back

Published Saturday, April 15, 2000, Copyright 2000 Star-Tribune, All Rights Reserved

Counterpoint: Problems demand that legislators question LRT plan

An April 2 Star Tribune editorial calls the efforts of those who oppose light-rail spending "an increasingly far-fetched smear campaign."

The more likely truth is that those trying to prop up the Hiawatha Corridor project in Minneapolis are grasping for straws and failing to set responsible spending priorities.

But from corporate profits to personal vendettas against the governor to frugality run amok, questioning the other side's motives is merely a diversion from the real issue: Should the people of Minnesota shoulder the cost of light-rail transit systems?

This is not, as the Star Tribune editorial stated, "a fringe of Republicans" critiquing the Hiawatha line. Many new criticisms are surfacing regularly.

Just in the past month, federal transit officials raised conflict-of-interest concerns with a second consultant for the proposed Hiawatha light-rail line, and said they fear the Metropolitan Council doesn't have the expertise to oversee the $548 million project.

Prior to that, two of the proj ect's top officials were "reassigned" when feds warned that it will not fund Minnesota's proposed light-rail line until conflicts of interest involving the firm managing the project are resolved.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation's estimate on relocating utility cables is a fraction of U S West and NSP's estimates. Needless to say, utility companies are balking at the suggestion that they cover the tens of millions estimated to relocate lines to make way for Hiawatha LRT.

Even the Mall of America has said it won't invest in a passenger station that is intended to be the southern terminal of the proposed Hiawatha line.

From foot-dragging to legal action, groups from the Mall of America, the Minnesota Taxpayers League, environmental groups, Bloomington city officials, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport planners to developers of a low-income housing project in the Phillips neighborhood are begging the question: Who -- other than the Metropolitan Council and the governor -- does not have nagging doubts about the LRT plan?

St. Paul Pioneer Press writers say that it is "Time to put the brakes on lightrail" (associate editorial page editor Steve Dornfeld, March 23), and ask, "So what's driving lightrail? Nada, that's the trouble," (Joe Soucheray column, March 24).

But let's look beyond the motivations of politicians, businessmen and metro opinion writers to those Minnesotans who live in the area and would supposedly be the beneficiaries of this economic boon.

More than a year ago, the citizens of east Bloomington told Met Council that their concerns weren't being addressed, especially regarding the rail's path through neighborhoods just north of I-494.

Last fall, the Bloomington City Council barely approved the line, following a public forum in which mostly local speakers battered the LRT plan. But even some supporters agreed that approval of details of the project were being rushed in an attempt to lock in federal funds. Prior to the council's decision to let the plan progress, the Bloomington Planning Commission voted 4-1 to reject the Transportation Department's design.

The LRT debate on the state level is an issue of elected representatives setting legislative priorities with the people's money.

Lawmakers are right to question a multimillion-dollar project when they are faced with concerns including the estimated cost-to-benefit ratio that shows a 42-cent return per tax dollar spent; a failure of examiners to do a cost-effectiveness study that truly considered options (as Minnesota law requires); and continued misinformation filtered to them from the Transportation Department.

Outstate, a growing number of Minnesotans are concerned that a legislative commitment to lightrail will cost taxpayers billions of dollars through increased taxes, expanded fees for services, and utility rate hikes.

LRT will require an operating subsidy indefinitely, and no one knows how high those costs will run.

While struggling farmers in Nicollet County, families in Marshall or businesspeople in Bemidji likely understand the need for transit in more heavily populated areas of the state, they also know the importance of balance in transportation funding between cities and rural areas.

Frankly, a single 11-mile stretch of public transit in Minneapolis -- regardless of the cost/benefit ratio -- is a hard sell statewide.

House Republicans have proposed and passed legislation allocating $425 million of state funds for road and bridge projects that are ready for construction, but have until now lacked sufficient funding.

More than $402 million will be divided equally between metro and rural construction projects; half for dangerous bottleneck situations in the metro area and half for projects in rural Minnesota along interregional corridors.

Outstate transit projects would receive $450,000 to expand transit services and metro transit would receive $3.7 million to help deal with a current budget shortfall. This is after a budget-year increase of more than 10 percent.

The Star Tribune called legislative actions by the Republican House "a narrow, insular view borne of childish grudges."

But perhaps its editorial writers should look beyond their own city's borders for guidance on what other Minnesotans think is the more wise use of their dollar.

-- Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon. Speaker of the Minnesota House.