Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[MNdible]

I'd see that as progressive.

Yep. You and about 100,000 of your closest friends can all agree on that strategy, and see where that gets the DFL in the next election.

I know you find it hard to fathom, but "starve the roads" is simply not a winning strategy.

EDIT: And it wouldn't even be a winning strategy amongst those who regularly vote for the DFL, let alone the broader electorate.

[Anondson]

I bet you'd get a winning campaign with "nothing new until everything we have built is fixed", barely...

[xandrex]

As this past cycled showed, the GOP doesn't need the suburbs to win. They're still swing but they are leaning more and more DFL. On the othrer hand, DFL strongholds in Greater MN are eroding. I can totally see a scenario where in 10 years the DFL is in the Twin Cities, St. Cloud, Rochester and Duluth and the GOP is everywhere else.

That's largely the case already. The only rural region that has a heavy DFL constituency is the Iron Range. They're more blue-collar, union-type DFLers who have a pretty different view of environment and social issues (even when cities like Virginia or Mountain Iron squeaked out "Vote No" wins in 2012, it paled compared to anything in the metro). Get rid of unions and they're a hotbed ready to turn red.

Rural Minnesota belongs to the GOP. The DFL could drop the "F" in its name, frankly, and it wouldn't matter one bit.

[RailBaronYarr]

Obviously when you frame it as 'starve the roads' it's a losing strategy. It's perceived as antagonistic and incites a knee-jerk reaction of war-on-cars, etc. But the underlying rationale is certainly progressive. The DFL and GOP would both do well to recognize that both their reasons to continue building more roads, both in the metro and out state, have very little basis (**not in every case, generally**) in an actual need. They would do well to admit that even a big funding package including a wholesale fuel tax and bump in registration taxes will lose its purchasing power in 10-20 years as stuff we've recently built/will build with new money will start sucking funds, and we'll just be doing this whole thing again anyway because no actual reform happened. Plus the environmental/social/safety/etc aspects of building 10 car-oriented places for every 1 transit oriented place are undoubtedly bad for low/middle income folks.

I'm no politician. I don't know how to get the DFL to realize these issues and have them overcome their desire for job creation, perceived welfare (congestion reduction, etc), economic development, and any other justification used for more infrastructure spending. I don't know how to get the GOP to get beyond their hatred of cities, transit, stack and pack, climate change denialism, cars=freedom, etc to understand the financial path pure road building puts on government. No one seems to be discussing that at any level. The GOP seems to be willing to admit that the reports of $6bn over 10 years of unfunded liabilities may need to be examined (what do we keep? what's necessary? etc).

I said it before, but if I had to pick an option of the two in front of us (kick the can on funding with a strong chance of more roads & zero transit vs. $2bn in new roads over 10 years + some good transit projects) I'd pick the latter. Begrudgingly. This is where politics fails us.

[David Greene]

That makes it sound like lack of road investment is a bad thing. Maybe the DFL could just own it, and call it positive. I'd see that as progressive.

That's what I'm getting at. The GOP certainly sees it as a negative.

You and I disagree in that I do think there is some targeted expansion to be done (494 through Plymouth, for example) but I think we're in general agreement that we need to put the vast majority of road funding into maintenance and even turn back or deconstruct some roads entirely. The trick for the DFL is to craft a positive message about this. I honestly don't know what that is but I don't think a Strong Towns message is going to fly in the suburbs.

[David Greene]

I bet you'd get a winning campaign with "nothing new until everything we have built is fixed", barely...

And the GOP and suburban/rural DFL points to transit and says the same thing.

[Anondson]

True, also pointed to are funding for trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes as somehow diverting money away from auto congestion. So...

[MNdible]

I bet you'd get a winning campaign with "nothing new until everything we have built is fixed", barely...

And "fixed" is, of course, a squishy term. Does "fixed" include addressing notorious bottlenecks, such as the I-35/I-94 commons? What about addressing unsafe geometries? Or does "fixed" only mean taking care of potholes and bridges that are in imminent danger of collapse?

[Sara Bergen]

New commentary in the Strib:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 92801.html

[mattaudio]

MNdible, we are very much in agreement that "fixed" is a squishy term. I have been quite uncomfortable with how people keep saying "fix our roads and bridges" but won't define what constitutes a "fix."

Charlie Zelle was quoted in an earlier Strib article as saying that $2.4b would constitute a bare-bones fix. That sounds like a good starting point for me, because then we can be honest about what is not a fix but rather an expansion.

I take it we may not agree on what an appropriate figure may be, though I find it interesting we both find the term "fix" imprecise and unsettling.

[woofner]

http://minneapolisparkhistory.com/2015/ ... lis-parks/

Thoughts?

Will any Park Board land be taken? I thought the bridge footings would be on Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority right-of-way. The Park Board doesn't own the Kenilworth Lagoon, do they? If not, then the author is making a false equivalence.

Rural Minnesota belongs to the GOP. The DFL could drop the "F" in its name, frankly, and it wouldn't matter one bit.

This isn't really true. There are several rural districts besides those in the Iron Range that are solidly DFL (mostly in the south around Mankato and in the Bluff Country). But more importantly, there are competitive districts scattered across the states, which is why the DFL has the Senate now and had the House last term. It's likely that the Senate and House control will continue to swing back and forth every cycle, but as the DFL has the statewide offices (which they couldn't do without significant, if minority, support outstate), if either party could be said to have "won" Minnesota, it is certainly the DFL.

Here is some backup:

http://www.minnpost.com/data/2014/09/mi ... -districts

[David Greene]

New commentary in the Strib:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 92801.html

Great stuff. Now we're getting at what this is really about.

[HiawathaGuy]

New commentary in the Strib:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 92801.html

Great stuff. Now we're getting at what this is really about.

Agreed! When I read that this morning during breakfast, I smiled. I'm glad the hypocrisy is being called out finally.

[Sara Bergen]

"if everything goes right"...

http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2 ... goes-right

[twincitizen]

Obama includes $150MM for SWLRT in his budget: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/03/i ... as-budget/

What does this mean without a Federal Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) in hand? The full federal share would be $825MM (50%), presumably distributed over 5 years (2016-2020). If there are no increases to that $150MM amount, that would be a total of $750MM from the Feds. That's 50% of $1.5B for those who have been reading my recent posts in this thread (i.e. the budget total needs to come down)

EDIT: Looks like the above MinnPost story partially covers it. No word on the 5-year distribution or anything though.

Sorta off-topic, but does anyone know if Orange Line BRT was supposed to get money from the feds this year? Or not til next year? Because it was not included on the above link. Granted, the feds could fund their half of the Orange Line in one chunk next year, it wouldn't have to be spread out.

[David Greene]

The MinnPost article says SWLRT is now Medium-High and the FTA document says the Project Justification is rated Medium and the Local Financial Commitment is rated high 8-o.

I suppose it's high because we've got all but $150 million in local funds locked in and that $150 can be finagled from many places. Still, it's humorous to see.

The Streetsblog article notes that the Maryland/D.C. lines may have major funding problems.

[Tcmetro]

SW LRT is still planning on having FTA provide 50% of funds. $150 million is FY 2016, the rest will come in yearly increments.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FY16_A ... rogram.pdf

[grant1simons2]

Meg Forney going all dramatic at the park board meeting right now responding to the rail. This is really just killing everyone at this point. The reason why not many people are listening to you park board members is because you're siding with the affluent on a small bridge extension. And now Annie Young is pissed.

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/tv/79

[acs]

Looks like the park board is getting its way and pushing back the environmental review by at least 2 months:
http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... thwest-lrt

Oh and if they get their tunnel wish it adds $145 million and delays the opening of the line until 2021. Seriously I hope Dayton defunds them permanently.

[grant1simons2]

Can someone please explain how a tunnel is more environmentally friendly?