​In the last two weeks our ever-expanding Metropolitan Council announced that it intends to become the owner of a rail corridor in order to facilitate the construction and operation of the proposed Southwest Light Rail line (SWLRT), which would be an extension of the current Green Line. Specifically, for the new line the Council would own the rail corridor and operate light rail trains adjacent to freight trains.
 
It seems no task is too big for our uniquely unelected regional authority, which already has by far the largest scope and budget of any such organization in the country. So where would that leave us?
 
Is the proposed SWLRT a good use of taxpayer funds? No.
 
Is the proposed route one that serves a densely populated area, with many potential riders? No, not even the Met Council pretends that is true. 
 
In light of the most recent developments, legislators and others are asking, is the Met Council even qualified to safely operate both freight and passenger light rail trains adjacent to each other? The data suggest the answer is no. 

Great news from citizens in Phoenix, who have forced the FAA to settle their complaints against the runaway agency, and its arbitrary implementation of new NextGen flight departures out of Sky Harbor airport. 

I had the opportunity to work with the citizen activists in Phoenix as they were just getting started in their quest against the FAA, and I am delighted the rogue agency is being forced to heel to local concerns. 

Again - Government Of, By, For, not TO the People. This is a great victory for citizens against an unaccountable agency, depriving citizens of property rights, and subjecting them to physical and emotional harm.

​Well done, Phoenix!

I joined Justice and Drew today to update listeners with the latest on the Met Council. We touch on Southwest Light Rail, the origins of the Met Council, and more. Takeaway: Don't build the Metrodome of Transit! 

On October 4th, 2017 the Office of the Legislative Auditor released the first in a new series of quarterly audits of our sprawling regional authority, the Met Council, with a focus on its transit financial activity. Transit financials are of particular interest right now, as the Met Council is pursuing nearly $1 billion in federal funds for its much maligned Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) line that it hopes to impose on the Twin Cities as part of expanding its Metro Transit system.

However, as that project has stumbled, an apparent disconnect has emerged: On the one hand, the Met Council appeared to be telling the federal government that Metro Transit's financials were in good enough shape to earn SWLRT the second highest rating available (Medium-High) from the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA).
 
And on the other hand, the Met Council was telling the Minnesota Legislature (and anyone else who would listen) that its Metro Transit division is facing a structural deficit that must be addressed with additional taxpayer funding.

And the OLA's verdict is...

I joined Justice and Drew on KTLK on Wednesday to discuss the just released audit from the Office of the Legislative Auditor on the Met Council's finances. Rep. Nash joins us in Part 2 of the discussion. I'll have more details on this later in the week.

Listen to the podcast here.

The long and crazy story of the the Twin Cities' proposed Southwest Light Rail Transit line took another twist today as the project sponsor, the Great and Wonderful Metropolitan Council, rejected all four construction bids they have received for the $1.9B boondoggle.

The source of the problem may well be that bids are 30% more expensive as a percentage of overall project cost as was the construction phase of the original leg of the Green Line (SWLRT is an extension of that line, which runs from St Paul to Minneapolis).

Of course, there is much more going here, with a new $20M "Crash Wall" proposed for the line, a lack of environmental analysis, and even a host of left wing critics who are astonished at the brazen way in which the Met Council has tried to ram through recent "tweaks" to the project. 

As Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin recently noted, they "haven't won the argument" on putting through this overpriced Met Council toy.

Stay tuned - much more to come!

Janet Moore of the Star Tribune does a nice job today of updating local residents on our efforts at MSP FairSkies Coalition to improve transparency and accountability on the issue of aircraft  noise.

Next steps in our efforts include speaking directly to the MSP airport's Noise Oversight Committee about our specific goals for measuring, communicating and ultimately reducing aircraft noise in the Twin Cities.  Some of that is mentioned in the article, and of course various posts on this blog.

Interestingly this article appears just days after citizens and the city of Phoenix won a great  victory in their court case against Federal Aviation Administration. The central concern in that case  was the imposition of new flight tracks and noise on Phoenix, the lack of transparency in the process, and ultimately the lack of common sense in how the FAA deals with aircraft noise. 

Picture is by Mark VacCleave of the Star Tribune

​On August 29th, 2017 the DC Court of Appeals delivered an eagerly awaited blow against the Federal Aviation Administration when the Court vacated the FAA’s order implementing new flight tracks from Phoenix Sky Harbor airport, and remanded the matter to the FAA for further proceedings. The case came about when the FAA implemented new flight tracks as part of its NextGen technology package in Phoenix.
 
Having now read the full ruling, I want to call attention to aspects of it I think have implications far beyond how the FAA implements NextGen. Specifically, the Court recognized a few simple facts that seem obvious to citizens, but have thus far eluded the Courts and the FAA. Those are:

1. A 300% increase in the number of flights over a neighborhood is a lot, regardless of how the FAA measures noise (i.e. the logarithmic measurement known as DNL).
2. Thinking otherwise defies “common sense”, and “could not reflect reasoned decisionmaking (sic).”
3. History, and longstanding flight tracks matter, because they help create “quiet oases” that people value, even in urban areas. Destroying those when the FAA has options is problematic and illegal.

 
A few details from the ruling: