The following essay by Lucy Buttram won third place in our Summer 2023 Essay Writing Contest for high school and college students.
Image: Creative Commons under Unsplash
Does our city council see us? For eight years, my neighbors and I have asked this question—and worried. We watch helplessly as our bike paths are replaced by concrete and electric poles. We see the mess of construction as rails are built through our parks and into our neighborhoods. We dread the rumble of the light rail that will one day fill our ears. We see so much—and yet we wonder, are the eyes of the council focused on our needs? For the residents of suburban Minneapolis, the answer appears to be no. The negative consequences of the Minneapolis light rail legislation suggest an underlying worldview that overlooks the local needs of the economy, creation, and the residents.
Over the past eight years, Minneapolis residents have discussed a major legislative act. On September 25, 2015, the Minneapolis Metropolitan Council published the following legislative resolution: “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved…That the City of Minneapolis approves…the physical design plans for the Southwest Corridor Light Rail Transit Project” (Resolution). The law gave them permission to extend an existing electric light rail line to the suburbs and promised funding for construction. One primary purpose of this massive infrastructure project is to reduce carbon emissions caused by fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. The publishing of the resolution marks a critical moment in the beginning of a project that is not complete to this day—and one whose consequences can already be felt.
The consequences of the legislation extend to the economy, creation, and the local people. Economically, construction jobs are created in the short term; however, the construction costs vastly exceed the proposed budget. A 2022 Office of Legislative Auditor special review states that “since 2011, the cost of the Southwest LRT [Light Rail Transit] project has more than doubled” (Southwest Light Rail Transit ii). The environmental consequences are different than advertised. While perhaps the air will be protected to an extent in the future, the land and watershed will be negatively impacted in the construction process. According to the Central Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), effects of the construction process include “soil disturbance, dewatering, [and] potential groundwater contamination because of accidental spills” (4.1-2). The FEIS also classifies the groundwater in most of the building sites as having “very high sensitivity to pollution” (Table 4.1-1). The residents are impacted by a light rail route cutting through their neighborhoods and replacing their bike paths. Star Tribune writer Janet Moore claims that “routing [the light rail] near one of the city’s most affluent neighborhoods and along a popular recreation area has long proved controversial.”
The Metropolitan Council’s decision to approve the project despite these concerns suggests that the council’s proposed solutions are driven by assumptions. One key assumption is that avoiding carbon emissions is worth any financial cost. Therefore, the council’s solution is to continually raise the budget. The proponents also assume that cleaner air is more important than protected watersheds. So, digging near sensitive groundwater reservoirs is not a problem. A third assumption is that building a light rail to take suburban residents downtown is better than letting them drive fossil-fuel-powered cars. Thus, the solution is to build an electric-powered public transit system extending to all the suburbs of Minneapolis. Does wisdom question these assumptions?
The assumptions and proposed solutions of the bill’s sponsors reveal their underlying worldview: climate change is the primary existential threat to humanity. As such, all other concerns must be subordinate. The Metropolitan Council itself claims to be “committed to providing transportation options that reduce…harmful emissions into the environment” (Go Greener). This summarizes the heart of the proponents’ worldview, implying that if the light rail extension curbs global warming emissions, it is worth any cost to the economy, creation, and residents. The council’s belief that issues unrelated to climate change are less important is illustrated by their disregard for concerns raised by opponents of the project. Economically, numerous auditor reports warn against the project. They show both the rapid increase in the cost of the light rail extension and the troubling fact that “more than $500 million of the project’s estimated $2.74 billion budget is currently unfunded” (Southwest Light Rail Transit ii). Environmental stewardship concerns abound. A residential, non-profit organization filed suit against the council in 2018 for deciding on the light rail route “well before an environmental study was completed” (Moore). However, driven by the worldview that global warming is the primary issue, the council disregards these concerns. But is their worldview necessarily accurate?
Errors in the worldview affect the legislation. I would argue that perhaps focusing so exclusively on global warming prevention has caused the Metropolitan Council to overlook the unintended consequences of the legislation. The council may be in error to assume that the long-term environmental benefits of the light rail extension outweigh its drawbacks. Is potentially cleaner air worth the vast economic impact on taxpayers? Is groundwater pollution necessarily better than carbon emissions from cars and buses? And is taking away quiet neighborhoods and community recreational land the best way to care for the local people?
As shown in this paper, the underlying worldview of the Minneapolis Metropolitan Council overlooks the needs of the economy, creation, and the residents. The approval of the light rail construction was a major legislative act and one with far-reaching consequences. The assumptions and proposed solutions of the bill’s sponsors reveal the erroneous worldview that climate change is the primary existential threat to humanity, implying that all other concerns must be subordinate. As I conclude my essay, it is important to note that this is a very complex matter. It is often so easy to come to conclusions without thinking deeply—whether arguing for or against a particular legislation. But it is my hope and prayer that Christians will take the time to look carefully, see the benefits and drawbacks, and come to balanced conclusions about the decisions of our local leaders.
Works Cited
Metro Transit. Metropolitan Council. Go Greener with Metropolitan Council. https://www.metrotransit.org/go-greener. Accessed 29 July 2023.
Metropolitan Council. “Groundwater Resource Sensitivity to Construction Activities.” Final Environmental Impact Statement: Central Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project. June 2009, https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Projects/Light-Rail-Projects/Central-Corridor/Publications-And-Resources/Environmental/CC-FEIS/Published-FEIS/CC-FEIS-Ch4-pdf.aspx.
—. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Central Corridor Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project. June 2009, https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Projects/Light-Rail-Projects/Central-Corridor/Publications-And-Resources/Environmental/CC-FEIS/Published-FEIS/CC-FEIS-Ch4-pdf.aspx.
Moore, Janet. “Judge Rules in Favor of Met Council, Southwest LRT.” The Star Tribune, 28 Feb 2018, https://www.startribune.com/judge-rules-in-favor-of-met-council-southwest-lrt/475302693/.
Reich, Kevin. Resolution of the City of Minneapolis. Public Works Department, 23 July 2015, https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/PriorFileDocument/-52281/WCMS1P-148737.PDF.
State of Minnesota. Office of the Legislative Auditor. Southwest Light Rail Transit: Project Budget and Timeline. Sept. 2022, https://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/sreview/SWLRTbudgettimeline.pdf.
Philip Hayward says
Why does Light Rail result in cleaner air anyway? They require energy, and if the number of riders per trip is below a certain level, the energy efficiency is worse than a small efficient automobile even with only the driver on board.
There is not enough scrutiny to these quasi-religious conceit projects; including on whether they even deliver the “benefits” that allegedly trump all the other factors you mention. It doesn’t need a lot of depth of analysis to show that in the case of most new Light Rail routes most of the time, the energy efficiency is poorer than even the average for automobiles in real life, let alone hypothetical “best case” automobility with more efficient automobiles and more people on board each automobile.
If the kind of subsidies required for Light Rail were instead offered as an incentive to automobile drivers, to take a rider along with them, the scheme would be over-subscribed!
Hayek was correct that the kind of minds attracted to “planning” the lives of ones fellow citizens, were also so incompetent at real-world analysis, that it was inevitable that a “class” of “planners” granted the powers they wish, would create consequences worse than, not better than, the status quo they claimed to desire to improve.
Anthony Downs, in “Still Stuck in Traffic”, likened the “planners” wishes to address alleged problems of resource inefficiency and negative externalities, with one-size-fits all changes to the entire system of mobility and living, to changing the position of a picture on a living-room wall by jacking the entire house up and maneuvering it around until the picture was in the “right place”. On the other hand, simply applying fees and taxes directly to the factors desired to be changed, would be like just moving the picture. Myriads of adaptations would occur instead of the planners desired “one” adaption; people would use more efficient automobiles, would ride-share, would chain trips more, and would co-locate more efficiently. Ironically planners anti-sprawl central planning distorts economic rent in sites in such a way that co-location efficiencies are lost, not gained. People are forced into monster commutes more often than if there was a low and flat urban land price curve and good mixture of land use, with spare sites constantly available at low price for co-location efficiencies to evolve.
Of course if fees and taxes were applied to resource use and to negative externalities, they should also be reduced on incomes etc to compensate.