Letter: Not a Candidate, Just Concerned Over LRT and School Resources
"Let’s secure our schools as priority number one before they have far more debt and it is too late."
To the Editor:
The Southwest LRT is estimated to cost $1.25 billion just to build. Funding sources are from federal dollars, county and state.
The annual cost to operate the SW LRT, over $32 million.⁵
How could this money be used instead for sustaining and improving public schools? Let’s put priorities and $1.25 billion into context.
Here’s a hint of how to improve by showing public school debt for districts touched by the SW LRT.
Hopkins¹ debt to approximately the year 2030 is $187,080,032, Minnetonka² $139,169,548, Eden Prairie³ $86,756,927, Minneapolis⁴ $456,316,000.
Total debt $869,322,507.
Looks like $1.25 billion covers that and then some and there is $32 million annual costs still available to help elsewhere!
Hopkins¹ interest expense to approximately 2030 is $70,730,171, Minnetonka² $68,617,740, Eden Prairie³ $23,977,035, Minneapolis⁴ $128,885,628.
Total interest expense $292,210,574.
That’s quite a savings!
What would be the effect on an annual school budget that was without debt and interest expense? In 2014 Hopkins Schools will owe $10,835,000 in principal and $7,405,926 in interest.¹ Question: How many teachers and building repairs could that provide?
Leaders promote and persuade. Followers jump on the train.
It’s about priorities, vision and responsibility.
Let’s secure our schools as priority number one before they have far more debt and it is too late. It’s about spending our total tax dollars wisely. You may say that we can’t determine the use of those LRT dollars. We have to spend them on a train. But, that’s my point. When as taxpayers will we say we’ve had enough of being told how to spend our money? It’s our money. Let’s get the priorities right.
David Lloyd, Minnetonka
Sources
¹Hopkins Public Schools, CAFR, Page 53, June 30, 2011, http://www.hopkinsschools.org/sites/default/files/Hopkins_Public_Schools-CAFR-FY11.pdf
² http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/administration/Budget/Documents/District_Audit.pdf Page 63
³ https://webmedia.edenpr.org/District/Documents/comprehensive_2011.pdf Page 48
⁴ http://financeandbudget.mpls.k12.mn.us/uploads/mps_financial_statements_2011.pdf Page 45
⁵ http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/lcmg/092512lcmgppt.pdf
Daryl Fryxell
7:27 am on Friday, October 5, 2012
Frankly, we shouldn't just reallocate the LRT money to the government schools, it shouldn't be spent at all. It should go back to the taxpayers.
Mel Hoke
8:27 am on Friday, October 5, 2012
Are there any FACTS from studies of "projected" riidership to indicate this Southwest LRT line will be a viable, self-sustaining operation or are its promoters just chasing a dream? It's hard to believe, a transit line to Eden Prairie, of all possible places, is likely to become a popular commuting option any time soon.
David
5:32 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012
You are correct, Mel. There are no studies stating it will be a viable or even popular line. But there are several studies stating just the opposite: one done by our own Macallaster college (sp?) and one by Investors Business daily which showed we have neither the population density nor the infrastructure to support LRT. Busses are the preferred public transportation choice and are far cheaper and easier to repurpose as population growth changes where transportation is needed. This is nothing but social engineers coupling with DFL cronies looking to tell us how to live while lining the construction unions' pockets with more tax dollars we can ill afford to spend.
Emily B
7:27 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2012
Considering that some of the MAJOR employers in the Metro area (United Health, anyone) support this rail line completely, this isn't just a bunch of DFL cronies. All of the area Chambers of Commerce (not exactly a bastion of liberalism) support this as well because they know how valuable it is to attracting and retaining a workforce. Though folks want to pretend this is just another liberal project, it has strong cross-sector support.
As to buses being the preferred public transportation choice, I am curious if you have something to back this up. I do understand your point of them being more easily repurposed, if needed in the distant future, but as someone who has used public transit regularly for the last five years, I can't imagine that buses are preferred in the sense that people would rather ride buses than trains.
David
1:35 am on Sunday, October 7, 2012
It is just DFL cronies and social engineers. The COCs that support it do so because the members want the perks of building and maintaining it. To your request for citation on busses being far more popular, here you go.
"For only the second time in 30 years, ridership on all Metro Transit topped 80 million last year. There were nearly 81 million rides, which is up 3.5 percent from the year before. The majority were bus rides at almost 70 million, and the rest were light rail rides at about 10.5 million."
http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2671480.shtml
Got that? 7 out of every 8 public rides was a bus and the Met Council has lowered (read more subsidization with our tax dollars) the fare on the North Star line AGAIN because they can't get anyone to ride it. And yet DFL progressive busy bodies, greedy construction companies and the unions they support are conspiring with social engineers on the unelected Met Council to spend even more money we don't have for yet another train no one will ride.
This is the problem with arguing from personal anecdote. Just because Emily can't 'imagine' that more people prefer the busses that go where they need to go rather than a train that makes you go where it is going, doesn't mean other people can't as well.
Emily B
10:32 am on Sunday, October 7, 2012
David, thanks for the KSTP article, but that hardly proves that buses are more "preferred." It is simple reporting of ridership numbers, not preference. Some people, like those of us in the West Metro, have no access to anything but a bus now. So, buses are more USED because that is what is currently available, but consider that there is ONE lightrail - the NorthStar is NOT a lightrail and so is not apples to apples when you're talking about what is being proposed for LRT - and dozens of bus routes. Still 1/8th of the rides were on lightrail, so if anything, I'd think that shows a lean more toward the trains. The SW LRT will run at a frequency like that of Hiawatha, not the few times a day that NorthStar does. The purpose and setup is very different. Part of the problem plaguing NorthStar was the planners did not foresee the housing crash, when many of the people who had moved out to the way-out burbs re-migrated back to the Cities. One could say that could be a concern in the SW region, however a big difference is the businesses that anchor the route where people will be going regularly OUT to the area vs just to downtown, very different to the one-way commuter setup of the Northstar.
David
10:43 am on Sunday, October 7, 2012
Emily, the fact that people are taking the busses and the Met Council has had to lower fares again because ridership quotas have not been met for three years running is most definitely proof that people prefer busses. As is the mere fact that they ARE using busses and not trains wasn't evidence enough.
Emily B
11:44 pm on Sunday, October 7, 2012
I think to get an actual sense for preference, you need to do a survey asking exactly that or compare the specific ridership rates of the current lightrail (Hiawatha) to bus routes that serve the same area, like Route 5.
Also, they have not had to drop the price of the current lightrail (Hiawatha), and they have tons of riders. The Northstar is a different story. It is a completely different kind of train - it is heavyrail, and the purpose and schedule are set up completely different.
I know David is never going to agree with me on this, and that is ok, but I think it is important to look at the train which is actually comparable (Hiawatha) to the proposed new route (SW LRT).
David
10:54 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
Emily's survey idea has already been done. It's called actual rider statistics. And Busses win hands down.
They serve 7 times more riders and a fraction of the cost. They go where the riders need them to go, which a train will not. Even one going from downtown Mpls to the Mall of America doesn't get the ridership supporters claimed it would. What makes them think yet ANOTHER train will? Pixie dust and progressive, utopian hopes, that's what. It's the old addage: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 3 times (NorthStar, Hiawatha, Central Cooridor) shame on me.
Looks like progressive social engineers like Emily have a solid bet that we can be fooled a fourth time with another Train to Nowhere ridden by No One.
Dave Lloyd
8:44 am on Friday, October 5, 2012
Daryl, you may find this link interesting: http://www.beta.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/bonds/statement-general/12aug-fos-2.pdf and see page 98 and 99(Pages C-9 and C-10 within the document)-School District Credit Enhancement Program.
Leigh Harrod
8:58 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012
If the funds, or at least some of them, were used to ramp up the education of children in Minnesota, then one day those same kids would build the light rail with their own talent. I'd rather build up the kids first, and then watch them grow into adults that build up our society, light rail and all.
Daryl Fryxell
7:53 am on Saturday, October 6, 2012
This may be unpopular, but it's the truth. The government schools should get no increase in funding because they are totally irresponsible and incompetent with the massive amounts of money that they do get. We have districts that cannot account for where the money went and an inverse relationship between spending per pupil and graduation rates.
Listen, 40% of the state budget is poured into the government schools. Another 9% goes for so-called higher education. We already throw MASSIVE amounts of money to government education.
Enough already. As responsible taxpayers, we must stop enabling bureaucratic incompetence.
Robert Healey
10:19 am on Saturday, October 6, 2012
I think the author missed some significant study data in their analysis. The LRT project wasn't formed willy nilly. It addresses serious transportation needs of the SW metro.
The local portion of the bill isn't $1.25G , its around $600M. The federal government wouldn't kick in $600M+ to fund education since its from transportation funds. Mixing Apples and Oranges here.
I'm wondering if any of the respondents have commuted in the metro area recently? My commutes have been a large waste of time(money) and fuel(more money) due to the parking lot traffic. I think the claim that LRT wouldn't be used in the southwest region is off the mark, I for one would be more than happy to use it in order to get to work faster and not waste time/fuel/money on 169/394/94 parking lots in the morning and evening.
We spend a LARGE chunk of taxes on our barely functioning freeway system. We would have been ALOT better off if GM/mob hadn't been successful in destroying our LRT system, i.e. street cars, back in the 50's. My parents, grandparents and other relatives around in the 20's - 50's got around ALOT better with the trolly system than we do today with the freeway system; I've had to listen to their "back in my day" stories about this for over 40 years...
I hardly think the city council's of the SW metro are bastions of the DFL and they are fully behind LRT as a major service to the communities.
I think the millions are better spent on LRT than more congested freeway lanes.
David
1:49 am on Sunday, October 7, 2012
The Eden Praire City Council is 4 DFLers and 1 GOP. So, yeah, they ARE a bastion of the DFL. And David L is correct, they are all for it because they think they aren't paying for it. When the reality is that no tax dollar is free and the maintenance costs will be born by the counties which will do so by raising property taxes (that's right, the DFL are lying, again, when they claim that the GOP-controlled state legislature 'raised property taxes.' Any high schooler who stayed awake in civics knows the state has no say in property taxes), which means we ALL will be paying for it.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that LRT will bring a better ROI? Because Macalaster College did a study and even the Met Council agrees that the SW Corrider ROI is .42. That's a return of 42 cents for every dollar spent on a system that cannot be changed in the future with population shifts.
http://minnetonka.patch.com/articles/opinion-light-rail-nothing-short-of-a-money-pit
Yeah, that sure sounds like its a better use of our tax dollars.
Daryl Fryxell
11:19 am on Saturday, October 6, 2012
If you don’t like sitting in your car in congested traffic, you already have another option. It’s called the bus. We spend millions on a heavily subsidized bus system that is already in place. Now you want to spend another $1.5 billion on trains? I don’t think so.
Incidently, it doesn't matter how much comes from the federal, state or local government. All of it is taxpayer money.
There is no question that commuting sucks. The freeways are congested. Why? Because the Minnesota DOT has ALWAYS underbuilt the system. When they do major construction, they don’t build for the future. They build what the 20 year old study said was needed then.
Let’s be honest. MINN DOT is dedicated to social engineering. They want to get you out of your car. They want us to live like urban serfs behind the Berlin Wall in little Soviet-style apartments, dependent on the government transportation system to get anywhere. They think it’s more environmentally friendly. They think it’s wasteful for one person to drive alone from Eden Prairie to St. Paul.
The answer to traffic congestion is to add more lanes. Build for the future. Plan ahead. We will be driving cars for a long, long time.
Dave Lloyd
12:22 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2012
Unsustainable federal debt is an apple, unsustainable education debt in an orange and unsustainable subsidized public transportation is some other fruit which equals a debt and tax rock.
So, GM was bailed out because we then need to build trains to get cars off the roads but you can't stand hearing how great a trolley would be in January and you need to get to work fast?
Careful with the personal attack on someone else's analysis without really presenting your own.
Why wouldn't a city council be for a project they are not paying for?
Debate and discussion don't open up a personal attack. Cite specifically what you think was missed. Did you read my last paragraph??