Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[RailBaronYarr]

Could have put this in another thread, but thought it made sense here too.

https://www.minnpost.com/politics-polic ... egislature

"In broad terms, Republicans say polling shows voters think Democrats and Dayton overplayed their hand on Southwest LRT, squandering road and bridge funding over the project. Democrats say their research shows that the Republican messaging on light rail doesn’t overcome the glaring fact that they campaigned in 2014 on passing a long-term transportation funding — and failed to get anything done."

Personally, I think the Republicans' message is stronger. Obviously, the Met Council *did* have a path to fund SWLRT without state money and they did it. The DFL's message is that the GOP promised certain things and failed, and the easy counter is that the DFL obstructed them when they clearly had an alternate path and didn't need to hold everything else up for SWLRT. Most people (particularly outstate and core city) will already vote on party lines anyway, but I think more suburban metro area residents will side with the GOP than the DFL on this one. Even though I don't agree with the GOP's tactics.

[mattaudio]

To be fair, they were asking to fund SWLRT without state money (Henn County funds) and the legislature didn't even allow that.

[Silophant]

It seems like the DFL should have a pretty good messaging opportunity that the GOP threw away roads and bridges funding for no gain whatsoever, since SWLRT is going through anyway, but they have been spectacularly bad at messaging in recent cycles.

[twincitizen]

Kinda gets at the core of the issue with our two-party system, no? The DFL/Democrats generally push better & smarter policies, but at face value they are a tougher sell to the non-thinking public. The GOP generally push awful policy, but their messaging (on non-social issues anyways) is really, really simple to sell to the public (lower taxes? yes! less regulation? yes! public safety? yes!)

Other than in maybe a couple districts in Edina/Mtka/EP where opposition to SWLRT specifically ought to get one thrown out of office (e.g. David Hann), I really don't think this is a major election issue for ~95% of the electorate. And FWIW, I don't think the failure to pass a bonding bill affects too many families' daily lives either. Certainly not enough to get non-voters to show up for the first time, or to get someone to switch parties, etc.

[phop]

I think Republican's have overplayed how much Southwest LRT antics resonate in greater MN. My general feeling is that greater MN in particular doesn't really care about Southwest either way; it's a Metro issue.

[xandrex]

^I don’t think people in Greater Minnesota care about the specifics of SWLRT. But I’ve heard a narrative that my non-metro-dwelling family and others tell about the metro squandering resources as the rest of the state falls apart. SWLRT can easily be added to that narrative.

[David Greene]

^ Yep, that's the message the DFL needs to be concerned about.

The easy counter is what Matt pointed out: the DFL offered a solution that provided local funding (local control!) and the Republicans rejected it. But it's always harder to counter a message that's already out there.

The DFL should also note that Dibble offered to compromise and get the state entirely out of funding LRT in exchange for a higher metro sales tax. The Republicans rejected that too. I wouldn't think that would sit well in Greater MN given the earlier messaging from Republicans that transit steals from roads.

Bottom line, the DFL should hammer home that they offered multiple solutions for SWLRT, none of which would involve state (i.e. Greater MN) funding and the Republicans rejected them all in favor of blind ideology and political points. The DFL can't very well be expected to give the Republicans everything they want (bonding and tax bills) with nothing in return.

They should also note the Republicans screwed up the tax bill and refused to compromise to get a fix.

[mattaudio]

Ah yes, the metro squandering resources. https://streets.mn/2015/01/14/map-of-the ... -spending/

[xandrex]

A narrative doesn't have to be true. It just has to appear believable.

[David Greene]

^ Correct. One thing many people don't understand about politics is that facts don't matter in the first-order analysis. They help but narratives and emotion play a much more dominant role.

[acs]

You all need to realize that the prospect of the metro area going it alone and permanently funding it's own transit infrastructure is terrifying to outstate legislators, and that cuts right across party lines. The thinking is that once the metro can raise the funds on its own to pay for whatever infrastructure (transit) they want, without touching the legislature, then the metro politicians will have no incentive to turn around and help greater MN raise the funds for the infrastructure they want (roads). That's why the metro transit sales tax lives and dies in huge comprehensive transportation packages and any attempt to split it off gets shot down.

The messaging needs to be focused around the regular session and how a comprehensive transportation package has continually failed, as difficult as that is. Don't focus on LRT or the metro counties going it alone even if it's easy to because the prospect of that actually happening is threatening to greater MN. Trust them to vote in their own interests.

[twincitizen]

Rural counties have already been granted the authority to raise their own funds for transportation (up to $20 annual wheelage fee and 0.5% local option sales tax), so it's not like they're unable to raise money outside of the legislature (though to be fair, those new revenues don't amount to much in a sparsely populated county)

But you're not wrong. And it's not just rural legislators that fear completely removing transit funding from legislative control. Metro legislators have just as much (or more) to lose in that transition - they would lose a power that they currently have. Related issue is why the legislature will never approve direct elections of the Met Council. People in elected office are always going to be reluctant to give up current powers, good governance (and outcomes) be damned.

[jebr]

The DFL should also note that Dibble offered to compromise and get the state entirely out of funding LRT in exchange for a higher metro sales tax. The Republicans rejected that too. I wouldn't think that would sit well in Greater MN given the earlier messaging from Republicans that transit steals from roads.

Bottom line, the DFL should hammer home that they offered multiple solutions for SWLRT, none of which would involve state (i.e. Greater MN) funding and the Republicans rejected them all in favor of blind ideology and political points. The DFL can't very well be expected to give the Republicans everything they want (bonding and tax bills) with nothing in return.

They should also note the Republicans screwed up the tax bill and refused to compromise to get a fix.

Agreed. If the DFL wants to win, they need to hammer home that they offered multiple solutions that did not involve state money. If pressed, they could elaborate and say some involved raising metro-only sales taxes, but I wouldn't go into that necessarily.

[kirby96]

You all need to realize that the prospect of the metro area going it alone and permanently funding it's own transit infrastructure is terrifying to outstate legislators, and that cuts right across party lines. The thinking is that once the metro can raise the funds on its own to pay for whatever infrastructure (transit) they want, without touching the legislature, then the metro politicians will have no incentive to turn around and help greater MN raise the funds for the infrastructure they want (roads). That's why the metro transit sales tax lives and dies in huge comprehensive transportation packages and any attempt to split it off gets shot down.

Agree. That was the gist of my thinking that politically the GOP may have won the battle but lost the war (OK, that's a bit extreme) on the whole SWLRT funding kerfluffle. Be careful what you ask for you just might get it.

[David Greene]

You all need to realize that the prospect of the metro area going it alone and permanently funding it's own transit infrastructure is terrifying to outstate legislators, and that cuts right across party lines.

That's true but I question whether the average voter reached via doorknocking cares. Remember that the DFL has to go out and counter the message, "SWLRT killed the bonding and tax bills and Greater MN lost benefits X, Y and Z."

That said, jebr's point is well-taken. It's probably best to point out that multiple solutions were offered without mentioning things like metro sales taxes that will just bog down the conversation. It will be important to emphasize that those solutions held Greater MN harmless. It was Republicans' failure to compromise that killed the bonding and tax bills. That's the bottom-line message but there has to be a bit of a set-up to explain why.

[RailBaronYarr]

How many people beyond the 50 die-hard forum readers and 1,500 people who read the one or two news articles (past the headline, at least) that mentioned the behind-closed-door offer for local funding for the state's share of SWLRT? It is more than likely a True Fact that it happened, and that it could have been accomplished in the real world. But nobody knows or really cares. I think there is no outcome for SWLRT that would have moved minds for outstate voters. Local funding would have just meant they question why Minneapolis (& St Paul) still get so much LGA when outstate is struggling. SWLRT is just another in a long line of identity politics that, as David Greene notes, has less to do with rational thinking on any topic for more than 5 seconds than it does gut feel and worldview. In other words, SWLRT may continue to grab headlines as a major political issue, but I doubt great messaging by either party on it will matter much as far as the election goes.

[MNdible]

I still feel like Dayton (or perhaps a different DFL governor who doesn't make people wince when they speak in public) could have taken the lead on the SWLRT issue, spoken powerfully to its very strong justifications, and turned this into something that would have been a clear political win for the party. Instead, he's bungled this project at every turn, and has therefore turned it into something the party needs to spin like mad instead of something that they can proudly point to.

[grrdanko]

How many people beyond the 50 die-hard forum readers and 1,500 people who read the one or two news articles (past the headline, at least) that mentioned the behind-closed-door offer for local funding for the state's share of SWLRT? It is more than likely a True Fact that it happened, and that it could have been accomplished in the real world. But nobody knows or really cares. I think there is no outcome for SWLRT that would have moved minds for outstate voters. Local funding would have just meant they question why Minneapolis (& St Paul) still get so much LGA when outstate is struggling. SWLRT is just another in a long line of identity politics that, as David Greene notes, has less to do with rational thinking on any topic for more than 5 seconds than it does gut feel and worldview. In other words, SWLRT may continue to grab headlines as a major political issue, but I doubt great messaging by either party on it will matter much as far as the election goes.

Minneapolis is a net loser in the LGA department while most out state cities are net takers.

If they are upset about about "The Cities" getting "their money" for transportation project I say let the baby have his bottle. Only spend the money in the county that the taxes were collected. Rural Minnesota is dying for a reason. They continue to lose population because they've been unwilling to offer any reason for people to stay. It's time to let them support themselves like they say they want to.

[FISHMANPET]

The fact that the cities pay more than they get is inconsequential. Like David said, outstate feels like we're taking their money, and that's enough.

[RailBaronYarr]

I still feel like Dayton (or perhaps a different DFL governor who doesn't make people wince when they speak in public) could have taken the lead on the SWLRT issue, spoken powerfully to its very strong justifications, and turned this into something that would have been a clear political win for the party. Instead, he's bungled this project at every turn, and has therefore turned it into something the party needs to spin like mad instead of something that they can proudly point to.

As someone who is having somewhat of a "crisis of faith in transit boosterism," I'm interested in hearing what benefits of SWLRT would have appealed to anyone who hasn't already made up their mind about transit, cities, state finances + winners/losers, etc already? Maybe I'm being cynical, but stronger leadership and marketing for SWLRT wouldn't make voters in the 6th congressional district all of a sudden care about brown peoples' job access, or the LRT Done Right folks not care about 12 trains an hour ruining their backyard, or (ostensibly) fiscal conservatives from seeing $124m/mile for this thing as a perfect talking point. I'm not saying don't build it, I'm just saying that the entire conversation about transit, the link between transportation + land use, costs (direct and indirect), is totally screwed up in this country in the first place. Enough so that i doubt a SWLRT budget of $1.0 billion would have made the GOP+voters like it, nor would a $3 billion budget made pretty much any supporter stop pushing for it.