Contentious light-rail plans called viable in new study

  • Article by: Tom Meersman , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 30, 2014 - 11:40 PM

Report concludes freight trains could be rerouted west.

  • 40
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jmcolbyJan. 30, 14 3:50 PM

Thank you, Tom Meersman, for an article without any disparaging or negative insinuations. Strib readers appreciate your good reporting.

fleurdelis1Jan. 30, 14 4:03 PM

I just don't see the need for this. Buses accomplish the same thing and are flexible. And I feel sorry for those whose homes are in the path, they made a huge investment in the city and this will have an unknown impact. Where is the study that says this is truly necessary. The Met Council has a way of finding data that suit their agenda but what other sources say we need this? I have no skin in this game, don't even live in Hennepin County, but I just don't see the need for light rail when we have buses that can stop at all the same areas and can make changes if needed.

bbecke3Jan. 30, 14 4:04 PM

As an uptown resident, I am confused by the different opinions by rail transit proponents. On one side of my neighborhood, I am hearing that we need rail on Nicollet Ave versus busses because the permanence of rail promotes economic development. On the other side of my neighborhood the SRT proponents want to run a train through a 100% residential neighborhood with limited opportunity for economic development.

geomplsJan. 30, 14 5:08 PM

I second the thank you to Tom Meersman. His not using the term "cherished parkland," to describe the Kenilworth corridor is certainly more evenhanded than that of Patrick Doyle who often used that term. Many of us dispute that term. Cherished parkland is a characterization used by those who who don't want rail in a rail corridor.

alansonJan. 30, 14 8:32 PM

The handwriting is on the wall for St. Louis Park. Too bad folks. The people you vote for in state government are going to ram it down your throats.

cav1234Jan. 30, 14 8:33 PM

Stop this dumb project, which sends the light rail through a park corridor where it is not wanted, resorts to laughably stupid tunnels near prized lakes, and/or reroutes freight trains through a community that does not want them, all to get urban sprawl commuters to the central city at enormous cost.

genny1Jan. 30, 14 9:05 PM

It is parkland, it is cherished, there is already rail in the rail corridor, and there will be rail in the rail corridor whether this gets built or not. The decision is whether to add yet another form of rail transport in a narrow corridor(when Mpls agreed, St. Louis Park was supposed to take the current rail) and build a tunnel under/near Mpls lakes. I don't live in or near the corridor, and think it a bad idea whatever adjectives are attached to our parks.

k11m11p11Jan. 30, 14 9:05 PM

I look forward to finding out how many businesses and residences will need to be demolished for this "new" plan to reroute freight rail through St. Louis Park, versus moving a bike trail.

whsuksJan. 30, 14 9:10 PM

The proposed new route completely takes the train off the 'cherished parkland' route, so the 15 Kenilworth people can now officially shut up, and the new route eliminates all the dangerous corners and berms that SLP had their knickers in a knot about.

bsslpmnJan. 30, 14 9:38 PM

When the wealthy mobilize at the 11th hours for "new" studies, suddenly the outcomes they are seeking are viable.


Comment on this story   |  


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






question of the day

Poll: Grade the Timberwolves season

Weekly Question