It is interesting how the two sides pretty much failed in their duties this year... I wonder who voters will punish / reward in the Fall?
CBS Dayton's Reqts for Special Session
MP Dayton Unsure
MP Failed Transportation Bill
DNT Bonding Bill Backer
CBS Dayton's Reqts for Special Session
MP Dayton Unsure
MP Failed Transportation Bill
DNT Bonding Bill Backer
73 comments:
yes, there will be a special session. Both sides want to have more accoplishments to tell voters about in this election year.
In general, Democrats favor government doing something and Republicans favor government doing nothing. So in my views, when the government does nothing or little, it's the Republicans who win, or at least prevail. The political implications of that, however, remain to be seen. Republicans will have to explain to their constituents how not getting their streets repaired means that they won.
--Hiram
One would think so, but I don't know. They could not get it figured out over the last 2 months. And since one side wants and lot of spending and the other wants a lot of cuts, I do not know...
Hiram,
It may be easier than explaining why they spent a billion in the cities... (ie U of MN TC, Light Rail, Bonding, etc)
I still have to figure out where all this road work needs to be done??? I go 4 hours North and 3.5 hrs West and most of the roads are excellent or getting an asphalt overlay. And I drive through the 494 work zone daily.
If past practice is any indication, the DFL will do everything possible to blame the Republicans for anything and everything that went "wrong," even if by common sense those things were right. And already I'm seeing endless media coverage blaming both sides for the fact that the DFL Senate blew up the whole "done deal" at 11:55PM.
As for the special session, it sounds like the Governor is willing to compromise, so long as he gets everything he wants and the GOP gets nothing. I'm thinking the GOP may just stick to its guns and hang the failure of the transportation bill on the DFL, for insisting on a choo-choo that nobody needs or wants. If they take over the Senate, they can get it the way they want it.
"It may be easier than explaining why they spent a billion in the cities... (ie U of MN TC, Light Rail, Bonding, etc)"
Indeed. Why spend the money where most of the people live? Makes no sense to a Republican, I'm sure.
Joel
It's pretty clear the DFL Senate didn't think bonding was a "done deal", given how fast they sent it back. It seems more like Daudt decided to wait until 11:45 to send over a bonding package in hopes of forcing the DFL to eat a poop sandwich. The fact that they didn't even introduce their bonding bill until 5 days were left in the session doesn't exactly indicate that they were going into it with good intent.
When you combine that with the fact that Daudt killed the compromise transportation package negotiated by Kelly and Dibble, it seems pretty clear that the GOP House caucus prioritized killing SWLRT (or even allowing Hennepin County to pay for it themselves) over doing anything for the people they actually represent.
"And since one side wants and lot of spending and the other wants a lot of cuts, I do not know..."
Everybody hates spending, but they often like what money buys.
--Hiram
An $800 Million poop sandwich is pretty expensive. I think bonding died because the DFL was too greedy.
I think bonding is one of those places where a lot of politicians, especially DFLers, see "free money," to be spent on frippery rather than necessities. Bonding is supposed to be for capital improvements that benefit the general public. I have serious doubts that most of that proposed meets that simple criterion.
Interesting interpretation, Sean. I'm sure it will get a marvelous airing in the press.
"Bonding is supposed to be for capital improvements that benefit the general public."
Like transit, in all its forms.
Joel
I think bonding is one of those places where a lot of politicians, especially DFLers, see "free money,"
We see "free money" in exactly the same way Republicans see free health care or free highway repairs. Something that I have always found completely baffling is the widespread Republican belief that providing needed and required health care to uninsured individuals is somehow free. It isn't, it's only a question of where the burden of paying for it falls.
--Hiram
What is fascinating to me is that Republicans claim to support busing instead of trains. So, then, let's invest in busing. Phoenix is investing $31B in expanding transit (1/2 to buses) over the next 35 years. Salt Lake City has a more developed transit system than what we've got here, encompassing busing, light rail, and commuter rail. And these aren't exactly liberal strongholds.
Don't want to build SWLRT? Fine. Let's take that $135M state share and use it to expand busing across the metro. You could do a lot of good with that sort of money -- increasing frequency on busy routes, adding new ones, etc.
Joel,
Now you aren't going to say that the value of all forms of transportation should be considered equal just because they exist are you?
In this case I judge value based on how many people are willing to pay the cost of creating, maintaining and operating the system.
Sean,
How about we let the tax payers keep the $135 Million and we raise the bus fares?
"In this case I judge value based on how many people are willing to pay the cost of creating, maintaining and operating the system."
We have no method of transportation that subsists solely on user fees or fare revenue.
"How about we let the tax payers keep the $135 Million and we raise the bus fares?"
See above.
And, we need to face reality. We're not going to be able to build enough highway capacity in the metro area to meet the needs of a growing population. Critical areas (35W and 94 in Minneapolis, 94/35E junction in St. Paul, 494 from the Airport through MN-100, parts of 394) could only be expanded if we're willing to plow under neighborhoods and businesses, and you can bet those cities aren't going to sign off on that.
"Now you aren't going to say that the value of all forms of transportation should be considered equal just because they exist are you?"
I wouldn't say that at all. Mass transit is much more valuable.
Joel
Sean,
"no method of transportation that subsists solely on user fees or fare revenue"
I think roads and bridges do pretty well here. I mean between gas taxes, license fees and other transportation related taxes/fees. Do you disagree?
Joel,
I should have expected that... I disagree because we have so many jobs and people living in the suburbs. Mass transport just will not be as effective.
Personally I think we need another outer ring of Highways.
Some way for truckers and others to avoid the Cities/Burbs.
Local and county roads are largely funded by property taxes. My county (Carver), for instance, is budgeting 63% of its roads and bridge construction work this year via property taxes -- which places it pretty close to what Metro Transit runs (about one-third of operating revenue from fares and user fees).
The state and federal level do better on that count.
"Personally I think we need another outer ring of Highways."
You're going to have to learn to love the gas tax if you want that to happen... That's a multi-billion dollar project.
Sean,
The SW Light Rail cost is ~$2 Billion and it only goes from Eden Prairie to Mpls... And mostly only helps those people who have that commute path.
"As with last year’s budget, the FTA wants to fund 50 percent of Southwest LRT’s total construction cost. This year, the feds estimated that cost at $1.77 billion, so they would plan to contribute $882 million over the life of the project."
Sean,
So why does Hennepin county need state approval to allow them to fund the SW light rail themselves? I think the whole project is within the Hennepin county boundaries.
By the way, the 610 is slowly working its way around the North.
"I disagree because we have so many jobs and people living in the suburbs."
The result of tearing out mass transit and building roads.
Joel
"And mostly only helps those people who have that commute path."
Mostly. And higher density construction will follow. As it does.
Joel
"And mostly only helps those people who have that commute path."
You can slice up any transportation expense in this way. How much an individual state highway in northwest Minnesota directly benefit me? Probably not much. But I recognize that the benefit comes in having a network of roads and trains to efficiently move people and goods.
"So why does Hennepin county need state approval to allow them to fund the SW light rail themselves? I think the whole project is within the Hennepin county boundaries."
State law limits a county's contribution to a rail project to 10% of the cost.
"By the way, the 610 is slowly working its way around the North."
Yeah, and the 2.5 mile extension currently under construction is costing $80 million. To build a full outer ring -- probably 150 miles or more in length -- would cost $5B+ just in construction costs (not including acquiring all the right-of-way).
Let's apply some math, shall we? For the cost of Central Corridor light rail, we could have bought every rider a new car AND put gas in it for life. OR, if traffic is your concern, we could have run a fleet of low-pollution hybrid busses up and down that route, every 4 minutes, for the next 700 years!
The problem with trains is they are so last century. Our transportation experts at the U of M say that "people make their transit decisions intelligently. If you can take me where I want to go, when I want to go, for less time and/or cost than driving, I'll use it." Trains cannot possibly do that, especially as population shifts. Busses can be rerouted almost anytime. Uber and Lyft and self-driving cars and smart highways will be here LONG before the bonds to build SWLRT could possibly be paid off, and those bonds WON'T be paid off with user fees. Right now taxpayers subsidize LRT operating cost by about 80%. Just a bad deal.
jerry-
As of two years ago, development along the Green Line had risen to the level of $2.5B. Much more has been built and planned since then.
That doesn't happen in your nightmarish world.
Joel
Have you noticed how developments follow highways? When laying out a new subdivision, what's the first consideration? Streets and highways. Dakota County real estate went through the roof when 35W and then Cedar Avenue bridges were put in. Development DOES happen in my "scenario," it just isn't so centrally dictated as it is with LRT. And by the way, how does a truckload of goods get down the LRT line to the merchant?
Sean,
I am not sure they could not pay another 10% per this article, it looks like they would prefer for the State to pay it.
I am thinking the 610 could reach 94 East of 694 with maybe another 50 miles of investment. It seems that would divert a lot of traffic around the city. And maybe push some of the development North and East.
Joel,
I agree with you. Light rail is great for the people and immediate communities it passes through. Not sure how good it is for the Twin cities and/or the state.
Jerry,
Excellent point. Highways do support business, shipping, etc, whereas transit has a pretty limited role.
Joel,
Oops. I forgot, wasn't the development near the Green Line starting to increase the costs of those properties in a way that made it hard for many to remain living near the the line?
Is this good or bad?
100 years ago there was a thriving trolley business up and down University avenue and a thriving business community to match. Those days are gone and should have stayed gone. Trains do not have the versatility of either cars or busses, and cost more. Why would anybody in their right mind decide that it is the best solution for moving people from where they are to where they want to go, when they want to go, and at less cost? Now if you want to talk PRT instead of LRT, you might make a case. But self-driving Ubers or smart highways will do the same thing, relieve congestion and be here long before we could get PRT up and running.
"Have you noticed how developments follow highways? When laying out a new subdivision, what's the first consideration? Streets and highways. Dakota County real estate went through the roof when 35W and then Cedar Avenue bridges were put in."
Which leads to the need for more roads, which leads to more sprawl, which leads to worse traffic, etc. ad nauseam. Not so with mass transit.
Previous comment is mine.
Joel
"Why would anybody in their right mind decide that it is the best solution for moving people from where they are to where they want to go, when they want to go, and at less cost?"
How is Denver's investment in light rail working for them?
Joel
"Busses can be rerouted almost anytime."
Great, then we should be able to get bipartisan agreement to expand busing in the metro. Right?
Where are we short bus routes?
I see them running around Plymouth often. And I work just West of the SW Park and Ride parking structure. It seems there are many options available.
Joel,
Now why again would mass transit not encourage even more sprawl?
It seems to me that sprawl will increase faster if you make it easier for people to live in Chanhassen etc, and still work in Minneapolis.
John-
Mass transit encourages density.
Joel
"Where are we short bus routes?"
Expansion of busing can include increasing frequency, too.
For instance, when I worked downtown, I used to ride the SW Metro buses there, and it was great. Travel times were consistent, and I could do other stuff while en route. Problem was, after about 5:30, frequency fell off to an hour-plus between buses. Or, when I was doing my MBA in the evenings at the Carlson School, the last bus from the U left before my class was over. So on nights where I was working late or at class, I was essentially forced to drive in.
That's not to say that we've always done a good job here with all of our transit choices. The Northstar line was highly questionable, because we don't own the tracks and can't control the schedule. If the North Dakota oil fields crank up again in the future, it's going to be very problematic. I'd prefer for SWLRT to be routed through Uptown than its proposed alignment. And we haven't done enough on any of the lines to have "express" and "local" options.
Joel,
Mass transit may encourage density along the route, but it can also encourage sprawl by reducing the consequence/cost of living further out. As Sean noted, ideally there would be "express trains". The park and ride in EP is very large and runs express buses downtown. This is good for folks like Sean who I think is one of the sprawlers.
Sean,
My guess is that hours and frequency are determined by ridership. No sense running big buses with 1 or two riders.
And you were not really forced to drive in. You could have taken the bus in and a taxi out. Of course then you the driver would be paying the full cost of transportation.
"Mass transit may encourage density along the route, but it can also encourage sprawl by reducing the consequence/cost of living further out."
What caused the great majority of the sprawl that we have in the metro today? It certainly wasn't mass transit -- it was the development of the highway system (and the corresponding shutdown of the streetcar system). Southwest Station didn't open until after the sprawl had happened, it didn't cause it.
Is there some incremental impact? Probably, but it's not significant. In fact, like we've seen elsewhere, probably the biggest impact has been on making the area near the station more dense.
"This is good for folks like Sean who I think is one of the sprawlers."
There's no doubt that express buses made it easier to commute downtown than it otherwise would have been. (That said, I was living where I was originally because I had a job out in Sprawlville, and left my downtown job to take a different job in Sprawlville. It wasn't like I moved out of the city or the first ring because of express buses.)
"And you were not really forced to drive in."
Well, it was more cost-effective than the bus in, taxi out scenario.
Now you are getting it. Light rail is good for connecting dense concentrations of people that are relatively closely packed. It makes good sense to have rail service from the airport to the Mall of America, for example, for the (surprising) number of people who fly in just to shop there and fly out again. You might make the same case for a line from the airport to the new Vikings stadium, but recognize that only gets used a few times a year. Where it really works well is in places like Europe, where you have old, dense cities not that far apart. Amsterdam, for example, uses light rail from the airport to downtown, trolleys all over the city core, and bicycles everywhere else. The US "grew up" with lots of space and the automobile. LRT makes little sense for us except in very limited spots. (NYC subways, for example) Right now, something over 99% of passenger trips are NOT on light rail in Minneapolis. Why should spending on that be greater than for roads? It simply makes no sense.
Though I have kept dreaming of that acreage in Sprawlsville, since I have worked in Medina, Osseo and now Eden Prairie... The practicality of Plymouth kept me there.
The Medina & Osseo commutes were about 8 miles each way. And now I am up to a whopping 15 miles... Neither a bus nor train would do much for me or people like me.
Not sure who all these people are who work downtown. I mean the campuses for some of MN's largest employers are in the Burbs. (ie Best Buy, Cargill, Medtronic, United Health, St Jude, Boston Scientific, Carlson, Toro, etc)
Exactly. That is why some 99%-- according to MNDOT study-- of trips do NOT follow the LRT corridor and are impractical for most people. Busses fare slightly better. The ONLY thing sustaining light rail is politicians' desire to spend big money on a monument to themselves.
"Light rail is good for connecting dense concentrations of people that are relatively closely packed."
Like Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Joel
Sorry, but neither city is a dense concentration of people, not dense enough to fill whole trains. And what would draw people between the two cities, living in one urban core and working in another? Within January walking distance of the two terminal stations? Far better solutions exist.
I can understand Mpls/St Paul, especially since the U of MN is in between...
How does that translate to the SW line?
Even less valuable. It assumes that the sprawled EP community is a single point source of riders which it is not and cannot be, and that most of those potential riders want to go downtown, which they do not. LRT is like suggesting that a tree can be perfectly useful with a single root and a single branch.
As for the U of M, lots of students live there. Commuter students have parking ramps and, if the need was there, busses would make the trip from most anywhere it made sense. People make their transport decisions intelligently, and LRT isn't a solution worth its high cost.
I hope the GOP sticks to its guns and refuses the Guv's political extortion.
The Governor had to back down from his first tantrum, when found his Magical Misery Tour wouldn't play with outstate voters. But this time, I wonder if he even can get out of this tight corner he's painted himself into. Vetoing the tax bill in particular was a "bi-partisan" blunder.
But say Dayton (or is it Smith?) walks it back a bit, dropping SWLRT even. I say, if he calls a Special Session, adjourn immediately. His word will (again) be proved worthless.
MP Update
"I say, if he calls a Special Session, adjourn immediately. His word will (again) be proved worthless."
So you think it's more important to score political points than to actually govern. Classic.
Joel
Is it possible to read the MP article and not have a sense that it is biased? In my telling of the tale, I would have said that Republicans passed the bill near midnight and then adjourned sine die. The Senate decided to try to pass something different, that therefore had no chance of becoming law, rather than that which COULD have become law that was right in front of them. Now the Gov (Sorry, can't help but think of the Gov from "Blazing Saddles") wants to throw in a whole potload of OTHER new stuff? I think the GOP will try to appear reasonable but will ride this DFL overreach all the way to November. It's already started. http://mngop.com/dayton-says-give-0-back/
"So you think it's more important to score political points than to actually govern. Classic." -- Joel
Apparently that's true, just not in the way you think. Who got blamed for the federal government shutdown that Harry Reid and Obama created? Who did the DFL try to blame for the State Government shutdown? Whom are they trying to blame NOW, for lack of funding for roads and bridges? Your horse is no higher than anybody else's, but an elephant looks taller than a jackass from where I sit.
"Who got blamed for the federal government shutdown that Harry Reid and Obama created?"
Those who like to create crisis where there needn't be any.
"Whom are they trying to blame NOW, for lack of funding for roads and bridges?"
Those who are standing in the way of a comprehensive and broad-based transit system. I'll let you figure out who those morons are.
Joel
Of course; I should have known. If Democrats and Republicans cannot agree, regardless of subject, it is always the fault of the Republicans, and never the fault of Democrats.
Jerry,
I don't know... Briana is one of their more centered writers.
And yes each side blames the other whenever a stalemate occurs...
Joel,
Sometimes the morons are the ones who want to spend more of our money than is necessary. I certainly don't want the State spending my tax dollars funding the SW rail project. As we discussed, to me it would just encourage urban sprawl.
Yes, each side blames the other, but the facts are usually clear-cut. In this case, the DFL Senate had the last clear chance to pass a transportation bill and essentially killed it with their five minutes to midnight poison pill. The last person who could have passed a highly popular tax bill was the Governor, and he refused to sign it so that is very clearly his fault, despite any and all claims to the contrary. If justice prevails here, Gov. Dayton will take a political beating, as will the DFL Senate. Only if the Governor fully capitulates and asks for a special session just to re-pass those two bills (with the minor correction in the tax bill), Republicans should agree.
"In this case, the DFL Senate had the last clear chance to pass a transportation bill and essentially killed it with their five minutes to midnight poison pill."
Or, you could phrase it that the House GOP passed a bill they knew would be unacceptable to the Senate DFL and walked away.
Both sides failed to reach the necessary agreement.
On the tax bill, if it was so gosh-darned popular, the House and Senate should have passed it earlier, so they could have overridden the Governor's veto. Instead, they gave the Governor a hammer are now complaining that he's using it.
Sean, it is downright fascinating to see how your mind works. It's like trying to explain Bantu culture in Mandarin Chinese.
The only thing that, to me, argues against your interpretation of the transportation bill fiasco is that the House took a lot of time and, I believe, consultation with the Senate to craft their bill, where is the Senate introduced their amendment in about five minutes, and was something, again apparently, never before considered in either chamber.
All of those folks criticizing these repeated last-minute antics are probably correct. Maybe the final day of action on all bills should be fixed at 10 days prior to adjournment.
It was well known that the Senate DFL didn't have the votes to pass a bill that didn't have SWLRT in it (specifically, allowing local authorities to pay for the remaining share themselves -- not the use of state money to pay for it). Speaker Daudt was hoping that by holding out until the last minute enough DFLers would fold to get the House bill passed, but he miscalculated.
Just a question: "well known" by who? When was that "local funding" idea hatched? And why, oh, why is that stupid choo-choo more important than fixing our "crumbling roads and bridges"?
'And why, oh, why is that stupid choo-choo more important than fixing our "crumbling roads and bridges"?'
What makes you think that our legislators believe it is "more important"?
Joel
Because they are willing to forgo road and bridge repairs to fund the choo-choo.
Amazing, isn't it? Both sides claim that roads and bridges were the most important issue for this session-- their top priority-- and yet the DFL was unwilling to prioritize the rest of the budget to get them, insisting first on higher taxes when there was already a surplus, and then on funding something apparently MORE important than roads and bridges. Now the governor is insisting that the remaining surplus be spent on his pet boondoggles and, if he doesn't get it, he won't call a Special Session where roads and bridges could be funded.
"Because they are willing to forgo road and bridge repairs to fund the choo-choo."
DFLers want a multi-mode, broad-based transportation plan for the State. To continually avoid a real transportation issue, as the Republicans are doing, is irresponsible.
If out-state Minnesota wants their roads and bridges, they can pay for them themselves. Sound familiar?
Joel
DFLers want trains, and they are willing to invest half of all transportation dollars on a mode of transportation that carries less than 1% of people in the metro.
And Republicans aren't avoiding the issue. They passed legislation to fully fund the road and bridge work the DFL insists must be done. The DFL prevented its passages because the unnecessary SWLRT wasn't included.
"The DFL prevented its passages because the unnecessary SWLRT wasn't included."
Yes. That is my point. The DFL wants a modern multi-modal system. Republicans are stuck in the 1950s automobile culture.
Joel
And the DFL is stuck in the 1910 trolley era. There's nothing "multimodal" about a system with such limited coverage and ridership. Busses carry far more people at far less cost. LRT just does not make economic sense.
Post a Comment