Vote Yes Minnesota...I think not

There is a huge build of people out there that think a new addition to the Constitution of Minnesota would be of great benefit to the state. On the ballot this year is a referendum to dedicate the Minnesota Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) 100 percent to transportation projects. So far so good. But here is the catch: Of the amount that will be dedicated, 40 percent MUST be put into mass transit projects.

Now if you ever hear any of the proponents of this bill, they claim that leaves 60 percent for road projects, but that is not how the bill reads. In fact, the only stipulation for spending is the 40 percent. There is no dedication to building roads at all. The amendment will be made, and the Minnesota House and Senate can meet the requirement by simply putting 100 percent of the money into light rail or buses, and building no roads with the money. People will (and do) claim this to be a system where by the government will never spend more than the 40%. We were told that they wouldn't spend state tax money to fund a stadium and they did. We were told that the light rail would come in under the estimated budget and instead it went 3 times over the budget. To make the arguement that government will never go against it's populace is a ver tired arguement. It happens all the time and it will happen here.

The big lie here is that this will mean any more dedication of funds to building roads. The line most commonly used by people touting the amendment is, "Well, 100 percent of the MVST is better than the 53 percent being used now." This is simply absurd. Ignoring the fact that this is simply word play, the fact stands that rather than pass a blanket amendment saying that "100 percent of the MVST will be used for transit" (mass transit, roads or otherwise), it leaves it without a quota dollar amount for spending.

If you are thinking, "Well, mass transit is good, it will take people off the roads and we won't need to build more," I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. In fact, an eight-lane highway can carry 16 times as many people as a single light rail can. The capacity to expand our highways is near infinate. It is very possible to rennovate highways to add more lanes like they did for 494 or like they plan to do on the crosstown. If we need more highway lanes we need more lanes. Just because you install a transit line does not mean it will provide riders. In fact the opposite is true, it merely diverts people from busses (which is a much better solution to transit problems) thus making the bus line an even bigger money sink, and then dropping money into a light rail line that does nothing to improve traffic.

Another myth of the light rail lobby is that people flock to light rail over their cars when given the option. The census of 2000 showed that miles traveled by car increased about 30 percent, while rail miles traveled was only 16.1 percent.

I suppose while I am at it I will address one other myth on this issue: Mass transit (in any form) benefits low-income families. This is blatantly false as low-income households are captive to public transportation no matter the quality or price. These people rely on mass transit more than the wealthier folks do, but usually have little or no say in the process. For example, there are very few impoverished people who live in Minnetonka, Plymouth, Wayzata and alike, but there is a call to add a line along 394. Is this the people who need mass transit the most or is it a bunch of people who don't want to drive in the morning commute downtown? Busses again are a more viable form of transportation being cheaper and running routes more likely to cater to lower income citizenry, plus they are allowed the freedom of stopping nearly anywhere a rider needs to go.

Middle to higher-income households and families typically use a car for most of their trips, except for commutes where some form of mass transit takes them to their location directly. Thus, light rail and all mass transit typically cater to the higher-income riders, and those who very much need public transportation for their everyday stops have to make longer walks and more transfers to get to where they really need to go, because the system tailors to the wealthy.

Minnesota needs a transit solution yes, but not one that is so costly, we must sacrafice roads to make it. When is the last time you had goods delivered over light rail? The roads are an integral part of Minnesota. Our population is growing and people are moving to the metro, but not Minneapolis. Not St. Paul. They are moving to the suburbs and growing the "metro" to a larger size. I remember not so long ago everything west of Wayzata was farm land, now it is a bustling community of new houses and businesses. We don't need to increase our taxes any more to cover the roads, we need to spend where spending is appropriate. Roads cost 1/3 per mile for just the construction compared to light rail, and they carry more people and more goods. If something is more efficient and costs less, why would anyone push for something else?

Metro area, just the metro area, mass transit accounts for only .5% of people's transportation. We are going to spend 40% of the MOTOR VEHICLE sales tax to provide less than 1% of the metro's transportation needs? We need to focus on building more roads before we get substantially behind in road building. Thinking that by building more mass transit will drive people from their cars is proven in every major city to be a false notion. Americans love their cars and will drive them anywhere even though it may be a long commute.
This is the only vote I have decided on 100 percent this fall.

I tried to comment on this several days ago, but it did not show up. While I agree with the initial poster's conclusions about voting no on the ballot initiative, there is some misleading argument going on.

For instance, claiming "an eight-lane highway can carry 16 times as many people as a single light rail can" may be factually true, but its a disingenuous argument. How much real estate is consumed by 8 lanes of highway vs. one light rail line?

Later the argument that freeways can be expanded is stated as though there's no associated cost. When the 494/694 loop was built, there were minimal numbers of homes and businesses disrupted by the land grab. That is no longer the case. Real estate values have skyrocketed precisely because of the new roads, thus 'just adding a couple lanes' is immensely more expensive than it was to initially build the system.

In the end, one has to ask, should we, as a society force people into car ownership, or should we offer and possibly even encourage alternatives? The existing bus system stinks, and the Hiawatha Light Rail line has demonstrated that people will use light rail more than busses. I'm told people in the southwest suburbs are clamoring for a new line using mostly existing right of way between the suburbs and downtown. In my opinion, the 394 corridor is another prime opportunity for a line - replace the HOV lines with light rail & give people a good alternative to getting in the car.

bsimon, your arguements are all addressed in the article. Perhaps I can highlight some areas... First, you push off the fact the amount of land taken up by a highway, while it is a factor it is a minimal one. Consider the type of land you are seizing in downtown minneapolis and using to prop up the light rail line. Currently the cost per mile of light rail is 3 times the amount of adding a higway lane mile. Thus I can add 2 lanes to the 494 loop and still come in under the cost of running light rail around it, AND carry more people.

When the loop was built of course there was a low cost, but the cost per lane mile now, even with "skyrocketing" land prices, is less than light rail. Look at the total cost of adding a lane both ways in the southwestern 494 loop expanding to 3 lanes both ways, about 20 million per lane mile versus the 60 million per mile of the single light rail line built. Factor in that light rail requires multi-million dollar subsidies to run and the cost soon becomes a 5:1 ratio over a few years.

In the end we are not forcing anyone into a car. The car is the preferred method of travel for most of America. Look at every major metropolitan area to add light rail or heavy rail in the last 20 years. With the exception of the 2 super dense cities (LA and New York) ridership has either stayed the same for mass transit or dropped substantially. If you want to claim that we need some mass transit, that is a viable arguement, but to say we are forcing people to mass transit not only borders on the absurd, it is a lie.

Also, the hiawatha line has not proven that people will use light rail more than busses. Bus ridership has seen a very steady ridership mostly because people need the bus to take from the light rail. People are using light rail and busses now because their routes were cut.

Until you look at the facts of light rail and acknowledge that it is not the solution you want, you cannot claim that it is a better method of transportation or that people would prefer it if they had it. If people really wanted light rail, they wouldn't have used their cars more after light rail lines were installed during the 90's as the census shows.

If only 53% of the current funds are going into transit, where does the other 47% go?

Also, if you remove the 47% from where ever it is going, will you need to raise taxes to replace that money when it is divered back to transit?

How much does the 47% represent in dollars?

I truly wish your article would appear in the Tribune. The planners and supporters of this amendment have received plenty of media space. Your views are important so voters can see the falsehoods and deceptions.

For those who don't live near the light rail routes, they propably don't care one way or the other, but I care plenty.

I care alot about our property values which will take a big hit. There will be an incredible increase in noise pollution 24/7, an increase in vehicle traffic at neighborhood stations and destruction of greenways. And miles and miles of unslightly electric lines will reduce the beauty and elegance of our city's valued envornment.

I read they will run quite frequently during the day, and a little less at night. Once a day a train currently runs a block from my home on a proposed light rail route. It actually shakes and vibrates the walls of my house. I can't have my windows open when the train goes by. Do I have to endure this 24/7? Also, I'm concerned about the sqeaking of train wheels that many Hiawatha residents experience waking them from sleep.

I'm concerned about slicing through our greenways - cutting down trees which are sound barriers- and increasing vehicle traffic getting in an out of stations. I don't know of one empty space in my neighborhood available for a parking lot at a station except greenways or parks.

I'm concerned about robbing education, health and human services, state government and other funds without a plan for replenishing the general fund of the 40% they now receive. I read that those who need these funds have increased not decreased, so it doesn't make sense to me that we should take away funds without replenishing them some way. I can only assume that we will have to cut funds to these programs or increase taxes.

A friend of mine thinks the right rail advocates have been planning this for years, and he thinks the amendment will pass because it's successfully promoted as helping highway/road imporvement. We are all for that, I'm sure. But the wording of the amendment is so questionable, that highway/road programs very well may get much less than 60% and transit will borrow from their funds to support light rail.

I'm with you. I'm voing NO.

Wow, I was going to Vote NO on this, but now after reading this commentary, it's getting my YES vote. I use the train every day for work, and often for recreation. I love it!

Long Live Light Rail!

Well Brian, thank you for using the government to take my money and put it in your pockets. Long live thievery!

Author's Note, If you believe any of this comment, please read the following comment. This is almost as much garbage as my trash bin

In Response:

Leaving aside the various the intricacies of the current constitutional amendment and its exact allocation of funding (as I do not want to speak to something I am not well versed in), I would like the respond to the various allegations laid at the feet of mass transit supporters and the falsehoods stated in this rant in support of further road spending (of which I am well versed in).

Issue 1: We do NOT have an infinite ability to expand our highways. Anyone aquatinted with transportation literature would be well aware of the idea of triple convergence and the impossibility to ever successfully build our way out of traffic congestion. Triple convergence states that when new lanes are opened up, people will change their driving habits from different times of day, different routes and more people will begin to drive at peak hours, rather than use other modes. They will now perceive the freeway with extra lanes to be the quickest route. This triple convergence leads right back to the congestion that the extra lanes were supposed to avoid in the first place. Do we really want the Twin Cities to resemble Los Angles? Mile wide highways, stop dead traffic, and smog warnings every morning?

Issue 2: The main beneficiaries of transit are of course low-income families, but that does not exclude those from other income levels from desiring the ease and convenience of transit in their neighborhood too. While not many low income families many live in Minnetonka, Plymouth or Wayzata, who do you think works the low income jobs cleaning houses or working at the retail shops that are increasingly located at the fringes of the city? That transit could serve multiple income groups should be argument in favor of further invest, as it will be a benefit to more Minnesotans.

Issue 3: The cost of light rail is only cheaper when excluding the subsidization of the road system. Congestion costs the economy millions of dollars a day in the form of lost wages and air pollution raises medical costs for the entire region. Not to mention the lost real estate earnings for all of the land consumed by ever growing highways. By creating a light rail system and moving some cars off the road, it would actually help create a more efficient economy by allowing delivery trucks to move more quickly from destination to destination. With only one light rail line how can you be surprised that only a small percentage of the population currently rides? If there was an eighth as much track laid for light rail as there is for roads, I’m sure we’d have a much higher percentage.

Issue 4: Property values increase near light rail. In city after city, it has been demonstrated that light rail increases the value of peoples property, especially as the rail network expands and becomes a more desirable mode of transportation. There is a growing population in this county that would prefer to use alternative modes of transportation, such as rail, biking and walking, and that population is willing to pay more to live near a station.

In the end, we heavily subsidize the drivers in the form of roads, pollution mitigation, decreased health, and wasted time. The only really solution to congestion is to price the roads and pass the true cost of driving on to drivers, but until that happens, it seems reasonable to subsidize multiple modes of transportation.

Kelley,

You claim to be righting lies, but in actuality you are perpetuating them.

Your first claim is that building more roads causes more congestion which is simply false. Take 494 and the additional lane built from 100 to 394, the traffic has not gotten any more dense, in fact to the opposite it has stayed the same but the extra lane has eased congestion. The problem comes when construction is happening then people leave that system for another one and once construction is done they flood back to the original one giving an appearence of extra traffic but in reality it is the same number of people as before. While we are comparing LA and Minneapolis let's be fair, they have over 4 times as many people as we do in the city alone and they have expanded their traffic lanes like we have. If the Twin Cities are going to grow and expand we need more lanes of traffic, pure and simple.

Your second gripe is that we should subsidize all income levels for mass transit. We have done this already with buses. They run to every corner of every city. And contrary to your belief that there are not many low income houeholds in Minnetonka, Plymouth, and Wayzata, I suggest you actually look around. People live where they work and every city that has a major retail operation has apartments and lower income households around them. It is ridiculous to say that someone who lives in Minneapolis (where the cost of living is much higher than the suburbs) is going to take a light rail into Plymouth for a job that pays $7 and hour.

Your third issue is uncomprehendable. You are telling me that $60 MILLION per single rail mile is cheaper than $20 MILLION of 2 lanes freeway? What is the cost of upkeep on the freeway versus the Tranist line? The road doesn't need to maintain salaries and benefits of thousands of workers. Nor does it need constant maintainence and checks. In fact most roads are left untouched for 2-3 years after construction before they need to be looked at. Light rail costs up 4 times the cost of freeways in construction and over 20 times the maintainence costs. WHERE IS YOUR MYTHICAL SAVINGS???

And of course your most absurd notion that property values increase. Ask the property owners near light rail now. Why don't you ask the commentor belle if she can sell her home for what it was worth a year ago? The noise, crime, and imposition of tracks in someone's back yard all take away from property values. During the day near stations of high usage of the rails, the streets are packed with commuters who drive to the station then hop aboard the train. The property owner returns home to find they have no place to park withing blocks of their home. The inability to park in front of your own home is a desirable quality with which one sells their home? Crime has shot up on the rail cars, and the area's surrounding them because the police can't be stationed on cars all the time. Those low income people you speak of that ride the bus, realize this and now we have a dramatic increase in crime because of it. Not to mention it creates much more noise than a 4 lane highway.

In the end, we heavily subsidize the passangers of all wealth classes in the form of light rail, busses, supposed polution mitigation, decreased health, decreased property values, and wasted money. The only really solution to congestion is to build the roads and pass the true cost of driving on to light rail ridership, but until that happens, it seems reasonable to build more roads.

I have been saying for a while that this is a bad move and I absolutely agree with John from Brooklyn Park.
We have elected officials to decide where best to spend our tax dollars. Having a law that mandates spending regardless of the need is bad management. Do the same at your house. Mandate the need to spend 40% of your grocery budget on vegatables because they are the best for you. You will be throwing a lot of it away or spend more to use them in a way not normal to your family. Maybe you will even give it away to neighbors before it spoils and let them throw it out. The point is if it makes sense spend the money on it, but don't make it law that you must spend it.
I live in Greater Minnesota. Mass transit does nothing for us out here. Meanwhile our roads are in need of improvements. Where do we get the money to improve them. I would bet tax increases.
Mass transit is too much of a government boondoggle and I won't support it.

Initially, i was planning on voting YES, until i starting hearing of the insecurity of the plan. So now i'm in the "research phase" of this.

My wife and I carpool daily, 55 miles each way. We only have to endure the Burnsville Split, and now Lakeville (don't know why that started this week). So any money put into the roads would benefit us greatly.

When I read from the VoteYesMN.org site, I find this text regarding the amendment:

"Sec. 12. Beginning with the fiscal year starting July 1, 2007, 63.75 percent of the revenue from a tax imposed by the state on the sale of a new or used motor vehicle must be apportioned for transportation purposes described in section 13, then the revenue apportioned for transportation purposes must be increased by ten percent for each subsequent fiscal year through June 30, 2011, and then the revenue must be apportioned 100 percent for transportation purposes after June 30, 2011.

Sec. 13. The revenue apportioned in section 12 must be allocated for the following transportation purposes: not more than 60 percent must be deposited in the highway user tax distribution fund, and not less than 40 percent must be deposited in a fund dedicated solely to public transit assistance as defined by law."

Now, from what i'm reading, it does say that 60 percent will be allocated into the Highway Fund. Of course, i know nothing about politics, so is this just crafty wording?

I see the line: "not MORE than 60 percent must be deposited in the highway user tax distribution, and not LESS than 40 percent must be....."

So, are they saying that 99% can, with this amendment, be placed into the public transit fund, and 1% go into the highway fund?

Where could I find the proposed amendment, in it's entirety?

The Amendment as it will appear on the ballot:

Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate revenue from a tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles over a five-year period, so that after June 30, 2011, all of the revenue is dedicated at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes?

What this means is that the congress can not put less than 40% to Mass Transit. That is the only limitation. If the legislatur decided to, it would mean that they could put 100% of that tax into Mass Transit (and given the fact that all mass transit projects in Minnesota history have been grossly over budget, it is much more likely to end this way) and spend nothing on roads and fall within the constitution.

If you call the voteyes people they will insist that this could never happen. But 106 years ago people insisted that flying machines were also impossible and a few years later man first flew.

I think that voting "no" would benefit Minnesota the most. Since the General Fund supports things like Police and Fire, and Libraries, well...I think these are pretty important things!!!
Do we really need to build MORE ROADS? Will we be satisfied when they are built, or will mach 3 be too slow also? There are so many more things we need other than roads. Let's Invest in Minnesota's Future-Vote No