Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Southwest LRT project passes two more milestones — and gets a giant wall

MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan
At a special meeting Wednesday, a unanimous Metropolitan Council approved the rail agreements and congratulated the staff for the work.

The Metro Transit staff that has been holding the Southwest Light Rail Transit project together through years of problems passed two major milestones this week. 

One was the opening of bids for the largest of the project’s construction contracts, which came after bidders requested a delay. The other was the finalization of agreements with two railroads to allow the use of their rail corridors for light rail tracks and stations.

At a special meeting Wednesday, a unanimous Metropolitan Council approved the rail agreements and congratulated the staff for the work. Project staff will now move ahead on getting final approvals from the Federal Transit Administration and make formal application for a 50 percent federal match on the project — an amount that now stands at $928.8 million.

The two moves came as good news for supporters of the $1.858 billion, 14.5 mile extension of the Green Line, which will connect downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie. It means that the project is on a path to begin construction in the spring, though additional hurdles still remain.

And yet, what most people want to talk about is a wall. A really big wall.

Just this week, Metro Transit revealed that among the demands made by BNSF — one of the two railroads who control part of the right-of-way along the project’s route — was that a 10-feet high by three-feet wide reinforced concrete wall be built between its freight tracks and the light rail tracks.

Known as a Corridor Protection system, the wall is designed to keep a derailed freight train from colliding with a light rail train, and will run from just south of the Royalston Avenue/Farmers Market Station to the Bryn Mawr Station. That’s 1.4 miles. The early guess at the cost is $20 million, which would have to come out of the project’s contingency fund.

On Monday, Minneapolis Public Works Director Robin Hutcheson wrote a letter to Metro Transit raising concerns with the wall and asking for more information. “During the development of the SWLRT project, city staff has consistently maintained the position that barrier walls would be a detriment to the project and the community,” Hutcheson wrote.

That same day, Minneapolis City Council Transportation Committee Chair Kevin Reich wrote to his counterpart on the Met Council, Katie Rodriguez, raising concerns about the wall as well as other aspects of the railroad agreements. “We were told verbally that this is a ‘crash wall,’” Reich wrote. “We have numerous concerns about this, including: the visual impacts, what this implies about safety, and what precedent this may set for future projects. We are concerned that the public has not been engaged on this issue.”

Then, on Wednesday, two key Democratic lawmakers from Minneapolis wrote the Met Council asking for a delay in approval of the railroad agreements. In a letter to new Met Council Chair Alene Tchourumoff, Sen. Scott Dibble and Rep. Frank Hornstein questioned the timing and transparency of the agreements. “We understand the Met Council intends to provide final approval today at a special meeting,” the pair wrote. “This timeline allows no meaningful transparency or public input and is therefore unacceptable.”

Why the rush? 

All those concerns didn’t slow down approvals of the agreements. The negotiations with BNSF and the Twin Cities & Western Railroad were completed Friday evening and the results were presented Monday to the council’s transportation committee. Public notice of Wednesday’s special meeting didn’t go out until Monday morning.

When Council Member Gary Cunningham asked staff why there was such a rush, Jim Alexander, the SWLRT project manager, said speed was necessary because the project office wants to apply for an important permit from the FTA — known as a Letter of No Prejudice — on Monday. That document is the federal government’s OK to start spending local dollars on construction costs with the assurance that they will be eligible for matching dollars later.

A map of the barrier protection wall location
Metropolitan Council
A map of the barrier protection wall location

With the railroad agreements in hand and the first construction bid nearing acceptance, the project could then make its final application for federal cost sharing — the Full-Funding Grant Agreement — in September.

“I have heard some feedback on the process that this feels like it’s happening quickly,” Tchourumoff said. “And I recognize that it’s been a really difficult balance between meeting some of the timeframes that we have for the project while at the same time providing important information to our council members and key stakeholders.

“When we’re in difficult negotiations like this, the process is not always ideal,” she said.

Process ‘created some ripples’

There are other  pieces of the agreement that will be controversial, however. Met Council has accepted much of the liability for accidents in the corridor and agreed to discontinue light rail service should local legislation be passed that prevents full use of the corridor for freight, including ordinances to block oil trains.

Alexander said that is only a remote possibility because the federal government keeps tight control of freight regulations, and he pledged to work closely with the City of Minneapolis and residents in the design of the wall and other elements included in the agreements. “I have reached out personally to the director of Public Works Robin Hutcheson and we are putting together a work plan where we will address the concerns that are raised with this wall,” Alexander said.

Chair Alene Tchourumoff
MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan
Chair Alene Tchourumoff

He also said staff would seek public input on what the wall might look like. But he said staff doesn’t think it is enough of a change to reopen environmental review of the project.

Still, one council member wondered how much could be done to make the wall less obtrusive. “It’s a big wall and I don’t think we can fool people,” said Gail Dorfman from St. Louis Park. “We need to work with the neighborhood and make it the best we can. But we’re not going to hide it. We’re going to see it.”

Cunningham said he would vote for the agreements but said the process “created some ripples that were unnecessary, especially with some of our legislators and councils of the cities I represent.”

Bids submitted

While the wall is getting much of the attention, the week’s other milestone is also significant. On Tuesday, after several delays requested by prospective bidders, Metro Transit staff opened the bids for the largest contract in the project: the civil construction contract that covers the bulk of the rail, stations, bridges, tunnels and other infrastructure.

The apparent low bid was from a consortium, Ames Kraemer SWLRT Joint Venture, for $796,517,023. The next closest bid came from Lunda/C.S. McCrossan for $807,888,309.39.  The council staff said it was prohibited by state law from commenting on the bids or even saying whether they were within the budget.

By comparison, the two civil construction contracts for the Central Corridor — there was one for the St. Paul segment and one for the Minneapolis segment — totaled $314 million. That amounted to about one-third of that project’s $957 million budget. The low bid for SWLRT would amount to almost 43 percent of that budget.

Staff must now review the bids, work that should be completed by November.

Existing freight rail network
Metropolitan Council
Existing freight rail network

The civil construction contract covers, among other things, 29 miles of tracks (14.5 miles in both directions), 15 stations, eight park and ride facilities, seven surface lots, a parking ramp at the Southwest Station, 117 retaining walls, 29 new bridges, six pedestrian tunnels and two light rail tunnels.

The Met Council expects to grant two additional contracts later in 2017, one for construction of a maintenance and operations facility in Hopkins and another for the electrical power, signaling and communications system. It has already has a contract for the 27 light rail vehicles needed for the line. That went to sole bidder Siemens for $118 million.

Where are the feds?

There was both a wringing of hands and cheers of delight when the Trump Administration presented a budget plan that zeroed out new funding for light rail projects in 2018. But it appears the Republican-controlled Congress is about as receptive to such a plan this year as it was last.

According to an update presented to the Counties Transit Improvement Board this month, both the House and Senate appropriation committees have signed off on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development budget bills that fund new rail projects. The Senate committee set aside $2.133 billion for ongoing and new rail projects while the House set aside $1.753 billion.

The difference will be sorted out in conference committee but it is unlikely that the result of that process will be zero. Last September, when Congress reached a deal on the 2017 budget, it rejected Trump’s call for zero money for rail projects that didn’t yet have full-funding grant agreements with the Federal Transportation Administration. That budget, which Trump signed, included all of the expected funding for rail projects, including an initial $10 million for SWLRT.

Southwest Light Rail funding sources
Metropolitan Council
Southwest Light Rail funding sources

The current budget bills do not list specific projects; that will likely come from the FTA in early 2018. But both budgets direct the FTA to proceed as it has in previous years to advance projects as they meet requirements. Fears earlier this year that the FTA under Trump would simply refuse to sign funding agreements were allayed when the department moved ahead with funding for a electrification project for California’s regional Caltrain system.

Finally, U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim has set a hearing for Oct. 4 to hear arguments on a request by the Lakes and Parks Alliance for a summary judgement on its claim that the project violated federal environmental laws. Tunheim turned them down two years ago, but said they could return if the found additional evidence that the project made a routing decision before its environmental review was complete.

Emails obtained by the plaintiffs seem to show some conversations among the political leaders to that effect, but Met Council attorneys say the new evidence is not enough for Tunheim to change his mind.

Comments (13)

  1. Submitted by Harris Goldstein on 08/18/2017 - 11:55 am.

    Crash Wall

    If BNSF needs this so-called Crash Wall, what does that say about their operation of freight trains carrying crude oil and other hazardous materials through heavily populated areas?

    They have continually touted their safety measures in the past, but now they need a crash wall. Very inconsistent at best.

    • Submitted by Steve Titterud on 08/18/2017 - 12:31 pm.

      Safety is not binary – i.e., either “safe” or “unsafe”

      Rather, it’s necessary to look for improvements constantly and examine new risks closely to pursue safety with your best effort. You’re never 100% safe.

      I don’t doubt that the railroads perceived a new or enhanced risk in travelling so close to light rail lines which could be jammed with passengers.

      I’d be astonished if this was not discussed thoroughly in the negotiations. If the other side was not willing to relieve the railroads of that risk (in fact, how COULD they ??), the railroads came up with their own solution.

      Seems pretty straightforward, prudent, and not inconsistent with claims of safety as a priority.

      • Submitted by Clayton Haapala on 08/18/2017 - 08:21 pm.

        Engineering need?

        I’d like to see more explanation of risk along parallel tracks, here. Adding walls along turns in the tracks vs. the straight parts seems reasonable, as would velocity limits for the passenger LRT trails at those points.

    • Submitted by Bill Kahn on 08/18/2017 - 12:53 pm.

      Makes as much sense as a Trump wall.

      Makes as much sense as a Trump wall, but the Met. Council will actually build one. Damn railroads. Can’t wait to see the graffiti.

  2. Submitted by Joel Stegner on 08/18/2017 - 12:51 pm.


    How often are there parallel train lines where two trains pass each other going the same or different directions? How is it any different with a light rail train involved versus two heavy rail trains? Do they have crash walls in this situation? I don’t think so. Also, how often do trains derail on straight track situations versus curves? I suspect a lot less often. Finally, what role to human factors gave – engineer inattention, lack of track inspection, autos in the trains’s oath and sabotage? How can these human factors be compensated for?

    If a wall really must be built, then let’s make it “the most interesting wall” in the world. Turn it into an art object that tourists buy tickets to see. What could that be – practically anything and actual two anythings, as it could be completely different on both sides. Or could it be made up of something living and growing. Challenges can be turned into opportunities with the right mindset.

    • Submitted by Steve Titterud on 08/18/2017 - 07:18 pm.

      Love your art wall idea.

      Let’s face it: SOMEONE is going to be painting this wall !! It would be nice if it wasn’t mere graffiti.

      On the matter of risk, I wondered about the mass of the light rail vehicles vs. railroad rolling stock. The numbers I could find were: the Siemens S70 model, which Metro Transit has running on at least the Green Line, weighs around 100,000 lbs. each without passengers. The freight rail cars can carry 200,000-300,000 lbs. each, loaded. In a collision, it would be a real mismatch.

      Obviously, a collision could be a catastrophe. The likelihood, without the wall ?? I have no idea. With the wall ?? Gotta be near zero. If not, they better make that wall thicker !!

    • Submitted by Michael Wilson on 08/19/2017 - 10:02 pm.


      The difference between two freight trains passing each other and a commuter train and a freight train passing each other? It’s called electricity. Ever noticed the sparks from the catenary wires when Blue or Green Line trains pass underneath? Now imagine high-hazard freight trains carrying ethanol, oil, and chlorine running alongside SWLRT passenger trains for 8.5 miles of the 14.5 mile route.

    • Submitted by Michael Wilson on 08/19/2017 - 10:10 pm.

      What about the other 7.1 miles?

      If a crash wall is essential on 1.4 miles of the co-located route, why isn’t a crash wall similarly essential on the other 7.1 miles of the co-located route — especially all those miles where houses and businesses are 40 feet and less from the passenger rail and high-hazard freight tracks?

  3. Submitted by Robert Briscoe on 08/18/2017 - 12:56 pm.

    “Crash” wall

    If this is built it could be a also used as a mile long art gallery, at least on the light rail side. It could be a place for lighting sculptors, kenetic sculptors, painters, muralists, graffiti artists etc. to express the many faces of our communities.

  4. Submitted by Brian Anderson on 08/18/2017 - 01:57 pm.

    Crash Wall

    Has anyone actually been to where this wall is going to be built? It’s through an area of sand and rock piles, abandoned cars, an interstate highway and an electrical substation. I don’t like the wall, but not getting upset about it.

    • Submitted by Chris Last on 08/21/2017 - 11:36 am.

      Not all sand and abandoned cars

      There’s good stretch of it that’s right next to Bryn Mawr Meadows and the Cedar Lake Trail path. Would rather not have a giant wall there, but if it means the project goes through then I can deal with it. Also, since it’s only a 1.4 mile stretch, is there not a way they can plan out logistics so trains are not running that stretch at the same time as a light rail car?

  5. Submitted by Gary Cohen on 08/18/2017 - 04:18 pm.

    SW LRT

    The issue here may be the continued lack of transparency through out the process. While I hate the selected route, I do agree with need for LRT. But, there’s no trust left in any of this process.

  6. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 08/23/2017 - 04:25 pm.

    I suspect…

    Maybe the freight trains in question are primarily the longer faster ones that go straight out west as apposed to the shorter slower ones that veer off into the Kenilworth corridor? Maybe that’s why they want a wall there and aren’t so worried about the proximity to the parallel tracks south of HWY 7?

Leave a Reply