New rail plan draws familiar skepticism

  • Article by: Pat Doyle , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 10, 2014 - 11:48 PM

Some critics of the Southwest Corridor route suggest planners go back to the drawing board.

  • 61
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
bredpathFeb. 10, 1410:20 PM

"Hey! This could be a great benefit for...wait, you want to put it in my backyard? Well, forget it then."

49
13
wildriverFeb. 10, 1411:17 PM

Hennepin County should listen to the people....re-route the LRT to where people need it. Uptown perhaps??

45
11
rlwr51Feb. 10, 1411:47 PM

Moving the freight line has been rejected by the railroad and the educated analysis shows it is not safe to move it.

42
8
agotooleFeb. 10, 1411:54 PM

I am an avid cyclist and a big supporter of cycling infrastructure; however, I think that this public transportation project that has been in the planning stages for years is very important. The Kenilworth recreational corridor is an wonderful asset, but it was originally a rail corridor and that may be its best purpose. Is it a possibility to co-locate heavy rail and light rail in the corridor if the bike paths and the walking path move else where? Are there other options for bikes and pedestrians in the area? I am not convinced this idea is a solution, I am just wondering if studies have been made with this as a possibility.

50
8
DLBabatzFeb. 11, 14 4:15 AM

There he goes again, calling the Kenilworth Rail corridor a recreation corridor. It was purchased decades ago by the Hennepin County Railroad Authority for the express purpose of preserving the right of way for RAIL transportation, as it has been used for a century. The bike path was a "permitted use" since there was space, and would not interfere with the primary use. Let's get the FACTS straight.

57
5
texas_technomanFeb. 11, 14 4:41 AM

agotoole-Moving the bike path remains the "elephant in the room"...or as an old boss would say, it's a "PGO" (penetrating glimpse of the obvious). Does anyone know why this continues to be "off the table"?

40
5
aarghmebuckoFeb. 11, 14 5:44 AM

The Met Council is conflicted about the bike trail. Within Minneapolis, the trail seems to be considered part of the LRT project and it must be protected, at a tentative cost of $160 million for shallow tunnels. In St Louis Park and Hopkins, that same trail has been deemed not part of the LRT project, and the $5 million or so needed to make the trail safe at road crossings screwed up by LRT is considered a want not a need.

26
2
mnpls1234Feb. 11, 14 6:23 AM

The route in St a Louis Park has been reserved for decades by the county and city as a rail corridor. Don't believe me, look it up in the master plan on the city website. Too many NIMBY folks in SLP. Took the money to clean up a superfund site and are now reneging on their commitment to accept rail in the planned corridor as is stated on their city website.

18
27
mnpls1234Feb. 11, 14 6:29 AM

Why do people talk about the bike trail as it has nothing to do with this issue?? Mpls accepted freight on a short-term basis until funding was available to reroute the trains to SLP. They did so to benefit the region, even though it impacted their citizens. Mpls has always said we will accept light rail, but not both light rail and freight traffic. So what does this have to do with a bike trail or if this is a recreational corridor or not? Nothing!

7
21
scoty2hotyFeb. 11, 14 6:44 AM

Only 75 people showed up? Doesn't seem like much opposition to me. If you don't want trains in your backyard feel free to move elsewhere. Progress over crybabies any day.

25
19

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

question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT