Page 192 of 264

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 15th, 2017, 2:27 pm
by grant1simons2
Animation of how SWLRT will look in Hopkins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEcXLhAEGII

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 15th, 2017, 3:34 pm
by Anondson
It was nifty to watch. I wish the Blake drop off zone didn't have curbs. It should be woonerf-like with bollard posts designating the bay to pull into to drop riders.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 5:13 pm
by grrdanko
http://www.startribune.com/gop-lawmaker ... 414281213/

It looks like SWLRT could be dead if some suburban and rural lawmakers get their way.

Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 5:24 pm
by HuskyGrad
http://www.startribune.com/gop-lawmaker ... 414281213/

It looks like SWLRT could be dead if some suburban and rural lawmakers get their way.
Too bad for them it doesn't work that way. Ask Wisconsin, Florida, and Ohio who turned down high speed rail money. The money would just go to transit projects in other states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 5:24 pm
by Anondson
It still needs to pass the governor, right?

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 5:56 pm
by grrdanko
http://www.startribune.com/gop-lawmaker ... 414281213/

It looks like SWLRT could be dead if some suburban and rural lawmakers get their way.
Too bad for them it doesn't work that way. Ask Wisconsin, Florida, and Ohio who turned down high speed rail money. The money would just go to transit projects in other states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But they are also saying that they would rather turn down the money than have SWLFT built.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 5:59 pm
by Silophant
Nice of them to come out and admit that they're willing to screw the whole state to say they beat the DFL.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 6:03 pm
by grrdanko
It still needs to pass the governor, right?
No. Resolutions don't need the Governor's signature. If it's passed it won't be a law it will be the Minnesota legislature formally asking the Federal government if they can use the money for something else than it was intended for.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 7:51 pm
by David Greene
Is this even constitutional? The executive branch implements law, not the legislature. The legislature can't tell the feds how the state wants the money to be used unless they actually pass a law and get it signed.

But as we know these days, our constitutions are just ink on pages.

I suppose they can pass resolutions but in any non-crazy federal administration it would do nothing. With this one? I'm worried.



Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 9:41 am
by RailBaronYarr
I think we'll have a good idea how the feds will respond once the California Caltrain electrification project is decided http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... train.html

A similar tactic was used, just by California's US House delegation rather than state legislators via resolution. If Chao signs off on the project, I think it's a good bet SWLRT would still be funded. But yeah, it's pretty crazy how lazer-focused the MNGOP is on killing SWLRT.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 10:24 am
by MNdible
This kind of a strategy could backfire for the Republicans by leaving their suburban members exposed on an issue that their constituents care about.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 10:31 am
by VAStationDude
Hello David Hann.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 10:32 am
by Silophant
I would imagine that UnitedHealth and similar large corporate interests wouldn't be thrilled either, right?

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 12:06 pm
by kirby96
With this administration, the standard deviation of behavior from the norm is so great that who knows how this kind of thing plays out. It could easily be as feared: pander to the state GOP and divert funding. But these types of projects are as close as any to 'shovel-ready', and I gotta think Trump wants some tangible stories to go along with his infrastructure/jobs 'platform'.

Or put another way, he can't tweet about how he alone got the light rail built in the battleground state of Minnesota and created thousands of jobs if his administration diverts the funding to some theoretical project 2 years down the road or more.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 5:06 pm
by UrsusUrbanicus
Meanwhile, it's not a "boondoggle" to build and maintain thousands of lane-miles of state and interstate highway so that people can live 35 miles from their jobs. Nor is it a boondoggle to send CSAH money to all the overly capacious mega-stroads that take them to their big-box grocery store 4 miles away (the closest it can be due to aggressive suburban zoning). Nor is it a boondoggle that they actually have to drive six miles to make that 4-mile trip, due to the divergent, disconnected road structures that have been put in place to ensure that people who've chosen a car-dependent lifestyle can still avoid seeing any cars in their own neighborhoods. (Because somehow, going six miles at 50 mph is preferable to going one mile at a safer, neighborhood-compatible 20 or 25).

So a transit system that will serve people who live at more-workable moderate distances (even including some suburban areas) is just crazy wasteful... yet the anti-SWLRT crowd is more than happy to receive urban dwellers' contributions among the state funds that feed a five-lane CSAH stroad in Lakeville or a multi-lane highway bypass around a town of 8,000. At its core, this is just good old rural vs. urban agitation -- with all the race, religion, and orientation undertones that come with it. We're going to build a wall of unsustainable infrastructure choices... and we're gonna make those city slickers pay for it!!

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 6:07 pm
by MNdible
Consider this choir well and truly preached to.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 22nd, 2017, 2:12 pm
by phop
I think we'll have a good idea how the feds will respond once the California Caltrain electrification project is decided http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... train.html

A similar tactic was used, just by California's US House delegation rather than state legislators via resolution. If Chao signs off on the project, I think it's a good bet SWLRT would still be funded. But yeah, it's pretty crazy how lazer-focused the MNGOP is on killing SWLRT.
Wasn't a delay of the Caltrain grant announced by the FTA a few days ago? :(

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 22nd, 2017, 2:19 pm
by min-chi-cbus
I would imagine that UnitedHealth and similar large corporate interests wouldn't be thrilled either, right?
The irony is that UHG leans heavily right, like many large corporations do.

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 22nd, 2017, 3:13 pm
by kirby96
I think we'll have a good idea how the feds will respond once the California Caltrain electrification project is decided http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... train.html

A similar tactic was used, just by California's US House delegation rather than state legislators via resolution. If Chao signs off on the project, I think it's a good bet SWLRT would still be funded. But yeah, it's pretty crazy how lazer-focused the MNGOP is on killing SWLRT.
Wasn't a delay of the Caltrain grant announced by the FTA a few days ago? :(
Yeah. That don't look too good.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/0 ... -congress/

Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)

Posted: February 22nd, 2017, 3:25 pm
by David Greene
Time to start making contacts. Call your legislators and get allies aware and on board for a fight.