Editorial counterpoint: We can't afford a light-rail boondoggle that's already obsolete

Amid the incredible muck of this year's presidential campaign, a prim and proper editorial raised its timid voice Oct. 13, earnestly bewailing alleged "metro-bashing campaigns" in Greater Minnesota. The editorial, "Transit support isn't absent outstate," claimed that a "survey" conducted by the U.S. Highway 14 Partnership — an advocacy group — shows "nearly two out of three" respondents supported a gas-tax increase, and 76 percent supported allowing metro area-only funding for light rail.

The editorial's gentle spin didn't sink to presidential depths — but a quick fact-check is needed.

The editorial admits the U.S. Highway 14 Partnership's "survey call" is "not as reliable" as a "scientific poll." Quite an understatement. The partnership's "survey" was sent to its followers via e-mail, Facebook and Twitter. That's fine for a petition — not so much for a "survey."

The editorial reports that "nearly two out of three" supported a gas-tax increase — but ignored the partnership's question: "How much would you pay?" Only 18 percent would accept a 12-cent increase — Gov. Mark Dayton originally wanted an even higher 16-cent hike. The Star Tribune's own March 2015 scientific poll on Dayton's gas-tax plan reported (emphasis added): "opposition is fiercest … in outstate Minnesota, where about three out of five residents are against the plan."

The editorial crowns this sturdy sandcastle with a "suspicion" that "resistance to light-rail expansion" comes from — my goodness — a "faulty assumption," i.e., fear of "depriving Greater Minnesota of needed resources."

Okay. Trigger warning! Time for some blunt, straight talk.

Here's what I call the Light Rail Steamroller Coalition's argument to rural Minnesota: "Look, a transit sales tax would be metro-only, so butt out."

• The motor vehicle sales tax (2006 referendum-approved) sends 40 percent of its statewide revenue to transit, but 90 percent of that is metro. Greater Minnesota pays 48 percent of the tax, but gets only a fraction of the 60 percent that's available for all roads and bridges projects statewide.

• The Metropolitan Council receives $52 million of state general funds for handicapped dial-a-ride services; that's the fastest growing budget item, and it's required by federal law.

Granted, Dayton's 10-year plan would provide $2.9 billion of new money for "transit" — mostly giant light-rail boondoggles. But while that $2.9 billion is 25 percent of the total for all new roads and bridges spending statewide, today only about 3 percent of metro trips are by transit. That's projected to increase by about 1 percent of total trips by 2040. The "progress" is barely measurable — Dayton's plan is a dud even if it works!

Both rural legislators and voters understand: Minnesota can't afford to waste billions to build an already-obsolete 19th-century rail system — not when we're suddenly but obviously at the beginning of a 21st-century transportation revolution. That involves automated, on-demand vehicles.

This revolution isn't "coming" — it's here now.

This is our transportation and transit future. We need to launch a legislative commission to study what we can accomplish by spending the proposed metro transit sales tax on 21st century bus-based and automated-driving alternatives to rail transit.

When we do that, here's the biggest payoff of all for rural Minnesota: When automated driving transforms transit, it won't be something just for big metros. Instead of a 90/10 percent metro/outstate split of transit spending, we can and should be providing revolutionary new transit systems for small cities and towns statewide. That's a "one Minnesota" vision.

The first state to figure out how to do this will be positioned as a leader in an emerging global industrial sector.

Let's make Minnesota that state.