> All of these would happen in this scenario. Instead, they buy a train > for about 2/3 MORE than that $440 million, to improve things on one > route out of 200 in the metro area, and then the service is cut back on > some of the other 199 because of budget issues. There will be more cuts > in the future because of lrt. The claim was that the was enough money > in the long range plan to fund combined bus and train operation with > only one fare increase necessary in 2007 or so. We've already seen a > couple of increases before the train even started rolling.
Budget issues? You mean like the Legislature and Governor reducing the amount of funds going to transit? Service will be re-configured on many routes in the vicinity of the LRT - that is true. The reason is because busses will operate as feeders to the LRT not because the budget cannot afford them. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Bus schedules, routes, and service is continually changing to reflect increases and decreases in demand don't assume that just because a LRT is being built and service is being changed that the LRT is the reason for the change. > > Ramsey County wants to build lrt between the downtowns on University > Avenue because it envies Minneapolis. Costing "only" $880 million for > an even shorter length of track with no additional maintenance facility, > it will vastly congest University to the point where the county projects > that there will be only about 16 blocks along University between the > Minneapolis/Saint Paul border and Regions Hospital that won't have one > or two lanes of cars and trucks backed up during rush hour. The > cumulative length of the backups with lrt is about 60% HIGHER than > without. > Of course St. Paul and Ramsey county want a LRT in the central corridor. This route would have an estimated 38,000 riders per day and would be the 5th largest corridor on the day it opened. > Lrt doesn't cut pollution or auto use enough (0.1%) to even be 1/10 of > the model's margin of error. > OK so lets just take the 900,000 new residents in the metro area in the next 20 years and have them all drive everywhere. Since our highways are not congested now, I'm sure with hundreds of thousands of additional cars they won't be congested in the future either. There is clearly no reason to have any additional transit options. > In the San Jose area, they have lrt and buses. They have a $6 billion > budget problem over the next ten years, so they are cutting bus (and > even lrt) service to meet the budget. That's so that they can build > more rail service, so that they can cut bus service more in the future. > > In Los Angeles, they cut bus service to build lrt and a subway. They > were successfully sued by the NAACP and the Bus Riders' Union and are > under a consent decree to provide a certain level of bus service. The > transit agency has publicly stated that when the consent decree expires > in 2007, they plan to get rid of the extra buses that they had to add. > > A lot of train pushers point to Dallas as a success story. Depends on > how you measure success. DART rail was supposed to pay 50% of its > operating and maintenance costs with passenger fares. In 1985 it was > 35%, in 2001 it was 12%. See the trend? > No holistic transit system, congested highways, more cars, more congestion, still no holistic transit system, see the trend? Yes transit systems are expensive. So are highways. REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
