I asked prior Lakeville City Councilmember and current Met Council member Wendy Wulff if she’d be interested in answering some questions from me and the readership about the cool shit she does for the South Metro and more. Thanks to those of you who submitted questions and thanks much to Wendy for being one of the only local politically charged people I have asked for an interview to actually respond to me. Kudos for that.
Wendy Wulff is a semi-regular contributor here and has posted more comments than I expect most people in the political arena would ever be comfortable posting here. She said that she probably won’t be around much after Monday due to the holiday but she’ll eventually get around to answering your comments below (for fuck’s sake people, comment on one of these interviews ok? :)) but it just may be a few days.
Without further ado…
LL:
You use Twitter and you’re a web designer by trade. Being knowledgeable with computers and social media what do you think about the use of social media by elected and appointed officials to engage constituents? What do you use your various social media accounts for and do you see yourself changing how you utilize the various services in the future? (reader submitted)
WW:
Most of the people I follow on Twitter are either political or news types. Although I don’t tweet much, I do enjoy reading other people’s news, in an ADD sort of way. I signed up for a Facebook account to keep an eye on what my kids are doing. Mostly, I find Facebook annoying. I don’t care if you found a lonely cow wandering on your farm in Farmville – at least I can block those things, but I can’t help but think, “Get a life”.
I see social media as another communication tool – it can be useful or not so useful, depending on the user. There are some politicians that use Twitter and Facebook to pretend like they really want to communicate, even as they are avoiding actually having a real conversation – I don’t have any respect for that at all. My experience has been that electronic communication in general allows you to communicate quickly and easily with the people who are really interested, but there aren’t all that many people who are really interested, unfortunately.
LL:
You ran for Lakeville mayor in 2008 but didn’t end up winning the election. What was the #1 thing that you believed you could bring to Lakeville that no one else could?
WW:
I never thought that after the election, every single interview would include something like “ran unsuccessfully for mayor in 2008.” I don’t think there is anything that “no one else could” do – I was asked by my colleagues and others to run because of my leadership role on the council. I was actually the 4th member of the council at that time to run and lose – Holly and Kerrin both ran for mayor and lost in 2004, Laurie ran and lost in 2006. Life goes on.
LL:
Now that you’re on the Met Council, what’s the #1 thing you would really like to do there?
WW:
Just what I have been doing – bringing people together to solve problems. Reducing the sewer connection fee for outdoor restaurant seating was a huge issue for a number of cities across the metro, and had been for years, but it didn’t have anyone to bring everyone together to find a solution. I was in the right place to bring the pieces together. There are several other things I am working on right now – they aren’t very glamorous, but I enjoy the challenge of identifying things that aren’t working well, and coming at them from a different direction, to find a solution.
LL:
During your interview with Jeff Achen on Thisweek’s “The Show”, you stated, “we were told you can have a surface lot with 200 spaces and three buses a day…well that’s not worth $750,000.” Has your view of the Lakeville transit situation changed at all now that the lot has been opened for some time and that there are five morning and five afternoon trips currently running? Do you think that the residents of Lakeville are utilizing this lot more or less than you originally thought?
WW:
Too soon to really judge – I have heard from quite a few people who are happy about the new service, and I liked it when I rode it a couple of weeks ago. I was surprised at how much faster it is than the Cedar Ave service. There are still parts of the overall project that aren’t done yet – the HOV/HOT lane will be extended on the northbound side down to the 35W/35E split. You will be able to go all of the way to downtown Mpls, which should make the bus more comfortable and even faster, as you won’t have to deal with any shoulders. Over time, if the ridership increases, there can also be more trips, which makes it more convenient, which leads to even more riders. The Apple Valley station went through that several years ago. Thus far, the Lakeville I-35 station seems to be off to a good start.
Big park and rides are by far the most efficient way to run transit. There were quite a few people within government that didn’t want Lakeville to get a big park and ride, but wanted to force Lakeville into the transit taxing district anyway. Rep. Mary Liz Holberg worked very hard, for many years to make sure that if transit was extended to Lakeville, it would include a big park and ride, and be part of a voluntary agreement, rather than by force. I worked with her on that for about 6 years, and also worked with Councilmember Mark Bellows to craft an agreement that the City Council could support unanimously. We offset the cost of the transit tax increase by cutting the city levy. That surprised a lot of people, but I just thought it was common sense.
LL:
On a slightly related note what do you think about the mass transit situation in the South Metro as a whole? Do you believe BRT will improve transit service along the Cedar Ave corridor?
WW:
On both the Cedar Ave corridor and the I-35 corridor, there are still quite a few issues to be worked out in implementing BRT. How successful the lines are depends on how well we work through those remaining issues.
BRT certainly has the potential to improve service. It is unfortunate that we did LRT first in the region, instead of BRT. BRT was an emerging idea at the time, and the metro areas that have pursued BRT have gotten a lot more done, at a much, much lower cost than LRT. People haven’t seen BRT yet here, and really won’t see it in its full implementation for a while, in large part because so much money has been devoted to LRT. With BRT, you can have all of the comfort, convenience, and amenities of LRT, except that it runs on rubber tires instead of very expensive rails. Met Council Chairman Peter Bell has said repeatedly that BRT offers most of the benefits of LRT, at a small fraction of the cost. I would argue that BRT, if done right, is better than LRT, because it also offers flexibility – you can have a combination of express, limited stop, and full service on the same line, and if it breaks down, the other BRT vehicles can just drive past, instead of having to put emergency bus service in place to shuttle people around the problem until it is fixed. You can also add new stops relatively quickly and easily, instead of spending several years, and many millions of dollars to lay more rail.
Also, LRT cars have a 40 year life. While they are shiny and new right now, would people be as enthusiastic if they were riding in one from 1975? With BRT, the vehicles cost a lot less, and you can get new ones after 12 years, so that you can better take advantage of technology improvements. We could have had 5 BRT lines for the cost of Hiawatha, and we wouldn’t have people thinking that you have to have rails to have that level of service.
As for the transit situation in the South Metro as a whole: don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers. For example, the recent story about the contract for service to Lakeville was a rehash of old allegations, all of which had been answered months ago. The Met Council followed the transit agreement with Lakeville exactly as it was written, and followed normal bid procedures. No story there, yet it was regurgitated as news. Why?
Overall, the relationship between the Met Council and MVTA is a lot more cordial than you might think from reading the newspapers.
LL:
What’s the most challenging aspect of being a Lakeville North pole-vaulting judge? (reader submitted)
WW:
The most challenging aspect was the fact that I didn’t know anything whatsoever about pole vaulting. After a quick class on what to do, though, I found it to be great fun, and it was nice to be able to interact with the kids and help out the team. The track and field parents work as officials at the meets, and then donate their wages back to the team, so I did that for a couple of years. I also got to embarrass my son by wearing my ladybug gardening clogs to the meets. Sometimes you just need to find happiness in the small things.
LL:
I see you will be working on a committee to establish Transitway Guidelines in 2010. Can you give us your thoughts on how you will attempt to influence the outcomes related to facilities, fare collection and governance of this project?
WW:
I think it is important that we have an agreement throughout the region on exactly what is BRT –vehicle types, station amenities, fare collection, etc, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel each time. Having an agreed upon standard saves on both planning and maintenance costs, makes it easier for users to understand, and helps residents and businesses along proposed routes to understand what to expect. I support local control, but it has to be balanced with consistency in the system. I am not really comfortable with the language of your question – “attempt to influence the outcomes.” To me, influencing the outcomes suggests coming into it with a preconceived result in mind. I don’t have that.
LL:
You have continued to move up in the ranks of local politics over the years. I assume that the Met Council is not your final stop. What are your plans for the future?
WW:
Thus far, I have pretty much just gone with the flow – I go where I am needed and can make a difference. I really love what I am doing right now, and haven’t made any plans – I generally find the most interesting opportunities have been the ones that I didn’t expect.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
December 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I’m inclined to vote for Wendy for just about anything on account of that statement alone.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Great interview, and thanks Wendy for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.
I could not disagree more on BRT vs LRT, but time will tell.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Chad,
Agreed. BRT does not have the same “glamor” that LRT does. People will happily ride trains but feel that city buses (even if they are coach) are somehow beneath them. And I have ridden mass transit in many places and I never minded the older trains/street cars I have utilized so I’m not sure I buy her statement there.
But in the end I really want someone to tell me for certain that the current busing routes will not be altered to ensure BRT’s success. I just don’t believe BRT can be successful at all unless the majority of people traveling downtown are moved to BRT instead.
Wendy?
December 21st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I lived a block from the MOA before moving to Burnsville. Before that I lived in Oakdale. The whole time I’ve worked in downtown Minneapolis. I’ve taken the bus through the busy city freeway that is 94 and said I’d never do it again. I took the train and loved the consistency of it. However, nothing beats the buses from Burnsville with the HOV lane. The schedules are pretty consistent, the rides are smooth, and unlike the train, they don’t make multiple stops along the route. They’re also a heck of a lot more comfortable.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Joey,
Well in this case it would likely add quite a bit of time to the commute that most riders currently enjoy (it’s about 45 minutes from MOA to Government Plaza due to those stops) and that’s my main beef w/the idea that it may change in the future just so they can justify that ridiculous service.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I’m not sure that I buy that BRT has all the comfort, convenience and amenities as LRT. LRT is consistent no matter the weather conditions. Takes you the same amount of time to get from here to there regardless of how crappy the weather or how much snow has fallen. That’s because of the tracks and the little plow they can put on the front of the trains. Buses don’t have that and our commute really, really sucks in bad weather. (scratch that, it doesn’t take bad weather for our commute to suck, pretty much any amount of snow fall makes the commute suck.) Now I’m sure some of that can be mitigated by having the dedicated lanes for BRT but certainly not all of it.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
A coach bus isn’t BRT, nor is a regular bus. That is the whole point – people don’t have any idea what BRT is. You can have a vehicle that looks just like the train, acts just like the train, has stations just like the train, with level boarding, but runs on rubber wheels, and costs a whole lot less.
As for schedule changes – there has been discussion about adding feeder service, but nothing so far about removing any service. Everyone seems to understand that messing with the express service to downtown would be a bad idea.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Until everyone realizes that ~80,000 people a year (based on route 442 and a historical growth rate applied against 2008 numbers and an educated guess on the number of people actually riding from AVTS rather than from the other stations/stops) isn’t worth running that many expensive “buses” that many times a day for that few people.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Wendy, my perception of the benefits of LRT have nothing to do with looking like a train, having level boarding, etc. Its based on the idea that dedicated rail can move far more people, far faster, and considerably more consistently than a bus.
This is an old argument on this site, but I just dont see the bus as a viable alternative to a train, for many of the reasons you mentioned. Adding LRT gives communities and businesses something of substance to plan around. You dont have to worry about the bus schedule/route changing in three years and dropping people off a half mile in the other direction, etc.
The ONLY argument against LRT is cost. And its not going to be cheaper in the future.
Btw, the argument that trains last 40 years and a bus lasts 12 is one you might want to rethink. Some of us actually are trying to move away from America as a disposable society.
December 21st, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Is there any better explination of what was behind the decision of the Met Council to award a over 2 million dollar contract for bus service through Dakota County to Minneapolis to the MTC, their own agency? Maybe further explanation of why the MTC was allowed to include escalating costs in their bid, but the other bidders were required to bid a fixed price? I noticed that in an article in ThisWeek by Laura Adelmann that Wendy said that it may have had something to do with MTC’s internal proposal including administrative costs. In general the whole article seems to be a big unclear.
Is there any better explanation of how the MTC bid (with different requirements) was fairly compared with other bids that met the specific requirements in the RFP?
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 am
Chad – LRT has other issues besides cost, although the cost factor is substantial. Central Corridor LRT is at $940 million so far, and Southwest LRT is looking at $1.3 Billion or so – that is an incredibly large amount of money. Other issues include vibration and electromagnetic interference, both of which are currently subjects of a lawsuit.
With both BRT and LRT, you have stations – not just a bus shelter or a little metal sign – so the stops aren’t going to change suddenly. Spending much more money to put in a track, because you don’t trust government not to change does not strike me as a wise use of taxpayer funds. And trust works both ways – you have no assurance that the development will come, or stay – Vikings anyone? We have a duty to try to do things as cost-effectively as possible. It isn’t monopoly money.
There are lots and lots of parts that get replaced over the 40 year life of a train car – they just replaced the motors on the Hiawatha cars. But you will still be using that 40 year old vehicle, and be wedded to using a track and overhead power lines. The BRT cars won’t be junked after 12 years, either, so it isn’t an issue of a disposable society. Things can change a lot in 40 years. The computing power of your cell phone would have taken a computer bigger as big as a room 40 years ago. LRT is an awfully expensive bet that things won’t change, or will only change the way you want them to. Is BRT perfect ? No. Compared to LRT though, I think it has fewer negatives.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:15 am
Mikeh – I told Bill I wasn’t going to do any “when did you stop beating your wife” questions – I am not going to try to prove a negative. Your questions, and Laura’s story are based on the false premise that the Met Council and/or Metro Transit are engaging in an empire building effort. The Council takes bids on service between Metro Transit and private companies all of the time, and service is a mix of the two throughout the system – we want the best price for the taxpayers. That bidding process was called for in the agreement when Lakeville joined the transit taxing district – MVTA was named as the provider on Cedar, with the bidding process on I-35.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:51 am
I understand and do believe that most government agencies operate under finding the best value for the taxpayers. Also that sometimes “price” alone is not the best determination of best value.
The article seemed to want to state that, the Met Council picked MTC because they were the best price. But show that others were claiming the MTC may not have been the best price because of differences in the bidding requirements for the different bidders. It seemed that the idea of allowing escalating costs inclusion for MTC was the main item being put forward.
Maybe a more general discussion on how bids for projects can be compared when some bidders are allowed to include or exclude things while other bidders are not if you prefer not to talk specifically about the I35 project?
Can you clarify the last statement. When you say MVTA was named the provider on Cedar, are you saying MVTA did not need to bid for that route, or that they won that bid? And further, are you saying had Lakeville not joined the transit taxing district, no bidding would have been taken for the I35 route, and that it would have been otherwise assigned?
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:07 am
It seems we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I dont see BRT solving the transportation issues facing the twin cities. Its going to do very little to bring new riders to public transportation and it wont lessen congestion on our interstate and public highway system in any way. The lawsuits around LRT are going to appear pretty minimal compared to the uproar when its finally decided that 35E, 35W, 94, 694, 394, 100, 169, 52, 55, 62, etc all need two or three additional lanes each way to keep up with traffic levels.
BRT simply cant move as many people and cant approach the scalability of LRT. Its also, as pointed out above, less reliable and more dependent on traffic and weather issues.
And, it will always be easier to relocate a bus stop than it is to move train tracks.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 am
One last thing, your comment about the lawsuit due to vibrations and electromagnetic fields is a bit misleading. Its really a lawsuit about the U of M feeling that the Met Council ignored them and failed to compromise with them about the effects of Light Rail traveling to close to labs doing hundreds of millions of dollars of research per year.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
When I was young (many, MANY year ago), I was informed by my elders that when “I grew up” there would be flying cars, “like on the Jetsons.” I’m just wondering when that’s going to happen. Because that would, like, totally end the whole BRT vs LRT debate, as far as I’m concerned.
On a serious note, the vibrations/electromagnetic fields issue has nothing to do with developing LRT SOTR, because, unless there’s some secret lab out here along the corridor (maybe developing flying cars??), its a non-issue.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Whit,
You know when I was growing up they weren’t talking about flying cars but they were talking about the second most ridiculous notion ever–viable mass transit. You know, the kind where you can get on in Minnetonka and ride to Apple Valley at almost any time of the day.
Every generation has their own transportation lies I guess :)
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Forget the flying cars, I’d settle for the Food-a-Rac-a-Cycle!
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:36 pm
WENDY–what do you think the future of Cedar ave is in general? In addition to BRT what else do you see in the future for this major corridor? In my opinion this corridor has been a pretty big failure for long term planning and part of the problem may be that the road is technically under different jurisdictions in different stretches. As I understand it, the road is state hwy 77 for the freeway portion, but that simply stops and dumps into stoplight infested county rd 23. The lack of planning over the past few decades has created a long term nightmare as Lakeville, Apple Valley, Farmington and points south have been and will be adding 100,000 or more new residents.
The mess that is Cedar ave seems to be the exact kind of thing that a met council needs to step in and fix. Any insight on what else might be done in addition to BRT?
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
My question: Now that you’ve gone from representing your district/ward on the Lakeville City Council, to representing a district on the Met Council, has your perspective changed? Now that your decisions have an effect on residents throughout the metro area and beyond, has your process of making those decisions changed?
December 26th, 2009 at 6:25 am
The Lakeville Transit agreement specified that MVTA would be the provider for service to Lakeville on Cedar Ave. They did not have to bid, there was just a negotiation on the price.
The bidding process on I-35 was for the express service to the Lakeville station only – so without the agreement, there would have been no service. No decisions have been made about the future BRT service along the corridor.
December 26th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Such loaded questions. When I was on the City Council, my area of expertise was state and regional issues – I have never been one whose thinking was limited to the city borders, nor did I ever pursue any course of action that would be beneficial to Lakeville, but detrimental to the “big picture.” So no, my perspective hasn’t changed – that is part of why I was chosen for the job, because I could just step right in and get to work, without having a big learning curve, or change of perspective before I could begin.
December 26th, 2009 at 6:36 am
No, the lawsuit and the negotiations that have been going on for the last few months really are about vibration and electromagnetic interference – not about feelings. For south of the river, one barrier is a Cedar Avenue bridge that can’t support the train – there are other issues.
December 27th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Wendy, any comment on my questions in post #19? I am just wondering what your thoughts are for long range planning on this critical corridor for the south metro. Pretty much all of the comments and questions above have been about the 5% or so of the traffic riding buses. What about the 95% or so of traffic that isn’t on a bus? I am a resident of Lakeville and as you know our city alone is projected to grow to around 90,000 residents. Any thoughts on long range planning for auto traffic on Cedar?
December 28th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Haven’t forgotten about you, John – just operating on limited stamina. I had surgery last Tuesday, so it isn’t only Christmas that has been keeping me away.
Dakota County has control over all of the Hwy 23 part of Cedar. They are the lead agency on Cedar Ave BRT, and they own the road and make all of the decisions about what happens to it. The cities have some input on the sections within their boundaries, especially since Dakota County expects them to foot part of the bill.
Apple Valley has been adamant that they don’t want a grade separated interchange at 42/Cedar. 20 years ago, it was suggested that land in that area be reserved for a grade-separated interchange – before Target, and Old Chicago, and the AmericInn were there. For now, grade separation is in discussion for 2030 or so, perhaps in a modified way.
Lakeville has put any planning for development of the remainder of Cedar Avenue on hold – both because of traffic constraints to the north, and because of the lack of east west arterial roadways. There are no state highways going east-west from highway 13 in BV all of the way to Northfield. The state turned them into county highways years ago, and the county tells the cities they have to pay for 45% of the cost of any improvements. I led the opposition to that cost-sharing policy for 6 years, and also supported Lakeville’s plan to wait and see with regards to Cedar. There are still discussions ongoing about changing the cost sharing policy, but I am no longer part of those discussions.
Plenty of people have accused the Met Council of having too much power. A few have said not enough – especially when they want a local decision overturned. If the Dakota County Board didn’t support it, they could change things – but Cedar is at the top of the County’s priority list, as the plans currently stand.
On the Hwy 77 part, MnDOT is studying various iterations of a zipper lane. If I could wave a magic wand, I would fill in the third lane where it is missing between 138th and Diffley now, and then work on figuring out the zipper or whatever needs to be done, but it is MnDOT’s call – they set their own priorities for project funding.
The difference in jurisdictions along the way certainly does make it even more difficult to solve all of the issues. Funding is a nightmare as well. I think everyone agrees that the system of planning for and paying for both transit and highways is a mess, but there isn’t much consensus on how to fix it, unfortunately. There definitely is no interest among the powers that be in having the Met Council step in and fix things.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Thanks Wendy. Very interesting comments! You hit on several of the issues that I see a big long term problem for the south metro. Cedar ave seems to have too many government bodies with conflicting interests for it to ever be managed and planned for correctly. Apple Valley seems to want the road to almost function as a fly catcher with no concern for the larger and larger amount of vehicles that will be traveling through instead of just shopping at Target. Your history on 42 and Cedar was especially interesting to me and in my opinion it shows how Apple Valley is hindering proper long term planning.
In my opinion, the county 23 part of Cedar cannot remain the stoplight at grade clunker that it is today. With the metro expected to add a million or so residents we all know that a good chunk of those people will be in the south suburbs. It’s maddening to me to know that we have no collective ability to plan for growth on major corridors like Cedar or any of the east west corridors. Every year more and more development is built up at key intersections which makes future expansion or interchanges almost impossible. If they do happen it will be at 20x the price.
Thanks again for the great comments.