I think you're maybe missing the point. I'm saying that 1) the process, dictated by federal rules to receive money (which we sent to them via the federal gas tax in the first place) is overly long and burdensome with criteria that don't always make sense, and 2) gets us in these tricky situations where we're forced to make a decision on a preferred alternative route based on not nearly enough (or accurate enough) information, and then we're kinda stuck with it even when things don't look nearly as good because re-opening the LPA process would be a nightmare and jeopardize said funding. If we had known this LPA would cost $1.5bn (much of which stems from costs dealing with the marshy land along Theo Wirth that could have been avoided by running up Penn) would it have changed the choice? Do we know what other cost adders would have come about in an alternate universe where we listened to the other 50% of the locals who wanted LRT on Penn? Were there other options that could have been on the table if not for the federal rules and criteria that apparently say a shorter line with tunneling wouldn't generate enough riders to make the cut but a $500m price increase on a line still has more than enough wiggle room on the federal pecking order?What I don't understand is that so many of you seem to want to change things so things can be 'figured out later'. Except, you know, in order for us to receive Federal Funding, we have to follow the rules established. That means doing this exactly as Met Council is doing.
This is how rail projects all over the country are done. If not, we wouldn't receive matching Federal Funds.
I can understand price increases - more bridges were added, more rail cars, another station. As long as we stay competitive for Federal funds, I have no problem investing in a long-term transit plan.
I'm not saying I'm 100% in the camp of devolving everything to state and local control - we may just as well end up with the same decisions and problems (and there *are* many examples of federal rules and oversight that many states would choose to ignore at the peril of disadvantaged people). Just.. this seems to be a running theme, and holding up the fact that rail lines across the country are built this way isn't indicative of success since we don't really have great transit almost anywhere in America.
People are trying, but honestly there aren't any road projects that come to mind that cost >$1 billion. And the really expensive ones move like hundreds of thousands of people a day and cover 80%+ of costs via the gas tax while transit covers 30% or less of operations (to say nothing of rolling the capital costs of building the line in). All of us here know there's waaaay more to it than that, but that conversation is extremely detailed. It's why a fringe of the population will read streets.mn articles or this forum and engage with the nuance but most can't see past a giant price tag for trains that serve a fraction of the region's population.No one talks about how much money we spend on new and updating highways. I wish that information would be headline worthy in the Strib!
