The feds may have been silent about helping to pay the operating costs of
Jesse's and Ted's choo-choo, but that's because the feds NEVER pay the
operating costs, only the exaggerated capital costs.  lrt is designed to
recover only 33% (or less) of operating costs from the farebox, the rest
is supposed to come from advertising and subsidies.

Kevin mentions millions for buses.  According to a met council report on
the "costs of sprawl", $440 million would put twice as many buses on the
road (an extra 900).  Ramsey County mentioned that the doubling of buses
would result in a 41% increase in overall ridership.  Instead, more than
$675 million is going down the drain on just the first line.  Could have
expanded the bus fleet by 1350 for that amount of money.

Interestingly enough, they are really pushing for lrt between the two
downtowns for "only" $660 million more.  Oddly enough, extra lrt lines
without tunnels under the airport and a maintenance facility and storage
yard were forecast to cost $440 million each.  So, if they were to waste
more money to build lrt in the central corridor, the amount down the drain
would total more than $1,335 million, enough to add 2,730 buses.

Contrast that to the relatively recent "bus rapid transit" lines added in
Los Angeles, such as the Wilshire rapid line.  Running with regular traffic
in non-dedicated lanes, with electronic gear to extend green lights, etc.,
the ridership went up 29% in just three months while the time it took to
travel the line went down by 25%.  The cost was $190,000 per mile plus the
cost of buses.  Recently, it was announced that the LA Blue Line lrt, the
highest ridership lrt line in the country, reached 36,000 one-way trips per
day after "only" six years.  The Wilshire Rapid Line was at 44,000 per day
at about the same time, in about 1/4 the time.  So, don't believe it when
you are told that only rail can be used on a route with high ridership.

You might also hear about lrt cars lasting much longer than buses.  It's
true that the FTA life of lrt cars is 25 years.  It's also true that the
FTA life of a bus is 12 years.  So, a train car lasts about twice as long
and costs about six times as much, meaning three times as much per year
for a trolley car.

Keith writes wanting reverse commutes to Saint Cloud on the Northstar
choo-choo.  The last time I saw a "sample schedule", they were saying
that there would be eight runs in the morning and afternoon rush periods
and one train each way at noon.  If I remember it correctly, there were
only two reverse commute trains in the 3+ hour rush period and only two
trains that came in from Saint Cloud in the morning.  The other four
came in from Anoka and Elk River.  Recent stories have seen the supposed
average speed go from 34 to 40, with no explanation of how that was achieved,
since there is no agreement with BNSF on sharing the tracks, actually more
like paying for the use of the tracks.

Bruce Gaarder
Highland Park  Saint Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Kevin Trainor wrote:

> No, because while the Feds (thanks to Congressman
> Sabo) have said they're willing to shell out a few 
> million of our tax dollars to help build the line,
> they've been real quiet about helping to pay the 
> operating costs. I have no faith that the Hiawatha LRT
> route will ever be anything but a black hole for 
> subdiy dollars, and even less that the Northstar 
> Corridor will be any different.


Keith Reitman wrote:
> I wish Jesse would stop the train until it is designed to serve Keith 
> the needs of  people who need to reverse commute. I wrote the piece below Keith 
> before the bubble burst and the need for jobs in the hood trebled. Keith 
> 
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to