Page 174 of 224

Re: East Metro Rail Capacity Study

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 1:39 pm
by stp1980
I don't know if I am missing anything in the full list of projects, but transit is pretty much non-existent in the governor's bonding proposal.

Re: East Metro Rail Capacity Study

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 1:43 pm
by acs
Dayton doesn't like light rail and has publicly said he's skeptical of mass transit many times. Current support for transit comes mainly from local governments and agencies, advocacy groups and inner city DFL legislators like Dibble.

Re: East Metro Rail Capacity Study

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 1:45 pm
by MNdible
Just because Dayton didn't put it in the bonding bill doesn't mean that he doesn't want it funded.

Re: East Metro Rail Capacity Study

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 1:47 pm
by HiawathaGuy
acs wrote:Dayton doesn't like light rail and has publicly said he's skeptical of mass transit many times. Current support for transit comes mainly from local governments and agencies, advocacy groups and inner city DFL legislators like Dibble.
What?! Um, no... here's why:

"Gov. Mark Dayton left light rail transit and expansive highway and bridge repairs out of his $1.4 billion bonding request, saying he instead expected a comprehensive transportation bill to fill those funding gaps."

*Locked*
Dayton’s $1.4B bonding package sidelines transportation
http://finance-commerce.com/2016/01/day ... portation/

Re: East Metro Rail Capacity Study

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 1:55 pm
by acs
Didn't see that, thanks. Still, if you dig deeper you'll find that it's not going to be the governor's office that will be pushing hard for metro transit this session. Remember who called the "timeout" on SWLRT a few years back?

Re: East Metro Rail Capacity Study

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 2:00 pm
by Tiller
Lest we forget, the "Itasca group" will be pushing for it!

Re: East Metro Rail Capacity Study

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 3:20 pm
by mattaudio
He may not be anti-transit, but he's not pro-transit. He has a long history of windshield mentality.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 3:47 pm
by Sacrelicio
Maybe I'm nuts, and maybe this has been considered already, but what if we built the Southwest LRT in two stages: one that serves the city and has the best possible alignment for Southwest Minneapolis, and then one that serves the suburbs, and they meet somewhere in the middle? So instead of planning a continuous route now, we build the city part and then "hook up" the suburban route in the future? Similar to how we built the first part of the Green line and now we're adding an extension. Build a Minneapolis extension that works for the city and then build the suburban extension later.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 4:30 pm
by HiawathaGuy
Sacrelicio wrote:Maybe I'm nuts, and maybe this has been considered already, but what if we built the Southwest LRT in two stages: one that serves the city and has the best possible alignment for Southwest Minneapolis, and then one that serves the suburbs, and they meet somewhere in the middle? So instead of planning a continuous route now, we build the city part and then "hook up" the suburban route in the future? Similar to how we built the first part of the Green line and now we're adding an extension. Build a Minneapolis extension that works for the city and then build the suburban extension later.
Don't think that's an option to get the full Federal Funding, or without needing to restart at the very beginning of the hand-out line. Neither of which make good sense of tax dollars.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 4:36 pm
by VAStationDude
Right now we have a line that's 90% funded with the only hold out being the state of Minnesota. The feds and localities are behind the project. Opening it up now would be foregoing the committed federal funds and getting in the back of the federal funding line. Rail foes itching to derail the line now wouldn't have to fight a Minneapolis only extension because one couldn't possibly be funded with local dollars available under current law. State and local funding would be contingent on comprehensive state transportation funding increases. If we get that we get the state money needed to build the line.

I dispute that there exists another line that would better serve southwest Minneapolis.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 4:37 pm
by FISHMANPET
However you can use a built portion of the line to qualify as the local match, so if we went back in time and planned it that way, we could build a route that works the best in Minneapolis, and when that's done, get federal funds for the second half.

Re: East Metro Rail Capacity Study

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 4:40 pm
by trigonalmayhem
Tiller wrote:Lest we forget, the "Itasca group" will be pushing for it!
Isn't the head of UHG one of their members? Of course he wants a commuter line straight to his sprawling suburban campus so he can still hire millennials. Fire up the subsidy machine for him!

And Dayton has never been much of a friend to transit. I'd question if he's ever ridden it in his life outside of a possible media event.

Re: East Metro Rail Capacity Study

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 4:53 pm
by HiawathaGuy
trigonalmayhem wrote:
Tiller wrote:Lest we forget, the "Itasca group" will be pushing for it!
Isn't the head of UHG one of their members? Of course he wants a commuter line straight to his sprawling suburban campus so he can still hire millennials. Fire up the subsidy machine for him!

And Dayton has never been much of a friend to transit. I'd question if he's ever ridden it in his life outside of a possible media event.
You know, honestly. I can't imagine what you must be like when discussing topics you don't like. Your attitude really makes me not want to participate in this forum. I'm not sure if you just don't realize it, or if you just don't care - but your posts are almost always negative. It really makes this place not fun. While it's understandable that you may not like the fact that UHG exists in a suburban "sprawling" campus - IT'S NOT MOVING!!!! So bitching about their "sprawling" campus on a forum of like-minded people, doesn't really do anyone any good. Not to mention, just because it might be a suburban campus, doesn't mean that we shouldn't connect these with people. You know, THOUSANDS of people work in their buildings - and they plan to continue their growth. Are you suggesting that we don't do anything to make suburban lives better? Or worse, say where a company can build their HQs?

Your arguments are all so one-sided. Your way or no way. That's hardly fun for a forum where we discuss development.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 4:55 pm
by mattaudio
Why don't you just disagree with him instead of having your own bitchfest?

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 5:52 pm
by Mdcastle
OK.
"I disagree with him"

Re: East Metro Rail Capacity Study

Posted: January 15th, 2016, 11:24 pm
by Sacrelicio
trigonalmayhem wrote:
Tiller wrote:Lest we forget, the "Itasca group" will be pushing for it!
Isn't the head of UHG one of their members? Of course he wants a commuter line straight to his sprawling suburban campus so he can still hire millennials. Fire up the subsidy machine for him!

And Dayton has never been much of a friend to transit. I'd question if he's ever ridden it in his life outside of a possible media event.
That Eden Prairie-Kenwood-Harrison connection. Millenial bait. The Snapchat Express.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: January 16th, 2016, 6:53 pm
by LakeCharles
mattaudio wrote:Why don't you just disagree with him instead of having your own bitchfest?
-1

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: January 22nd, 2016, 10:35 am
by HuskyGrad

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 3rd, 2016, 1:29 pm
by Tcmetro
Some stations names might change. In the presentation for the CAC meeting today, there is mention of changing Van White Pkwy. to Dunwoody Blvd, Penn Ave. to Bryn Mawr, and 21st St to W 21st St. Names will still have to go before the Transportation Committee and the Council to be approved.

A lot of renderings in the presentation too.

http://metrocouncil.org/getdoc/f187a5ef ... ation.aspx

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 3rd, 2016, 3:31 pm
by twincitizen
HuskyGrad wrote:Tweet of relevance.

https://twitter.com/bbierschbach/status ... 8120689665
At first glance, I misread the quote as belonging to Dayton instead of Daudt. :shock: