Why Kenilworth freight rail can't be rerouted to St. Louis Park

  • Article by: Steve Elkins
  • Updated: October 16, 2013 - 7:04 PM

Yes, there was an earlier commitment. That was before people realized what it would entail.

  • 39
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
aarghmebuckoOct. 16, 13 7:33 PM

Anyone who quotes Star Trek is ok in my book.

37
3
cav123Oct. 16, 13 7:54 PM

The focus on burnishing the reputations of the railroads and the politicians who made the commitment is misplaced, whether circumstances have changed or not. Perhaps they would be more worthy of empathy if any of them had acknowledged the commitment or made this argument for its breach during the pitched debate that has erupted over the past months. What is refreshing about this article is its acknowledgement that Minneapolis residents were assured that the freight trains would be moved, and that St. Louis Park committed to taking them. Much ink has been spilled in articles and comments attacking Minneapolis for citing this commitment, and much convenient "it's not legally binding" obfuscation has accompanied St. Louis Park's efforts to pretend the commitment was never made.

23
19
kitkat2Oct. 16, 13 8:28 PM

So you promise something before checking if the engineering part is possible??? I'm having trouble being ok with this...

24
11
twincitizen1Oct. 16, 13 8:57 PM

Here's an idea: how about instead of wasting more time and money trying to relocate a freight train, why don't we move the light rail route that doesn't even exist yet. Routing LRT down the Midtown Greenway through Uptown requires no modification of freight rail at all and would serve the most densely populated neighborhoods in the entire state. Kenilworth is clearly not the Panacea that Hennepin County engineers, consultants, and elected officials thought it was in 2009. It is time to re-evaluate other LRT options instead of continuing down this dead end back & forth between St. Louis Park and Minneapolis.

66
8
supervon2Oct. 16, 13 9:20 PM

It's amazing what you can find out with a quality investigative reporting piece. I can see the rose-colored lenses falling out the Liberal eyeglasses as I read to the conclusion.

16
35
bulldog93Oct. 16, 13 9:23 PM

NIMBY!

17
23
mnpls123Oct. 16, 13 9:31 PM

Why doesn't SLP just say we took millions in taxpayer dollars and now we are going to cry NIMBY. I didn't see a single argument in this fluff piece that can't be resolved. Plus we all know the estimates for the SLP work are inflated and the cost to build tunnels between two lakes are extremely low.

7
53
texas_technomanOct. 17, 13 5:17 AM

Move the bike trail....has anyone thought of that?

43
5
jastkeOct. 17, 13 5:28 AM

I also like twincitizen1's idea about using the Midtown Greenway corridor to get from the SW suburbs to Uptown. Two problems with that, however: 1: The bike path, which currently experiences high usage, should be preserved. 2: My guess is that it would be difficult to continue that line from Uptown to downtown. It would probably mean closing a city street, digging a deep tunnel or using the 35W corridor. Sounds very expensive and disruptive.

7
16
aarghmebuckoOct. 17, 13 6:13 AM

The problem with the Uptown route is that Metro wants the line to end at their "grand central station" for transit by the Twins stadium. Nicollet doesn't do that for them. The biggest problem is that LRT is a Metro Transit project. These are bus company planners - black and white simplistic views that don't see value in real urban and multimodal planning.

21
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