Search This Blog

Showing posts with label metro transit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label metro transit. Show all posts

Sunday, April 30, 2017

House & Senate Differ on Future of Met Council in Mass Transit. Billions at Stake.


Update: It appears the House and Senate agree'd to give the MetC an insane budget of $210 million! That's nearly Three and a half times higher than the house proposal of $61.5 million!
see post:
GOP Caves on Mass Transit, Offers Dayton Dream Budget for the Met Council to Continue Transit Lines















---------------------------------------------------------
Today, 5-1-2017, it's up to the ten legislators from the House and Senate on whether they are going to, for the first time in over ten years, slow the out of control expansion of white elephant mass transit. Yes, the 3 corridors in Washington County have not had direct state funding since 2011; however, the bloated budget of the Met Council has back door funded these corridors' progress along with the 11 other corridors that are either in planning or recently built.  (4 of 14 completed so far)
(according to "Session Daily" today is the deadline)

We covered why the legislators should accept the house version in our previous post:
GOP Senate Passes $5.8 Billion Transportation Bill with $180 Million to Met Council & Mass Transit a Huge Raise

This article is more evidence against the unelected Met Council who is now threatening to retaliate with the most painful cuts possible if they get a budget decrease. 

Today is the last day to urge the ten legislators to accept the House version of the omnibus bill, $61.5 million for Met Council as opposed to the Senate's insane offer of $180 million for their transportation budget. The Met C operating budget was less than $650 million in 2006. Last year it was just short of $1 BILLION DOLLARS! Most of their services are redundant to local city and county planning. Including but not limited to park planning, low income housing planning, water and sewer planning, "livable communities", and "growth planning."  According to Representative Nick Zerwas, the original intent of the Met C was simply to help neighboring metro cities plan utilities like water and sewer at their borders. 

In 2005 the State provided $57.3 million in funding for traditional bus service, metro mobility, express bus, and the one light rail train in operation. Subtract the $9.35 million the state provided to fund this transit line's horrible lack of self sustaining ridership (the blue line) and it shows all the core bus services only cost $43 million that year. Adjust for inflation and that is $51 million in 2017 dollars! (double for bi-annual cost)

There is ABSOLUTELY no reason the GOP house and GOP senate can not agree on the GENEROUS $61.5 million in the house version. Met C can do many things for savings and revenue such as: modestly raise fares, cut LRT service to support peak use, and actually enforce ticket purchase to make closer to the $106 million to match the FY '04/'05 budget... mind you, this number included millions in subsidy for LRT, not just core bus service.

$61.5 Million is crucial because with any extra the Met C will likely keep back door funding failed mass transit like they always have. The 3 corridors being planned in Washington County haven't had a cent in direct funding from the legislature since 2011. Yet, with this back door funding they're moved full steam ahead because of over funding from even the GOP Legislature. 

The deadline is Monday 5-1-2017. Again. Please email and call them with these facts to show citizens are informed and to not believe the lies of the Met C threatening to cut off grandma's Metro mobility with the most painful cuts they can. The unelected Met Council fears nothing except responsible funding. unfortunately the media is all to willing to let them get away lying and holding elderly and disabled transit funding hostage. It's apparently so bad not one of the ten legislators has responded to give assurances they'll stick to the lower offer.

If Minnesota families have to live within a budget than so should the Met C. The 80+ non-metro county citizens are tired of funding the metro's mass transit. Urge legislators to cut funding back to pre-white elephant mass transit and stop the unsustainable expansion of mass transit. 



Legislators to write:
rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn,
rep.john.petersburg@house.mn,
rep.jon.koznick@house.mn,
rep.jeff.howe@house.mn,
rep.linda.runbeck@house.mn,
sen.scott.newman@senate.mn,
sen.john.jasinski@senate.mn,
sen.mary.kiffmeyer@senate.mn,
sen.david.osmek@senate.mn,
sen.dan.sparks@senate.mn,


House: 
Torkelson 651-296-9303
Runbeck 651-296-2907
Petersburg 651-296-5368
Koznick 651-296-6926
Howe 651-296-4373
Senate: 
Newman 651-296-4131
Jasinski 651-296-0284
Kiffmeyer 651-296-5655
Osmek 651-296-1282
Sparks 651-296-9248

Monday, January 23, 2017

Red Rock Corridor Plan Falls Apart Now Wants to be Called Route 363

Update 5-2018: South Washington County's Red Rock Corridor "Terminated"!



The Red Rock Corridor. A 30 mile Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor from Hastings to St. Paul Faces Delays as 7 Facts Become Undeniable, as one of our original articles state. In the article you see the corridor's planning history filled with evidence of attempts to manipulate the public's understanding of the corridor. Whether it's being deceptive on the cost of the corridor, to approving a plan to double the number of station stops in attempt to get ridership numbers to build on paper. This last ploy, was titled the "implementation plan" it cost tax payers $550,000 and apparently it's being thrown out the window for the latest change.

The newest plan ditches the 12 stop corridor plan and even the original 6 stop plan in favor of turning the Red Rock Corridor into a local bus route. Millions have been invested in planning and re-planning this "Bus Rapid Transit" corridor to try to make the plan work to gain coveted federal funding. But no matter how they twisted the numbers they weren't even close to the feds who'd like ridership over 2,000 riders a day. So now the new plan is to re-brand and look under any rock they can for funds to keep the corpse of this terrible corridor idea moving forward. (read on to see why it's so bad) The BRT plan is now a "long term" design for the year 2040!

At the  September 2016 Corridor Commission meeting they explain since they can't get the Red Rock Corridor built they should get funding for a bus route they can later rename the Red Rock Corridor: 
"The proposed Route 363 is a local bus route acting as a precursor to BRT implementation in this corridor."

Route 363:
By doing this the corridor, if you can call it that anymore, can apply for funding from all new sources that have no idea how bad the corridor idea is. The plan was set and they applied  to the Met Council for $5.9 million to go towards building the $7.8 million dollar route. On the application it is called Route 363 which is a bus route will run with existing express bus routes 361, 364, and 365 that currently serve the Cottage Grove area. This new Route is planning to have 1,200 riders a day and is a ridiculous prediction as route 361, 364, and 365 have a combined ridership of just 475 riders a day!  (sourced here under number 5 from Metro Transit's latest study)

Read more about Route 363 on the Metro Transit's Service Improvement Plan (SIP) just hit "ctrl + f" on the key board and search "363." It was such a bad idea that Metro Transit even passed up investing in it last year. 

Funding denied From Met Council:
On January 18th the Met Council denied the funding request for the route according to Elaine Koutsoukos head of the Met Council's TAB (Transportation Advisory Board). It serves an embarrassing failure to the Corridor planners who were hoping to pull off pushing the Red Rock Corridor forward in butchered down form. It marks the second denial from the Met Council to invest in the corridor after they were denied funding to build low income housing by the Newport Transit Station. You know a transit corridor is a terrible idea when the Met Council turns you down time and time again.

Newport Transit Station will hurt Route 363:
The least popular of the three routes is route 364 which has the longest ride time since it stops at the Newport Transit Station which is isolated and has no direct connection to the Highway. This evidenced in the ridership which is a dismal 37 rides a day or just 18 riders a day (same Metro Transit source as above). Route 363 will incorporate the unpopular Newport Transit Station. 

Ridership predictions we can't trust:
In the October 2016 Corridor Commission meeting they claim 1,200 riders a day will be using route 363. This ridership prediction is ridiculous as it's Two and a half times the combined amount of our 3 current express bus routes as stated earlier. We know ridership predictions from corridor planners are extremely off. In 2012, the year before the Red Line Corridor was built just 20 miles south, they predicted 2,250 riders a day OVER the express bus ridership... turns out they were 1,400 riders a day short! The Northstar corridor predicted there'd be 9,500 riders a day by 2020 in the current Big Lake to Minneapolis layout in 2006 (p.27); but only has 2,500 riders on this design today (p.16)... They were off by 7,000 riders a day! 

But they're going to run all day service and have more buses they say. 
Surely if we simply send enough buses back and forth from relatively rural South Washington County all day long the ridership will multiply two and a half times.... False! We can say this with certainty because for 3 years the Red Line has been staring us in the face with the evidence of only 835 riders a day.

The Red Line in Apple Valley as evidence:
We know route 363 will fail because this experiment has already been tried with the Red Line Corridor. Finished in 2013 the corridor has just 835 riders a day according the latest 2015 MNDOT Guideways status report. This is Solid evidence because the population there is three times more dense, serving a road with twice even the 2030 volume of hwy 61 for route 363, and they have more concentrated shopping centers and housing down there. (sourced here under number 4)

$5.5 million a year to operate:
Worst of all the operating costs for Route 363 will be higher than the Red Line Corridor. Local tax payers will be on the hook to cover the $5.5 million a year to operate the bus line burning diesel. Not to mention the wear and tear on the local streets caused by the heavy buses. How much damage? Take the example of just one dump truck to operate in Washington County in our state they have to pay over $4,000 a year to city, state, and counties to cover road damage.

How bad is this Route 363 that will become the Red Rock Corridor? Here's all Seven massive reasons the corridor will be a failure and the evidence to prove it is sourced (I only shared two of seven):

How do we know the Corridor will be so terrible? How about the fact none of the 40 planners can answer just One question:
Over 40 Red Rock Corridor Decision Makers Unable to Provide Answers About New Route







Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Gateway Corridor vs Metro Transit: How State's $9 million Route Upgrade Could Replace the Gateway Corridor

1-12-16: This Metro Transit plan is relevant now more than ever check out why: 

Lake Elmo Kicks Gateway Corridor out!




The cost of the Gateway Corridor (GWC)/ Gold Line is now $485,000,000 according to Washington County engineer Wayne Sandberg as quoted in a May 2015 Pioneer Press article titled East- metro leaders hold out hope for bus line funding.  But is this nearly half a billion dollar bus corridor needed? Or would a FAR more affordable option be more appropriate?





Our article: The Gateway Corridor, Big Promises, Little Evidence goes into greater detail on the sourced facts and local comparisons regarding why this transit project is not a responsible investment. Metro Transit may agree. we contacted the department planners after they released an impressive plan to modify an existing east metro express bus route into nearly the same all day service that the Gateway Corridor (GWC) would provide. Best of all, it would only cost an addition $1.5 million a year to operate and requires just one Park and Ride to be constructed for capital costs.  

Metro Transit announced the alternative in the 2015-2030 SIP with a proposal to modify Route 353. The bus route is one of four that serves the woodbury area with express bus service to and from the twin cities. Since these routes would compete with the GWC they will be at risk of changing if the GWC was built.


Currently Route 353 serves "peak service" (AM and PM rush hour) with six major stops (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Woodbury Theatre, Woodbury Village, Christ Episcopal Church, and Woodbury Luthern Church). The route served 6,510 rides according to an e-mail from Metro Transit, as of the last numbers in 2013. Most impressive was the fact it only required $37,694 in tax payer subsidies to operate... 









what the modified route 353 could like like
On page 116 of the Metro Transit 2015-2030 Service Improvement Plan you can further appreciate the comparative service the modified route 353 would provide compared to the Gateway Corridor. With the three additional proposed stops to the existing six (a new Manning avenue Park and ride, Guardian Angels church, and the Sun Ray Shopping center). 353 would have 9 major stops compared to the 12 of the GWC. Both would have feeder routes... where 353's would be existing bus routes that overlap the current route which would be a zero sum additional cost. 353 feeder buses would deliver riders to the Sun Ray shopping center as evidenced by the fact most the routes mentioned serve that location. The GWC 5 proposed feeder lines would cost an additional $8.8 million/yr, in addition to the $9.6 million/yr the corridor itself takes, to operate according to an e-mail from Metro Transit SIP.

With the addition of these three additional stops and the increased frequency of service 220,320 additional rides a year are predicted on the modified route 353 (Over 226,000 total). The Gateway Corridor predicted ridership provides a seemingly wild estimation that it will serve over ten times this amount in their 2014 report to the Legislature. (2.4 million a year or 9,000/day) As explained in my previous article with evidence from the already built Red Line corridor this estimation is truly unrealistic:
unrealistic Gateway Corridor ridership prediction










The modified route 353 would have the benefits of Park and Ride (minimal stops off I-94) with the service of multiple drop offs where you are actually going (St. Paul and Minneapolis). All without having to waste time transferring buses mid trip as you would have on a BRT route like the GWC that only serves stations near the freeway. 

An undeniable reality of public transit is that it does not pick you up or drop you off at your destination. However, express bus routes like 353 can get you FAR closer to your morning destination in town than the planned Gateway Corridor.... and Metro Transit appears to understand that.


Riders on the proposed 353 change would only see an additional 15-20 minutes added to their current ride time according to Metro Transit; however they could choose to adjust to similar route 350, 351, or 355 that serve the Woodbury area and are not expected to change if they wish not to have the additional ride time. (Could change if the GWC is built)

The only capital cost for the route 353 expansion is a $9.1 million dollar Manning Avenue park and ride station according to this Met Council estimate. Yes, a ridiculous cost for a bus stop... but perhaps a compromise worth taking compared to the half a billion dollar capital cost of the Gateway Corridor.








 


 Also check out:

Contact our County Commissioners:
fran.miron@co.washington.mn.us          651-430-6211 
gary.kriesel@co.washington.mn.us         651-430-6213 
lisa.weik@co.washington.mn.us              651-430-6215 
karla.bigham@co.washington.mn.us

You know you have a terrible project idea if you pay lobbyists over $100,000/yr and have nothing to show for it.
$51 million dollars has been taken by the transit sales tax. For what?
- We're only guaranteed $12.9 million. 
- A corridor has yet to be built. 
- At the "best" corridor plan they estimate 9,000 riders in 2030 off a freeway that has up to 150,000 cars/day right now. 
- MNDOT has a $9 million alternative to the $420M+ Gold Line
- No wonder Dakota County abandoned this scheme

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Red Rock Corridor Faces Delays as 7 Facts Become Undeniable

1/2017: This article data is still current and relative to the latest update:
Red Rock Corridor Plan Falls Apart Now Wants to be Called Route 363



----------------------------------------------------------
Since 2013 I've been watching the progress of all three transit corridors that are developing in Washington County (WC) as a concerned tax payer. There's the Rush Line in north WC, the Gateway Corridor/ Gold Line in central WC, and the Red Rock Corridor in South WC. My interest in these projects is my concern about their cost vs benefit and their reliance to be primarily funded by taxpayers who will never hear, let alone use, these Bus Rapid Transit routes (BRT).

The Red Rock Corridor (RRC), is a proposed 30 mile BRT route from South Washington County to Union Depot in St. Paul. It is in the advance stages of planning and the focus of this article.

In this article I'll summarize my years of fully sourced research on the RRC in an easy to read, point by point, breakdown with the latest updates. The data is vital to understand as I believe the project is teetering on the edge of completely stalling. Several facts support this thought: 
1.) Red Rock Corridor has not had vital State funding approved by the legislature since 2011. Also in the same source, the Public Works director for Washington County, Don Theisen, said "engineering work on the Red Rock Corridor will be delayed" if funding is not secured. 
(p. 16 of the 2015 Washington County Legislative Agenda) 
2.) The Met Council is also turning it's back on the Red Rock Corridor holding off building the low income project housing right next to the station: Star Tribune
3.) The RRC planner's response is to take $400,000 $550,000 tax dollars and put all of it into an unprecedented redesign push called the "implementation plan" in an attempt to convince tax payers the corridor still needs to be built. The money comes from a County Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) fund that is supported by a sales tax we all pay when we purchase most local goods and services. Come to find out the plan actually costs $550,000 after a raise was approved for the contractor Kimley Horn according to  p.45 of December 2nd RRC meeting.

This $550,000 redesign pushes the route further off highway 61 to gain future ridership yet without mentioning the fact it will take longer to travel to union depot in St. Paul. Again, in an attempt to buy your public approval in the final hour of design planning. The Gateway Corridor is just finishing their Environmental Impact study (12-2015) and the Red Rock Corridor has yet to decide on a route because of this. 

Thus far, credit to it's current advance stage of planning goes to their build moto "Building the corridor with buses instead of light rail trains will save tax payers hundreds of millions" (simply google it for dozens of results). However, this pitch as a "money saving" compromise can't shield it from the ever more undeniable hard facts stacked against the corridor and their $550,000 effort to down play these facts. 
Making the Red Rock Corridor the most concerning of all the transit corridors:

1.) Over a dozen major expenses totaling well over a hundred million dollars have been left out of all the estimated costs for the Red Rock Corridor since the planning has begun. Leaving tax payers with the false impression this is a worthwhile investment.  In the original Alternative Analysis (AA) Study and even more so in the most recent Alternative Analysis Update (AAU). 

Going back to the 2007 AA study it states the BRT option the Commission Chose in December 2013 would cost $75 million (section 8-3 p. 32) in the 2013 AAU the cost prediction drops to just $45 million without explanation (p.14).

From the start, costs are extremely underestimated:
Based off the slightly more thorough 2013 Technical Memorandum #4 Capital Cost Evaluation some of the major costs missing in the $75 million dollar 2007 AA study are:
$14.3 million for the 20 additional buses that will be purchased (p.7)
$11.1 million for a lower Afton road BRT station upgrade (p.9)
$6.5 million for a Cottage Grove transit station (p.9)
$6.2 million for the New Port transit station (cost left out) (p.9)
$6.3 million to build a bus only connection from 61 to the Newport Transit Station (p.37)
Apx $6 million to build a Transit Station in Hastings (cost left out) (p.9)
Apx $4 million (at least) to build a bus maintenance shop (estimate off Apple Valley Red Line's shop cost)
$20 million million in cost adjustment for inflation using their own 3.5% a year figure (p.15)

That's a total of $74.4 million dollars missing from the $75 million dollar 2007 AA study quote for this 30 mile long corridor. Even this $150 million dollar estimate is very conservative. Evidenced by the fact the just 11.5 mile Red Line Corridor in Apple Valley cost $112 million according to MetCouncil

Add to this $150 million dollar estimate the fact there are additional miscellaneous costs missing such as the $35 million dollar project to completely tear out and widen the overpass and all the roads and ramps of the CR19 and hwy61 interchange. The project's sole purpose is to accommodate the buses that'd be riding on the shoulders of the this interchange to get to the Cottage Grove Station. This was discussed the May 2013 RRC commission meeting. see pic 5. (p.9 of May 2013 RRC meeting

Another unmentioned cost is the $2 million+ to pay for all the studies that are being completed now and in the near future. (p. 26 of February 2013 RRC meeting)


2.) The Washington County corridor planners consistently tell the media wildly inaccurate numbers:
2012: Project manager Andy Gitzlaff told finance-commerce.com the now $6.45 million dollar Newport transit station was only going to cost $2.5 million. Ready to Roll in Red Rock Corridor
2013: Pioneer Press, one of many examples, was told the Red Rock Corridor will cost only $45 million: For Red Rock Corridor, Buses Now Favored.... 
2014: Three more examples in 2014 alone: Gateway Corridor Planner Accused of Misleading the Public Three Times This Year
2015: The Implementation plan. It's calculated cost for the same original 6 stop corridor is a massively low $28.6 million. 





3.) Future ridership predictions are anything but bright for the Red Rock Corridor.
Simply Compare the already built Red Line Corridor in Apple Valley (finished mid 2013) and compare it's facts and figures to the future Red Rock Corridor and the South Washington County (SWC) area. 

Population and Density:
According to City-Data.com the SWC area (Cottage Grove, Newport, and Hastings) has a slightly larger population than Apple Valley by 18%. However Apple Valley is 65% more densely populated because their population fits into nearly a third of the footprint of SWC area (17 vs 48sq miles). I mention this because transit lines are severely underutilized the less dense a population gets. Where a vast majority of morning metro commuters don't find driving to a bus stop convenient. 

Just look at how discouraging the ridership numbers are on Route 364 that serves the same area the RRC will serve at the now open $6.45 million dollar Newport transit station. About two cars noted by the Star Tribune. A route that is so underutilized that it only has 3 round trips to the metro a day. Taking over service from it's previous transit stop just south of I-494 that had "about 20 cars" a day. However, supporters state the transit stop is a "very nice waiting station, which should help ridership somewhat." (Streets.mn December 2014 Report).

In 2012, a year before the Red Line opened corridor planners predicted the Corridor would have 2,250 riders a day... turns out after the 2013 opening the corridor is still making only just over 800 riders a day.

6-2016 update: The Red Line Corridor performed so poorly, the host, Dakota County is choosing not to Continue spending even more money on the line and they're leaving the County Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) and saving their tax payers millions when dropping out of the CTIB sales tax: Star Tribune Story.

4.) Based off MNDOT traffic volume numbers and comparative analysis expected number of riders on the Red Rock Corridor will be less than half of what is predicted.
The ridership numbers corridor planners are using to justify construction of the RRC are generous predictions on ridership in the year 2030 based off unknown calculation models! (Yes I've asked for the calculation equation to verify the math and was denied being told it was a computer program.)  BRT riders are predicted to be 2,420 daily ridership on the US hwy 61 based BRT Corridor in the AAU (p.13). Highway 61 in Cottage Grove currently has over 30,000 vehicles a day according (p. 11) and in 2030 is projected to have over 45,000 cars a day (p. 22). Both MNDOT sources. 

For a road of that current and future volume their estimate is FAR too generous based on evidence of rider use on the Red Line corridor in Apple Valley that sees an average of only 835 riders a day on it's 90,000 - 128,000 vehicle a day road corridor according to the 2013 MNDOT Status Guideways Report (p. 26). Yes, that's twice the volume of the 2030 RRC volume on US 61 and it's BRT line is only seeing 835 riders a day. 

How does the RRC planners explain how an area three times as densely populated and nearly the same population with a corridor that serves at minimum TWICE the volume of vehicle traffic a day is going to have almost three times the ridership of such a current place in 2030? 

5.) Discouraging current corridor ridership and demographics reveals the most accurate future picture: 
The current RRC area is served by Bus Route 361, 364, and 365 park and ride stations. Yes, the Red Rock Corridor exists in this current form... After reading the data you  here you may understand why they don't talk about it.

According to MetroTransit.org/routes they don't serve on weekends or business holidays that fall on weekdays (10 such holidays in both 2012+2013 according to timeanddate.com). Leaving 251 days of service in 2012 and 2013. Only annual ridership data is available (looks better than daily as you'll see) so to calculate the current daily ridership we calculate:
Route 361: 64,000 annual rides divided by 251 service days (2012)= 255 rides a day average
Route 364: 9,204 annual rides divided by 251 service days (2013)= 37 rides a day average
(source is Metro Transit Service Improvement Board via e-mail sip@metrotransit.org, see picture below)
Route 365: 165,449 annual rides divided by 251 service days (2013)= 659 rides a day average (544/day in 2010)
(2013 source is Service Improvement Board via e-mail sip@metrotransit.org, see picture below)
The Route's combined daily rides total: 951 rides a day = 475 current riders a day (safe to assume for each one "rider" two "rides" are used with one to their destination and one back... another trick used to essential double the perception of corridor use)

We know Apple Valley's Red Line Corridor current service area and corridor use serves as an example of what the future RRC can actually expect in their 2030 predictions. Again, because of the more densely populated and congested area of Apple Valley. With the Redline's 835 riders a day on a 90,000 - 128,000 vehicle a day road is it logical to expect the Red Rock Corridor that currently serves 475 riders a day on a 30,000 vehicle a day corridor really going to have ridership increase by FIVE TIMES to 2,420 when the traffic on the highway is only expected to increase from 30,000 to 45,000 a day?

Furthermore, the population trend is not encouraging in the RRC area. According to city-data.com since the year 2000, Newport has seen a 7% loss in their population; Cottage Grove has seen their population only grow by 5,000 people; and Hastings has only grown by 4,000 residents in that time. Not exactly a picture of an area booming in the last fifteen years as the RRC would have you believe.

6.) Dismal 6.3% self sustainability for operating costs:
To put this in perspective: The entire Red Line Corridor has a yearly operating cost of $3.4 million according to the MetCouncil. They spent $2.5 million to run the first six months they were open. Only 6.3% of it's running costs were paid for by the riders who use the Red Line (MNDOT 2013 Guideways Status Report p.27). Leaving tax payers who don't ride the Red Line to cover not only 100% of the $112 million dollar capital cost, but 93.7% of it's running costs! This does not look encouraging news from the Red Line Corridor with a three times more dense population, serving a road with twice the future volume of the RRC. It's no stretch to fully expect even worse self sustainability for tax payers funding the RRC. 

Update 2015 MNDOT Guideways Status Report: says the Red Line still is only paying for 6% of their operating costs p.27

7.) Evidence all around:
Also worth noting: the NorthStar Line that comes from 40 miles outside of Minneapolis. Even with the addition of the new Ramsey station in 2012 and lowering their ticket prices (hoping for more riders and money) they saw a 17% decline in ticket sales from 2012 to 2013.The NorthStar line has consistently only been able to cover on average 16% of it's operating cost. The national average is 30% according to MNDOT. This is comparing the 2012 (p.21) and 2013 (p.24) MNDOT annual Guideway Status Reports. I know if any other market besides transit see a 17% decline in sales it'd be front page news.

Conclusion:
However, whether you use the solid comparative and analytic data here or the unfounded pro-corridor study estimate of 2,400 riders/day (in 2030) how is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a bus line worth taking just 1-5% of the traffic off the 45,000 vehicle a day road responsible? How does a 1-5% improvement justify spending on such a massive scale? This money could be used for our deteriorating roads, adding a lane to hwy 61, or better yet kept in the hands of the hard working tax payers who are struggling to make ends meet. 

Again, The $112 million dollar Red Line only pays 6.3% of the millions of dollars it takes to offload 835 people off it's at least 90,000 car a day road... that's less than 1% traffic reduction! Or the $350 million dollar Northstar line that also never covered a penny of it's capital cost and can only cover half what a "normal" failed transit line can collect to contribute to it's running costs (normal being just 30%). I say failed because airlines, taxis, Greyhound buses, and other private transporters cover 100% of their capital AND running costs! 

As a tax payer I feel completely betrayed by the corridor staff who refuse to modify their dishonest studies, one sided reporting, and manipulating public outreach. The local county and city officials who remain silent to these clear injustices and refuse to see the facts are equally responsible. I've been telling each one of them about all seven of these major issues with the RRC. We are lying to ourselves and to our children who will have to pay for this if we think we have solid ground to build this unsustainable project on. 


The local media have made it clear they aren't going to cover any of this data. 
Please "share" these articles and facts the media is not going to report.

Also check out: 


At Her Own Crossroads: Will Representative Fenton Lead or Appease

Also, please contact your County Commissioners, explain you are disappointed in the lack of accountability the Red Rock Corridor staff has. They have to power to enforce accurate survey taking, honest assessments, and diligent review before we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on these transit corridors in Washington County.

Contact our County Commissioners:
fran.miron@co.washington.mn.us          651-430-6211 

gary.kriesel@co.washington.mn.us         651-430-6213 
lisa.weik@co.washington.mn.us              651-430-6215 
karla.bigham@co.washington.mn.us