Shallow tunnel plan is best for Southwest LRT

  • Article by: Editorial Board , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 12, 2013 - 2:00 PM

Met Council plan is the most practical approach for the region.

  • 18
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
DLBabatzOct. 12, 13 5:21 PM

Once municipal consent is obtained! I hope that the planners cut the plans for the tunnel north of the channel. That would save another $60 million, and there is more than enough room in that part of the Kennilworth Rail corridor to accommodate freight, LRT, a bike trail, and "nature" with minimal negative impact to those handful of homes directly adjacent to this Rail corridor.

13
4
bleavitOct. 12, 13 6:08 PM

DLB, hopefully the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) will realize the folly of the north tunnel and insist on the change.

7
4
redeye12Oct. 12, 13 7:53 PM

No, the best option is to not build it.

14
10
jonnoOct. 12, 13 9:32 PM

This is going to be the most expensive bike trail in history! About $88 million per mile if my math is right!

9
8
aarghmebuckoOct. 12, 1310:47 PM

Jonno - this has never been about the bike trail so don't put the blame on it. This is about realizing the real goal of burying the noxious facility (LRT) so that the locals don't have to suffer through 200+ trains a day. Moving the freight would have made two communities mad instead of one. This is as close to removing the noxious facility as Mpls could get. Well played on their part, though I still believe the Feds won't be willing to pay for such an obvious betterment.

10
3
jstwondrngOct. 13, 13 5:25 AM

Gubornatorial candidate RT Rybak and perpetual candidate Peter Wagenius need to get their stories straight. For months Rybak aid and former candidate for everything Wagenius stated that the tunnel option was a no starter because it would impact the bike paths and put riders in harms way. His boss the Mayor said nothing until casting the only no vote citing the "impact" on the chain of lakes. The truth of the matter is both Rybak and Wagenius are worried more about alienating their big buck donors in Kenwood than providing transit options for those of us who rely on transit in our everyday jobs.

6
3
ctifferOct. 13, 13 7:22 AM

All this is necessary to increase the number of public transit commutes from 2% per day to 2% per day. According to the Met Council, this LRT line will decrease car traffic by 8000 one-way trips per day. The Met Council also acknowledges this LRT line will cause horrific traffic delays all along the route.

9
4
johnjohn77Oct. 13, 13 7:42 AM

How come nobody talks about the cost overruns and the increased tax grab to build this folly? If we cannot stay on budget - we must cancel the project.

10
3
cranelakemanOct. 13, 13 8:27 AM

My opinion - as I posted on the other article today on LRT "I still believe that running it down lake to Hennepin, Lyndale or Nicollet and then into downtown is FAR AND AWAY the best option. So what if the Eden Prairie riders have to wait ten minutes longer - this route is where the people and businesses are. They and the whole Uptown area get what need and deserve. The proposed northern route skips Broadway - a whole area that needs to be revitalized and again, that's where the people are and businesses are! TRaffic goes down, people get to where they want to go - how many people in Eden Prairie will get off in Kenilworth? A bunch more might get off in Uptown for dinner, shopping or a movie. I'm betting it would also cut down on DUI's in that region." My thoughts are that rerouting through the populated and more commercial areas will promote businesses, revitalization and certainly opportunity and hope on the northern route. Why are we cutting out areas that need this just to satisfy Eden Prairie, Osseo and Maple Grove? 10 miutes longer for them but North and South Minneapolis flurish. Let's quit complaining about areas and demographics and start rebuilding and helping.

11
2
cav1234Oct. 13, 13 8:43 AM

Impact on Lakes uncertain, construction a massive years-long disruption (much more than a "hassle"), miles and miles of traffic pattern headaches once it is built, many in the community who will actually suffer the negative externalities against it, SW Metro transit already a nationally recognized commuter option - what drives this editorial and this line is that the feds are going to give us money if we do it and the Strib says we risk losing ithat money if we don't ram this through, so vote yes even though we don't know impact on Lakes, etc. I like public transit and federal money, but this is a devil's bargain fueled by chasing federal dollars.

7
3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT