T&Support
~ v e n t ~ q Calendar Pm 4
-.
Access Press July 1990
sit Here by William A. Smith, Jr.
. It may Public Transportation in the have something for all of us. It cartainly is samething for all of to think about. Decisions are still beingIPaQe,dwm6mery aspect of the transit system in our arq, a d pubk reaction may still influence tlie ultimate plans. RTB, MTC, MMAC,LRT & TAAC are just so many let. ters for most of us. But these letters represent ideas and people in powerful positions who are deciding whether our community will have a ride to work, or a ride to mother's or out to the lake when house, or perhaps a ride downwe feel 1% it. The e n t public meetings sponsored by the Regional Transit Board (RTB) helped to enlighten those attending but
P
1510J
(Ynis now for some
rldes as word of RTB's accessi-
rn
-----
CESSPRESS is devbting a good part of &s issucto explain-
in the hope that next time we are to this planning process, we71 aIl ftem, the "public" is asked to rear by consulting firms after apresentation by a p r o p o ~ G ~ n t ~ .-b* ed. Very seldom are the alternatives or negative -a part of the though the committee or caninformation in their deliberasdtant has
&.mq@w
lar, IS apt to use language which sagg
n elsewhere illustrates recognize the players in this game. before the checks are written? Ans in the state legislature, of course. Without their OK, nothing goes forward. They can decide how much State money will be allocated and over how long a period to any agency or any new project. Public transportation is expensive to operate and requires large capital expenditures as wall. Cities and counties bear some costs, but can't handle metrowide projects. The Weral government is a dominant player, funding certain types of expenditures in a manner which sets patterns for the strrte and local p h s
such meeting. conversation but it is still long. We have also s I m r h d the responses by panel members to eliminate r e d u n h i e s but we have made every effort to preserve the ideas as presented. We think it is worthwhile reading, however, and the RTB staff is to be commended for providing this background for the expected citizen input. PROPOSALS VS. FUNDED SYSTEMS It should be noed that there are some discrepancies In the
to be an attempt to mislead, but put it down to his own enthusiastic support of various pognms, Two examples are the "No-denial" plan for Metro Mobility riders, and the Light Rail Transit system which has yet to be totally defined, and is a long way from being funded. We don't fault his support for these projects, but readers should be aware that they still may make their own opinions known to legislators or thesp &sea-Lit Rail, in particular, has many solid opponents, who@& the capital required far exceeds its potential value and that this money could be spent much more wisely $-+< on improvements in maddine buses and door-to-door service. The editor of ACCESS PLkESS has an explanatory note next to the text of the public meeting on the subject of "No ~ Trip Denial" and I hope you will take time to read it. (Edited Forum Transcript - p. 6)
a
Law in the Trenches
other persons unan legal representsn MMLA are r corporations ociety ofMinM), St. C l o d ices Associ-
sources. Each, however, transfers all funds received to the MMLA, which also is f o r d employer of all staff members within the three corporations. Funding is from a variety AID continued on D. 5