In the emotional debate about what to do about freight trains in planning for the Southwest light rail corridor, it is well to hang on to some basic facts:
1) History. The freight trains currently running through the Kenilworth Trail area are there because Minneapolis agreed to accept them temporarily while a permanent route was found, through St. Louis Park if no other feasible option exists. Whether that years-old agreement is still binding is debated, but all the official actions and statements by Minneapolis have relied on that original understanding.
2) Kenilworth impact. Because the Kenilworth route is not visible from major streets, most people are probably not familiar with it, having only read references to it as “a narrow strip of land between Lake of the Isles and Cedar Lake.” Actually, Kenilworth between Lake St. and Cedar Lake Pkwy. is quite different from the Kenilworth from the parkway north to Penn Av. The southern portion is narrow, squeezing between townhomes on one side and a condo development on the other. The very attractive northern portion is spacious, having years ago housed a railroad switching yard. Two such different areas do not require the same solution. Also, it should be noted that almost none of the route is park land — it was bought by Hennepin County as a transitway — and the route offers only two brief glimpses of Cedar Lake and none of Lake of the Isles. For most of the distance, residential areas on rolling hills separate the route from the lakes.
3) St. Louis Park impact. The most likely St. Louis Park route for added freight traffic is indeed elevated, in part to satisfy safety and efficiency concerns of the railroad company that now operates through Kenilworth. But the proposed elevation and bridges also address two major concerns by St. Louis Park residents — not having freight traffic that separates St. Louis Park High School from its football field, and avoiding grade crossings on major streets with heavy pedestrian traffic.
4) Side effects. In the debate over deep tunnels vs. shallow tunnels as a solution for the Kenilworth, much of the focus is on costs. But folks beyond the immediate area should be aware of another major difference between the two tunnels: Engineers say that only the deep tunnel would require replacing the Lake St. bridge that passes over the route between Lake Calhoun and France Av. That bridge is already lined with stopped traffic during rush hours. Whether replacing the bridge requires complete closure of Lake St., or only temporary by-passes and one-lane traffic, the impact will extend far beyond the immediate neighborhood. Finding the best (or least-bad) solution to the freight problem is difficult enough on a factual basis, so emotional exaggerations and misinformation require some response.
Rodgers Adams follows light rail issues for his monthly newsletter at a condo that is near, but not on, the proposed route.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, email Susan Albright at salbright@minnpost.com.)
No sources and dubious facts.
“Historically” that Kenilworth area was industrial property with many more RR tracks. There used to be at least four tracks were there is now only one. The bike-pedestrian path is currently located on an old RR bridge over the Lake of the Isles-Lake Harriet connection. In fact the author may be living in former grain elevators that were serviced by those tracks. The tracks were already there, and they were always owned by the RR company, Kenilworth residents did not have to consent to their presence or “agree” to put them there or keep them there. Nor did residents have to grant the owners permission to use their own RR tracks.
As for St. Louis Park, as our Mayor Jeff Jacobs recently pointed out
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/221709651.html no rail reroute was ever agreed upon. While many of us did not have a problem with some additional train traffic on the existing tracks, the plan to reroute the tracks themselves and put them atop a twenty foot berm bisecting the city literally came out of nowhere last month. NO ONE IN SLP EVER AGREED TO THIS. That berm and reroute is the feature that’s galvanized resistance in SLP.
Let’s not muck up the conversation here with fuzzy information if we can help it.
Perhaps the history is “fuzzy”
The issue is not tracks, but the use of the tracks by the Twin Cities & Western Railroad, whose route eastward through Minneapolis was disrupted some time back by the rebuilding of Hiawatha Av. (Hwy. 55). The Kenilworth tracks were unused but available at the time, as I understand it, but there was reluctance to grant permanent permission to run freight trains through land assembled for future mass transit use and land that brought noisy freight trains near a number of Minneapolis homes. What happened at that time is in dispute, as I noted in my piece. Was there an “understanding” or “gentleman’s agreement”? Was there news reportage verifying an understanding? Was there a legal document? Mark Andrew, who was County Commissioner for the area at the time, recalls that there was an agreement, as does Gail Dorfman, currently the County Commissioner for the area and a former mayor of St. Louis Park. Jeff Jacobs, currently the St. Louis Park mayer, has a different recollection. Thus, the debate. In the meantime, there is the common sense interpretation that it is not likely that Minneapolis or Hennepin County would have agreed to a routing solution that accepted a permanent negative impact on the Kenilworth route while providing St. Louis Park only the positive impact of money to clean up a potential commercial site.
Ask SLP give the money back
If Saint Louis Park is unwilling to accept the freight rail traffic, we should ask them to refund the cleanup money they got in 1997.
http://www.metrocouncil.org/getattachment/68b41070-9728-4011-a645-ae4cad869499/.aspx
Basic Fact #1
In yesterday’s Star Tribune, Jeff Jacobs, St. Louis Park Mayor recited the “facts” with regard to whether there was a reroute agreement. Jeff stated:
“So, in summary, the preliminary agreement referenced by Andrew and the grant funding provided by the county did not obligate the city to reroute freight traffic. We have never consented or agreed to a freight-rail reroute in St. Louis Park.
—————
Jeff Jacobs is the mayor of St. Louis Park.”
Kenilworth Trail is in Cedar Lake Park
“it should be noted that almost none of the route is park land — it was bought by Hennepin County as a transitway”
Actually this is incorrect. People often don’t realize that a lot of the land surrounding the Kenilworth Trail is parkland that was purchased by the Cedar Lake Park Association in 1988. The land is now cared for by the Minneapolis Parks Board. To view a map of the park, click here:
http://www.cedarlakepark.org/maplocator.html
The actual train would be on Hennepin County land, but that land is COMPLETELY surrounded by parkland. In fact, some of the Met Council proposals would acquire the parkland for the project.
Parkland reality
While that is interesting, it is wholly irrelevant. The Cedar Lake Park Association owns nothing in the Kenilworth Corridor. The entire plot of property in the Corridor is owned by Hennepin County and is administered by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority. The land that is involved is not actual parkland at all, it is rail road property. The bike trails are there ONLY because the County and HCCRA provided an administrative and operations lease for use of their land to host a trail. This is a fact. If you want any further clarification on that then please contact Peter McLaughlin at the County. He actually clarified that point on Wednesday at the SWLRT CMC meeting held in St. Louis Park.
No agreement exists. Co-location best balances safety and cost.
1. This is wishful thinking on the part of Minneapolis pols. No agreement exists. At the latest Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Corridor Management Committee (CMC) meeting County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin admitted there are no documents of promises that are “legally enforceable.”
3. I won’t argue with point 2, however, if the reroute happens as planned, the number of homes that would be significantly impacted in St. Louis Park far exceeds the number of homes that would be impacted in Minneapolis. More than 100 homeowners, mostly along Brunswick and Blackstone Avenues (along with 33rd St., Colorado, and Dakota Avenues) would have an enormous elevated safety hazard in their back yards.
Co-location is the safest, least expensive solution.
More Facts
[I sit on the SW LRT Community Advisory Committee so I see most if not all of the information the elected officials see.]
This is at best an incomplete article and at worst a misleading one. Unintentionally, I believe.
The author leaves out the fact that freight rail relocation would result in the destruction of many homes and businesses in St. Louis Park. A Kenilworth tunnel option does neither.
The author also fails to mention that colocation with a shallow tunnel is less expensive than relocating freight to St. Louis Park.
The author does not explain that the Kenilworth bike trail could be easily routed along St. Louis Ave. or a similar nearby street, keeping separation from traffic, through the narrow pinch point area (the one with the condos). A tunnel is not strictly necessary but is probably politically necessary due to promises Minneapolis has already made to residents.
The author is correct that there is no technical reason for a tunnel north of Cedar Lake Pkwy. Minneapolis is demanding it as compensation for taking freight rail when they were supposedly promised that it would be moved. I believe there is some negotiating room here. At least there ought to be.
The author is also correct that there is FAR too much emotion around this issue and there are people (deliberately in some cases) spreading misinformation so as to stoke the flames. Pat Doyle of the Strib has been terrible on this. His articles lack full information and are framed and slanted to make the SW LRT look more controversial and troubled than it really is. He has interviewed and presented only one side of the issue and ignored the many more people who see reasonable solutions and very much want the line to move forward.
I believe the most reasonable solution is a short shallow tunnel through the pinch point with everything at grade north of Cedar Lake Pkwy. It is really not that much more expensive than relocating the bike trail and it gives Minneapolis a bit of compensation. It also allows the 21st St. station to remain in the project, which I think is a good benefit for the city.
Intent of article
I think you have added good information to the discussion, but I need to say that I never suggested that I was writing a thorough report on the freight rail issue. I was simply trying to list a few facts that may not have been known to MinnPost readers who have not been following the issue as closely as you and I have done. Nor was I advocating a solution. Met-Council-sponsored meetings during the next two or three weeks should narrow and focus the issues at play.
Article
If you do any more articles I would suggest picking up the pace and adding in those complete facts. People are better informed and served when they have all the details in front of them, rather than drips and dribbles here and there from different sources. If information is fed to people piecemeal that’s where misunderstandings pop up.
Park Land
Kasia, as far as I am aware none of the plans going forward would acquire park land. There would be tree removal on some BNSF property, but not park land.
Is Cedar Lake Park an officially recognized MPRB park? I thought the Cedar Lake Park association wants to move that way but that it hasn’t happened yet. I don’t think the Park Board necessarily has jurisdiction over that land but of course I could be wrong. The Park Board’s leverage is the channel and nothing else. At least that’s my understanding from the meetings I’ve attended.