Dakota County’s dream of Bus Rapid Transit along the Cedar Transitway continues to face the funding issues it has for the last several years. Following the previous governor’s decision to cut most unnecessary funding to help close the budget gap, many unpopular discussions in the county centered on raising taxes in order to fund the project.
After several months and little change, BRT funding remains $9 million short of its final goal. Unfortunately instead of continuing to wait out the project or cancel it completely due to the lack of funding and the overall financial state of Minnesota, Republican State Representative Tara Mack introduced a bill, in apparent opposition of her party’s rhetoric about borrowing additional dollars when the state is facing such a large deficit, which would bond for the remaining $9 million.
From the text of the bill:
Section 1. CEDAR AVENUE BUS RAPID TRANSITWAY (BRT).
Subdivision 1. Appropriation. $9,000,000 is appropriated from the bond proceeds fund to the Metropolitan Council for environmental assessment, preliminary engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of bus shoulders and transit facilities as part of the Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transitway (BRT) in Dakota and Hennepin Counties from 162nd Street in Lakeville to 28th Avenue in Bloomington.
Subd. 2. Bond sale. To provide the money appropriated in section 1 from the bond proceeds fund, the commissioner of management and budget shall sell and issue bonds of the state in an amount up to $9,000,000 in the manner, upon the terms, and with the effect prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, sections 16A.631 to 16A.675, and by the Minnesota Constitution, article XI, sections 4 to 7.
According to Apple Valley Patch’s blurb on the bonding bill, Rep. Mack said that while focus should remain on the state’s budget, this is an important issue which is precisely what raising the state’s debt-load is supposed to accomplish for its residents.
What do you think about Republican State Representative Tara Mack’s decision to push for $9 million in bonds to fund the remainder of BRT? Do you think it was a wise move on her part to break from the rest of the Republican party which recently denounced the governor’s own desire for extensive bonding during a time of a heavy deficit? Are you surprised that BRT is still unfunded? Whatever you have to say about Tara Mack’s $9 million bonding bill go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
February 16th, 2011 at 7:38 am
Bonding–borrowing money–isn’t inherently bad. Whether borrowing for a specific project is good depends on at least three things:
1. Can you make the payments and still be OK financially?
2. Is the borrowing for a worthwhile item? (It helps if there are long-term rather than short-term benefits, since borrowing imposes long-term costs.)
3. Is the item for a legitimate function of government? (To cite another current controversy, I don’t think it’s legitimate for a unit of government to borrow money to build a workplace — stadium — for the Minnesota Vikings.)
In reverse order,
BRT could be part of a transportation infrastructure, so it could be argued that it’s part of a legitimate function of government.
Is BRT worthwhile? I don’t know. In general, bus projects are better than trains–more flexible to account for changing population patterns, less capital intensive, etc. But I don’t know enough about this specific project.
Can the state afford it? Not if it doesn’t cut spending elsewhere or raise taxes at the same time.
February 16th, 2011 at 7:44 am
I’m in shock- seriously. I thought Tara was Chris Gerlach’s protogee and as such would never look to spend more. My preference was for a monorail bullet train to go down the highly congested Gardenview corridor, directly to 10 st in Downtown.. but improved bus will hold me over until that day comes.
February 16th, 2011 at 8:31 am
I have already sent an email to my house rep. asking him to vote NO.
February 16th, 2011 at 8:40 am
I’m not an expert on bonding, and while I’m all for improved public transportation, wouldn’t it serve the southern metro better to have an improved system out HERE? Wouldn’t it serve the businesses better to have reliable transportation for their low-wage workers, so they’re not calling in sick because the latest junk car broke down or the two-mile trek to the bus stop is too daunting in 20 below weather? Wouldn’t it serve our social service programs better to help people get to work or to manage their own lives as much as they can on their own?
And hey, crazy idea, school kids could hop the city bus to school, or home after practice, and they wouldn’t be racing daddy’s sports car down 140th. Also, it would teach them some independence and parents wouldn’t have to pay for one more vehicle.
J, what you’re saying about trains make perfect sense, but if you make public transportation more comfortable and convenient, people use it more. I LOVE the light rail, and it has made my kids’ commuting times so much shorter.
February 16th, 2011 at 8:59 am
What Mack is doing doesn’t surprise me in the least, though I disagree with it.
I’m very supportive of infrastructure spending generally, but I think the Cedar Ave BRT as it is planned now isn’t going to be worth the money we’re spending on it. However, she probably sees this as something her consituents want and will use — after all, Cedar is a mess and any way of changing that is going to cost a ton of money — so therefore, it’s acceptable government spending to her. All politics is local, as the saying goes, and I’ve never seen an elected official turn down the chance to get money for their voters or donors, even ones who supposedly are against government spending. Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing.
February 16th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Why is it that politicians can’t recognize that they need to stop touching things. State and City government is still rolling down hill, and for some reason politicians continue to want to do things that can only increase the rate of that downhill slide.
The only way… the only way I could see doing the funding for BRT is if Tara had worked with the Dems to come up with with a list of cuts to offset the spending she is proposing. I believe any net spending increase is going to be a mistake.
February 16th, 2011 at 10:05 am
I’m all for public transportation, but I don’t think BRT is the way to go. It seems to me that either trains or buses are the best options, not an expensive “in-between” option.
And considering the massive budget problems we have, yes, it’s very surprising to see this coming from Mack.
February 16th, 2011 at 10:20 am
I continue to think the solution is auto-cars. If we invested half the amount of money into cars with radar, navigation and safety measures within the car that we do on infrastructure to support the way we currently drive we would not have to do anything to widen the roads or take cars off of them. This technology applies to auto-buses as well.
The technology exists. Google and the Audi/VW group has been practicing it all over the country the past few years. The only mishap, one of the cars got rear ended by a dumb driver.
Think of all the Kindles and Nooks that could be in use while you ride to work in your auto car!
February 16th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Ha. Ding ding ding!
February 16th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Our politicians are incredibly out of touch with reality. Literally all she is doing is trying to come up with a talking point she can use on the local campaign trail.
Yes, its at odds with her party, but this just shows the utter and complete hypocrisy. Yes, we are against more spending, unless we can use it to get reelected.
All in all though, this is incredibly minor compared to the budget our Govenor proposed yesterday and/or the lack of budget his republican opponents proposed.
Idiots abound.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Thats a surprise. If she actually supports the bill and isn’t just putting it out there for show I’m pleased. Didn’t vote for her in ’08 or ’10 so I’m not expecting much but if she shows a little independent streak instead of being another Sutton robot it betters my own personal opinion of her. No, I’m not a liberal. I just want a rep that thinks for themselves.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
“Idiots abound.”
Objection, your Honor! Facts not in evidence!
Oh, wait, he’s right…
February 17th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Mass transit is so hard to do in low density areas. Good luck as it is a great thing but just not very practical.
February 20th, 2011 at 3:50 am
As I understand it, the Cedar BRT has been in the works for years and needs a last financial push to become reality. Mack’s bonding measure seems like the kind of thing a local legislator might do, regardless of party, to secure a project that has broad local support and a lot of history behind it.
Besides, conservatives have for years preached the virtues of high-speed buses as a foil to those Godless Commie rail projects (light and commuter).
Note who has signed onto Mack’s bill: south metro Republicans Garofalo (Farmington), Myhra (Burnsville) and Anderson (Eagan). The latter two, newly elected, might actually qualify as Tea Partiers (open to debate, but maybe there’s a Ph test where you stick their fingers in a solution and see if they turn brown).
Note also that co-sponsors include Democrats Lenczewski (Bloomington) and Atkins (Inver Grove Heights).
Republicans have obviously rejected Dayon’s $1 billion bonding proposal. It’s less clear to me whether the Republican caucuses have discouraged any and all bonding proposals by their members. And, whether Republican proposals would be grafted onto a hated DFL bonding bill.
Let’s see if Gerlach (of Apple Valley, a prime mover behind Cedar BRT) sponsors a companion bill in the Senate. Maybe that’s the acid test to see if these House Republicans are partying out of bounds.
Note that s Mack ; Garofalo ; Myhra ; Anderson, D. ; Atkins ; Lenczewski ; Slocum
February 20th, 2011 at 4:06 am
oops, party foul, that last line on that last post.
February 28th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Gerlach, another failure of a Republican it seems, has agreed with Tara and is pushing for $9 million in bonding for BRT: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF0463&ssn=0&y=2011
March 1st, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Yep, knock me over with a feather. None of this is surprising in the least.
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:33 pm
From: http://finance-commerce.com/2011/03/apple-valley-hopes-to-%E2%80%98set-standard-for-transit/
So on top of the $100+ million already allocated, we’re going to spend even more money which we do not have to bring unknown people into our town to tell us how to make sidewalks and parking lots. Boy am I glad we have planners on staff to make the decision to bring someone else in to make us look even more like a suburb than before.
March 24th, 2011 at 7:01 am
[...] services are in demand and that riders enjoy being comfortable. However, with limited budgets and the requirement for $9 million in additional direct taxpayer funding for area transit projects which were never originally intended, it is a shame that the MVTA could not have done more with the [...]