More trains in St. Louis Park? Some say no

  • Article by: KELLY SMITH , Star Tribune
  • Updated: November 3, 2012 - 6:11 PM

Opposition is to freight train influx to make room for LRT.

  • 15
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mntx325Nov. 3, 12 7:17 PM

While I understand why everyone is concerned, as a railfan and volunteer railroader, it's hard to side with the Safety in the Park folks. Have these people done their research? Railroad traffic levels on the old MN&S currently stand at 1 train (both directions, same run) daily. If traffic was moved to the old MNS, it'd be around 4-6 maybe a day. That really isn't a lot considering there are lines in Minnesota running at 50-70 trains a day at much higher speeds. My two cents.

21
3
jameswallaceNov. 3, 12 8:55 PM

"Some say . . . " is NOT journalism. WHO says and WHAT do the others say might approach journalism, if done even-handedly.

8
5
elkriverscottNov. 3, 12 9:33 PM

I believe I am the only person in the state that knows the cost of the light rail per person and what that person pays. Pity.

2
20
alanam8Nov. 4, 12 2:30 AM

The debate over this issue would be enhanced if the Safety in the Parks folks would acknowledge that the MN&S tracks carried many, many more trains only a decade ago. Some of the families who are complaining about increased load due to LRT were there when the MN&S tracks were carrying many times more than what's predicted due to the LRT re-routes. The current state of affairs - two trains per day - is a brief interruption in what has historically been a heavily trafficked corridor. Zero sympathy; built the LRT.

21
4
west336Nov. 4, 12 8:14 AM

We're talking about the increase from 2 trains per day to 6, and these trains don't roar through SLP at 60 mph, they crawl at about 20 mph. So I think it's somewhat selfish and NIMBY for the residents and benefactors of the Southwest LRT alignment to not put up with the (minor) inconvenience this may cause. Sorry, but you sort of run the risk of hearing trains when you live NEXT TO TRAIN TRACKS!

16
4
jbpaperNov. 4, 12 9:23 AM

"he said. "It's like being opposed to winter -- you can oppose it, but it's coming."" ---- What?? I sure hope that was somehow taken out of context. If he is really comparing a decision made by the met council with something that happens in nature, the people of SLP might want to think about electing a different mayor next time.

10
3
JerryElliottNov. 4, 1210:08 AM

I grew up very near those tracks in the 1950's. There were 20 or more trains a day back then and I don't recall that it was any big deal. I don't remember any of the adults complaining about the trains either. Of course back then we weren't quite such a nation of whiners.

16
1
thomjmillerNov. 4, 12 2:21 PM

If you want the facts on the re-route before commenting (of after) please lookup our presnetation on YouTube (look up the words freight rail re-route) This comment area does not let us provide a link or we would put it here for convenience. You'll see that most of the comments here that dismiss our SLP's concerns are factually incorrect.

3
11
DLBabatzNov. 4, 12 2:22 PM

From what I understand from other sources, the concern is not only the frequency of train traffic, but more the length, size and speed of the new trains that are expected if the reroute was to be approved. That spur has not historically seen trains of the anticipated size.

3
5
thisislameNov. 4, 12 4:13 PM

I don't get this issue. You moved near train tracks and now are complaining about the trains? First it was people who lived along busy streets, then people near the airport, then people who lived near undeveloped land. Who's next.....

11
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT