urbanMSP

But we're not doing both.

Not right now and I agree that's frustrating, but the more we buy into the myth of scarcity, the more the anti-transit types will be able to withhold funding.

We need to demand that our lawmakers fund transit adequately, not demand that they pick this project over that one.

How is scarcity a myth? Scarcity as known as the "fundamental problem of economics."

How is scarcity a myth? Scarcity as known as the "fundamental problem of economics."

The myth of scarcity is the story we're told that we just don't have enough money to fund public infrastructure, education, health care, etc. It's a myth because we are the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet. We surely have enough money to make our community however we want it to be. We've just chosen to make it a place where a very small number of obscenely wealthy people hoard all the resources.

While everyone is fighting, here is a thing that I wrote:

https://streets.mn/2014/08/08/a-southwes ... explainer/

It's probably not what you think! Entirely.

There are two public hearing coming up for people to comment on the revised Southwest Light Rail Transit project. Following these hearings, the Minneapolis City Council will vote on municipal consent for the project at a later date.

Public Hearing for Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority/Metropolitan Council
5:30 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 13
Minneapolis Central Library
300 Nicollet Mall

Public Hearing for City of Minneapolis
6 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 19
City Hall, Room 317
350 South 5th Street

Surprised no one has posted this yet. Hennepin county has approved the SWLRT designs, leaving only the City of Minneapolis to approve next week. The Minneapolis hearing seemed focused on improved bus connections to ensure that SWLRT is as accessible as possible for Minneapolis residents.

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/271940961.html

I spoke at the Minneapolis hearing last night. Speakers advocating for North Minneapolis service and amenities were "playing the race card" according to Susu Jeffrey, who spoke right before me, and she likened equity commitments from government entities to "Indian treaties." Rarely do we see such offensive speech in public these days.

Can we also get an equity commitment to build Lake Street aBRT soon, connecting Mpls' Phillips and Powderhorn neighborhoods to SWLRT?

David, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how best to extend bus service from the northside. I read (somewhere?) a fairly convincing argument that directly extending bus service to any of the SWLRT stations outside of downtown probably doesn't make sense from a service perspective. And yet, it seems to have become a major bargaining chip.

David, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how best to extend bus service from the northside. I read (somewhere?) a fairly convincing argument that directly extending bus service to any of the SWLRT stations outside of downtown probably doesn't make sense from a service perspective. And yet, it seems to have become a major bargaining chip.

Are you talking about Aaron Isaac's streets.mn post? In that article Aaron acknowledges that bus connections would indeed help shorten trip times.

To me, the most important connection is to Penn station. Buses heading down Emerson/Fremont can pretty easily take 7th St. to Royalston and not go too much out of the way from Van White. Van White is mostly about economic development (if the city would just let it happen!) but Penn can save significant travel time. In my ideal world, we'd send the Penn aBRT all the way down Penn to the station and then hop the ramp onto 394 to get downtown. From what I've been told, transit planners think that would be too much of a hit to riders heading downtown. I really don't see how since they can always transfer to the Blue Line at Olson (albeit with a transfer time penalty). Duplicating Blue Line service on Olson with aBRT service seems wasteful. At the very least the aBRT should go down Glenwood.

If the aBRT can't go to Penn station for some reason, then the 19 ought to go there.

The point of this is that there's a gap in transit service in Near North that needs to be filled to make SWLRT more accessible to the entire Northside. Northside residents have been calling for this and I tend to trust them when they say it's a big deal.

Can we also get an equity commitment to build Lake Street aBRT soon, connecting Mpls' Phillips and Powderhorn neighborhoods to SWLRT?

I've been testifying to that effect as well. We're going to need a push from residents to make it happen. Northsiders stepped up their game and have engaged directly with the City, County and Met Council. Hence, things are moving. The Southside needs to do the same for Lake St. aBRT and Midtown LRT.

I'm also curious about that. In general it's tougher to get ridership on crosstown routes, even with connections to LRT spines (46, 23 come to mind) but interlining them with other crosstown routes on the Southside would make sense. Maybe the 9 could be split, so the Penn Northside crosstown route can go via the Penn station then either via France/Ewing or West End / Mtka Blvd to interline with the 21 or 23 (thereby creating another one seat ride option to Midway or Highland Park job centers). For the Van White crosstown connection, maybe route it via the Virginia Triangle and interline it with the 2.

So no ones going to talk about the initial consent given by the council today?

It's overdue?

4-2 vote. Who joined Goodman in dissent?
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/08/27 ... light-rail

Yang?

Actually Yang and Gordon dissented. Apparently Goodman isn't on the committee.

David is correct: http://www.startribune.com/local/west/272957251.html

I have to imagine that's probably it for the "no" votes. Based on his voting record on a number of things, Yang seems more interested in lawyering every argument than being a councilmember. How the **** does the Ward 5 councilmember vote against this when basically the only touted benefit to Minneapolis (aside from moving more suburbanites into the city on rails instead of buses & cars) is the prospect of development around the Near North stations?

Granted, he's basing his rejection around the fact that an EIS for the tunnel has not been completed. That was Gordon's reasoning as well. They sorta have a point, but if the study comes out and says the tunnel is going to impact the lakes, it won't get built. Period. As much as Hennepin County and Met Council want to keep moving forward on this path, they aren't going to build a line that intentionally harms the lakes, and they know Minneapolis will not allow all three modes at grade. If the tunnel is infeasible or gets scrapped for whatever reason, it's probably back to the drawing board and Bottineau skips ahead.

EDIT: Seriously guys, MinnPost is the best: http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... thwest-lrt If you aren't giving them at least $3/month, [insert petty insult]. Superb, unbiased reporting that is often unmatched by MPR or Star Trib (save for Eric Roper). This particular SWLRT piece isn't Karen Boros, but she is a phenomenal city/politics reporter. And now with Bill Lindeke writing Cityscape? Take my money!

Also, cheers to Lisa Bender for her quotes referencing the "other" alignment. There's two different quotes in the Strib piece and MinnPost regarding Uptown and her take on the issue. Minneapolis is so lucky to have her.

The MPR piece also had Lisa Bender saying how this should have gone through Uptown to begin with. VINDICATED!

The MPR piece also had Lisa Bender saying how this should have gone through Uptown to begin with. VINDICATED!

Except she doesn't think they're actually possible to do, so...