apple juice

From today’s Startribune, two potential light rail lines are being considered from the Southwest, option B travels through Uptown as well!

The second route would follow the same path in Eden Prairie but would go through Minneapolis between Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles through Uptown to a final stop on Nicollet Mall. The study estimated that in 2030, it would attract about 28,000 riders, 6,800 of them new to transit, at an estimated capital cost of $1.4 billion in 2015, with operating costs of more than $20 million.

They say that this one is not the "preferred" line however, but do not say why. I’m guessing it’s because the estimated cost is $200 million more. It’s the better route though!

Anyway, good news!

Now that the Crosstown Commons / 35W project has run in to some bumper-to-bumper traffic, might it be possible to come back to the drawing board and create a true solution for the future?

Including, most importantly, dedicated light rail right down the middle.

No one can deny the great success of the Hiawatha line. Think of the potential for the 35W corridor! Look at what Denver did with a steady source of dedicated transit funding. Many miles of new rail transit, including a line tracking the I-25 corridor, their North to South interstate.

More Info: http://www.trexproject.com/

We need a solution that encourages responsible development and encourages people to leave their cars at home. Light rail is a solution that scales to meet the needs of the future, and isn’t something that will run out of capacity the day it opens.

I’m willing to pay for thoughtful transit solutions.

[tags]minneapolis, lrt, light rail, light rail transit, transit[/tags]

Excellent article from the Boston Globe that was reprinted at Common Dreams. Derailing Amtrak

Does this seem right to you?

Bush’s budget proposal includes $35 billion for highways, $14 billion for airports, and no operating subsidies for Amtrak.

Or this?

Other countries long ago boarded the express. Even Bush’s fellow Republicans can see that. In 2002 John Robert Smith said, “We literally spend more collecting road kill off the nation’s highways than we spend on the entire passenger rail system.”

We need a strong passenger rail system in America. It is as simple as that. And people want it:

This is despite the amazing fact that no matter how much Bush wants to kill Amtrak on the false premise that it must be self-sufficient (when airlines and automobile gasoline of course are not), people vote with their feet that they want rail. A record 25 million passengers took Amtrak trains last year. This was not just an East Coast commuter phenomenon. Ridership was up 14 percent in Iowa last year. Amtrak ridership is up 13 percent in car-crazy California.

Read the article. Call your representatives. etc. etc.

Dear Amtrak Co-workers:

Earlier today, President Bush sent to Congress his
proposed budget for FY ’06. It provides no funding for
Amtrak. In contrast, this year we are spending $1.4
billion, of which $1.2 billion is from a federal
appropriation to support our operations and capital
programs across the country.

The President’s proposal does provide $360 million to
the Surface Transportation Board for continued commuter
and freight operations on the NEC only after forcing
an Amtrak bankruptcy. It also isn’t accompanied by any
kind of plan for how Amtrak could continue operations.
In a word, they have no plan for Amtrak other than bankruptcy.

Obviously, the proposal is irresponsible and a surprising
disappointment. It doesn’t acknowledge all the hard work
you’ve done over the past two years to run a tighter and
better ship. Our costs are more under control than ever
before Рthat’s quite an accomplishment.

It is critical that reforms and improvements must continue,
however. Amtrak’s management is engaged with its board,
the Department of Transportation and others for this purpose.
That work continues. We are committed to an efficient and
productive rail passenger system. The plan to force us into
bankruptcy would be counterproductive to this goal.

The President’s proposal is only the start of a long
legislative process, and we are taking it very seriously.
This process has a lot of twists and turns, and it always t
akes six to nine months to sort out. It won’t have any
impact through the ’05 fiscal year, but there’s going to
be very little cash left at the end of this year. Rest
assured that after all we have been through, I am committed
to doing everything I can to secure adequate funding for ‘06.
We have strong support in Congress and a lot of support
across the country.

The best thing that all employees can do is to do their
jobs professionally, delivering the highest quality
passenger service we know how. If we really care about
our passengers, others will care about us. As I travel
in the Midwest this week, you can bet that I’m going
to be looking at service standards. Stay safe out there,
and keep your heads up.

Sincerely,

/s/ David L. Gunn

More info here from the National Association of Rail Passengers

Okay, this took 3 minutes on google:

A Review of Bus Rapid Transit Calgary, 2002 (pdf file)

Capital and operating cost data indicate that Bus Rapid Transit applications are significantly less expensive to construct than LRT – i.e. as little as $0.1 million (Cdn) per kilometre. Due to lower passenger capacities and shorter life expectancy of buses, total vehicle costs would be similar to LRT. However, the operating costs of BRT are considerably higher than LRT on a per passenger basis. Overall, BRT applications on urban arterial streets can be more economical as an interim measure or where demand is not expected to justify LRT service capacities.

That whole paragraph sums up my argument. (The emphasis in the quote was mine.)

1. 35W is a heavily traveled corridor, for which a high capacity solution is needed.
2. We should be planning for 30 years from now, when there will be one million new residents of the MSP area.
3. We want the most cost effective solution for the long run.

If I am wrong on any of these three points, please let me know..

The conclusion of the Calgary BRT study:

In Calgary, potential BRT applications are corridors where LRT will not be constructed for many years or where demand is not forecast to be sufficient to justify LRT construction.

I will argue that in Minneapolis’ case, on this corridor, demand for rapid transit more than justifies the initial capital costs of an LRT solution, and in the long run will be the more sustainable, scalable, and cost-effective solution.

An article out today in the Star Tribune discusses a study regarding a dedicated busway on 35W to alleviate the traffic situation.

While I am in favor of expanding our mass transit options in the city, they are only studying buses. In the face of the overwhelming success of the Hiawatha Light Rail line, in which for every period measured ridership has doubled the projections, they are not even considering light rail.

The bus service is the only transit option being considered to alleviate traffic congestion on I-35W south of downtown.

Why? Since they are not studying Light Rail as an option, we have no idea how this would compare in terms of cost.

I don’t have numbers and figures in front of me, but I believe studies in other muncipalities have shown that in the long term, 20-40 years, light rail will be the cleaner, safer and more cost-effective solution. If we are not planning for the long term in this city, what are we planning for?

Seems as though some residents of Minneapolis are having issues with people parking in front of their houses and getting on the light rail.

Two statements really stuck out.

Rozga laughs at the incident now but was frustrated that residents couldn’t just leave a polite note. “In the city, people park on the street,” she said. “It happens.”

Yeah, not sure if any of the residents on these blocks have been to Chicago, but I considered myself lucky to find a spot within a 3 block radius of friends’ apartments when I would visit. If they really want to have permits, I think the residents should pay for them, and the fees should go towards paying for more parking for commuters. $50 or $100 for 6 months.

Kelly LaDue was the kind of light-rail user folks were supposed to be: a nearby resident who took the bus to the train station. That was until she got tired of waiting. Her 5-minute morning bus ride grew as long as 30 minutes come evening.

So last week LaDue, who lives about five blocks from the 46th Street station, began parking her car on 36th Avenue S., too. “I know it’s not right,” she said. “I just feel bad for them [the residents]. It’s bad for everyone, really. It’s a bad situation that needs some quick remedies.”

(emphasis mine)

Quick remedy for you, Ms. LaDue, walk. It’s five blocks.

update, whoops forgot to post the link, Neighbors seethe over light-rail parkers