, not waste it on a 19th Century technology.
An 'independent' who swallows the expansion of government, spending more money that we don't have and forcing people to live how he believes they should is just a progressive liberal trying to hide his agenda and bias. Sorry, Maury "my man" a Progressive liberal by any other name is still just as wrong. No hiding behind the supposed third-way "a pox on both your houses" claim of independence and its alleged moral superiority can hide that you are the Bernie Sanders of this debate.
There is no way any rational person can justify this utterly wasteful scheme.
_The_ key to the SW line being successful is making sure the line is significantly faster (half the time or better) from end to end than driving currently is. If they accomplish that the line will be used, but if they try to make it a bus-train-Frankenstein then the project should be scrapped till the cities et al. can reach a consensus that results in a solid product.
How can it be wise when the undisputed facts show that light rail has FAILED everywhere in the country? Not enough people will ride it. The fare is NEVER enough to recover all of the costs, meaning that it will be forever subsidized by the taxpayers. It will NEVER create the economic development claimed by its proponents. How can it be necessary when we have private automobiles, taxicabs, and a heavily subsidized bus system already in place to transport people? How many people cannot get where they need to go right now? How will a fixed rail line solve that? It cannot and will not. Foolhardy does not even come close to accurately describing this scam. Finally, I want to vomit every time some fool refers to another wasteful spending plan by government as an "investment." Wrong. Investments bring a return. Investments yield dividends. Light rail will bring nothing except an annual bill to the taxpayers for the eternal subsidies that will be required to keep it running. I'm out for that deal. I will get a CD at the bank for 0.75% instead. Ahem.
Not exactly sure how voicing support for the SW LRT is forcing you to live by my beliefs, but I'm pretty excited about it. So lets get started and see if we can't straighten you and your buddy Daryl out. First, you two can calm down. Second, you should realize that no matter how many CAPITAL LETTERS you use, it won't make you sound MORE IMPORTANT. Third, you need to stop labeling people. A single point on an issue does not a political party make. Fourth, try and be more polite. Fifth, you two guys need to relax. I'm sensing a lot of stress here. Lastly, try to limit the superlatives. Talking in absolutes is a terrible way to maintain conversations. It removes the opportunity to have a constructive discourse. I hope you two guys have a great night.
I said I was dubious about the price of the rail as in it sounds very high, but I haven't dug deep into the numbers and there are no official bids on the building of the line, that I know of yet. I am however very much in favor of expanding the mass transit options to include rail for the twin cities. Dividends do come in many forms, insisting that the ticket fare for LR must on it's own meet and or exceed the costs of running the line, makes me wonder if you think that we should have to pay a toll each time we use a public roadway to directly recoup the costs of building and maintaining it? Do you? I also concede that other municipalities may have failed in their implementation of rail, but I think that is due to poor execution and _not_ because rail is an inherently flawed form of transit. Rail is a effective when it is used in a very precise way and in conjunction with other forms of mass transit.