Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

This is odd. Usually these kinds of things are handled behind the scenes, not via very public threats. The Park Board must really be dug in. It's not that surprising, seeing as how it seems to be dictated to by the DFL money people.

[Viktor Vaughn]

That would be $500K, not million. But really, this more confirms what we're saying about Dayton. He's all over the board. He talked about a gas tax, then said he didn't want to raise the gas tax, then proposed to raise the gas tax.

He said there's no state money for Southwest in the next two years, and then justifiably (even if vindictively) reacts to the Park Board by cutting their budget. Who really knows what he's going to say next? It's anybody's guess...

I'm glad Dayton beat Emmer and Johnson. We know either one of the guys would have gut transit projects as quick as possible. But at least we know their positions, unlike governor ragdoll.

Dayton hasn't been bad for transit, but he hasn't been a leader or champion either.

[David Greene]

Dayton hasn't been bad for transit, but he hasn't been a leader or champion either.

I would argue he's been bad for transit. He had a once-in-a-generation change to really invest in it and he declined for political purposes. It turns out the strategy backfired, to boot.

Dayton still does not get transportation. He thinks transit is a metro-only thing. He thinks transportation is only about moving people and things around.

[mattaudio]

Just think if Dayton put his political capital behind an audible to invest in a 3C alignment instead... #iwentthere

[xandrex]

I would argue he's been bad for transit. He had a once-in-a-generation change to really invest in it and he declined for political purposes. It turns out the strategy backfired, to boot.

I wouldn't say it backfired. They didn't lose the election because they didn't get a dedicated sales tax and the like put in when the DFL was in control. They very well may have staunched some of the bleeding ("the tax-and-spend metro building choo-choos with our money") or done no harm at all.

If that's the case, it's more of a missed opportunity than a backfire.

[Silophant]

That would be $500K, not million.

Oh, yeah. Oops.

[David Greene]

I would argue he's been bad for transit. He had a once-in-a-generation change to really invest in it and he declined for political purposes. It turns out the strategy backfired, to boot.

I wouldn't say it backfired. They didn't lose the election because they didn't get a dedicated sales tax and the like put in when the DFL was in control. They very well may have staunched some of the bleeding ("the tax-and-spend metro building choo-choos with our money") or done no harm at all.

If that's the case, it's more of a missed opportunity than a backfire.

I wasn't referring to just the transit thing. If the DFL had invested in transportation, importantly, including key Greater MN highways and corridors, they may very well have been able to push back on the "they don't care about you" line.

Everyone likes transportation and when you explain why you need more money, people generally accept it. Witness the MVST referendum.

[mattaudio]

MPRB response to Gov Dayton's recommendation to cut MPRB funding.

Liz Wielinski, President of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB), is issuing the following statement in response to Governor Dayton's recommended funding cuts to the MPRB and statements about the MPRB's actions related to the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT):

I am extremely disappointed that the Governor wants to punish the Park Board and more than 15 million users of regional parks in Minneapolis because the Met Council did not do their job in their pursuit of taking park land.

Today Governor Dayton recommended reducing $3.77 million in funding for the regional parks that the MPRB operates and maintains for local and non-local visitors. I am dismayed that he is recommending this reduction in funding to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board "due to the Board's continuing efforts to obstruct progress on the SWLRT project," when the Park Board has provided the Governor with ample information to the contrary. In addition, the Governor has been misinformed about the Park Board using state money to do the engineering studies; the Park Board has not and cannot use state money for these studies.

First, the MPRB is not obstructing SWLRT. Since 2012, the MPRB has consistently and regularly communicated to the Met Council and the public, through public Board actions, its support of light rail transit and its position regarding the SWLRT options as they impact parkland. The MPRB has not deterred the project or the project timeline. The MPRB has worked, and continues to work, diligently to stay within the project timelines. The MPRB actions are below and available at http://www.minneapolisparks.org/currentprojects, select "Southwest Light Rail Transit."

Secondly, the MPRB has a fundamental responsibility to protect parkland. Under a provision of federal transportation law referred to as 4(f), no federal dollars can be spent on a transportation project that impacts park land unless there is no "feasible and prudent alternative" and the public agency responsible for the park (the MPRB in this case) determines that the transportation impacts are "de minimis," i.e. insignificant. The MPRB needs data to determine what option, bridge or tunnel, is the most feasible and prudent and will have the least impact on parkland. The Park Board has repeatedly requested the Met Council provide answers to what park impacts would occur in the corridor. The Met Council did a preliminary engineering study of extending the south tunnel under the channel and stated it was feasible; however has not provided the MPRB with the data it needs to determine if it is prudent or will have the least impact on parkland. In November 2014, the MPRB initiated, at its own expense, an engineering study to further evaluate the Met Council tunnel option and explore other tunnel options for feasibility. In January 2015, once it was determined that two tunnel options were feasible, the MPRB, at its own expense, extended the engineering contract to examine the prudence of the tunnel options and their impacts on parkland. The Park Board needs to have this data to comment on the required SDEIS (Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement) yet to be done by the Met Council and SWLRT Project Office.

Third, while the Minneapolis Park Board's action have not slowed the project, the SWLRT Project is currently facing problems with the federal cost share and the lack of support from the Minnesota legislature that are not related to the Park Board's study of the channel alternatives.

Finally, and most importantly, the Governor's proposal will greatly impact regional parks in Minneapolis that serve over 15 million visits each year. A reduction of $3.77 million in the 2016-17 biennium will be detrimental to regional park operations, maintenance and capital improvements. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is one of ten regional park systems that annually receive State funding for operations, maintenance and capital improvements of the regional parks in the metropolitan area. The Minneapolis regional park system receives more visits than any other park system within the state and, as an urban park system, serves some of the most racially diverse communities. It would be unfair to penalize the Minneapolis park system and those who use Minneapolis parks by reducing our operations and maintenance funding by $634,000 annually and our Lottery in Lieu of funding by $1,253,000 annually. The impacts to these proposed cuts would directly impact the Park Board's ability to maintain and operate parks in the regional system such as the Mississippi River Gorge, Theodore Wirth Park, Minnehaha Park, and the Chain of Lakes. In addition, capital funding for improvements to the pavilion at Minnehaha Regional Park, bank stabilization along West River Parkway from the 2014 mudslide, and trail improvements along West River Parkway and other sections of the Grand Rounds would also be directly impacted. Ultimately, these cuts would have dramatic impacts on the Park Board's ability to maintain and operate the entire Minneapolis park system which is already underfunded. This action will place a tremendous and unjustifiable burden on Minneapolis residents and taxpayers to fully fund regional parks, when 48% percent of regional visits are by non-Minneapolis residents.

As outlined below, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has been proactive and transparent in articulating its position and concerns related to the SWLRT:

12/05/12 - Resolution 2012-321: Resolution Approving a Comment Letter to Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority for the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement

08/21/13 - Resolution 2013-282: Resolution Stating the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board's Position on Project Design Alternatives Recently Developed in the Preliminary Engineering Phase of Southwest Light Rail Transitway Planning

02/05/14 - Resolution 2014-114: Resolution Urging the Southwest Light Rail Transitway Project Office to Conduct a Detailed Engineering Feasibility Study and Cost Comparison of Tunneling Under the Kenilworth Channel as Part of the Shallow Tunnel Option

05/21/14 - Resolution 2014-209: Resolution Stating the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Determination That, Based on Southwest Light Rail Transitway Project Office Preliminary Finding of Feasibility, Tunneling LRT Under the Kenilworth Channel May be the Only Section 4(F) Feasible and Prudent Alternative Within the Shallow Tunnel Option Regarding Minneapolis Parkland Impacted by the Project, However that Determination Requires Greater Analysis

09/17/14 - Resolution 2014-293: Resolution Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with Stinson Leonard Street, LLP for Legal Services Related to the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project in the Amount of $22,000

10/01/14 - Discussion item: Presentation and Discussion on Stinson Leonard Street, LLP's Legal Review and Recommendations for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Regarding the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project

11/19/14 - Resolution 2014-347: Resolution Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with Brierley Associates for Engineering Services Related to the Feasibility and Prudence of Kenilworth Channel Crossing Alternatives in the Amount Up to $245,500

01/07/15 - Resolution 2015-106: Resolution Authorizing an Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Brierley Associates for Engineering Services Related to the Feasibility and Prudence of Kenilworth Channel Crossing Alternatives in the Amount of $248,275 for a New Contract Total of $493,775

01/07/15 - Resolution 2015-107: Resolution Approving a Letter Requesting a Meeting to Discuss Legal Jeopardy to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Program Created by the Implementation of the Program for the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project in Minneapolis, Minnesota by the FTA and the Metropolitan Council

[mattaudio]

If the DFL had invested ..... key Greater MN highways and corridors

"invested"

[Nick]

I remember a CPC meeting one time when Liz, then a member, asked what a Small Area Plan was.

[David Greene]

If the DFL had invested ..... key Greater MN highways and corridors

"invested"

That's how they'd message it, yes.

And there are in fact highways and corridors that need attention in Greater MN.

[xandrex]

I wasn't referring to just the transit thing. If the DFL had invested in transportation, importantly, including key Greater MN highways and corridors, they may very well have been able to push back on the "they don't care about you" line.

Everyone likes transportation and when you explain why you need more money, people generally accept it. Witness the MVST referendum.

I don't disagree that it would have been wise. They should have gone for it.

But I think you're overestimating anyone outside of a very transportation-focused circle's understanding of such a policy. Assuming they got such a bill passed, it would take time to implement, and then you have to wait for the actual construction to occur. I assume that number is >1 year, and by then how many shovels can you have in the ground? A shovel in Rochester doesn't convince a Duluthian that they're getting attention. All they see is the gas tax increase they're paying at the pump and the GOP telling them that the metro is sucking away their hard-earned tax dollars.

[TroyGBiv]

Having lived in Colorado as Denver was putting their RTD LRT plan together the government and the regional elected officials understood the full plan - serving all parts of the area. Denver has the advantage of having one downtown that lies in the middle of the who metro area. MSP has two main downtowns and this is more complex an area to plan out. I think that this whole process would be easier, cheaper and faster with less dissension if the plan was clear for all counties and in all directions. It is easier to have an end plan to get behind a large expensive and complex project like rail transit across the metro. Denver even had a timetable... that was how the Denver metro ended up getting voters to approve the master plan and the funding plan....

[seanrichardryan]

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

Thoughts?

[Anondson]

This is pretty much about an additional bridge over the canal, right?

[MNdible]

This is pretty much about an additional bridge over the canal, right?

I know. The horror!

[David Greene]

I think that this whole process would be easier, cheaper and faster with less dissension if the plan was clear for all counties and in all directions. It is easier to have an end plan to get behind a large expensive and complex project like rail transit across the metro.

This has been discussed many, many times over the years. As I recall, Denver had a referendum with a map on the ballot, making it clear to voters what would happen. A couple reasons that won't work as well here. 1) We don't want to have to go through a referendum and 2) no plan will convince most Republicans to vote for a tax increase for transit. The only way to get the Republicans to agree is to spend on Greater MN roads. My guess is that the GOP would be delighted if the bill didn't spend much on suburban roads. Of course the DFL wants just the opposite.

[RailBaronYarr]

The only way to get the Republicans to agree is to spend on Greater MN roads. My guess is that the GOP would be delighted if the bill didn't spend much on suburban roads. Of course the DFL wants just the opposite.

The GOP ran heavily to suburban constituents on fixing congestion issues, stopping wasteful spending on trolleys in the core cities while suburban freeways were choked & arterials crumble. I doubt they'd be 'delighted' as suburban districts that flip back and forth are the only way they seem to make strides in legislature seats. Failing to deliver on upping suburban road spending would be a big black eye for them come next election. But, they're in a pickle because they also promised outstate road spending & seem to refuse to increase user taxes to pay for anything, leaving them too little to deliver on both.

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

Thoughts?

I mean, the article definitely has a point in the general sense. I probably lament the loss of, and intrusion to, our parks as a result of 60s-era highways/etc. But that's overshadowed by 100x by the displacement of thousands of residents & the degradation of our best urban spaces as a result. But, we do need stop gaps to make sure any one goal (ie transpo) doesn't trump other things. It's just... in this case, man. A small bridge that carries an electric train every 5 minutes next to an already existing bridge is simply not comparable to a 4 or 6 lane elevated freeway carrying 100,000 cars a day where there was once only park land.

[David Greene]

The only way to get the Republicans to agree is to spend on Greater MN roads. My guess is that the GOP would be delighted if the bill didn't spend much on suburban roads. Of course the DFL wants just the opposite.

The GOP ran heavily to suburban constituents on fixing congestion issues, stopping wasteful spending on trolleys in the core cities while suburban freeways were choked & arterials crumble.

And they lost there. From what I hear, they are absolutely shocked and don't understand at all what happened politically in the suburbs.

I doubt they'd be 'delighted' as suburban districts that flip back and forth are the only way they seem to make strides in legislature seats. Failing to deliver on upping suburban road spending would be a big black eye for them come next election. But, they're in a pickle because they also promised outstate road spending & seem to refuse to increase user taxes to pay for anything, leaving them too little to deliver on both.

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.

The GOP would be counting on suburban voters to blame their (DFL) reps for lack of road investment. That's how cynical, destructive politics works. It's up to the DFL to produce a positive transportation vision for the suburbs that is also sustainable and environmentally responsible (i.e. very targeted road expansion).

[mattaudio]

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.