FIrst, if the state of MN was truly interested in transit, rather than just pet status projects, the entire orientation of these “light rail lines” would go in different directions. The existing “Hiwatha” line and the proposed “Central Corridor” do not extend out to the suburbs with the highest congestion, and in fact (especially for the Central Corridor being discussed in the MPR story) these areas are already well served by bus lines. If they really wanted a transit line that would be effiecient in moving commuters they would have run the line WEST of Minneapolis to these western bedroom communities.

Second, if the Democrats were really serious about “public infrastructure” projects they would see to it that Bacon-Davis rules were at a minimum suspended. Otherwise, the costs of such projects are incredibly inflated and the benefits simply go to existing union shops. I know that visions of “WPA Projects” float in the modern Democrats head, but the WPA did not comply with such inefficient labor practices.

Third, if the liberals were really interested in transit, they would also eliminate ridiculous rules that make it impossible to tie in different transit projects that utilize local and federal money. In Minnesota they are opening a commuter rail line from the Northwest suburbs into the city. Because of the ridiculous and complicated rules, this line cannot share facility or even connect into the existing transit lines. I understand that there could be “comingling” of funding, but the “COST” of not linking the systems simply outweighs such financial concerns.

Plus, metropolitan liberals from non-action cities like Minneapolis (my home town) believe that if they get a subway system they will become “cool” just like Boston or New York. They see these things as a status symbol so the actual measures of efficient movement of people are not important to them.

Lastly, what this “train envy” ignores is that the functional subway systems in this country were built long ago, with the older systems even using very cheap Irish labor. Modern economics and labor laws make it simply impossible to build equivalent systems. That is why they substitute “light rail” for true transit systems. Light rail means that the little trains cause more congestion than they relieve because they tie up intersections and traffic.

Scientists already agree that large eruptions have lowered temperatures at higher latitudes in recent centuries, because volcanic particles reflect sunlight back into space. For instance, 1816, the year following the massive Tambora eruption in Indonesia, became known as “The Year Without a Summer,” after low temperatures caused crop failures in northern Europe and eastern North America. More extensive evidence comes in part from tree rings, which tend to grow thinner in years when temperatures go down.

This is one of the first such studies to show how the tropics have responded, said lead author Rosanne D’Arrigo, a scientist at the Tree Ring Lab at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “This is significant because it gives us more information about how tropical climate responds to forces that alter the effects solar radiation,” said D’Arrigo. The other authors were Rob Wilson of Lamont and the University of St. Andrews, Scotland; and Alexander Tudhope of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

Along with tree rings, the researchers analyzed ice cores from alpine glaciers, and corals, taken from a wide area of the tropics. When things cool, not only do trees tend to grow less, but isotopes of oxygen in corals and glacial ice may shift. All showed that low-latitude temperatures declined for several years after major tropical eruptions. The samples, spanning 1546 to 1998, were taken from Nepal down through Indonesia and across the Indian and Pacific oceans; the ice cores came from the Peruvian Andes. The researchers used materials they collected themselves, as well as samples from the archives of other scientists.

The data show that the most sustained cooling followed two events: an 1809 eruption that probably took place in the tropics, but whose exact location remains unknown; and the 1815 Tambora eruption, one of the most powerful recorded in human history. Following Tambora, between 1815 and 1818, tropical temperatures dropped as much as 0.84 degrees C (1.5 degrees F) below the mean. A slightly bigger one-year drop came in 1731–0.90 degrees C (1.6 degrees F). The researchers say this may be connected to eruptions at the Canary Islands’ Lanzarote volcano, and Ecuador’s Sangay around this time.

D’Arrigo says that the study shows also that higher latitudes may generally be even more sensitive than the tropics. Some corresponding drops in northern regions following volcanism were up to three times greater. D’Arrigo said higher latitudes’ greater sensitivity appears to come from complex feedback mechanisms that make them vulnerable to temperature shifts. This goes along with growing evidence from other researchers that, as the globe warms, the most dramatic effects are being seen with rapid melting of glaciers, sea ice and tundra at high latitudes. The authors say that, overall, eruptions in the 20th century have exerted fewer obvious effects in the tropics. They said this could be because there were fewer major events in that century–but they noted it could also be “because of the damping effect of large-scale 20th-century warming.”

“Particularly warm decades may have partially overridden the cooling effect of some volcanic events,” said D’Arrigo. Noting that few reliable instrumental records exist from before this time, she said, “This study provides some of the first comprehensive information about how the tropical climate system responded to volcanism prior to the instrumental period.”

http://hernadi-key.blogspot.com

I can see the UofM’s issues when it comes to research facilities. That equipment can be very sensitive and it’s not their fault that they’ve changed up the routing to save money (not surprising).

But really, this problem could’ve been avoided if they had elected to go with BRT on the Central Corridor. Years ago they estimated that LRT with a tunnel at the UofM would cost $820 million on the route. Bus Rapid Transit with proper stations and a tunnel at the UofM was estimated to cost $240 million. LRT was estimated to carry @27% more passengers but at over 3 times the upfront cost! Too bad too many people have decided to pervert the meaning of “transit” to mean “trains” in their minds.

Also, there have been heavy protests against the building of a transmission line to carry solar/wind power to San Diego.

Seems like we are not allowed to build any major, tangible projects anymore…one exception, though: useless and unprofitable stadium and “conference center” projects do seem to get done somehow.

The bottom line is that MPR knew about the Central Corridor LRT route BEFORE building their plush studios. To cry “Foul!” at this point is simply disingenuous and manipulative but, nevertheless, it’s a strategy that MPR apparently embraces now, as it has in other cases.

I wonder if the churches are complaining because a behemoth of a neighbor has been encouraging them, thinking that “church” complaints will somehow help to legitimize the “concerns” about the route. Since we don’t seem to be hearing those types of complaints from other venues along the route, it sorta makes you wonder.

There are radio stations and churches all over the world that are on public transit routes and they somehow manage to accomplish their missions and serve their communities well. It’s part of the aural and visual texture of vibrant city life.

MPR certainly has the money to take care of the problem themselves. They might have to raid their endowment or get Saint Paul to issue them more low interest bonds to prevent the “urban blight” of the resulting LRT noise and vibrations on their precious broadcasts.

Threatening to leave Saint Paul if Kling doesn’t get what he wants – after all this city has done for them – seems more like blackmail than legitimate “concerns”.

Get over it, MPR. Suck it up and deal with it. But don’t make it “our” problem. It’s not. It’s yours.

I’ve recorded classical music in historic buildings with fantastic acoustics that were near light rail. When the train comes by you stop the recording and pause, and then you have to restart and make an edit. That’s not too easy on live radio, or even on recorded stuff when you are working with a public-radio budget.

“Soundproofing” is expensive. Choosing to locate next to light rail is one of many trade-offs made in siting a facility of this type. The above commenters are right, that access and community are important as well. If you locate your studio in the middle of nowhere it might be quiet but it will be hard to get people to travel to work in it.

When the noise chooses to locate next to you after you have built, it can really mess you up. I loved working in CTS Wembley studio in London, where a vast proportion of the world’s film scores used to be recorded. When it was obvious that the nearby Wembley stadium would be completely torn down and rebuilt in a multi-year construction project, this purpose-built facility was shut down and operations were moved to a new control-rooms attached to an existing historic hall in Watford. Big noise = end of show.

So yeah, they are saying NIMBY, but don’t underestimate how ****** they will be once construction starts — and even after its done. MPR is not on a high budget — the first time I saw them come through on a live shed tour with Prairie-Home-Companion they appeared to be using surplus 25-pair Telco trunk cable as their audio snake from the stage to the mixer.