« DAYTON BUDGET SLASHES NURSING HOME FUNDING AFTER CALLING IT ‘EVIL, IMMORAL, AND WRONG’ DURING THE CAMPAIGN | Home | IN ATTEMPT TO SQUASH VOTER ID BILL, DFL ARTIFICIALLY BLOW OUT FISCAL ESTIMATES »
IN ANOKA COUNTY, OBERSTAR’S BILLION DOLLAR TRAIN TO NOWHERE DERAILING FAST
By Andy Post | February 23, 2011
(Part of a series)
Rail advocates have been pushing the idea of a high speed commuter rail project between the Twin Cities and Duluth since Amtrak discontinued its passenger service in 1985. The cost of such a line has been discussed since the early 2000′s, and has included figures such as $120 million, $360 million, $450 million, $700 million, and over $1 billion to construct. But a perfect storm of costs, tight budgets, political turnover and public outcry has made this Oberstar legacy just one desperate pipe dream.
At the epicenter of the proposed Northern Lights Express (NLX) project is the Anoka County Board of Commissioners, where, until January, Democrats controlled the board for years, along with its agenda. Board member Dan Erhart has a personal and professional obsession with rail. He helped found the NLX Alliance which has sought millions in recent years to conduct study after study of the feasibility of a route from Minneapolis or St. Paul to Hinckley (Grand Casino), and on to Duluth and Superior. The Anoka County Board, now held by a majority of conservative members, pulled the plug from all NLX activities to focus on other priorities and the looming state budget crisis.
The history of this rail project fantasy is a long and complex one. As many rail projects do, the NLX line would have crossed multiple constituencies, bringing in the need for consultation from many boards and organizations. During the initial planning stages, other elected officials voiced their concerns over Anoka Commissioner Dan Erhart’s personal and family land holdings that would be close to the proposed line. A 2007 Star-Tribune article discussed the potential conflict of interest at length:
Officials, meanwhile, have talked of limiting station stops to Duluth, Hinckley and Minneapolis. But Anoka County development official Steve Novak said he and others would try to make sure at least one station was built in Anoka County.
That idea drew fire from Hennepin County Commissioner Penny Steele, who voted against the feasibility study funding. She said she has “a great deal of concern about how this particular line was selected.”
Steele stopped short of publicly voicing concerns over the role of Anoka County Commissioner Dan Erhart, whose family owns land in Pine, Isanti and Anoka counties, all of which the train would pass through. Other Hennepin commissioners said Erhart’s land holdings and any possible connection to the project were discussed privately.
Erhart denied that he wants the line for personal gain.
“I have no clue where the [train] stations will be,” said Erhart, who chaired the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority when it hired Tinklenberg’s firm last year. “My property could be 20 miles from a station. Some of this property has been owned by my family for decades.
A flurry of attention came during the last two years when new studies were done by MNDOT and others that found the “worst-case scenario” price tag for the line could surpass $1 billion. With possible federal aid comes the requirement of local and state funding, something likely to float like a lead balloon in the legislature. Without Rep. Oberstar in Congress to funnel federal pork cash, the prospects for the project look even more dim.
Tags: Chip Cravaack, DFL, Jim Oberstar
Topics: Chip Cravaack, DFL, Jim Oberstar | 48 Comments »
48 Responses to “IN ANOKA COUNTY, OBERSTAR’S BILLION DOLLAR TRAIN TO NOWHERE DERAILING FAST”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:02 AM
I’m very curious. I understand that most on this site don’t like Public transit and in particular rail in any form. What has me baffled is that it isn’t really economic based. Costs to the tax payer on a person per mile basis in incredibly close (Costs – fares for rail, Costs – gas tax and other fees for roads). Actually if you extend the maintenance time frame past 10 years rail starts to be cheaper.
So it really isn’t costs except in the very short term. So really what is it?
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:49 AM
Jude, there are several things that you need to understand about public transit. First and foremost, it is a black hole for tax dollars. The government always sets the fares far below the actual operating costs of the system in an effort to be “fair” and “help the less foruntate.” Even still, ridership is low. If you actually charged what it costs to run the system, no one would ride it. Duh. That is because public transportation is a typical government program which are never run on a cost effective basis. There is no example in the entire country of a public transportation system that is not a money pit for the taxpayers. I have never even heard of one that breaks even.
Second, it is impossible to force a public transportation system on most metro areas in the midwest because our cities grew up without them. Just because something may “work” in New York City, which has had subways since 1904, does not mean you can force such a system on a metro area in the midwest where the geography is far different and population density is far different.
Third, there is a liberty component. People in the midwest enjoy their cars and trucks and the freedom of movement that comes along with them. The heavy handed autocrats that run the Minnesota DOT are fundamentally liberal urban planners who will force upon us what they decide is “good for us.” I will never forget the tv and newspaper interviews with DOT officials a few years ago when they were very clear that they opposed adding lanes to the major freeways and highways on the basis that “our goal is not to make commuting by car easier for people, our goal is to get you out of your car and into public transportation because it is better for the environment.” I believe that remains their goal today. Most Minnesotans want a choice. They do not want to be forced.
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:58 AM
Just look at the headlines. The world is going insane and we have to fend off idiotic ideas like more government train systems. Good grief.
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:01 AM
This transportation issue is just another clear example of why we have to get past this notion that the government should do everything for us.
If there is sufficient demand and the service can be provided at a profit, private enterprise will take care of it. The only thing that the government should do as far as transportation is build and maintain the roads. Everything else should be private.
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:44 AM
Think about this one:
Why do people constantly return to the refrigerator with hopes that something new to eat will have materialized?
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:50 AM
Many of you are confused about the events in the middle east.
Even though events seem to be spinning out of control, certain truths are becoming more obvious to those of us who have the presence of mind to notice them.
Truths:
Islam is a religion of violence and death.
Muslims are intolerant and brutal.
Muslims are willing to die, but they are even more willing to kill anyone that disagrees with them.
These are facts. They are not politically correct, but they are facts. Do not doubt me.
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:57 AM
I was very disappointed in Mr. Newt yesterday morning. He was being interviewed on Fox News and he stated the fact that the Obama Regime has been very aggressive in supporting regime change against our allies, ie. Moubarek, and it is all but silent in matters of regime change in countries which are our enemies such as Iran and Libya.
He was correct in that observation, which is absolutely factual. The Fox reporter asked him twice why he thinks it is that the Obama Regime is taking this stance. Twice he didin’t answer the question because he was too timid to state the obvious:
The Obama Regime fundamentally believes that the middle east should be populated by Muslim theocracies governed by Sharia Law and hostile to Israel. There is no other way to interpret their actions.
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:01 AM
The are no peaceful Muslims.
They either actively or passively support Islamofascism.
Note: I was banned from another blog for typing those very words in 2010. I was always factually correct, but they wanted me to be politically correct.
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:19 AM
“The government always sets the fares far below the actual operating costs of the system in an effort to be “fair” and “help the less fortunate.”
A policy not unlike the one the government employs with regard to my morning commute.
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:52 AM
States and cities should look to close their budget gaps by selling off any government-owned buses and trains. The feds should auction off the Amtrak trains. Raise a little cash and help stem the flow of red ink.
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Every unit of government should also repeal any laws which authorize unionization of and collective bargaining by government employees. It must end. These union contracts and lifetime benefit packages are crushing the budgets. They are unsustainable. Fewer and fewer people are paying taxes so that more and more people can feed at the government trough. It cannot last.
Public sector unions are a CANCER that will eventually kill each city, county, state, and federal government.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:28 PM
Wait a minute. $1 billion to go from the twin cities to Duluth? It cost nearly $1 billion for Jesse The Body’s train from the Mega-Monstrosity to downtown.
It would cost at least $4 billion to Duluth. Write that down.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:51 PM
Wow, montego, do you like to see your name here? 10 posts out of a total of twelve were by you.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Seriously? Are these libs actually trying to say that the demand for mass transit between Duluth and the Cities is SO great that it justifies bankrupting the entire state? Were broke, we don’t have any money! I’ll propose this, get a private bus company to make this run a half dozen times a day, charge the same fare as you would the train. When you can fill 10 buses ON EACH TRIP, BOTH ways for a solid year, then come back here and I’ll admit I was wrong…
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:49 PM
#13
I have no need to see my name, however, I do like to impart my wisdom to the masses who need my guidance.
February 24th, 2011 at 3:35 AM
montego That Public transportation costs the tax payer money was not the point. Roads cost the tax payer money over and above the gas tax and vehicle fees in about the same magnitude. My question was why one is so vehemently opposed on this site and not the other?
My belief is that it is simply because so many hands are in the financing of roads nobody really understands just how much the general fund of the government goes to cover the actual cost is obscured by the complexity. While public transportation costs are collected in a neat little package. While I’m not all that familiar with the NLX and $7 million a mile seems high (unless this is being built as a high speed corridor) it still is much cheaper then the $20-$50 million per mile that most highway construction costs out at.
While you assertion that forcing public transportation in Midwestern cities sounds good. What about the most car centric city in the nation? LA has without much notice been developing quite a good public transportation system. As far as the Twin Cities goes, we once had one of the better public transit systems in the country. That the trolleys are just a memory of some of our older citizens doesn’t negate the fact of its existence when our metro area took its basic shape.
So it is liberty for you but not for me? We need to build expensive road in the Metro so the out state network gets neglected? I should be denied the liberty of choosing not to use my car when I don’t need to? Whose liberty is more important? That is what always gets me in transportation arguments. Public transport is about expanding options and therefore liberty and freedom. That I prefer a more urban denser and more compact environment (a rapidly growing trend) means I should be paying for your roads? Don’t forget even if I never drive my taxes are helping to support your roads.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:30 AM
Hey Jude, I’m curious what road cost $20-$50 million per mile, that wasn’t a mile long suspension bridge plated with gold. New road construction doesn’t cost anywhere near that.
You have your number reversed. New light rail cost per mile average $35 million. New road construction costs vary, but cost between $4-$6 million.
In addition, the vast majority of road costs are paid by users, including you when you buy groceries delivered to the store via roads–or do you think individual driving habits are the only use case. Conversely, those who use public transit don’t even pay half the cost of it… and freight cannot be carried on light rail…. and won’t be carried via the latest commuter rail proposals.
The North Star line folks creamed their jeans for costs more than double to operate (excluding construction costs) than what rides pay for tickets.
It’s a goddam boondoggle.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:31 AM
Jude asks good questions, but his approach is to tell fibs and draw false comparisons in order to appear to have a good argument, without actually having one.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:32 AM
Gasoline prices keep rising. Events in the middle east could interrupt oil supplies to the west.
What is our own government doing? Let’s see. They are preventing us from drilling in the gulf. They are preventing us from drilling domestically. They are blocking the construction of refineries.
Oh, I forgot. Obama Motors is trying to get us to buy an electric car for $44,000 that only goes 20 miles. Right.
House GOP, are you listening? Pass legislation now for more drilling and more refineries! Close down the EPA! Let the country know that you want to do something!
February 24th, 2011 at 8:39 AM
“high speed rail” is also a deception. They’re not talking bullet trains. They’re talking trains that go marginally faster than current trains… it will still be an eight hour trip to Chicago.
I’d support building public transit if users paid the entire cost of operation… but users don’t even pay for the operational cost of buses and a 25 cent fare hike causes gnashing of teeth… so let’s stop wasting time with this bullshit.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:41 AM
Bottom line is that the only demand for public transit is political, not market. And as such, it should be rejected.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:50 AM
Jude, nobody is stopping you from moving to New York, Chicago, or some other place that has the urban density and the taxpayer subsidized transportation that you crave. Hit the bricks, pal.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:17 AM
How can they call it “high speed rail” when it has to stop so often. It’s a streetcar, period.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:48 AM
#23
Anything that moves faster than the mind of a liberal is considered “high speed.”
February 24th, 2011 at 11:55 AM
You will not hear this from the American state controlled media. Libyan dictator Muamar Khaddafy had the following to say about Barack Hussein Obama in an arab newspaper:
“Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.He is someone I consider a friend. He knows he is a son of Africa. Regardless of his African belonging, he is of Arab Sudanese descent, or of Muslim descent. He is a man whose policy should be supported, and he should be assisted in implementing it in any way possible, since he is now leaning towards peace.”
It is always interesting what these people say to non-American media.
February 24th, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Here is something that really bugs me.
Can we get one correct spelling on the Libyan dictator’s last name? Come on, Muamar, make up your mind.
Gaddafi? Ghadafy? Khaddafy? Quaddaffi?
February 24th, 2011 at 4:36 PM
Sotaman: The 35w 62 interchange cost $250m for 3 miles. I don’t know where you got the costs for road construction but the concrete for a mile of road alone would come in at over million just for the material for a lane. That 2 – 6 sounds more like the repair costs.
Lets not mix arguments Light Rail costs will always be much higher because it is being retro fitted into a dense environment. But the a new road traveling the equivalent environment would also run into those same costs and inflate the price. That is the reason the interchange cost so much. But because light rail has a much smaller foot print on a per person per mile basis it costs out cheaper. Even more so when you extend the repair and maintenance costs over a reasonable budgetary period.
That you actually believe that the VAST majority of road costs are covered means that transit advocates have a long road of education to embark on.
What you over here on this side of the political spectrum have to start thinking about is the long term costs of transportation. We are having a huge budget problem because of rising health care costs. Those costs underlie the problems with both business and government health care services. What you don’t want to happen is the same thing to happen in transportation. We have neglected the infrastructure to an appalling extent and as sure as a tournament snowstorm we will end up paying later.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:40 PM
“The 35w 62 interchange cost $250m for 3 miles.”
Are you stupid enough to think that represents road construction costs “on average”?
Piss off.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:43 PM
Jude, you really have your head shoved far up your ass. That you can put two sentences together is truly a marvel of modern mental therapy.
February 24th, 2011 at 5:00 PM
“the concrete for a mile of road alone would come in at over million just for the material for a lane.”
According to the American Transporation Builders Association,it costs$2-$3 million to construct a new 2-lane undivided road about per mile in rural areas, about $4-5 million in urban areas.
“That is the reason the interchange cost so much.”
The interchange is mostly comprised of overhead bridges, dumbass. The engineering and construction of those, not “retrofitting” is why it cost so much.
“But because light rail has a much smaller foot print on a per person per mile basis it costs out cheaper.”
No, it costs about $25 million MORE per mile than new roads, and provides less utility to the public. Its “footprint” regardless of how you divide it, is entirely irrelevant to a discussion of “cost per mile”… which you initiated.
Let us know if you want to change the terms of the conversation again. Until then, non sequitur is no way to engage in debate.
“Even more so when you extend the repair and maintenance costs over a reasonable budgetary period.”
Because you’ve been either lying or changing the subject on every point until now, I’ll assume you’re talking out of your ass for that point too.
February 24th, 2011 at 5:03 PM
“We are having a huge budget problem because of rising health care costs.”
Sure, and just like public transporation, it’s time for those who consume those services to pay for them — or be denied.
February 24th, 2011 at 5:04 PM
I think Democrats have a hard on for public transporation for two reasons: 1) they like to dictate the time, route and direction people take in every facet of their lives; and 2) like Al Queda, they like to have a lot of people cornered in small spaces.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Sotaman: Democrats or in more particular Liberals like public transportation because they tend to think ahead. The major difference is that liberals actually are not caught in the pennywise and pound foolish trap that the current crop of conservatives in America is.
February 25th, 2011 at 1:45 AM
Right, democrats believe spending 6 times more than necessary on a system that costs twice as much to run than people are willing to pay, and which never runs at capacity…. thus requiring permanent subsidies that bankrupt the government is “thinking ahead.”
Democrats, like you Jude true have Shit for brains.
February 25th, 2011 at 6:14 PM
All train projects in Minnesota (and USA) should be suspended, period. We do not need to spend billions of dollars on a 18th/19th century transportation mode.
February 26th, 2011 at 7:53 AM
1.) Jude Says: Actually if you extend the maintenance time frame past 10 years rail starts to be cheaper.
I about hacked up my morning bagel when I read this fantasy line… Jude, there is not one example of any passenger trains in the US (including Subways) that is in the black. Every program needs huge subsidies to maintain operations or else tickets would exceed $100/ride. It is cheaper to give the public taxi vouchers. Due to wear the whole train line needs to be replaced about 20 years… whether it is used or not, which is about 70% of the cost of the initial construction… even more with Union and construction cost inflation.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:41 AM
Like I said: Liberals have a hard-on for public transit, because like Al Queda, they like to have a lot of people cornered in a small space.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:34 AM
37)… it is like they want us to be Europe.
Broke and overtaxed taxed with a very small ruling class…. and they decide your activities.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:23 PM
Jude: It’s very simple why I don’t like rail and it’s not the cost. Here it is: You must go WHERE the rails go. You must go WHEN the train goes.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:46 PM
$60 million per mile was the cost of the Hiawatha Line. $76 million per mile is the anticipated cost of the Central Corridor Line. The North Star Line was built on existing track and still cost $8 million per mile.
Speaking of the Northstar Line: A one way trip costs $47, but riders pay just $7.
I guess that $40 one way subsidy is what Jude is talking about when he says Democrats are “thinking ahead.”
February 27th, 2011 at 4:17 PM
Off Topic, but I stuck this under the Discussion tab on the MDE face-book page.
Which National Leader is going to start the investigation regarding exactly how much of the stimulus dollars went to State Employees and how much of that $$ went to the unions which funneled that $ directly to the Democrat party? Democrats campaigns scammed millions over million of taxpayer dollars through the stimulus. The money didn’t go to roads, bridges for any private jobs… it went to State Union employees! Unions are nothing more than a money laundering scheme and the private taxpaying employees are realizing this is nothing more than a Democrat $$ scam. Is Wilson supporting a Union killing bill in WI?… I certainly hope so
February 27th, 2011 at 4:31 PM
Regarding #41: No fucking shit.
February 27th, 2011 at 4:53 PM
Figure this:
- The “stimulus bill” cost $814 Billion
- It was sold to Americans as for “shovel ready,” “infrastructure” spending
- “Roads and bridges” were held out as a prime example of “shovel ready infrastructure spending”
Just $27 Billion — 3.3 percent — was used for roads and bridges.
Conversely, $100 Billion — 12.2 percent — was dedicated to “education”… 90 percent of which went to back filling budget shortfalls in to pay salary and benefits for K-12 employees.
In fact, the vast majority of a bill sold to the American public as an investment in private sector growth, went to shoring up the largess of the public sector. Very little of what was sold as a bill for “infrastructure” went to infrastructure…
It seems the words coming out of Barack Obama’s mouth are all that is “shovel ready.”
February 27th, 2011 at 6:23 PM
Regarding this rail project… I’m sure the fine deadbeats of north Minneapolis will appreciate a convenient mode of transit to canal park.
February 28th, 2011 at 1:46 PM
Ignorant local Media were wondering when the counter protesters were going to show up. Private citizens and Tea Party members spoke out loud already… in the last election. That is main reason there are little counter protesters in Madison today. (And they have jobs that they cannot just walk from.)… oh to have a public sector job that has little to no responsibility.
Elections have consequences… So elected Democrats, please show up and do your jobs and debate and vote.
If this is such a winning issue, then run on it in 2012.
February 28th, 2011 at 1:48 PM
42) You’ll like Sota, he doesn’t have an issue bottling up his feelins either. LOL
March 1st, 2011 at 11:13 AM
Sotaman says:
“I’d support building public transit if users paid the entire cost of operation… ”
The cost of a light rail or bus ticket pays for a much larger percentage of operating costs than gas taxes do for highways. Roads and highways are far more subsidized than transit is.
March 1st, 2011 at 12:22 PM
“The cost of a light rail or bus ticket pays for a much larger percentage of operating costs than gas taxes do for highways.”
That is false. It may be close, if considering “gas taxes” alone, but not when you also add in vehicle fees. Sure, they don’t pay 100 percent, but public transit riders don’t even pay 25 percent of their cost… and worse, roads and highways have utility beyond personal transportation…
Now, go hover around some horse shit, Alex… that’s what flies like you do.