HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/05/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MAY 9, 2011
5:00 p.m. LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION – Council Chambers
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 16 and May 23, 2011
2. 6:35 p.m. Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
3. 8:05 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
4. 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report
5. Minnehaha Creek Re-Meander Project
6. Community Days of Service 2011
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: May 9, 2011
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 16 and May 23, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session scheduled for May
16 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on May 23, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for a Special Study Session scheduled for May 16 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on May 23, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning May 16 and May 23, 2011
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 16 and May 23, 2011
Special Study Session, May 16, 2011 – Immediately following City Council Meeting
1. Freight Rail Routing Issue – Community Development (60 minutes)
Continued conversation on freight rail. Discuss existing resolution and possible updates to
the resolution on freight rail policy.
Study Session, Monday, May 23, 2011 – _6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Policy Discussion on Freight Rail & MNS EAW – Community Development (60 minutes)
Continued policy discussion on freight rail and MN&S and EAW (Environmental
Assessment Worksheet). Review draft policy.
3. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
Highway 7 / Louisiana Project Update
End of Meeting: 7:40 p.m.
Meeting Date: May 9, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests the Council review the information and discuss next steps and meetings on rail.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City Council has set as its objective, adoption of an updated freight rail policy resolution on
May 31st. The Listening Sessions last week and the draft Technical Memorandum 4 prepared by
SEH were key steps toward achieving that objective.
The focus of this week’s freight rail study session discussion is to digest and understand the
community’s comments and the SEH report. Below for City Council discussion and review are a
list of key themes, or findings that can be drawn from the community input; and, from the SEH
analysis. These themes attempt to capture the key community concerns, pertinent facts and
important technical issues to consider when updating the City’s rail policy. They also include
potential critical mitigation. These themes will form the basis for crafting policy options for
discussion at the next freight rail Study Session (May 16th).
The specific focus for the discussion at this Study Session is:
• Understanding SEH Technical Memorandum #4. Dave McKenzie will be in attendance
and this is an opportunity to ask clarifying questions and make sure the Council
understands the report.
• Council review and comment on the draft list of themes and key findings. Does this list
capture the key themes? Are there any critical themes or analyses missing?
• These findings and themes will form the basis for draft policy options for May 16th .
BACKGROUND:
On March 21, 2011, the Council directed staff to organize listening sessions on April 27th and
28th regarding the freight rail issue. The listening sessions were held at St. Louis Park Junior
High School.
Prior to the listening sessions, Council had a number of discussions on freight rail. Background
information can be found on the city’s website on previous meetings, minutes, reports and maps.
On May 9th the City Council will review the information from the listening sessions along with
written comments, email comments etc. As we move along in our work on rail, it is important to
review the information and comments we received to help us with upcoming meetings. Our goal
is to understand issues and concerns as we review the existing resolution on freight rail and also
to prepare comments once we receive the MN&S EAW.
April 27 & 28th Listening Sessions information - attached
Attached are the detail records from the listening sessions and comments received through
Monday end of the business day May 2nd. The attached materials include:
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
• Verbal comments – April 27th & 28th
• Written comments – April 27th & 28th
• Web rail comments – from City’s website
• Phone rail comments
• Attendance list – April 27th & 28th
Themes & Key Findings – documents distributed Monday evening
Well over 200 people attended the listening sessions in person. Over 50 people spoke, 30
comment cards were submitted and 31 comments were submitted on line. In reviewing and
digesting all this information key themes emerge. These themes combined with the key findings
from the SEH reports provide valuable insights and statements about what are the critical issues
of concern for our community. Together this information provides the basis for beginning to
answer the question: What freight rail policy and mitigation is in the best long term interests for
the City of St. Louis Park?
Below is a draft list of the key themes and findings for the consideration and review by the City
Council. This information begins to point toward alternative freight rail policy options for the
City Council to consider; and, to identify the potential trade-offs inherent in those options. All of
this information will allow the City Council to carefully review and weigh options and trade-offs
allowing for the city’s freight rail policy.
The key themes and findings include the following. A brief description of each will be provided
in to the Council at the meeting.
• Safety
• Train Operations
• Property Values
• Access and Traffic
• Noise and Vibrations
• Mitigation
• Wye
• Livability
The ideas recorded in the freight rail resolutions from July 2010 as well as the previous technical
memorandums and City Council discussions on freight rail will also be key ingredients in
crafting the updated policy resolutions. They form the base from which any modifications to the
City’s policy will grow.
FAQ’s (frequently asked questions on rail) – documents distributed Monday evening
Based on the input received throughout the freight rail discussion process in general and the
Listening Sessions, a list of frequently asked questions (FAQS) with responses is being prepared
and will be distributed to the City Council at the meeting Monday night (5/9/11). This
information will also be posted on the city’s website.
MN&S Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
The City Council’s stated goal is to approve official comments on the MN&S EAW once it is
published. Previously it was expected that the City Council would be approving comments on
the EAW at the May 31st Special City Council meeting. That schedule was based on the EAW
being published May 2nd. Since the EAW was not published on that date, and a date certain for
publication has not yet been set, the timing for the City approving EAW comments is not yet set.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
At this time the earliest EAW publication date would be May 16th. The 30 day official comment
period would start once the EAW is published and end in mid-June. Once the EAW schedule is
known and the document is officially published, discussion of possible comments on the EAW
will be integrated into the City Council discussions on freight rail. For now the primary focus
will be on the broader question of updating the city’s rail policy.
What is the schedule on rail after tonight’s meeting?
May 16th Special Study Session following the Regular City Council Meeting
Continued conversation on rail. Discuss possible options for updates to the
freight rail policy.
May 23rd Council Study Session
Continued policy discussion on freight rail and MN&S EAW (Environmental
Assessment Worksheet). Review a draft policy, including proposed mitigation.
May 31st Special City Council Meeting
Adopt a resolution updating the freight rail policy including mitigation measures.
Date to be determined: Comments for submission on MN&S EAW will be discussed and
approved depending upon the EAW publication date.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This item is linked to the City’s Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is a committed to
being a connected and engaged community. It is also related to the broader Vision elements
about the variety of transportation modes, sidewalk & trails and environmental stewardship.
Attachments:
Verbal comments – Listening Sessions April 27 & 28
Written comments – Listening Sessions April 27 & 28
Web rail comments – from web
Phone rail comments
Attendance lists – Listening Sessions April 27 & 28
Resolution 10–070 and 10-071 regarding rail
Materials distributed Monday night will include: Key themes and findings, Map showing
attendance from listening sessions, copy of SEH Technical Memorandum #4 and FAQ’s.
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director; and,
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor.
Assistance from: Administrative Services Staff
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011
Ms. Jamie LaPray, 3256 Blackstone, Sorenson neighborhood, Co-Chair of Safety in the Park,
noted she had been given time from Ray Aver and Tip Lausen. She had several comments and a
request. She thought Mr. McKenzie’s report was very thorough. She read it and planned to go
through it another time or two. She had been immersing herself in railroad for the last year and
been learning all that she can learn. What she found interesting about his report was that it
quantifies everything very well, but he seems to be missing some of the nuances that make the
two lines very different. First of all, a couple of examples, one of the things that he mentions are
that both lines have curves, but the curves on the MN&S are tighter, which is in the report that is
on-line. The tightest curve on the Kenilworth corridor is actually East of Cedar Lake Rd, with no
structures around it. It is in the middle of parkland. We all know that the curves on the MN&S
are near the schools, near homes and near buildings. In fact, some of these curves are closer to
buildings than the length of rail car. One of the things she learned in her research is that
derailments are more likely to happen on a curve than on a straight track. If both of them have
curves, then they need to have the trains going where the curves, if there is a derailment on a
curve, the impact would be more benign, like in parkland. Another interesting thing that he talks
about in his report, and he eluded to here, are the number of trains that will be on each track and
the speed that those trains will be going. Whichever route is chosen, the tracks will need to be
upgraded to a higher standard. That standard will bring the trains to be able to go a speed 10-25
mph. We also know that trains do better if they are on a straight track, without curves, with little
grade. If you are thinking about a train of 100 cars long, which they would be expecting quite a
few of them in the future from the TCW, and they were going West to East. If they are going
through Kenilworth and crossing at Beltline and Wooddale, where there are a lot of cars, those
are straight tracks without a whole lot of grade, the trains will very likely be able to go at or near
the 25 mph speed limit. On the other hand, if that same 100 car train, that is fully loaded with
coal or ethanol or fertilizers, which are some of the products which would be coming in the
future, it would need to go up a grade, through a series of curves, a little bit of straight track, and
then down a curve to the Burlington Northern. When she asked the General Manger of the TCW
how fast he thought fully loaded 100 car trains would go up that interconnect and through a
series of curves, he said less than 25 mph. She asked the same question of Tom Johnson, who is
a railroad engineer who lives and works in St. Louis Park and he estimated that train would be
able to go approximately 8-10 mph. The same train on two different tracks would be going a
very different rate of speed.
That brings her to the car counts that Mr. McKenzie was talking about. They know that there are
a lot more cars on Beltline and Wooddale. But those crossings are a mile apart, so even a mile
long train (approximately) will not be blocking both crossings. A mile long train going 8 mph on
the MN&S will be blocking Walker, Lake St, Library Lane and Dakota all at the same time for
upwards of ten minutes. It will make it virtually impossible to get around that section of the city
when a train is going through at 8 mph.
There are a lot of other nuances he has left out, she wouldn’t go into all of them, but would write
them down and send them to Council Members or talk to them. She thought he did a good job,
but she thought he needed to look at the differences between the two tracks a little bit more
closely.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Ms. LaPray (continued) She wanted to talk about the resolutions and the fact that one of the
resolutions passed in 2001 recommended the removal of the switching wye. Mr. McKenzie
talked about the fact that the wye is not going to be removed. In fact, the new interconnect is
going to create essentially a second wye that will be, it is not technically a wye. The original
wye would still be used, and then there is going to be and the Northern section of St. Louis Park
will essentially become a switching wye. Any train that needs to go south, can go north up to
Golden Valley, the locomotive will be rotated around to the other end and the train will come
back the other direction. Instead of having maybe seven trains going North through the
neighborhoods, there could potentially be more depending on how many trains will eventually be
going South to Savage, which will be happening at some point in the future, even though it is not
actually in Mr. McKenzie’s report. They need to keep that in mind that there would be a lot more
trains. In the 2010 Resolution (1070), you say that you want the County to do a careful analysis
to find out that no other viable route exists. After the November meeting where they gave their
report showing that there was another possible route, they found mistakes. We found out that
they didn’t look at all of the possibilities. A freedom of information act data search that Safety
in the Park did on MnDOT, found that MnDOT, in that report in November, they were told that
freight rail and light rail had to be 25’ apart and they were led to believe that was a Federal
regulation. In a MnDOT document, she found out that it was not a Federal regulation, it was a
MnDOT choice for the distance between freight and light rail and therefore, there are other
possibilities that have not been looked at in terms of safety walls between freight and light rail,
or safety barriers of some point, in which case, those tracks could be closer and perhaps fewer
homes would be taken. She was not saying that would be possible, she was just saying they left
out information that they should have had, that they should have been able to look at and should
have been able to figure out whether or not something else could be done.
Last, there was a request. Hennepin County is ignoring your resolutions. They are good
resolutions. They are “looking out for us” kind of resolutions and she appreciated that and she
didn’t get the feeling that Hennepin County takes them seriously. They did the November report
on Kenilworth that was obviously full of holes. They are doing the PMT process, which was a
mess and doesn’t really address anything. The thing that she would like for you is to hold on to
that piece of land that the City owns that is required for the interconnect and make the County
respect the Resolutions that you have written. Until they live up to what you want and we as
residents want from those resolutions, not to give up that land. Hang onto it. Do whatever is
necessary to keep the County from just taking it and bulldozing this whole plan through until
they really have what they need to continue to have a livable, wonderful city to live in.
Mr. Ray Aver, 3200 block of Blackstone Ave, and Mr. Tip Lausen, 3200 block of Blackstone
Ave, gave their time to Ms. LaPray.
Mr. Thom Miller, 2900 Yosemite Ave S, thanked City Council for the listening session. This
has so far been very refreshing compared to Hennepin County’s sessions that they have been
working on for the last year. His comments center around the feeling he had, the opinion he had
and he knew many people who have really been involved in this process over the last year have,
which is that they believe that Hennepin County and MnDOT have been deliberately deceiving
the residents of St. Louis Park and deliberately deceiving the City Council of St. Louis Park by
asking us for input and making us believe that our input would be valuable to them and that they
would take that input and make something of it. That decisions hadn’t been made before this
study process began about a year ago and most importantly deceiving us into thinking that LRT
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Mr. Miller (continued) is somehow the cause for this improvement, or upgrade to the MN&S
line. In fact, many of us believe that LRT, SW Light rail, is merely a convenient trigger to
upgrade the MN&S line. A convenient funding mechanism to get Federal funds to upgrade the
MN&S line so it can become a more important freight rail line for the State of Minnesota and so
that it can become in the long range plan a commuter line for the State of Minnesota. The
reasons why they believe that is the case, the first one is very simple. All of the things he just
mentioned are written out very clearly in the 2010 Minnesota State Rail plan that came out a year
ago. It clearly states that the MN&S Rail line, or the Dan Patch as it if often called, will become
at some point in the future, is planned to become, a far more important freight rail line, with far
more frequent trains and far heavier trains and also that it could be used as a commuter rail line,
not light rail, but commuter rail in the future. This plan has been in place for many, many years.
As a matter of fact, some of the legislators that represent Bloomington and some of the Southern
suburbs actually put in legislation many years ago to take the Dan Patch off the table for study to
be a commuter rail line. That legislation is being repealed right now in the State legislature. It
has just gone through committee and it is going to be coming up for a vote soon, probably tagged
onto another bill to be repealed and to be restudies as a commuter line. It is in the state rail plan.
The second thing is that the dollars for this rail plan, the dollars that were outlined earlier, should
have been in LRT Federal funding. If they are truly being triggered by LRT, if LRT is really the
cause, then those dollars should have been in the LRT funding package and they were not. This
whole re-route and the upgrade of the MN&S is not part of the LRT Federal funding package.
More recently the study that Ms. LaPray mentioned earlier, the PMT process, a County process
that many of us having been going through the last year, to get opinions from the neighborhoods
most heavily affected by the switch. They have been asked to participate in those monthly
meetings for the last nine months and as some have pointed out in this room; those meetings
have been an absolute sham. They have voiced all of the mitigation measures that they would
like. Literally, not one mitigation measure that they have asked for has been included in the
County’s program, not one. There have been mitigation measures, but none of the ones they
asked for. They didn’t ask for 29th street to be closed. They offered it as a mitigation measure.
They didn’t ask for the clickety clack to go away, they offered welded rails so that they trains
could run faster. That study has been a sham. Lastly, and literally the most concrete evidence of
this “flip-flop” of decision making, is the railroad bridge that goes over Minnetonka Blvd. In
November when they got their first line-up of the plans, they saw that the train track had moved
eight feet to the East on the North/South running line. They found out for the first time that the
train line was going to move eight feet to the East. That bridge over Minnetonka Blvd was built
over two years ago and conveniently it moved exactly eight feet to the East. Clearly MnDOT had
a plan in place long ago to move that rail line and to improve, or upgrade, the MN&S so that it
could be a more important commuter rail line and a more important freight rail line. Their
challenge for the City Council, as Ms. LaPray mentioned, is to challenge Hennepin County to
stand up for citizens of St. Louis Park.
Mr. Curt Rahman, 4209 Browndale Ave, owner of several businesses in St. Louis Park on the
rail line passed out fliers to City Council members. The charts he passed out are from Kimberly
Horn who is doing the Environmental Impact Study, so they were using their number. He is the
PMT representative for the West Lake Street businesses. He is a big fan of light rail. All he heard
from Hennepin County and MnDOT was that they want to make an equal evaluation of the
options for freight rail. But his observation of being a part of the PMT process is that they intend
to minimize the cost of this project and route the freight rail up the center of the business district,
the school district and residential district. If that is the right answer for this project, then so be it,
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Mr. Rahman (continued),but it won’t be done without proper mitigation of the real issues.
Others will talk about the impacts in the community and in their lives, but he wanted to speak
about a real and tangible impact that needs to be addressed. All of us who work and live and own
buildings along the rail line experience pretty severe vibrations today. Vibration that already
exceeds federal guidelines on the infrequent events column on the vibration criteria, which is the
column that is used today for the couple of trains that go by, you’ll see that for businesses, the
level is 83 vdb and for residences it is 80 vdb. In Kimberly Horn’s vibration study that shows
today that you have to be about fifty feet from tracks to experience those levels of vibration. He
had a study done at one of his buildings and it showed a full ten points higher at 50 feet from the
tracks than the couple of measurements that Kimberly Horn took. The studies that Kimberly
Horn took are highly suspect. They need to take another look at that. Business owners have told
him that when the train comes by it feels like an earthquake. He has had to stop phone
conversations when the train goes by because of the rumbling vibrations. Kimberly Horn
measured in only two places along the tracks and tell us that with the two trains that are there
today, they should be able to handle 83 vdb’s at that location. Considering that the proposed
reroute will increase both the frequency and the severity of the vibration along the line,
according to Kimberly Horn, they will see increases of 5-8 vdb’s because of both the additional
frequency and the severity. The key is that Kimberly Horn is telling us because of the additional
trains, you are going to need to move and use the occasional events column in the vibrations.
This needs further evaluation at multiple business and residents locations and in classrooms
adjacent to the tracks. You can’t increase vibrations along the line when they already exceed
Federal guidelines.
Ms. Denise Zurn, 2608 Webster Ave S, Birchwood neighborhood, expressed two types of
concerns, one regarding the process she had seen with Hennepin County and the other is on three
specific design issues. She is not an expert on this like previous speakers. She was at the last
PMT meeting and does engineering studies for a living. She works in the electric utility industry.
The Kimberly Horn study is not an engineering study. They made it very clear that they were not
documenting options that they were leaving things out to suit themselves. They said specifically
at the meeting she was at that they did not include any options with regard to grade separation of
the rail and the street complex around the High School in the study as an option because it would
have too big of an impact. That is not the nature of an engineering study. An engineering study
weighs options and does its best to provide equivalent solutions. In her professional judgment,
the little she saw, Kimberly Horn has absolutely no intention of doing that. That is a really bad
process for Hennepin County to be paying for. The design issues she had related to the High
School. It was her opinion that the High School street grid needs to see complete grade
separation to the rail as a safety issue. She was wondering if there was no adequate way to
quantify the safety issue at the school by adding all of this rail between the school and the
McDonald’s and the walker to Central and so forth and if that is why it hasn’t been really
highlighted in the recent work for the City. She didn’t think long-term that city residents would
find the exposure of students to increased freight rail acceptable. If this is not in the initial cost
structure for any possible freight re-route, that cost would come back on the citizens in St. Louis
Park after unacceptable safety issues have arisen and the citizens then would be responsible for
the full cost of that mitigation. Her guess was that it would be huge. It would involve lowing the
rail profile to maintain the street grid over it unless some kind of matched bridge structure was
possible. She couldn’t imagine the cost of that, but it has to be approaching any of the costs that
they saw on the slides. Her second design issue was with closing the 29th crossing of the
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Zurn (continued) railroad tracks. There is a very limited street grid for the Birchwood
neighborhood. As you close that crossing, it would put traffic from Birchwood East of the
railroad, more traffic onto Minnetonka Blvd, which is an extremely dangerous street to turn
onto or off of. She was looking for mitigation issues with lights on Minnetonka to mitigate the
closing of that key element of the street grid from the Birchwood neighborhood west. Her final
issue regards property values. If they end up with a minimum right of way through the residential
area, they may protect values of the properties in the neighborhood because they will be taking
those homes along the railroad tracks. Otherwise those people have their picnic tables right up to
the railroad track and it will affect the resale value of their homes, which is going to affect the
entire neighborhood.
Mr. Joel D. Neal, 6915 W 23rd St, asked what is the ultimate benefit to the taxpayer of St.
Louis Park through this whole program. He has been to a number of meetings, which have been
mostly engineering. He hadn’t heard anything from anybody about what the benefits would be
to the taxpayer of St. Louis Park. He has been a taxpayer in St. Louis Pak for 58 years.
Ms. Kathryn Kottke, 2712 Brunswick Ave S, 15 years. She didn’t become fully aware of how
this train issue would impact their city until April 2010. Since then, she has tried to become
informed on the issue. She is now a Bronx Park PMT representative and can say that she has
never been a part of any working group that is as dysfunctional and confusing as this one. In the
past year, she had learned following five things: 1) Hennepin County, in an effort to secure
Federal funds for the LRT, lied on the Federal application by neglecting to disclose the presence
of a freight line. Katie Walker called this lie making a presumption, but she believed in honesty.
2) Gail Dorfman representing Hennepin County, told St. Louis Park residents in an April
meeting last year that the re-route was a “done deal”, but in the PMT meeting she has been in,
MnDOT, the rail companies and Katie Walker have told them that no decisions had been made.
Which is true, is this a done deal or not? 3) Gail Dorfman, representing Hennepin County told
St. Louis Park residents that if they can get their neighborhoods to request mitigation for the re-
route, these requests would be considered in the planning. As Thom Miller pointed out, to her
knowledge, not one single request from the Bronx residents, many of who live along the tracks
has been reflected in the plan proposed by Kimberly Horn at the last PMT meeting. In fact, the
re-route pushes faster, more dangerous trains past our schools and our homes. Is Hennepin
County wanting to offer true mitigation or are they looking to bulldoze us? 4) Hennepin County
hired the RL Banks consultants to determine the viability of co-locating the freight and the LRT
tracks. The consultant told the consultant told the St. Louis Park City Council that had Hennepin
County allowed them to shift their pre-determined LRT track location, the two lines could co-
locate. How is this a real study if Hennepin County is creating arbitrary parameters that make
co-location impossible? 5) The greatest lesson she had learned is that Hennepin County lied to
the Federal government, to St. Louis Park City Council representatives and residents. The lie
runs so deep that they pretend, or they truly don’t know anymore who is responsible for making
the decision to re-route the train in the first place.
What she wants from the City Council representatives is honest, fair dealing. You must say no to
this re-route and not just because it is unsafe, unwise and unaffordable, but because it is
dishonest. Acquiring LRT through dishonest means will reap serious consequences. If you are
unconcerned about playing these dishonest political games, then at least consider the pragmatic
reasons for telling Hennepin County that they will not accept the re-route. First you’ve signed a
resolution saying that you will protect us. Also, she and several of her neighbors have requested
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Kottke (continued) that their home values be reassessed. Her home value has dropped by
6%. She promised that hundreds more will drop by much more than this if you don’t act now.
How are you going to explain to your constituents all over St. Louis Park that their
property taxes will increase significantly because you failed to protect our City from a re-route
that only brings us harm? We voted for you to represent us because we believed that you had
our best interests in mind. We trust you to make good decisions that create a positive impact on
our schools, businesses and communities. Please do the right thing and tell Hennepin County that
we won’t stand for their dirty politics.
Mr. Mark Christiansen, 3011 Brunswick Ave S, the railroad track is in his back yard. Thanked
Council Members for holding this forum. It is long overdue and very important. He had three
issues against this re-route and two requests. The three issues are, they have already been stated
but it was important to keep repeating them so they understand that this runs deep with everyone
in this room: Property values, standard of living and safety. For the property values, he would
have to sell his home at some time, which he would not like to do because he loves living in this
community, but he would have to sell and the person that buys it will have to sell it again at a
lower price and before you know it, it is an undesirable location and all of the homes around it
would be affected. St. Louis Park will become a drive-through community. There will be no lure
to the neighborhoods if this happens. Standard of living: vibrations and noise will affect quality
of life. Safety: next to the High School can’t be said enough. There are trains there now, they
know that, but there are not very many and cars move slowly. This will completely change the
dynamic around the high school and is not safe for kids. Derailments happen and it will happen.
They need to have a plan in place. Because it is not a corridor, it is now dangerous to people that
sleep and kids that live there. The two things he requests are a continued effort for the proper and
fair mitigation. They have not been listened to at the PMT and don’t have any property or fair
safety and property value mitigation plans. This must happen if this has to take place. The second
thing he would ask if that St. Louis Park must demand to be at the table for the decision making
process. He heard from one on the Council that St. Louis Park is not involved in the decision
making process and that boggled his mind. They are the ones directly impacted by this decision.
You have to demand to be at the table. There are 16 other people in the decision making process
and one of the most important factors is that St. Louis Park is not at the table. He didn’t
understand that and how that was possible. There has to be a better way. Don’t let the
community be a second-class community.
Mr. Al Boyce, 3208 Edgewood Ave S, resident for 14 years and lives one and a half block from
the High School rail crossing. He hasn’t been as deeply involved as other here and appreciated
their efforts, especially Safety in the Park to educate the neighbors. He sent an email to Council
Members and read: As a Lennox neighborhood resident in St. Louis Park, he was writing to
exhort them to say “no” to the freight rail re-route planned to vivisect St. Louis Park. His
understanding is that St. Louis Park residents would be expected to endure 400% more rail
traffic, some of it potentially lethal or toxic on rail lines never intended for such frequent or
intense use. In addition, he understood that questions raised by Safety in the Park committee and
St. Louis Park City official regarding necessary mitigation requirements, possibilities for
alternate re-route paths, and concerns about the voracity of existing studies have either been
unanswered or have been ignored by Hennepin County. His belief is that this re-route through
our quiet neighborhood would increase air pollution, noise pollution, the potential for toxic
disasters in the events of derailments and quality of life as property values drop and less than
desirable residents move in. He also believed that this action would ultimately reduce pedestrian
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Mr. Boyce (continued) safety, commerce property values by 5-7%, police and fire department
access, traffic mobility, and student efficacy due to increased distraction in five different school.
He understood that because St. Louis Park’s easement ownership that the City Council has the
ability to derail this juggernaut, at least until such time that they can get their concerns answered
accurately and fully. He pleads that they do so and thanked them for their consideration.
Ms. Cheryl Martin, 5728 W 26th St, Birchwood neighborhood, lived there 29 years; she had
not been active until December when she became aware of. She had been going to meetings ever
since and frankly, with all of the meetings she had gone to, she had lost her hope in government.
What she had seen is exactly what had been portrayed tonight, they ask for input and they ignore
them. They tell them it is a “done deal” and then they tell them it is not. She feels as though this
railroad is being “rail roaded” down their throats. She was three blocks from tracks and felt
really sorry for the people who lived on the tracks. It came up today should they have a corridor
of railroads or should they have them running throughout the whole city? In Birchwood, they
have highway 100 on one side and the very noisy railroad behind 25th 1/2, and a small railroad,
which would apparently become a big railroad if in fact they end up with the freight rail and they
are bordered by Minnetonka Blvd on the other end. They have a five block by eight block noisy
area. She personally does not want to see the train routed there. She would like to see it in the
corridor where it currently is in Kenilworth with the LRT. When they looked at Mr. McKenzie’s
presentation, it was an awful lot of information at once to absorb. When she looked at $70
million, she does not believe those figures. As a realtor, she was concerned about property
values. She sent in a letter about property valuation and before she spoke at a PMT meeting, she
did a survey to see how many properties had sold on rail line since last January and there were
seven properties. Two were from a traditional seller, two were short sales, two were foreclosures
and one was an auction, which sold for $71,000. The homes along the tracks take a long time to
sell, 180 days to over a year. The people along the railroad are looking at 5-7% property value
reductions. She believes it would be a lot more than that. It required people to put their house
on the market and keep reducing until they can finally sell it. She agreed that property values
would go down, they would really be impacted. She was also concerned about safety. Her
youngest son has always been adventurous and liked to try everything and she didn’t believe kids
could be taught to stay away from the tracks. If they want to do something, their brains are not
wired to be mature and they would have issues around the high school that really scared her.
Safety is a real problem with the tracks.
Mr. Kevin Terry, 3200 Hampshire Ave S, noted he worked at the Target Center and if you are
in the basement or overhead above terrace level, when a train went by, you felt it. The closer you
were to that, even 300’ away you felt it. When you talk 40’ versus the width of the stadium and
you’re still feeling it. He asked Council Members if any of them owned property on the tracks?
He and his wife have lived in St. Louis Park for a long time. His wife and son were on the first
committees for Children’s First. He bet $5 every one of the Council members uttered the words
when they were elected and campaigned that this is a children first community. We need you to
fight for the children now. If this re-route happens the schools are in jeopardy, the kids are in
jeopardy and they are counting on you. Don’t blow us off, don’t be a politician, fight for us.
Ms. Keisha Piehl, 6325 33rd St W, thanked them for the opportunity to speak and all they do
for the City. She lives one block away from the Dakota intersection. She and her husband had
lived there for 13 years and have three children, 9, 7 and 5. They are a family on the go. Her
husband would prefer they were less on the go, but their three high energy kids keep them
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 11
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Piehl (continued) moving. One thing that they love about St. Louis Park is how they can be
on the go and not need to get into a car. Their friends that live in Eden Prairie, Minnetonka or
similar suburbs can’t walk their city like they do. They go so many places on foot or on wheels,
as in bicycle, scooter or skateboard wheels. Here are just some of the places they walk to or bike
to in a regular basis: library, hardware store, school, community center, auto repair shop, dentist,
McDonald’s, and at least 6-7 parks. Many of those trips have them crossing the MN&S tracks.
They were concerned that a dramatic increase in train traffic would negatively affect the walk-
ability she spoke about. The walkability that make St. Louis Park so family and pedestrian
friendly. As you know, the tracks don’t skirt around the edge of our City, they cut right through
the center. They literally run right through neighborhoods. These tracks don’t separate different
zones of the city like a warehouse section from a residential section; they cut right through a
vibrant, active part of the neighborhood an active part with family friendly amenities on both
sides. To that end, in her mind, when she thinks of the tracks starting at Highway 7 and moving
North, she thinks of a school on one side of the tracks, a library on the other. A football field on
this side, a school on that side. McDonald’s on this side, a park on this side, etc. etc. and all the
way, many houses on both sides. Her family does want LRT in St. Louis Park. They know there
are not many good options for the freight tracks, but this seems to be an especially bad one. Park
pride runs deep in their family, they love this city. They love the schools, the park and rec.,
community Ed, they appreciate how well the city is run and they like the “vibe”. To that end,
they stand firmly on the side of saying no to freight rail re-route.
Mr. Ron DaBruzzi, 2651 Yosemite Ave S, he had not been heavily involved, but had been to a
number of meetings. He was particularly interested in the presentation and what was presented
for mitigation on two options. He was really set back by the numbers of units that were
mitigated for the Kenilworth route and he heard two houses were in the mitigation list for the re-
route. It blew his mind. He lives in the Birchwood neighborhood and as you go from
Minnetonka to 27th, there are a dozen houses just on their side of the tracks on each of those
blocks. If you visualize a derailment, there is no way that a car coming off those tracks would
not be in someone’s yard. He didn’t see how it was possible not to at least acquire every one of
the houses surrounding track at least on one side or the other. He heard that might be an option,
but was surprised that was not a part of the numbers. It sounded to him like the requests had
been given, but had been blown off which was upsetting.
Mr. Joseph LaPray, 3256 Blackstone Ave, lived there 55 years. Wanted to talk about how
they got to where they were. Of the three possible freight rail connections between Hopkins and
St. Paul that the County had to chose from, the 29th Street Corridor, the midtown greenway, the
Kenilworth corridor and the MN&S route, MnDOT and Hennepin County want to use the route
that is least efficient for railroad operations, the route that presents the greatest hazards to public
safety and the route that will be most harmful to property values. For railroad operating
efficiency, the best route is a flat, direct, short route that has few railroad crossings and few
curves. Of the three possible routes, the MN&S is the longest, has the worst grades, the sharpest
curves and the most road crossings. Yet, the MN&S route is the one preferred by Hennepin
County and MnDOT. He wanted to talk about the curves. Imagine a railroad engineer going
around those curves, between Dakota and Library Lane; by the time he makes visual contact with
the crossing at Library Lane, it is too later to stop the train if he is going 20 mph, an 80-car train.
There is nothing he can do to stop the train if there is a biker or a car stalled in the crossing. It is
a blind curve and crossing and nothing they can do to stop. There are no comparable blind
crossings that he knew of on the Kenilworth corridor on the 29th St corridor. When they brought
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 12
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Mr. LaPray (continued) this question up to Kimberly Horn, they said the crossing met Federal
standards. He was glad the County and Kimberly Horn had an excuse. He hoped it made
them happy. There are no comparable crossings in either the Kenilworth or 29th St corridors,
yet the MN&S route was the route preferred by Hennepin County and MnDOT. Studies
published in professional journals of real estate appraisal have looked at what happens to
property values when freight rail is re-routed. What happens is that property values that are most
depressed by a freight rail re-route are those for smaller homes, those for homes that are at or
below the level of the tracks, those for homes that are not defended by berms or other breaks
between the freight rail tracks. Those are the homes they were describing in St. Louis Park, much
more so than the Kenilworth corridor or the 29th St corridor. He was talking about smaller
homes in St. Louis Park, homes that are at or below the level of the tracks, homes that are not
buffered by a berm. They bought near the tracks, so they must expect trains. The Canadian
Pacific could increase the freight rail traffic any time they want for their own business purposes.
A natural increase in freight rail traffic was something they took the chance of when they bought
there. Just as if you walk under a tree, you are taking a chance that a branch might fall down and
hit you. Although the injury might be the same, there is a difference between getting hit by a
falling tree branch and getting hit by somebody swinging a baseball bat. Hennepin County is
swinging a bat along the MN&S line. All they were asking was for them to be careful and
considerate. The County doesn’t see it that way. Meaningful mitigation measures have been
dismissed as betterments and betterments aren’t going to be considered for the people of St.
Louis Park. Betterments are reserved for others, such as the property owners who bought along
the 29th Street corridor, knowing they were buying along a freight rail main line and had the line
removed by the County and MnDOT. The MN&S route doesn’t make sense from a railroad
operational perceptive, nor from a public safety perspective, nor from protecting a property value
perspective, so what is left to explain the County’s plan? They are not trendy like Uptown, we
are not affluent like Kenilworth, but neither are we contemptible or expendable.
Mr. Greg Suchgnek, 2740 Blackstone Ave, showed a video of his backyard on Monday and
what goes on, standing in his doorway, looking out his back yard as a South-bound train goes by
about 11:00 each morning and the North-bound train around 2:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon. He
wanted to make three points: 1) how close the trains really are. Looking at the video, if the train
derailed, the grade is above his yard and those cars would for take out his garage and possibly go
into his house. There are train horns and clickety clack and this was a slow moving train. If they
get trains going 15-25 mph, they would be a lot nosier. He has been doing remodeling, and his
house has settled because of the vibration, he has had to adjust doors and windows and they
don’t line up square to his house. It is not level and plum. It would cause more problems from
the vibration and noise. 2) It would also be a decrease in home values. The word is out about the
re-route coming and home values were already being affected and going down. At some point,
he would want to see. If he was not able to sell at what he thought was a fair price, he will
probably need to rent his house. There are already a lot of rental homes in the Birchwood
neighborhood. They would see more of that. Where you have home ownership, it is a lot better
than where you have rentals. 3) He saw three options for the City Council. First to let Hennepin
County force the re-route through, this is the wrong thing to do. They had not come up with any
mitigation. The PMT study was a joke. He had attended all of the PMT meetings. They had
asked for a number of mitigation and nothing was done. His assumption going into the PMT
meetings was that they would look at of these, come up with costs, present that to the County to
make a decision on what is viable and what is not. They decided what was viable and what was
not, throwing out anything that was expensive. The second is to keep fighting for the train
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 13
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Mr. Suchgnek (continued) staying in the Kenilworth corridor. With the presentation done by
Mr. McKenzie, there is a lot of good information there. The one thing he disagreed with him on
was that the option of having a single track for the light rail through the pinch point. There are
stations on either end of the pinch point, which can control the traffic through that area on a
single track. That had been overlooked. The third option is to build a true corridor going through
St. Louis Park, which would mean buying out the homes on either side of the track on Brunswick
and Blackstone Av, taking the tracks and moving them to the East as you get toward
McDonald’s and away from high school. It would probably end up going through the football
field, but if you are going to build a true corridor, those are the things that need to be done.
Buying out the McDonalds and businesses would have to move. They can make it a safer curve
and make it a true corridor. They could also turn it into greenway with walking and bike paths
between Highway 7 and the Cedar Wirth trails. They could make it into something that
functioned and was better for the community.
Mr. Doug Guild, 7100 W 23rd St, provided comments in writing.
Mr. Brian Zachek, 6108 Minnetonka Blvd, 9 years, right by the train bridge, and they lived
through the construction. He wanted to put a human face on this because one month after they
moved in, his wife was diagnosed and rushed to the hospital for an emergency surgery due to a
brain tumor, she is doing OK today. The train re-route has been ruining their lives for the past
year. He could only imagine if it went through and they were not bought out. Mr. McKenzie
said earlier two properties would have to be purchased and he would like to believe that. He had
been to all of the PMT meetings and fighting the fight. At the last meeting, all of their mitigation
requests had been ignored. Not only that, Dave Christianson from MnDOT gave a very flowery
speech talking about the rights of the train companies to make a profit. He even invoked the US
Constitution. He wondered what planet he was one. It was unbelievable. It is the County that is
driving a wedge between the train companies and interests of the people of St. Louis Park. It is
not the train company and it is not us. We were living our lives just fine. This is a serious
issues. He would like to know why it is only the citizens of St. Louis Park and Safety in the Park
talking about the repercussions of a derailment. Why has this not been mentioned by Kimberly
Horn? He didn’t even hear a mention of it today and was very surprised at this. This is a massive
problem for them, because it is going to happen, and has already happened two or three times in
one of Safety of the Park’s leaders yard. Imagine what would happen in my yard? He was there
to ask and plead to please protect physical and economic safety of his family by either preventing
this from happening or really holding the County accountable by purchasing homes that need to
be purchased. If this goes through, it will be 33’ from his house, according to County statistics.
His house is 34’ away now and they would move the tracks even one foot closer and his garage
was even closer. You are our hope to have not only our family, but several others along the line.
Ms. Judy Johnson, Director of Government Affairs for Twin West Chamber of Commerce,
10700 Old Co Rd 15, Plymouth, thanked them for the opportunity to voice their thoughts on the
SW corridor. The Twin West Chamber of Commerce has been part of a transportation alliance
of three other Chambers in addition in support of the Southwest line for many years. They were
coming with great respect for the people who call St. Louis Park their home. They think St.
Louis Park is a fabulous community and one of the ten they serve. They wanted to offer insights
as it related to their support of the SW light rail line. With everything they have to consider,
there are no easy solutions. There are studies that show that co-locating SW light rail with freight
rail is not as robust for the SW light rail line access and future economic development, which is a
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 14
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Johnson (continued) large reason they support the line all the way from Minneapolis
through St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and eventually to Eden Prairie are part of the
reasons for economic development, multi-modal transportation in the region, it is very
important to the business community. With that said, everything that everyone was bringing
forward was very important and they respect their concerns. The Chamber of Commerce has
been working with the City of St. Louis Park. They have been briefed at the St. Louis Park
Business Council meetings for many years. They knew they were strong supporters of SW light
rail. It will be up to you and the County and all of the partners involved to weigh and measure
the impacts to the people here, but also the impacts to SW light rail and what it would mean to
the national transportation board and it’s rankings. SW light rail ranks very high right now for
funding and that is a consideration for Twin West Chamber. They want to see this move forward;
it was one of their highest ranked projects for their projects within the region that they support.
They serve as a resource for City Council as they try to move light rail forward.
Mr. Douglas Bruce, 9851 Edgewood Rd, Bloomington, noted that this is a regional issue,
which was why he was speaking. He is a member of the Dan Patch Alliance, which has chapter
in Edina, Bloomington, Burnsville and at one time St. Louis Park. Because it is a regional issue
and the Dan Patch line runs through those communities, they started to be in contact with State
Representatives, Senators and Hennepin County Commissioners regarding this. He came with a
little experience with commuter rail issues. That was not what they were talking about here, but
all three were tightly inter-wound (freight, commuter and LRT). He was appointed from
Bloomington to take part in an inter-agency study. Half a million dollar study of commuter rail
on the Dan Patch line. The result of the study after a number of meetings, and looking at the data
consultants brought forward, they came to the conclusion that it wasn’t appropriate to consider
moving forward with commuter rail. There were a number of reasons. One was that in order for
the Dan Patch line to handle commuter rail, the whole line have to be completely re-built, at
huge significant costs. It would be done on the taxpayer dollar and they would be doing it to
somebody else and they would still control it, but they would be investing in it. One of the other
things they found out was by the stations, property values would increase. But they asked the
question about property values along the line. The consultant came up with studies and they
found that there was a 12-15% decrease in property values and it went back into community, the
house on one side and across the street as well. The impact for City of Bloomington would be $2
million a year. In Bloomington, that was a lot of money and they needed to make decisions about
that. They were very concerned about the investment in a cross over and starting process of
upgrading the system so that there would be more rail and there would be more freight and
priming the pump for commuter rail. He hoped they didn’t do something where they would shoot
themselves in the foot by making commuter rail sound very attractive.
Mr. Dave Wanger, 7807 Edgebrook Dr, noted that the railroad property is in his back yard. He
applauded the work that had been done and knew they had a lot of work ahead of them. He had
been fighting the railroad problem for 20 years; back to the early 1990’s when the Twin City
Western began their company. He was at peace with the railroads; they come through the back
yard, no problem. The noise and vibration was mild. But the Twin City and Western had started
an entirely different kind of freight Rail Company and it had grown more and more every year.
What people have seen with the vibration, noise and pollution wasn’t anything close to what
goes on when they block cars. It has been mentioned once and he would like to see it mentioned
more. As part of either solution that they implement, that the blocking of cars in St. Louis Park
be entirely eliminated. The vibration is different when they hit one rail car to another, compared
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 15
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Mr. Wanger (continued) to the vibration in a building; it is like a bomb going off. They park
trains in the back yard with engine running for hour after hour. Under certain conditions in the
summer when windows are open, he has gotten dizzy and sick, close to setting off his
carbon monoxide detector. Why should the operation of a train parked in your back yard cause
something near death? It really isn’t appropriate for the blocking of trains in the city that the
Twin City Western has done. All of the other train companies that did business here have not
been a problem. Twin City and Western has been a bad neighbor. It is going to get worse. They
are a growing company and he thought the Council really needed to consider that this particular
company will cause more and more severe problems for the City until the situation is addressed.
Mr. Richard Earle, no longer present.
Mr. Jack Haskovitz, 8143 Westwood (born and raised), in a family business at 2625 Louisiana
Av S. He comes to you with common sense and as a business owner along the railroad tracks.
He has five lots, one with his property and there is no way he is going to develop the other four
other lots. They have seen the development of the rail line along their property. He was living
by Cedar Trails last year, they had speed limits then. When he moved there were no speed limits
and they were going by pretty quickly. When he first moved in, they were going as a crawl.
What happened to those speed limits? He sees the SW corridor and looks at it with common
sense. This will be putting a bulldozer through these neighborhoods. Yes, they live along the
railroad tracks and they know it is there and the risks they take. But what sense does it make
when there is no infrastructure at all, none. You give these amounts, but what about litigation?
All of these people that are going to fight you every bit of the way. He looked at the 394 project
and how much litigation and how long did that take before it actually happened because of all the
people that fought along the way? It got built, but how much more money did it cost that didn’t
need to be there? He brought up the 394 project, because he looked at the infrastructure there.
Where is the parking for the light rail going to be along this corridor? There is no parking even
for the people that live around these neighborhoods now. The Hoigaard project was built as the
market fell out. He looked at the Hiawatha route, great for the Twins games and people going
downtown going to the Mall and airport, where is the parking? There is none. Where is the
infrastructure? Why aren’t they looking at existing infrastructure, building the light rail along
places that there is already infrastructure? Then deal with the harder areas down the line. Look
at the PBS special. It is a sore subject. How many people were alive when the light rail was
everywhere? The scams and mismanagement. It almost seems like it is happening all over again.
He wasn’t blaming anyone, but common sense needs to take precedence. There are three or four
Fortune 500 companies along 349 and the parking ramp is already in place for light rail. It
doesn’t even seem like that is part of the discussion. Where is the infrastructure and parking
going to come from?
Mr. Lynne Carper, 4010 Highwood Rd, representing Lake Forest neighborhood on the PMT,
one of the reasons he felt they were here was because St. Louis Park is being forced to “eat” this
railroad because they were telling them that the Kenilworth was not feasible to do it, would cost
too much and it can’t be done. He wanted to challenge that assumption. What they saw from Mr.
McKenzie, was what the profile was of how much distance they needed in order to be able to
operate. One of the things is that they have a 25’ clearance and the discussion was, is it the
Federal government that does it and the answer was no, he had researched that. Is it the State
that determines that? No, they don’t determine it. What does determine it? That happens to be
the individual railroads. There is a publication (he could not recall the name) that has all of the
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 16
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Mr. Carper (continued) railroad operating rules, of which this is one for all of the railroad in
the State of Minnesota. The book costs $1100 and he couldn’t invest in it and couldn’t find one
at the library. At one of the meetings he spoke with one of the State representative who had the
book. He submitted a question asking what the book says about TC&W and it has yet to be
answered. He also submitted the question to Tom Harmening to be passed on to Mr. McKenzie
and hadn’t heard an answer, at least contained in the documents or comments from him. At this
point, he didn’t believe the number. There is no substantiation of it. Likewise, Mr. McKenzie
wanted a 25’ safety area, which was his personal opinion. When he was researching this, he saw
that the Federal government was modeling 150 mph passenger trains at a 15’ clearance from
between another train on the siding. That tells him that in the NE corridor, they are probably
operating at a much tighter standard successfully. When they look at the trail length, he
measured the trail adjacent to the Burlington Northern and it narrows where it needs to be
narrowed. In other words where there is an adjacent room it narrows down to 13 ½ feet wide, as
compared to the distance here. Another thing he believes is if there were no freight rail in the
corridor and there were only the walking path and trail, and the LRT had to supercede that, that
the walking path and trail would be gone for the light rail to go there. He thought it can be
relocated. This was not a given, it didn’t have to be there. It was a low cost move to
accommodate both the freight rail in that area. On of the things that hadn’t been discussed and he
would like to see was on the BNSF they are going to put in a new main line to north of existing
line in the Cedarhurst neighborhood, which puts the line closer to existing homes. He hadn’t
seen anybody talk about what the distance is going to be on that and what clearance is necessary.
Finally, is the issue of content of the freight going by the high school. There will be ethanol cars
moving through. They will probably be 30,000-gallon ethanol cars. If anybody goes on-line to
Google ethanol train wreck Toledo, they will find outside Toledo four weeks ago, 14 cars went
off the track, they were not supposed to explode and they did explode. They had to clear
everything within a mile of the area because of the danger of the cars exploding. It was pretty
spectacular.
Mr. Jeremy Anderson, 3208 Dakota Ave, represented the Lennox neighborhood on the PMT.
There is a single over-riding issue here. People say safety, great, but it was not narrowing it
down enough. Regardless of all of the other issues of moving the freight on this little line,
regardless of property value impacts, degrading our tax base, which affects other services, or
vibration damage to surrounding homes and businesses, they were talking about routing kilotons
of freight past the high school daily. All it takes is one bad railroad accident, one bad derailment
and the death toll will be horrific. He was not talking three homes, they were talking hundreds of
students. They would stack the body bags like cordwood. That was not an image he liked to
think about. They lose an ethanol train right there, clearing everything within a mile, what if they
lose an anhydrous ammonia train? It was bad, even a coal train has a lot of momentum. Moving
this much stuff within 80 feet of the high school was not a good plan, it was bad engineering.
Mr. Bryan Bevell, 2837 Yosemite Ave S, noted he had lived in downtown San Diego near two
existing light rail lines and during the construction of a third. He believed San Diego was a
model for the nation in its light rail system. He was able to live there very happily without a car
for many years. The orange line was constructed near his place of residences and was built
alongside the existing freight, commuter and passenger rail tracks that were already in place and
they were able to, in a much more congested area than Kenilworth corridor, able to successfully
put this line in. They did have to put in one small elevated section and run a small tunnel, but
they were able to put the line in without putting the train anywhere where it could smash into a
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 17
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 27, 2011 (continued)
Mr. Bevell (continued) high school or fall on someone’s house. He thought they have a bright
and capable officials who could come up with a much better solution than the one that was being
shoved down their throat. They also managed to do it without bisecting existing neighborhoods.
Mr. Gary Aiken, 1811 Traymore Rd S, Minnetonka, with the Twin West Chamber of
Commerce, echoed Ms. Johnson’s comments, that they feel that the rail situation in St. Louis
Park was very, very important to economic development of the Southwest Metro area. It was an
unfortunate and scary issue they hear about. He wanted them to know he was a survivor. His
father built a house on 29th and Blackstone and he missed all of the trains. There were a lot more
than two a day. It was a pretty major freight line back then and all night long they were
switching. He wanted to tell them he was a survivor. With all of the accidents and everything
else they hear, he survived somehow. He understood the fears, but in this day and age the rail
safety has greatly improved.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 18
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011
Mr. Michael Hough, 3225 Blackstone Ave, thanked the city for the keeping residents abreast of
what is going on with this decision. He feels like the MN&S was grossly under designed for
safety. In his mind, a grade separation was the real answer to take care of these issues,
particularly at the school. He had a friend leave here last night who was under the impression
that Kenilworth would not work because design concepts were so difficult for the stations. He
found it interesting because he did some looking and even if they do change this to MN&S, we
still have Penn, Van White, Louisiana, Blake, Hopkins and Highway 62, all of which would have
a light rail station with a bike path and freight included all side by side. He guaranteed that they
would figure out how to make it work. If they figure out how to make it on those, they can figure
out how to make it work on Kenilworth.
Ms. Jamie LaPray, 3256 Blackstone Ave, Co-Chair of Safety in the Park, indicated her
comments would be different from the previous night. When she left last night, she had no
intention of speaking again today. However, she kept thinking about the people from the
Chamber of Commerce and their comments. She couldn’t let it rest. For the record, she was in
favor of the SWLRT. The Chamber speakers implied that if St. Louis Park does not accept the
freight rail on the MN&S, it would be their fault if the LRT fails. And, if the LRT fails, it will
not be the fault of the residents of St. Louis Park for standing up for us. It will not be the fault of
the St. Louis Park residents because they will not be pushed around. It will not be the City
Council Members fault for living up to the Resolutions you passed, which by the way, the
County has completely ignored. It would not fail because they would be willing to accept more
of a cost than any other community. If the freight rail does cause the LRT to fail, which she
didn’t think it would, that fault will lie squarely on the shoulders of Hennepin County. It will be
their fault that the light rail fails because they lack the vision to look at freight rail and light rail
when they were planning the LRT. They have been dismissive, condescending and at times,
people believe they have even been dishonest. She was incensed at the idea they could be blamed
for something that was absolutely, positively not their fault.
Ms. Claudia Johnston, 3931 Joppa, Minnekahda Vista neighborhood, noted she was not
directly impacted by this issue, but they have a lot of residents in the neighborhood who have
children that go to schools in that area, who visit the library, who visit the small businesses
owners in the area and so they would be impacted. They are all impacted by the traffic and what
is happening to residents and business in that area with the possibilities of what the impacts are.
She is also a Planning Commissioner and requested to be on the PMT (project management
team), formed by railroad, residents, City staff, and Hennepin County. The group is supposed to
be working with Hennepin County to come up with and meet the City Council Resolution. So
far, it has been one of the strangest groups she has been on and it was not working. Her big
concern was whether or not each and every one of you on the City Council will support the
Resolution that you signed your names to. The Resolution says, “That the City of St. Louis Park
opposes rerouting rail traffic from Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following
conditions are clearly met…” It goes through to say, “its established through a very thorough and
careful analysis that no other viable route exists,” it goes on to talk about, “there is appropriate
mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail re-routing funded by sources other
than the City of St. Louis Park.” It talks about the elimination of railroad switching, sorting,
removal of the wye, creation of a freight rail single-track corridor with significant right of way.
None of those things are being met with the PMT group working with the County. They have
completely ignored the majority of, probably 99%, of the recommendations made by the
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 19
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Johnston (continued) residents. She could guarantee that the EAW coming out is a joke.
She didn’t mean to be disrespectful of everyone who had worked on that committee. It is not
going to be what it could have been. They need to know where the Council Members stand and
are you going to support this? Are you going to stick to this, or are you going to let the phone
calls from Hennepin County or from MnDOT, or whatever comments made after a meeting
trying to intimidate you, that if you don’t allow this to happen in St. Louis Park, and you do have
the power to stop this, that you will be stopping light rail.
Ms. Liz Diericky, 2635 Alabama Ave S, Birchwood neighborhood she moved to the
neighborhood a few years ago as a person who saw the neighborhood as a clean, nice place, with
big trees and access to the Cedar Lake trail and she was very concerned that would completely
go away when this happens. Particularly, she wanted to talk about the “Iron Triangle” and she
felt like that hadn’t been discussed at any of the meetings that she had been to and she felt like
her neighborhood, between the rail line, Highway 100 and North of Minnetonka Blvd had been
under-represented in the meetings she had been to. She had been talking with the St. Louis Park
Historical Society and speaking with “old timers” in the neighborhood, that rail was taken out
originally because it had a high propensity for derailment. What is now being proposed is to put
that rail line back in, with a very sharp curve, increased speeds, carrying hazardous and explosive
chemicals that have fire bomb potential, which they have seen in both Ohio and Massachusetts,
and to close at-grade crossings at 28th and 29th Street and on a different note to close highway
access at 27th Street. She wanted to know, what would happen with emergency vehicle access
as well as citizen evacuation, not if, but when those derailments occur? It is going to happen.
You are putting us in a very unsafe environment. There are over 1,000 homes in that area. It is a
five by seven block neighborhood. She had not heard that talked about at all. Secondly she
wanted to talk about the Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The maps she had seen have shown
that NWI identified wetlands, 100% overlap with FEMA flood plain identified lands. However,
out of that five acres only 1.75 acres of that land is being planned to be protected and permit
processed by the wetland conservation act and the Army Corp of Engineer processes for
permitting. Why is that? 100% of that five acres is wetlands, but only 1.75 acres of it are being
protected by the government policies. The City Manager mentioned there are pluses and minuses
for both neighborhoods. She had not seen a side-by-side comparison anywhere. She appreciated
the City Council’s efforts to bring the issue to the level it was at today, especially Sue Sanger.
She thought that Dave McKenzie’s assessment was fair and thorough. Her question was, who is
listening to us and who are the decision makers, what is the criteria? Who is looking at that side-
by-side list and saying this matters and this doesn’t?
Mr. Chris Gaspard, 6210 Hamilton St, Sorenson Neighborhood about a block away from the
McDonald’s and close to the railroad. He was on the other side of the highway, so he got both
sides of it. It was much better on the other side of the highway from his house, than it is to be
close to the McDonald’s when one when that passes by. They just put in a new bridge on
Wooddale. The traffic had gotten better since the traffic light was gone. However, when he
exits his street, he still has times in the morning when he can’t get out of his street because traffic
is backing up at that stop sign. Can you imagine when they add trains to the mix on top of this
traffic, there would have to be a light crossing. There would be a major traffic impact and the
infrastructure for their neighborhood is not prepared for all of the traffic they were going to get.
They have the traffic, they just don’t have a way to disperse the traffic. They were not prepared
for the train to be there and hold it up anymore. He thought this was crazy. To make a train
climb like that, do crazy turns, whip around and come by a school. If you think about it, it sounds
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 20
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Mr. Gaspard (continued) like it is going to roll over right onto the high school track there or
maybe their parking lot. He didn’t think it was a good idea. As our elected officials, they have
to put their faith in you. They want to know where they stand on this matter and where their
priorities are. Because, they are elected officials and if this train does go through, you are going
to be to blame. If you save it, they will welcome you forever. This will put a lot of people’s lives,
property, everything they have as their life savings in jeopardy. The property values would go
down significantly. $20-30,000. On top of that, it will diminish the quality of their City. It is not
going to be the nice vibrant place for young families, starter homes and new families that it once
was. It would be worse. There is going to be noise and bad infrastructure. Another concern he
had was that there are already planes that go directly over, which hasn’t been brought up. All of
the planes fly on the same grid and go right over our city, right along the railroad. They have the
planes, trains and the automobiles. This was not OK to dump in their laps. He hoped they took
the time to look at and assess what is their priority or how they want to be remembered. Don’t
let Hennepin County push you around.
Mr. Fritz Vandover, 5915 W 42nd St, he and his wife just built their home, 90 feet from tracks,
south of Excelsior, so his concerns were about what gets displaced in the south now and in the
future. He is very close to the issue and coming as someone who has more history degrees than
one should have, the problem with transit and the build up of transit in the United States is a lot
of the times it benefits people at either end. The people in the metro pole, in the center, it doesn’t
often benefit the people along the way. For example the Rondo neighborhood. This must work
for St. Louis Park. It needs to be a net positive. It can be a positive, but it can also be a negative.
Whatever the Council does or recommends and fights for, whether it be easements or whatever
power they have, it must benefit the City. Because it could not benefit the City. He agreed with
previous speakers and what is at risk. He and his wife just moved from South Minneapolis and
were right under the parallel. They had gone from that to two trains a day, which was fine. It is
about the freight rail. This must work, he wasn’t sure how that happened, but find a way to make
this work, because it could benefit them, but also could put them really at risk.
Mr. Dale Hanson, 2555 Xenwood Ave S, indicated that the previous speakers covered some of
the subjects he was going to speak about. One thing nobody addressed was the presentation Mr.
McKenzie made for the pinch point in the Kenilworth corridor. It shows everything at grade.
There is a nice bridge that goes over highway 7 for bikers and joggers, why couldn’t the same
thing be built in the Kenilworth corridor? That would increase the space allotted for the rail and
it would be a lot less expensive than the mitigations that had been mentioned.
Ms. Janet Ungs, 2554 Alabama Ave S, she lives in the Iron triangle and this was the first time
she had heard it mentioned. She agreed with the other speaker. There is a lot of concern that
those of us that live there have. She has lived in the community for 27 years. When she first
moved there, the activity about the railroad tracks was primary on her mind. At that time she
was told there was little activity, it was off to the North and that was the way it had been. There
is a lot of concern about how it would impact property values, noise, the safety of the area and
the vibrations. During the day most of the time when the day trains come through she can hear a
faint hum, but at night if she is in bed, just with the two trains going slow, she hears the pictures
on the wall vibrate. If she thinks about more trains going faster, she worries about what it does to
their structures and foundation of the buildings they live in. If that bypass goes in Iron triangle, it
goes right behind the town homes she lives in and it would affect the garages and homes of the
people that live there. She had a great concern about structural problems. She has served on the
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 21
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Ungs (continued) Board of Directors for the town homes and the railroad companies were
not good neighbors. They have a lot of trees that border their property and ours. They have had
trees fall onto their garages and contacted them to take care of it and they have not. They have
spent their own money to fix their property and take the trees down. The City contacted them
several times about elm disease on the trees, but they belong to the railroad property, not the
town homes. When they contacted the City and they contacted the railroad, then they got action,
but never on their part. They had tried through a number of years. The other thing she looked at
was the cost. Overall the cost is less to keep it in the Kenilworth corridor. She asked the
Council to consider if they are going to have light rail there anyhow, then minimize the impact to
different areas of the City. Most of the area, except one corner, can accommodate both the light
rail and the train, rather than taking the problem and moving it over to St. Louis Park. She
hadn’t heard any benefit to St. Louis Park. She wondered if the Council passed a resolution, why
they aren’t supporting it and why they were having this discussion. In earlier meetings she
attended in January and February, people were specifically asked was this decision already
made. Is this just window dressing? No one could give them a direct answer. They also ask who
the decision maker is, who do they need to be talking to? Nobody would tell them. She was
hoping they were really there to listen and that if they passed a Resolution, they have clout in
supporting that.
Ms. Karen Hroma, 2752 Blackstone Ave, stated at the beginning of this meeting the Mayor
stated that he would insist that St. Louis Park is being taken seriously, she assumed he meant in
respect to Hennepin County, MnDOT and the decision makers. You also stated that you are very
proud of the City and the meetings have been civil, respectful and effective. As a member of the
PMT process, she could tell you that St. Louis Park is not being taken seriously. Those meetings
have been anything but respectful and effective. Her question to you and the other Council
Members is what are you going to do to make sure that we are taken seriously? She had talked
to several Council Members over the last year and hadn’t gotten a clear answer. They deserve
that. They want to know what they can do and what they are going to do. There are several
reasons why the Hennepin County studies have been flawed. She had spoken to several of you
about those reasons. The best word she could relate to the PMT meetings was that they had been
insulting and a waste of time. One minor thing with the PMT process she hadn’t brought up in
the past is regarding the 29th Street closure. She is the Birchwood representative and in several
of the meetings, along with other residents, they have requested that the 29th Street not be
closed. She formally gave that to Kimberly Horn in written words. There isn’t a single resident
she had spoken to that wants 29th Street closed, yet when the study came out, that was listed
under mitigation. She was confused how something that nobody wanted is considered mitigation.
Was it mitigation for the railroad company? She wanted to concur with Ms. LaPray about the
SW Rail and freight and being put in the position as bad guys. From the beginning Hennepin
County made the mistake to separate them from the beginning. Another thing that had been
insulting was that they had said in several of the meting that unanimously St. Louis Park voted
for that route. What they forget to say was that when people who voted for that route did have
concerns about the re-route that they were told to keep them separate. She was confused.
Hennepin County was able to keep the re-route separate from LRT when they requested Federal
funding to keep the cost effective index low. Why were they the bad guys for getting in the way
of light rail? The last point was the funding and where the money will come for this? They all
know there is not unlimited funding for this project. They have seen that plans have changed last
minute because they don’t have enough funding (i.e. Highway 100). In her mind this is way
below bare minimum, what is going to prevent them not even having enough money for that?
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 22
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Hroma (continued) That is why she was concerned about the quiet zones. Everyone in the
room needs to know that almost all of the time the City pays for quiet zones. This is
something that MnDOT typically does not contribute to, nor do Federal or State. She was
very concerned when it came down to when they couldn’t get enough money that even the
minimal mitigation was going to go away as well.
Mr. Dan Goldman, 5353 Gamble Drive, owner of the Target Apartments, 8800 W 36th St, and
representing the business community and serving as Chair of St. Louis Park Business Council, a
committee of the Twin West Chamber of Commerce. He would feel very badly if someone
pointed fingers at residents for wanting to have safety and peace of mind in their residences.
That was not where the business community comes from. However, they do see the light rail as a
tremendous asset for all of St. Louis Park. The apartments that he manages are work force
housing. The parking lot clears out in the morning, the same people who get on the on-ramp onto
169 and clogging 169 and 394. When this becomes a reality, they would be able to walk to the
Blake station and use the light rail. He was one of hundreds of businesses that would benefit and
his business was providing good housing for people. They will use the light rail. It really is
important that they come up with something to works and makes light rail a success. He hoped
the Council and County keep in mind the safety and peace of mind of the residents where this is
going to be going.
Ms. Dorothy Doyle, 3041 Maryland Ave S, supported improvement of transit in the region. She
realized it was a challenge to deal with the competing interests and gave the City Council and the
County credit for working so hard to get light rail to become a reality in the community. She is a
fervent supporter of transit. It helps people with barriers to driving. They can still have mobility.
She works at the hospital sometimes on the neuro floor and people are often told they can’t drive
after having a seizure or stroke. She appreciated the work of the City Council and County for
trying to make transit a reality.
Ms. Louise Kurzeka, 3301 Library Lane, Lennox neighborhood, two blocks from MN&S line
when it crosses Lake Street. In this process they have been working hard trying to educate the
people in the neighborhood about what is going on in the process. She wanted to point out they
have been supported greatly by the City staff and really appreciated it. She wanted to focus on
how they might find a win/win situation in this. Right now there is a lose happening. That lose
comes out of the fact of property values. Research has been done a number of years ago reported
in the summer 2004 Appraisal Journal, that shows increased freight rail impacts home values.
There is an expected 5-7% drop in home values for those home within 750’ of the tracks. As
train trips go up, that number goes up. The more trips in a day, the more negative impact there
is. What is significant to know is that this research has been applied across the country in many
other situations where they are experiencing similar issues. When the research was done, the
values and sizes of homes in which the original research was done were very much like St. Louis
Park. There is something there that is a good comparison. She counted 800 parcels on a map that
were within 750’ of the tracks. If she takes that by the current Minneapolis Realtor 2011 median
sales price of $172,000, they come up with about $8,600 per unit of a drop in value, times that
800 units, that is $6.88 million that the people in this room and out there are going to lose on
their properties. That will translate to less property tax value for you to work with. Who is
winning in this? You already know it, the research shows that when light rail goes into area,
there is an increase in property values. In places such as suburban Philadelphia, New Jersey,
Portland, increases range from 3.8-10.6% in terms of actual mean value. They are the winners.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 23
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Kurzeka (continued) How do they get win/win? It is clear, if they can off-set the loss of
having freight rail introduced, by having the bonus of light rail, in other words keeping freight
rail and light rail all in the Kenilworth corridor, there is still an increase in value overall by the
availability of the light rail for accessibility and transition and the development piece. The big
deal is that you don’t ask 800 parcels of property to take the hit for everybody else to get the plus
on the other side. Can it be done? San Diego is a fabulous model for putting light rail and heavy
rail. There are two tracks of light rail coming and going. There is one track of heavy rail.
During the day it is used for the coaster, which is a commuter rail that runs up to Oceanside from
San Diego Harbor. After hours it is freight rail. They co-exist. There is lots of pedestrian
traffic, a lot of the issues they have been able to solve, they can probably learn from so they
could still have this be a situation that works. There is a group of people in Springfield, IL that
having been facing the same kind of issue with increased retail traffic. In Planning Commission
notes from a couple of years ago they said, “when selecting among alternatives, those
alternatives should be considered that have the fewest negative effects for largest number of
people.” She asked the Council to take that to heart and support them so that they do not have re-
routing of traffic to the MN&S.
Ms. Kathryn Kottke, 2712 Brunswick Ave, noted she had attended both nights and thanked
them for the opportunity to speak. She wanted to make sure she said everything on her mind
before the opportunity was gone. She had read two different articles quoting Mayor Jacobs as
saying that St. Louis Park doesn’t have much of a say, if any, in this issue. Last night, Mayor
Jacobs repeated those sentiments. However, she understood, as do many of her neighbors, that
the City Council can tell Hennepin County that they do not accept this re-route because they
don’t accept their proposed mitigation. Please hear, that they have been telling you for two
nights, that they don’t accept their mitigation because it isn’t safe or appropriate for our
community. It is close to schools and homes. Regarding the Chamber of Commerce speaker,
money can be made with the LRT, it does not need to be scrapped. Without significant
mitigation, this business venture need not go away. They can have the LRT, if and when they
decide to do it right. Please don’t let this turn into another WiFi debacle. Don’t make a decision
based on a shortsighted, hoped-for result. Recognize the costs of re-routing the freight, the long-
term costs that will be very difficult, if not impossible to recover from should you regret your
decision. Finally, last nights speaker claimed rather disrespectfully that he “survived” living
next to the train route 40 years ago. She wanted them to remember that 40 years ago those were
lighter, shorter trains that traveled at 10 mph. You will be approving a re-route of longer,
heavier and much faster trains. She didn’t want to “survive” living in her neighborhood. She
didn’t want to live in any environment in which she had to think about surviving. She repeated
what she requested last night, please do the right thing for us, your constituents in St. Louis Park.
Don’t accept this re-route until Hennepin County is willing to do it honestly and safely.
Ms. Michele Maurer, 2748 Brunswick Ave S, noted that Ms. Kottke was her neighbor and
their boys play together and had so much fun crossing back and forth over the rail line this past
winter when they were headed to a park with a skating rink, 8-10 boys, 3-4 times in a day. She
thanked the Council Members who responded to her earlier email. In her email, she equated this
to 35W, which cut the city in half and created blight, crime and transitional neighborhoods. She
worried about that happening along their rail corridor. She worried about the properties turning
into rental property and decrease of property values and the transition of kids of in and out of the
schools and how that brings down the pull to their schools. To have more transitional and rental
housing. St. Louis Park is a magnet primarily for our schools. She seconded the earlier speaker
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 24
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Maurer (continued) about the challenges of the airplane noise, which will worsen with
trains. That leads to a greater likelihood of lower housing value. Rental and associated crime,
reducing the lower tax base at the same time they would need more police and fire trucks. She
speaks to her kids about the pre-frontal cortex (David Walsh) and how it may or may not connect
fully. She really worried about the high school kids walking along the tracks, especially with
their IPods and music and not paying attention to the trains. She loves light rail and traveled it in
Europe, but she doesn’t like freight rail.
Mr. Omar Zaidi, 4129 Xenwood Ave, Brookside neighborhood, bought his house 13 years ago
and likes living in St. Louis Park because he can walk out of his front door and watch neighbors
walking by and there is a sense of togetherness. He knows his neighbors on a first name basis.
The streets are tree-lined. The railroads have been a part of the fabric and he enjoyed the
concept of light rail, but they need to be smart about how they go through this process. It didn’t
seem like people were able to get the right information to figure out the dynamics, the cost, and
information about property being taken. It was very difficult to find information. It really
disturbed him when he read in paper that Dan Christianson told the Edina City Council that there
could be a potential of having high-speed trains at some point going down the line that runs
through Brookside into Edina. If they remove wye so that it becomes easier for trains to go South
instead of making a switching motion, what is impact going to be to South St. Louis Park, Edina
and other communities down the line? He wanted the Council to look at people in the room and
let them become advocates to help them in whatever decision they chose to make. If they decide
this is not the right thing for St. Louis Park, someone has to carry the message to Hennepin
County, the Federal Government, whoever will listen and say it is a city rights issue. If the City
decides that the re-route shouldn’t happen, they should have rights to put obstacles, legal or
otherwise into place, to make sure it doesn’t take place. He was very concerned. They were
talking about emergency responders who couldn’t get where they needed to go, traffic impacts,
and kids walking to and from school. Do they really know what the impact is and what they were
getting themselves into. If the decision is that they don’t want to do it, how do they make sure
that the people and bodies that want to do this, don’t “railroad over us.” They shouldn’t have to
live with the fact that the decision was made at some point to put the trains in a path where it
wasn’t intended to and they have to come together as community and find out what the choice is
and be heard and understand the reasons why they don’t want it. It shouldn’t be a foregone
conclusion.
Ms. Renee Beltrand, 2805 Zarthan Ave S, agreed with so much of what had been said, but
over-arching she was sorry that their whole community and the City Council was having to solve
this problem for Hennepin County. Light rail is important. She takes the bus every day or she
car pools. It was not that she didn’t support mass transit. She was really upset that Mr.
McKenzie was laughing about the prospect of building a new high school, that that was a
mitigation cost that was laughable, she completely disagreed. She didn’t know if it was feasible.
It was daunting to wrap your mind around this. One of the reasons they moved to St. Louis Park
was because it is a good community for children and wonders how they can maintain that if
parents fear sending their kids to walk to the park, to be in a high school where the railroad can
put any freight, have any load, anhydrous ammonia, anything. It was nice to talk about it only
being grain going to Savage, but it could be anhydrous ammonia. She appreciated all of the
comparison in the presentation, but it was not apples to apples comparison. Why were 57 town
home units more important than 1,200 students in the high school kids and teachers and the
quality of teachers they would be able to attract. What will happen to the quality of the
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 25
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Beltrand (continued) education their students will receive if quality teachers don’t want to
work there. She was very concerned about blight in neighborhoods that abut the rail, she didn’t
think anyone would call a 25’ corridor safe if you have a freight train moving at 20-30 mph.
What is the stopping distance of something like that derailing? She was at the 2011 Caring
Youth Award ceremony earlier this week. It was a wonderful evening and drove home the point
of what a wonderful community this is for our children. She has two teenagers, one driving, one
with permit, their mantra because of the lack of pre-frontal cortex development is: don’t use
hazardous substances, don’t speed, and wear your seat belt. They don’t want hazardous
substances coming through our neighborhoods, we don’t want speeding trains going through the
neighborhood. They need safety in the Park.
Mr. Joe LaPray, 3256 Blackstone Ave S, stated that he takes the bus downtown to Minneapolis
every day and was looking forward to taking the light rail some day. He wanted to add another
question, what happens if the light rail isn’t funded? If the funding for the light rail is postponed
or the whole light rail project is cancelled, what happens to the freight rail? Second, he
understood that the rail in the Kenilworth corridor was worn out and needed to be replaced. It
was also his understanding that the MN&S track really isn’t up to standards for the kind of usage
the TCW would put on it. If the light rail doesn’t happen, who is going to pay for either
rebuilding the Kenilworth corridor, where is it going to go? Who is going to pay for rebuilding
the trackage?
Mr. Tom Pearson, 2706 Yosemite Ave S, lived there 24 years. In the Iron triangle and
Birchwood park. They are two and a half blocks from the rail and a half block below it. He lives
at the bottom of the hill where the chemicals would go down and kill everything. He is against
the re-routing of freight rail through St. Louis Park. This has no relationship with his feeling
about light rail. He was a big supporter of light rail and they need it in their city. Re-routing the
freight through their neighborhood would absolutely have a negative impact on their quality of
life, just the noise, let alone the safety issues. It will have a negative impact on their property
values. None of the so-called mitigation measures would change any of that, not for those in the
iron triangle. Keeping the freight traffic in the Kenilworth corridor would not have the same
negative impacts on quality of life or property values, it was already there and designed for it.
Re-routing the freight traffic through St. Louis Park is not the only solution for light rail. He
thought the City of St. Louis Park should just say no to that solution.
Mr. Bill James, 3224 Florida Ave S, thanked the Mayor and City Council for affording them
the opportunity to speak. He has been involved for quite a long time in rail projects within St.
Louis Park. He is the City representative on the County Corridor Management Committee for
the SW line, being involved for nearly four years. He wholeheartedly supports the SW light rail
project underway. There are two common denominators he heard continuously as it related to
this issue, mitigation and responsibility of the County and MnDOT as it relates to the issues at-
large. At a top line level, they have about $80-90 million set of costs to mitigate whether they are
in the corridor or whether they were within the St. Louis Park MN&S corridor, depending upon
where the freight resides. If you put that figure in the context of the entire LRT project, which is
a $1.25 billion program, it is about 6 ½-8%. The mitigation assessment and budgeting that
typically resides within and LRT program has a variance of between 10-15% with buffer money
for unknowns. With that said, those mitigation issues are “bucketed” within draft Environmental
Impact Statement, which is underway in the LRT project and the DEIS is a federally mandated,
registered item. They have to do this relative to putting in an LRT system. He encouraged the
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 26
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Mr. James (continue) City and all citizens to take advantage of the comment period which
would be open for the DEIS. This was their opportunity to bring forth any issues as it relates to
any rail project within the City of St. Louis Park or across the entire line for that matter. The 45-
day comment period is open for the public and is accessible on the web site. Once a comment is
entered into that register, it has to be addressed and redressed for comment. Also, with respect to
that mitigation both required and subjective will be examined for review and comment during
that period. It was an opportunity to say what is important and why and have it entered into the
Federal register. Relative to mitigation, the question was asked earlier about what kinds of
things were covered, many things were covered relative to environmental aesthetics, safety,
noise, vibration and land use. This document is important to get comments by citizens of any
city or any member of the community at large. He encouraged the City of St. Louis Park to take
great advantage of submitting everything into DEIS because it would be documented, logged and
on the docket for addressment by members of the FTA as well as the County.
Mr. Rolf Peterson, 3536 Zinran Av S, Aquilla neighborhood, noted that there are 1,333
students at the senior high school. He passed around a chunk of limestone to Council members. It
is sedimentary rock. It is tough and heavy and would last forever. It will be here long after we
are gone, a lot like a railroad. What gets lost as that a lot of times they think about next year or
the year after. This change to the railroad would be a change that would out-live all of them.
Railroads do not change and once they have something, they stick with it unless they are given a
better offer. He didn’t see a better offer coming along. He went into this really hopeful and
thought it was the opportunity to do something really bold and exciting, redevelopment and to
get rid of the curves next to the high school. The first track layout came and they shifted it five
feet. He was devastated. Nine months of sitting on the PMT and he had lost all of his faith.
They had met with the School Board lately and were aware of the mitigation efforts. They
would love to see grade separated interchanges that is tough. They would love to see some type
of pedestrian access over or under at Dakota. They would love to see the curves straightened
out. He couldn’t believe an engineers would drive a train around those corners at 25 mph and
not blow his horn. For something that will be there a long, long time, they were missing an
opportunity to do something really big and really cool. He preferred to see it go through
Kenilworth, but if they needed to take it, it needs to be done right. Another concern is losing the
switching wye at skunk hallow, and not having South access to the MN&S would make the area
in front of the high school the defacto switching wye for going south. No one knows what
freight traffic would look like. All of a sudden more grain is going through there and Savage is
in full business shipping and grain trains would be going that way. He picked up the piece of
limestone about ¾ mile East of Beltline Blvd, where the derailment happened. It was a chunk of
limestone that was in a car with 260,000 other pounds of other limestone that went off the track
on October 2nd last year. When they are holding that, think about holding a gallon of anhydrous
ammonia or a gallon of ethanol. The things these railroad companies haul, they are required to,
they are common carriers and can’t say no to a shipments. They have to haul it.
Ms. Kandi Arries, 3051 Brunswick Ave S, representative for Lennox neighborhood on PMT.
She noted her experience and belief that the community involvement portion was not sincere and
not authentic. They took their responsibilities very seriously, they went to their neighborhoods
and asked for their concerns, their thoughts and solutions and brought them back. In the end
they were told at the last meeting was that it was the expert opinion of the consultant that would
decide the best design, the best mitigation and the best outcome of this project. Specifically, the
list of their mitigations and the list that was discussed at the community and were rejected, were
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 27
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Arries (continued) not legally binding. Instead it was deemed to be a betterment or a “nice
thing to do” for the community. The interpretation of this is not a betterment. This is not a “nice
thing to do”, and these are actually things they as a community had asked for, things that are
principles even within the Federal government. Within her research she came across an inter-
agency partnership of the EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the Department of Transportation. These agencies have established a guiding set of livability
principles for future projects. There are two in particular that could very much be applied to
these impacts and the situation with the freight rail. First involves enhanced economic
competitiveness. It is described as improving economic competitiveness through reliable and
timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs
by workers as well as expanded business access. A lot of this speaks to how the small businesses
and how they are affected. They are talking about the accessibility of our high school and the
educational quality. This seems to be a principal that is very valid in this situation. Second, and
perhaps the most relevant, assess the projects value to communities and neighborhoods. This is a
livability principal that says that they should enhance the characters and the unique characters of
all communities by investing in healthy, safe and walkable neighborhoods. These are their
concerns and this is perhaps the thing that was the most overlooked principal when you consider
the net result of the MN&S study. The Federal government has established these mission
statements, they want to protect citizens, and the residents and they want to protect us. She was
bringing this as a thought. They were not asking for betterments, they weren’t asking for “nice
things” to do, they were asking for a healthy, safe neighborhood.
Ms. Lee Ann Landstrom, 2701 Yosemite Ave S, expressed concern about safety and seconded
comments from Ms. Diericky and Mr. Pearson about the potential for derailment. It is obvious
after hearing the summary and presentation and charts from Mr. McKenzie, that the MN&S is
more curvy, more steep, has more crossings, more parcels and houses, and schools will be
impacted and much more costly. $78 million and that didn’t include the mitigation which she
agreed was not adequately being addressed. It was obvious that they must keep the freight in
Kenilworth, where it exists now. Take out the one row of townhouses in the pinch point. The
LRT and the Kenilworth can co-exist; they are not exclusive of each other. The City Council
must insist that the re-route not happen through St. Louis Park.
Ms. Betty Shaw, 2649 Huntington, Fern Hill neighborhood, was concerned like Mr. Peterson.
As a former School Board member, she remembered very clearly standing in the school
buildings and hearing trains going by and feeling the vibrations. She knew that teaching couldn’t
occur when that happened. If you start adding up the number of classroom minutes lost by the
kids every day when a mile long train goes by at 10 mph, that was a long time. If it goes 25
mph, God help us because of the kind of grade that is going by that high school. When they
laugh at a new high school, they need to hold their feet to the fire about the true cost of
mitigation because it costs a lot of money to educate our children and look at the amount of cost
to the tax payer of unusable time in classroom and the loss not only of money, but more
importantly the education of our children. Whatever happens, the community has to hold the
mitigation feet to the fire of the County or whoever is doing this project. It can go through
Kenilworth, they don’t have to pay that mitigation, but if it doesn’t go through Kenilworth, they
cannot let it go with the High school the way it is right now. She hoped they would be very firm
with the people who are making the decisions about what is and is not a nice thing to do.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 28
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Mary Hunt, 7021 W 23rd St, Elliot View neighborhood, between Cedar Lake Rd and two
blocks north of the Wayzata subdivision, the East/West line that is owned by BNSF. She had
sent Emails. There are so many different aspects to this rail issue. A lot of what she was hearing
was like the analogy of a blind man and elephant. Trying to get a handle on this issue must be
impossible for them. She got a response from the Public Relations person at BNSF which was
very condescending. Her statistics were not complete and were questionable. One of the things
she thought they might find useful was that she lists weights and average lengths of the trains:
6,000-7,000 feet long and10,000-16,000 tons or more. The reason she was talking was because
there was no livability for her in her home any more. She was only getting three hours of sleep a
night because the trains go 24/7. She lives two blocks away and can feel the train shake her bed
at night and wakes her up. She wants to get out of there badly. She was concerned about the
number of trains before she bought her house. Her real estate agent put her in touch with
MnDOT who said there were two train a day, now there are 14 trains a day or more since they
improved the line a couple years ago. Now it is considered a class 4 track, which means they can
go up to 60 mph and they do. She had concerns with light rail and high speed rail (up to 110
mph) coinciding on these tracks. BNSF has not been a good neighbor. They are condescending
and their effort at mitigation was upgrading the lines and it wasn’t adequate. The walls are
cracking in her foundation, which is a property value issue. She agreed about concerns for the
schools. Peter Hobart elementary is South of tracks and instruction totally stops when trains go
by. If St. Louis Park prides itself on the quality of the schools, that quality reputation will be lost
as well as property values.
Mr. Tom Cremons, 3035 Brunswick Ave, 20 years, indicated there is a perception in the
community and at various levels of government that they are a bunch of malcontents. While they
are malcontent on this issue, he didn’t think it was an issue that affects just those of us who live
along the tracks. This is going to have a significant impact on their quality of life and the
desirability of their houses and their neighborhoods. They were blessed with small, older houses
on small lots. If their neighborhood starts to deteriorate, it is a recipe for a spread of that
deterioration. City Council is in a unique position and has a lot of leverage with the County. The
County wants light rail, the county wants this process to move along. They have an opportunity
to have an impact on this. He asked them to remember they represent us, not Hennepin County,
not MnDOT, and not the Met Council and that they would do their best to get the best possible
deal for us, for our neighborhood and for the whole city.
Mr. Brian Granquist, 3115 Colorado Ave S, lived in St. Louis Park two years, he bought his
home because it backs up to Roxbury park and is a great location. Yes, the freight rail is there.
When he bought his house he looked at the neighborhood and thought there was no way possible
more than one train a day could go down the tracks, especially seeing the homes along
Minnetonka. He loves St. Louis Park. It is very clear that Hennepin County isn’t listening and
that they have lacked a lot of leadership on this whole process. They go back to assumptions. In
the 90’s they made the assumption to sever the line and build light rail on Hiawatha. They also
made the assumption for freight rail and light rail, that they wouldn’t build light rail unless
freight rail was moved. Also, their assumptions about what is acceptable mitigation versus what
is not. He sat in a Lennox neighborhood meeting and wrote down mitigation measures. One was
to build a new high school. The design is different today than what it would have been in the
50’s when it was built, back when freight rail was built. Hennepin County made assumptions on
what decibel levels they should be measuring, what times the traffic should be studied, especially
around the high school, which didn’t meet the peak for the traffic. They haven’t been thinking
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 29
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Mr. Granquist (continued) about the worst case. Look at what the future looks like. Right
now there is a Twins game downtown and hundreds of officers standing at the LRT tracks to
make sure pedestrians cross safely. Will they need the same thing in St. Louis Park for high
school games? Or even just to get kids across the street? They need to ask for everything up
front if it is going to go through. Think past the construction. Think safety. They already have
something that is cutting the North side of the City from the South, which is also a rail line.
They were now doing the same thing between East and West. It is important to listen and be
clear on what it is that they want. If it is another Resolution, what is it that will make them
listen? They have 48,000 people behind them. Please make the right decision.
Ms. Linda Hatfield, 4181 Zarthan Ave S, Brookside neighborhood, thanked City Council for
being here and putting in their time. When she bought her house, she lives right across the street
from the railroad tracks. She has a wonderful dog path, most of them are not on leashes, and no
one had talked about that issue. There have been two trains a day for 17 years. She never
worried about her son and the tracks or safety. Her Mom lived with her for six years and they
made friends with the engineers. She loved the tracks there and never had a problem with them.
She would like to know how each of these options were going to what is happening with the Dan
Patch, the line going by her house. She would like to know with each of the option, how that
affects, what is the planning, does it make it easier for the Dan Patch get this through. They are
talking about 60 mph, 14 times a day. There was no way she could live there and she wouldn’t
be able to sell her house. There was a fight 40 years ago when they wanted to put in an airport in
Ham Lake and it came down to one report and a very small group of people who dug in their
heels and said you have to listen to us. The report said they want to put the airport in the middle
of a peat bog and this will cost a lot more than what they think it’s going to cost and they were
going to make them listen. Just a few people made them wake up and see that. It takes guts,
strength and determination to stand fast and do what is right. It was her hope that those were the
qualities that this City Council will bring to the fight. It sounds like Hennepin County is not
really listening, it is up to the City Council to do what’s right for all of us and our highest good.
Ms. Sharon Duncan, 3249 Florida Ave S, Lennox neighborhood, noted she has three boys in
the school system now. She wanted to express her concerns about the safety of the children and
the schools. She quoted psychologist David Walsh books, Why Do They Act that Way? And
No, Why Kids of All Ages Need to Hear It, and Ways Parents Can Say It: “Every teenager has a
pre-frontal cortex that is growing and rewiring itself. The pre-frontal cortex is right behind the
forehead. It is the CEO of the brain, the part of the brain where we think ahead, consider
consequences and manage emotional impulses and urges. It is one of the last circuits of brain to
mature. The PFC enters a major developmental period as boys and girls enter adolescence,
which doesn’t end until the late teens or early 20’s. The hormones kicking in at puberty cause all
sorts of emotional upheaval at the very time when the emotional regulation center of the brain is
out to lunch. Adolescence is a heck of a time for the impulsive control center to be under
construction. Just when adolescents need it most, the PFC’s ability to act rationally and think
through problems and challenges is off-line.”
She had a concern with teenagers and the trains and didn’t think it was a good mix. There could
be injuries or even worse that would occur if the trains go by the school. Even with safety
measures, kids are going to be kids and they can teach them all they can, but there are still going
to be accidents. It was not fair to their education either. She had talked with several people who
have gone through the high school. Recent graduates have said it is really disturbing already
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 30
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Verbal Comments – Listening Session April 28, 2011 (continued)
Ms. Duncan (continued) when the trains go back and that everything has to stop. She loves St.
Louis Park and the Children First part of St. Louis Park. She hoped they would help keep it that
way and keep their children safe.
Mr. Thom Miller, 2900 Yosemite Ave S, commented that years ago when the original statutes
were written making possible this railroad inter connect on the South side of the City from the
Bass Lake spur onto the MN&S, which is the whole crux of this situation, an easement was set
aside. A hunk of property that is needed for an interconnect to be built, was given easement
rights to the City of St. Louis Park. A lot of people last night and tonight talked about what the
City can do. Obviously political pressure is very important in your position, but literally they
can say “no” to giving up the easement rights to that property. He knew that was difficult
politically to do. He wanted residents of St. Louis Park to understand that. That is the leverage
that they have. The whole reason the easement was set up was to work in favor and best interest
of the City at a point like this, when either a private entity like a railroad or a public entity like
the County and MnDOT could make new plans for that interconnect, it saves the best interests of
St. Louis Park. He thought it very wise that the City Council years ago set aside those easements
and now they are in place for you to use. He requested they use the leverage that the previous
City Council gave them for those easement rights.
Mr. Jim Mattison, 3017 Jersey, Lennox neighborhood, stated he was all for the light rail, it is
good for business and the community. It appears it is a good location for the route. If the rail
goes past the high school, through neighborhoods and up to the iron triangle wasn’t there, would
this still be an issue or would they not consider running the rail through St. Louis Park? And if it
would still be a “go” if it wasn’t there? Can they do it without having to do that and did they
need that to be here? Everything he heard, it was an overwhelming “go for it.”
Ms. Helene Herbst, 2717 Alabama Ave S, stated she was not planning to speak, but was very
inspired. She lived in the neighborhood since 1996. About four years later, after she moved in,
she was working on her master’s degree in organizational leadership. One of their assignments
was to write a paper about leadership in action. She heard about something called Vision St.
Louis Park that happened in the 1990’s. She went to City Hall and asked for information about
this. She got videos and spent many hours watching meetings like this. She was so impressed
with those meetings. They were very specific areas that were focused on housing and education.
When she finished writing that paper, she was so proud to live in this city. As they are talking
about the re-route, she thought it was more than just a train coming through. She lives very close
to where they tracks are. It really is taking a step back and saying that this is really impacting the
vision for our City and what it is going to be. As they take a look at the upcoming decisions,
they are going to be very difficult. They need to keep in mind the big picture and knowing that
this will have a ripple effect. It is not just going to be a few homes or a few blocks, it is going to
ripple out and affect education, all those things that they have worked for years on to build are at
stake. Her encouragement was to look at those and she was very impressed with the leadership
back then and very impressed with the leadership now. She encouraged them to have courage to
do what needs to be done.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 31
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Written Comments Listening Session – April 27, 2011
Name Neighbor
hood
Comments
Jocelyn Simon
3274 Blackstone Ave
Sorenson This will lead to tragedy. This is wrong, illegal unsafe, and will
ruin property values. There is NO WAY to make this safe.
Ernie Fontaine
3208 Jersey Ave S
Lenox 1. How long can a train tie up traffic at an intersection of
streets, roads, etc?
2. How long would it take for a train to get totally across an
intersection if there is over 100 cars?
3. Are the state and federal laws regarding this issue being
enforced?
Mike Daly
2749 Brunswick Ave S
Bronx Park This is nothing but a waste of money and time when the
infrastructure is falling apart.
Blank I hope the line in park/biking area near Cedar Trail will be
above ground so as to not kill animals.
Tom & Francesca
Mahoney
4257 Toledo Ave S
Browndale Many reasons were cited tonight to why the re-route of freight
rail should be opposed, so I won’t be repetitive. We both are
not directly affected by the re-route (we don’t have any children
attending SLP HS, our neighborhood is a safe distance away
from the line in question, etc.). Yet, we oppose this re-route
because it’s the right call for SLP. No matter how I study this
issue, the re-route just doesn’t make sense for SLP. Thank you.
Mark DeBoer
3029 Jersey Ave S
Lenox Please don’t decrease my property value.
David Long
3024 Alabama Ave S
Sorenson Hennepin County has been vague/duplicitous/opaque in their
attempts to steer this reroute. SLP will suffer deeply if heavy
freight routes through the center of the city unmitigated. Please
force the County to be fair in their mitigation and decision.
Sharon Duncan
3249 Florida Ave S
Lenox
“Children First in St. Louis Park” sums it all up. We’d like to
keep it that way! That’s what we love about SLP. Putting
more freight by the H.S. is a disaster waiting to happen!
Kelly Peterson
3920 Lynn Ave
Minikahda
Vista
I am very, very much against these trains going through our
city. The High School is an obvious reason for this to be bad
for our city. The quality of life we enjoy in this city will be
destroyed if this happens.
Mavis Harrison
3361 Library Lane
Lenox I adamantly oppose the re-route plan. I live less than a football
field away from the tracks and do not want 8 trains that are a
mile long going through my neighborhood every day. It is a
safety hazard and will degrade the neighborhood including my
property values. I’ve lived in SLP for 20 year and did so
because the city is well-run and values its citizenry. However,
this leaves me with doubts. How did this proposal get this far?
Why does Hennepin County have so much control? I do not
want to be bullied or sweet-talked into this. Please City of SLP,
support your citizens. I do not oppose light-rail – but I don’t
support this. No amount of ‘mitigation’ will change my mind.
Don’t bargain for mitigation; bargain for a completely different
plan.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 32
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Written Comments Listening Session – April 27, 2011 (continued)
Name Neighbor
hood
Comments
Doug Guild
7100 W 23rd Street
Eliotview Issue of chemical spells had really not been addressed by either
SEH or Kimley Horn - think about a chlorine tank leakage or
spill near schools and near homes. SEH - “mandatory
environmental requirements met” . . . hazardous materials
handling comment. “Included in the MN & S study concept
plans.” Kimley Horn – PMT #6 p 4 “Spill prevention –
potential for freight cars to transport chemicals or other
hazardous materials” “Mitigation/Permits – continue to follow
hazardous materials response plan” Not a strong enough
statement if the hazards of chemical spills and leaks and very
poor addressing of mitigation near schools and homes!
(Consider chemical sensors).
Mary Gosselin
3216 Florida Ave S
Lenox The comparison table shows 5 schools affected at the MNS
route and 2 parks. This doesn’t even include the Library or the
community center. Also the traffic studies don’t say whether
traffic after a football game was factored into average traffic.
Also – who pays for it? Is it Hennepin County Taxes? State?
Local? i.e., what costs will we incur and be blindsided by?
They have dodged questions about future south hook up to the
tracks south (near Methodist Hospital). I continue to have more
questions that I’ve had difficulty getting satisfactory answers to
when my neighbor asked the i.e., MN Dot PMT meeting if any
of them would be willing to send their children to a school in
this close proximity to a train, not one of them was willing (by
a show of no hands). I think many of my opinions have been
well expressed at this meeting. Thank you! Please don’t let this
pass!
Renata Anderson
3312 Idaho Ave S
Lenox Please ensure your city is acting on behalf of your citizens &
what is right for our community. Ensure accountability of
Hennepin Co, SEH, and others involved. Enforce honesty &
integrity, protect our city. Become more engaged & influential;
do not concede to Hennepin County’s games. Thank you.
Marian Torgeson
3156 Georgia So
Lenox Is there anything positive about this fiasco that will benefit the
citizens of SLP? All I can see or hear is lower property values,
inconvenience from closed roads (Dakota crossing by High
School – 8 trains a day a mile long, on-going? Crazy.
Ellen Lipschultz
3925 Dakota Ave S
Brooklawns It was said that the RR “could deal with” park issues (rail in the
park land). What does deal with mean? Has an EIS been
completed?
Karen Colt
2240 Ridge Drive
Unit #21
Blackstone If the re-route occurs and the mitigation is not effective, what
do the homeowners do? Who will pay for the appropriate
additional mitigation?
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 33
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Written Comments Listening Session – April 28, 2011
Name Neighbor
hood
Comments
Abdi Ismail
3236 Brunswick Ave S
Lenox My home is away from the Freight Rail Road less than 100
feet, is affecting my home, due to the vibration I repair cracks
on my walls 3-4 times a year. My daughters are attending at
Senior High School of St. Louis Park and I have a big concern
about their safety and also will be affected my home value.
The freight rail re-route will affect all aspect of my family life.
Please stop stop stop Thanks!
Linda Hatfield
4181 Zarthan Ave S
Brookside Is there a neighborhood organization around the Dan Patch
Rail Line? How do I get more info about Dan Patch?
Dale Hanson
2555 Xenwood Ave S
Birchwood Instead of being credited with delivering Light Rail through St.
Louis Park, if this rail re-route goes through. The City Council
will go down as the Council that ruined this city.
John Olson
2829 Yosemite Ave S
Birchwood How much contact has the city and county had with the
railroads. My understanding is that if they don’t see it as
economical for them they could reject any of the changes.
They have the final say about what they want to do.
Michele Maurer
2748 Brunswick Ave
I sent an email to the council and only 3 members responded.
SHAMEFUL.
James Heintzman
2701 Yosemite Ave S
Birchwood After attending all of the county-sponsored meetings, I still
have not heard a convincing argument for moving freight rail
from existing mainline at grade level to a narrow, above-grade
spur line through a residential area and past two schools. Light
Rail Transit can share Kennilworth corridor with existing
freight traffic. It has been done elsewhere and is in plans for
another LRT corridor in Hennepin Co (Bottineau Line). The
County has never acknowledged either the cost or disruption of
a new connection at Hwy 7, north, to MN & S line, in order to
reroute freight traffic. There is no way a reroute can be
construed to be a good deal for St. Louis Park.
Mary Gaines
5740 W. Lake Str
Sorenson Can Hennepin County get control of the property that is needed
to keep freight rail thru Kennilworth? How is that cost
different than the cost/impact of the SLP alternative?
Jeanne Simpson
3901 W 31st
Triangle I live along the Kennilworth route and I think light rail would
be quieter than the current 4-5 freight trains.
Kandi Arries
3051 Brunswick Ave
Lenox www.epa.gov/dced/partnership/index.html Interagency
Partnership of EPA, Dept of Housing and Urban Development,
and Dept of Transportation – guiding livability principles and
investing in healthy safe, walkable communities
J. Glotter
4300 Cedar Lake Rd
Lake Forest Who has control & final word on the parcel of land owned by
SLP.
Carol A. Stewart
2036 Jersey Ave S
Eliot Don’t let Hennepin County “railroad” their plans and run over
us. I’m sure they feel we are a small blip on their radar. Let
them know we are not insignificant.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 34
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Written Comments Listening Session – April 28, 2011 (continued)
Name Neighbor
hood
Comments
Mary Kate Terry
3231 Yosemite Ave S
Sorenson We do have too much transit traffic already with air planes is it
right that we should also have to deal with train
noise/pollution? Please don’t let SLP go down the drain! Let’s
keep this a family friendly place that attracts families &
business. No re-route.
Sharon Duncan
3249 Florida Ave S
Lenox Teenagers and trains are not a good mix! Psychologist, and
best selling author Dr. David Walsh states in his book “No
Why Kids Of All Ages Need to Hear It.” That every teenager
has a prefrontal cortex PFC. That is growing and rewiring
itself. It is the CEO of the brain, the part of the brain where we
think ahead, consider consequences and manage emotional
impulses and urges and it’s one of the last circuits of the brain
to mature. The PFC enters a major developmental period as
boys & girls enter adolescence, which doesn’t end until the late
teen or early twenties. The hormones kicking in at puberty
cause all sorts of emotional upheaval at the very time when the
emotional regulation center of the brain is out to lunch.
Adolescence is a heck of a time for the impulse control center
to be under construction. Just when adolescents need it most,
the PFC’s ability to act rationally and think through problems
and challenges is off-line – David Walsh, PhD. I am
concerned with the train going by the schools with the
impulsive behavior of adolescents & children! Another
important point: I have a son with down syndrome who also
can be impulsive at times when we go for walks and bike rides.
There are also 2 other children with down syndrome that live
right by the H.S. like we do. Dangerous!
Celeste Gaspard
6210 Hamilton St
Sorenson I take the 668 to downtown every day and that bus route
crosses Lake twice. I can only image ho this railroad will
affect my commute. Not to mention property values.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 35
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
4/11 Karen Holt 2240 Ridge
Dr.,#21
- Citizens not assured transfer of freight traffic to SLP is
only viable solution
- County concealing/ignoring citizen request for
information
- Concern about property value; recently remodeled
- Not assured mitigation will be proper and sufficient;
similar to MAC promises and litigation in
Mpls./Richfield
- City should take legal action against County to protect
community and taxpayers/residents
4/17
Steve Nimchuk 4522 W. 36 ½
St., #23
- Bicycle riding on the increase. Don’t plan away bicycle
paths for freight rail. Compared bicycle paths to
freeways for bikes. Problems if eliminate bike paths just
as eliminating freeways would be problematic.
- Look at bicycle counts on affected paths and population
surveys of affected neighborhoods when making freight
rail decisions
- Encourage committee to organize bicycling event on
affected trails for first hand experience
4/21 John Honsa - Seems to be a “NIMBY” issue
- I am a bicyclist –use biking trails all around the City,
including Cedar Lake Trail tunnel which will be affected
- Commends City and County on thoroughness of studies
- To opponents: 1) if rail traffic were to increase not due
to LRT would residents complain or even notice; what
would be the grounds to complain? 2) If you were
worried about safety, why did you buy a home by the
railroad tracks?
4/25
Matthew Flory
- Thank you for public hearings
- Whatever you decide, please include robust public
communication and some sincere appreciation for the
time that citizens are VOLUNTEERING to a civic
discussion
- Do not be dismissive of people with dissenting opinions
- SLP is a city with proud tradition of supporting citizen
engagement and should not deride people for dissenting
viewpoints
- County and Dept. of Trans. content to label opponents as
NIMBY
- I’m not opposed to re-route but don’t believe many
residents have enough information about impacts to find
any mitigation plan reasonable
- PMT has long list of suggestions but has not
incorporated a single item from neighborhoods into
current recommendations. Please look for at least one
area in citizen concerns for a recommendation that
demonstrates we are not just bowing to more powerful
political units of government.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 36
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
Matthew Flory
(continued)
- Look at small businesses at Lake St & Walker – LRT
won’t stop at Wooddale before 2017. How can we
make this area more attractive for retail businesses?
How can we redevelop it?
- How to protect homeowners from catastrophic home
value losses? Establish a high standard and create a
special revenue account to offset these losses. County
should be willing to provide the difference between the
price of a future home sale and the house’s market value
in 2008 or 2009
- If you’re certain traffic safety & school quality will not
suffer, how can we make good? Railroads help provide
safety curriculum in schools?
- Are County & Dept of Trans. beyond making a single
concession to local residents, even as gesture of good
faith? Do they really believe no member of public
could come up with idea as brilliant as theirs?
- I want LRT but not at any cost. Would rather give up
LRT than acknowledge Mpls. neighborhoods are better
equipped to oppose co-location than we are to achieve
it. That’s what is going on.
- Find a middle path, one that you can lead the majority of
SLP to support. Please find it and when you do make
sure you provide the people with some talking points.
4/27 Erik
Hendrickson
Brownlow Ave. - Generally approving of local commerce, including
changes that have NIMBY factors, but feels freight rail
reroute is a bit over the edge.
- Not acceptable that rail traffic will increase to 6-8
trains/day; up to 123 cars.
- Increase in rail traffic will cause major traffic delays
daily.
- Increase in rail traffic can’t be safe for children in
neighborhood
- As a resident who is only ½ block from rail crossing at
Lake St., I must protest. Surely there is another way?
4/27 Brady
Busselman
3021 Brunswick - Concerned about:
o safety
o property values
o noise, vibrations
o hazardous materials
- Purchased home 6 yrs. ago; have improved home value
through time, effort and money
- Reduction in home values due to freight rail, in
addition to reduced home value/current housing
market, would create blight in what are currently solid,
quality neighborhoods.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 37
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
4/27 Marge Holtz
3326 Colorado - Lived here 35 yrs. Live within 35 yards of Lenox tracks
so used to current train/twice daily and we can tolerate
that. We could not and should not be forced to tolerate
number of freight trains now proposed for that area.
All reasons why it’s a bad idea have been well
publicized.
- As taxpayer with increasing taxes each year I expect
continued or improved quality of life, not diminished
quality of life.
- Can’t believe rerouting is being considered; can’t
believe residents of SLP would be forced to accept such
a proposal.
- I love SLP and have always received best interest from
Council. I can only hope they will continue to support
its citizens.
4/27 Tricia Dolan Edina - Recently purchased Edina home on Dan Patch line.
- Upset about home value decreasing due to freight
traffic and equally upset about ramifications to
families, neighborhoods and communities surrounding
the line. Heartwarming to see kids and families now
being able to walk the tracks safely in the
neighborhood rather than the street.
- Concerned about wildlife.
- If freight traffic changes, safety and wonderment will
be obliterated.
- This isn’t an industrial area. These are neighborhoods.
These are family homesteads that were not built to
handle the proposed traffic.
- Family neighborhoods will change forever if State of
MN allows this atrocity to occur.
4/27 Scott Mikesh
3320 Idaho S. - Support your effort to find low-impact solution to bring
LRT to SLP
- Reroute will put us at risk for:
o lowered property value
o safety hazards
o traffic/access problems
o air pollution/noise pollution
- Purchased home 7 yrs. ago (before crash) and now owe
more than house is worth—reroute will further
depreciate value causing further financial strain
- Info about positive impact of LRT on property values in
Lenox that might off-set negative impact of increased
freight would be helpful to know
- Thanks for your support and consideration to ensure
viability of SLP
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 38
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
4/27 Al Boyce
3208 Edgewood
S.
- Say NO to reroute to vivisect SLP
- SLP residents would be expected to endure 400% more
rail traffic, some of it lethal or toxic, on rail lines never
intended for such frequent/intense use.
- Henn. Co. has not answered or ignored questions by
Safety in the Park and City officials regarding
mitigation requirements, possibilities for alternate
reroute paths, concerns about veracity of existing
studies
- Reroute would increase:
o air pollution
o noise pollution
o potential for toxic disasters/derailments
- Reroute would ultimately reduce:
o quality of life/property values drop/less than
desirable residents move in
o pedestrian safety
o commerce
o property values by 5-7%
o police & fire access
o traffic mobility
o student efficacy/increased distraction in 5
different schools
o the current council members & mayor, should this
reroute be condoned
- SLP’s easement ownership gives Council ability to
“derail” this at least until such time as we can get
concerns answered accurately and fully. I plead you to
do so!
- Thank you for your consideration.
4/27 Jolene
Roehlkepartain
SLP - Fully supports LRT in SLP
- Has mainly heard comments from those who oppose
reroute and would like a more balanced presentation of
pros and cons—still not sure whether or not it’s a good
idea—has not heard why freight rail needs to be
relocated and why SLP is best route for relocation.
4/28 Mary Woodford Dakota Av. S. - Concerned about safety of high school students
- Has lived on Dakota Av. for 12 yrs. and kids cross
railroad tracks multiple times daily entering/leaving
high school – it is the nature of kids’ age group to run
across tracks
- Please don’t reroute trains and put kids’ lives at risk
4/28 Daniel Kriete - Can City consultant estimate cost of track upgrade in
Appleton and calculate how that would affect # of
trains running through SLP and Kenilworth?
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 39
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
4/28 Jane Cracraft 32nd &
Brunswick
- Lives directly across the street from rail tracks
- Last summer next door neighbors put home on market
with threat of freight rail reroute as didn’t want lives of 2
and 4 yr. old daughters to be disrupted by increased train
traffic
- Increased freight rail by high school/pedestrian teen
traffic dangerous
- Increased noise/increased freight rail will disrupt classes
and valuable learning time for students
- Decreased property values for homeowners unacceptable
- All of this when it’s possible to secure LRT in SLP
without rerouting freight rail
4/28 Bethany
Ceynowa
3025 Brunswick
S.
- Owns successful home daycare business—a service to
SLP residents. If freight comes will no longer be allowed
to have children play in backyard—it will be unsafe.
Currently does not allow kids to play in backyard until
first train has gone by to ensure safety.
- Daycare business will suffer greatly if freight allowed.
Will lose business and home. Will be forced to walk
away from our home-foreclosure the only answer as will
be financially ruined. Will be devastating to our family
of 5.
- We ask that you visit our home and daycare business and
take a look at how narrow railway is that sits on top of
hill.
4/28 Bethany
Ceynowa
3025 Brunswick
S.
- Owns successful home daycare business-a service to
SLP residents. If freight comes will no longer be allowed
to have children play in backyard-it will be unsafe.
Currently does not allow kids to play in backyard until
first train has gone by to ensure safety.
- Daycare business will suffer greatly if freight allowed.
Will lose business and home. Will be forced to walk
away from our home-foreclosure the only answer as will
be financially ruined. Will be devastating to our family
of 5.
- We ask that you visit our home and daycare business and
take a look at how narrow railway is that sits on top of
hill.
4/28 Raymond &
Gina Salisbury
3104 Edgewood
S.
- Noise/vibration detrimental to homes and people
- Decrease in property values, already struggling due to
economy
- Traffic tie-ups
- Safety issues
- Negative impacts to high school students
- We support LRT-much needed throughout metro &
suburbs. Family members use LRT in Mpls. and we
know it cuts down on need to drive car, thus reducing
traffic and it’s reliable in bad weather
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 40
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
4/28 Brian Piehl - Increased rail traffic will have huge impact where tracks
intersect Dakota and high school. One side is high school
and neighborhoods – other side is McDonalds, businesses,
football field, Community Ctr. Much foot and bike traffic
over those tracks. Gave recent example of foot and bike
traffic during track meet, many kids going to & from
McDonalds. Traffic will be much higher during football.
- Please keep train traffic out of pedestrian friendly
neighborhoods & into places like proposed freight rail line
- Hwy. 7 is already bordered by many warehouses – keep
freight rail traffic on that line
4/28
Greg
Suchanek
2740 Blackstone - Thank you for Listening Sessions
- During my comments at 4/27 Listening Session I played
video of trains going past my house. See You Tube to get a
better idea of how close trains are to my garage & home
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW3lHvdK9qQ
- Video shows current conditions which are livable, but the
increased noise level caused by longer and heavier cars
will not be livable for homes along the tracks. Trains in
video are coming and going straight north, not turning on
the “wye” that will be built. Start of wye will be 500 ft
north of my house. Squeaking once wye is being used.
Trains will be running near maximum capacity, up an
incline, will be noisy, not quiet like the video.
4/28 Jill Terry SLP - Keep freight rail in Kenilworth Corridor
- If freight moves to MN&S line it will slowly kill SLP
- Too many at grade crossings, too close together
- Line runs too close to homes, schools, parks, McDonalds,
high school, football field, putting our kids in danger
- MN&S never designed for long freight trains – with all the
curves it will be a derailment in the making
- There is room in Kenilworth corridor for both light and
freight rail
- We have to tell Henn. Co. no LRT if freight goes to
MN&S. That is the only way they will take SLP seriously.
- If you lived on MN&S line how would you vote? I don’t
live on MN&S but if line goes to MN&S I will have to
move as it will make SLP unlivable. I have lived in SLP
35 years and I thought I would die here.
- Put the Parks Kids First – vote no on moving freight to
MN&S
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 41
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
4/28 Jeremy
Anderson
3208 Dakota - Attended 4/27 Listening Session. Guidelines were clear
to be respectful. Citizens were respectful. I was deeply
offended by the Twin West Chamber representative
whose flip comments minimized citizen concerns and
mocked citizens as well.
- Wonders if non-residents should have been allowed to
speak; should have been held accountable to same
guidelines
- Citizens & Council deserve a formal apology from Twin
West Chamber
4/29 Carma
Hayenga
- Say no to Henn. Co.
- Saying no to HC doesn’t mean SLP has the responsibility
to figure out the solution
- Don’t compromise safety, livability, charm of SLP
- Mitigation or no mitigation KEEP INCREASED RAIL
OUT!
- Even with mitigation, how can this be a good solution for
SLP
- We want LRT but there HAS to be better solution than
involving SLP – there are no positives for us.
4/29 Richard &
Amy Earle
2628 Florida - Attended 4/27 Listening Session, had to leave prior to
9:30 so couldn’t speak
- Found McKenzie’s presentation and audience
presentations well-organized, well-researched, thoughtful
and convincing. We both sympathize & concur with
points made.
- McKenzie’s presentation indicated Kenilworth Route
less expensive than upgrading SLP tracks – why then
choose the more expensive upgrade in SLP?
- Our concerns: safety of students/especially high school;
decreased property values, increasing noise & vibration;
diminished access to larger community due to crossing
and blocking city streets
- All major government decisions have pros and
cons/winners and losers. But regarding Freight Rail we
believe our elected officials should advocate for SLP
citizens; especially for the children
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 42
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
4/29 Fritz &
Stephanie
Vandover
5915 W. 42nd St - As stated at 4/28 session, whatever choice made needs to
be net benefit to neighborhoods through which freight
and LRT run as well as SLP as a whole.
- Community will take step backwards if relocation
undermines quality of life in those neighborhoods,
undermines tax revenues through reduced prop. values
and dislocated businesses, and further bisects SLP in two
between Hwy. 7 and BNSF line
- Hard to know if relocation will have effects stated above.
Urges Council to make sure McKenzie provides candid
answers on this. In addition to excellent info he has
provided McKenzie also needs to point to either option
and say, “This option is going to damage/harm SLP in
short and long term,” and then explain how and why.
- Push MnDOT to organize a Mitigation Tour so we can
have informed positions. Mitigations being cited are
pure abstractions/notions. We need to sit next to a train
going through a quiet zone, or trains going over welded
rail. Until we and Council experience them, we can’t
know which ones will potentially serve us best or not.
4/30 Chad
Hayenga
2700 Brunswick - Thank you for listening to the citizens on freight rail.
- Emotional issue as parent’s first instinct is protect my
kids Didn’t take issue seriously at first as couldn’t
believe large amounts of freight rail would happen at
high school
- Three people at 4/27 session not opposed were from
Plymouth, Mtka., & Bloomington. Council, you will
hear from many who don’t live in SLP. Listen to your
neighbors, listen to your constituents.
- My questions:
o With the info you have right now, what is your
position about more freight through the MN&S?
o What are benefits to increased freight on the MN&S
and through SLP? (Please answer this one—I really
need help with this question.)
o Only 2 Councilmembers have spoken up in
opposition to Henn. Co.. What info do you still need
to take a position and when will you let us know that
position?
o Which points made by SLP residents do you find
unimportant or irrelevant?
o Do you see your role as councilmember to do what is
best for SLP in all circumstances? Elaborate on how
you see your primary role as elected official?
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 43
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
4/30 Richard
LaBelle
3233 Edgewood - Lived here since 1968 – ½ block from high school and 1
½ blocks from rail/Dakota
- Number one concern is SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY
for children and other residents
- Mile long, high speed freight trains shouldn’t be run
through any residential area – period.
- Especially not in close proximity to school or student
athletic field. Derailment could have unbelievably dire
consequences.
- Hundreds of students cross tracks everyday to
McDonalds--fast rail at that intersection is asking for a
tragedy.
- After every tragedy people ask who are the idiots who
allowed this to happen?
- Let’s come up with a plan that would allow LRT to be
built without sacrificing safety of children
- Excessive noise and vibration to school and houses
- Increased traffic problems for school buses and other
vehicles in the area
- Loss of property values/loss of tax base for SLP
- Reduction in quality of life in SLP
4/30 Pat Corder 3041 Maryland - Attended 4/28 session
- Big project in early stages. Perhaps there have been
unreasonable expectations on PMT, both sides. Extra
effort seems to be needed in resolving their issues. All
need to respect and work with each other.
- Whether or not LRT goes through, there will be increase
in demand for rail traffic in future. Best if SLP could
use the LRT issue, and funding, to improve existing rails.
- It seems owners will maintain rails according to traffic
level. Regular maintenance will go a long way in
addition to welded rails, concrete ties. If extra freight
rail comes I’d expect rails to be upgraded and with
zealous maintenance program near housing.
- How many derailments have occurred in the last 100 yrs.
in SLP? Frequency of derailments on new and improved
track in similar settings? There’s no point of reference
as to how big a problem it will be.
- Increase in freight traffic will likely affect everyone in
SLP in one way or another. Benefit of LRT outweighs
the disadvantages. Over the long term adding LRT and
improving existing freight lines would be plus for
community.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 44
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
4/30 Paula
Evensen
6321 W. 37th St
– Elmwood
- Good luck with your decision. I will respect you either
way.
5/1 K. Adelmann 3762 Alabama
S.
- Lives less than 2 blocks. from planned re-route and train
already a problem – noise is unreasonable for residential
neighborhood
- Between trucks, emergency vehicles, jets, trains my
family is planning to move away from SLP. No longer a
residential neighborhood, it is a transportation yard.
- Home owner rights (sitting outside to enjoy relaxation)
being stripped away. No wonder people are moving to
suburbs for peace and quiet.
- Always loved living near heart of Mpls. Now can’t
even allow daughter to walk ½ mi. to school as she’d
need to cross both tracks proposed to carry heavy rail
traffic.
- As parent and homeowner, please stop the re-route and
return SLP to residential status.
5/2/11 Cheryl
Devall
3232 Brunswick
S.
- Tracks are directly across street from my home, approx.
60 ft. from the house. Recently called to object to my
property valuation which has now been lowered 14%.
This is before any reroute. In ’91 when purchased
home, I learned only 2 trains would pass my home,
during day when I was working. I thought that was
acceptable and price was affordable. I know now I was
taking a risk.
- If reroute occurs and rail traffic increases I’ll have great
difficulty selling house for any amount of money. I’ve
been laid off since 2009, age 61, and may be forced to
take early retirement. I’m home most of the time and
will be subjected to increase in noise/vibrations every
day.
- House built in 1937, shakes every time trains go by—
dishes rattle, things fall of shelves. What is happening to
the foundation?
- Unwilling to put savings into fixing up house as I may
need that money to live on. I don’t know what I should
do. I really hope there is a feasible way for the
Kenilworth option to work.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 45
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
5/1/11 Meg
McCormick
3045 Kentucky
S.
- Have lived here 25 years.
- My No. 1 priority is ensuring that SLP gets LRT ASAP.
Our chances of getting light rail are at risk if freight rail
debate continues.
- City leaders need to start talking about light rail AND
freight rail. Separate issues. If we don’t get light rail
we’ll lose out on significant economic development
opportunities and neighborhoods will continue to decline.
Light rail brings good things to communities.
- I’d prefer freight rail not be re-routed through SLP, but if
that’s the cost of getting light rail then we need to work
together to mitigate, mitigate, mitigate.
- City needs a much stronger voice, stand up and shout
when miscommunications occur and take a stand on light
rail.
- History of train traffic in SLP: this is the lightest train
traffic I’ve seen here in 25 yrs. SLP has long history of
co-existing with freight rail. It’s not impossible.
- Concerned that you are only listening to small vocal
minority. Start asking people what they think about light
rail and you will hear a different story.
- Here’s my position:
o SLP needs light rail
o If light rail comes at cost of freight reroute, mitigate
o Stop listening to small vocal minority
o Start talking about light rail
o Opposed to mitigation dollars being spent on
purchasing homes & businesses where property is not
needed for other mitigation efforts. These people
knew there was a track there and understood the risk.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 46
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Web Rail Comments Listening Session (continued)
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
5/2/11 Sean
McKenna
27__
Blackstone
- Thank you to Council, Mayor, Manager for two listening
sessions. Two Councilmembers absence explained which
was respectful to citizens. City of SLP is listening to its
citizens but same cannot be said for Henn. Co. Where
was Gail Dorfman? She is county commissioner, former
councilmember/ mayor, and resident of SLP. When
Mayor in late 1990s, she signed off on idea of accepting
more rail traffic in exchange for environmental clean-up
of parcel near Hwy. 7 & Louisiana.
- Biggest customer of service for TCW is ethanol plant at
Benson, MN. Dozens of tank cars with this highly
flammable material will be traveling these tracks. It is a
placard on tank cars with number 1987 on it.
- Birchwood neighborhood which borders on two sides the
“Iron Triangle” will be cut off from decent transportation
options. Closing of 29th St. crossing should not be
allowed. Coupled with closing of Hwy. 100/on ramp at
27th St. we will be forced to use Mtka. Blvd. for nearly all
transportation needs and accidents from Mtka. from
Vernon through Dakota will double or triple.
- SLP is the piñata of Henn. Co. Badly needed Hwy. 100
reconstruction has been postponed, delayed, or cancelled
as Council stands idly by. Now HC and railroad
authority are jamming rail reroute down our throat.
Citizens know it is a “fait accompli” because Council will
pass a resolution in opposition and offer no other
resistance.
- Watched listening sessions on TV and thank Council,
Mayor, Manager for being there when not likely
compensated. But I'm tired of Mayor Jeff Jacobs
passive-aggressive warnings to audience about not
getting loud or disrespectful. If government doesn’t want
to listen to the people, then maybe the people need to
raise their voice.
- Idea that certain mitigation efforts not required and
remain at option of provider is ridiculous. Minn. Twins
went beyond government required contribution to Target
Field for amenities. Neither railroad is locally owned and
neither railroad is going to pay more money than
obligated to pay.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 47
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
PHONE RAIL COMMENTS
Date Name Address Issues, Key Points, Questions
4/28/11 - Has lived in SLP for 47 years
- Against reroute of freight rail in SLP
- Asks that staff listen to the people of
Lenox, not the Council
5/2/11 Steve Molson Lenox
neighborhood
Brunswick Ave.
- Concerned about home value decreasing
and resale
Neighborhood will change negatively as
home values decrease and new people/new
problems come into neighborhood
Attendance List - Listening Session
April 27, 2011
NAME ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD
Aaron Hulett 2214 Quebec Drive Northside
Abner Finley 5707 Highway 7 Elmwood
Adam Brosz 3312 Colorado Ave S Lenox
Aggie Leitheiser 7614 EdgeBrook Dr South Oak Hill
Al Boyce 3208 Edgewood Ave S Lenox
Amy Earle 2628 Florida Ave S Bronx Park
Angela Berntsen 2840 Alabama Ave Birchwood
Arnie Keuning 3309 Colorado Ave S Lenox
Art Melchert 3252 Edgewood Ave S Lenox
Betty Melchert 3252 Edgewood Ave S Lenox
Bill Graham 14149 Plymouth Burnsville
Bod Storm 2829 Xenwood Ave Birchwood
Brad Armstrong 2716 Brunswick Bronx
Brad Smith 3241 Edgewood Ave S Lenox
Brent Svar 2845 Edgewood Ave s Bronx
Brian Zachek 6108 Minnetonka Blvd Birchwood
Brigitt Berlin 2904 Brunswick Ave S Bronx Park
Bryan Bevell 2837 Yosemite Ave S Birchwood
Bryan Hins 3232 Florida Ave S Lenox
Cheryl Martin 5728 W. 26th Street Birchwood
Chris Lavin 4405 Highway 7 Apt H. Triangle
Clark Johnson 2749 Blackstone Ave Birchwood
Curt Rahman 4209 Browndale Ave Browndale
Dale Hanson 2555 Xenwood Ave S Birchwood
Dan Hills 2913 Brunswick Ave Bronx Park
Darlene Soltis 3205 Dakota Ave S Lenox
Dave Wanger 7807 Edgebrook Dr South Oak Hill
David Long 3024 Alabama Ave S Sorenson
David Lott 2816 Xenwood Ave S Birchwood
Debbie Kurst 1346 Hampshire Ave Eliot
DeLores Holman 2829 Louisiana Ave Bronx
Denise Zurn 2608 Webster Ave S Birchwood
Doug Bruce 9850 Edgewood Rd Bloomington
Doug Guild 7100 W 23rd Street Eliotview
Doug Maday 3361 Library Lane Lenox
Elizabeth Williams 3208 Edgewood Ave S Lenox
Ellen Lipschultz 3925 Dakota Ave Brooklawns
Eric Piper 3225 Edgewood Ave S Lenox
Erin Cosgrove 3021 Colorado Ave S Lenox
Ernie Fontaine 3208 Jersey Ave S Lenox
Eveline Haag 2937 Brunswick Ave Bronx Park
Fran Schmit 3370 Library Lane Lenox
Gail Dorfman
Gal Noyman 6018 Hamilton St Sorenson
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 48
Attendance List - Listening Session
April 27, 2011
NAME ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD
Gary Aiken 1811 Traymore Rd Minnetonka
Gary Aspnes 3236 Edgewood Lenox
Greg Suchanek 2740 Blackstone Ave Birchwood
Jack Haskovitz 2625 Louisiana Ave Bronx Park
Jami LaPray 3256 Blackstone Ave Sorenson
Janice Fontaine 3208 Jersey Ave S Lenox
Jeff Schlosser 7614 EdgeBrook Dr South Oak Hill
Jeremy Anderson 3208 Dakota Ave S Lenox
Jeremy Meyer 3332 Idaho Ave S Lenox
Jerry Lausen 3207 Blackstone Ave Sorenson
Jim Heintzman 2701 Yosemite Ave Birchwood
Jim Johnson 2629 Yosemite Ave S Birchwood
Jocelyn Simon 3274 Blackstone Sorenson
Joe D. Neal 6915 W. 23rd Street Eliot
Joe LaPray 3256 Blackstone Ave Sorenson
John Hagel 11475 Tilton Trails Rogers
Judy Johnson 10700 Old CR 15
Julia Brosz 3312 Colorado Ave S Lenox
Karen Colt 2240 Ridge Dr #21 Blackstone
Karlene Keuning 3309 Colorado Ave S Lenox
Kathryn Kottke 2712 Brunswick Ave Bronx
Kathryn McKeen 2834 Vernon Ave S Birchwood
Katy Carlson 3222 Brunswick Ave Lenox
Kay Drache 3067 Zarthan Ave Sorenson
Keisha Piehl 6325 33rd Str W Lenox
Kelly Peterson 3920 Lynn Ave Minikahda Vista
Kent Weigel 2757 Dakota Ave S Bronx Park
Kermit Herman 3821 Texas Ave South Oak Hill
Kerry Pearce
Kevin Terry 3200 Hampshire Lenox
Larry Hillman 3224 Brunswick Lenox
Larry Moran Mpls Minneapolis
Laura Frahm 2636 Georgia Ave Bronx Park
Linda Herman 3821 Texas Ave South Oak Hill
Linda Hines 2220 Ridge Dr #33 Blackstone
Linda Jennings 3925 Joppa Ave Minikahda Vista
Lois Zander 3109 Zarthan Sorenson
Lynne Carper 4010 Highwood Road Lake Forest
Marian R. Torgeson 3156 George Ave Lenox
Mark Christiansen 3011 Brunswick Ave Lenox
Mark DeBoer 3029 Jersey Lenox
Mark Etes 2921 Blackstone Ave Birchwood
Mark Purdy 2848 Blackstone Ave Birchwood
Mark Simpson 1625 Hampshire Ave Eliot
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 49
Attendance List - Listening Session
April 27, 2011
NAME ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD
Mark Toretsky 2554 Pennsylvania Ave S Willow Park
Mary Gosselin 3216 Florida Ave Lenox
Mary Storm 2829 Xenwood Ave Birchwood
Matthew Bauer 4130 Yosemite Ave S Brookside
Mavis Harrison 3361 Library Lane Lenox
Mel Martinson 2736 Brunswick Ave Bronx Park
Mike Daly 2749 Brunswick Ave Bronx
Mike Robbins 5623 W. Lake Street Sorenson
Nate Boike 2544 Pennsylvania Ave S Willow Park
Nick Evanoff 2752 Brunswick Ave Bronx Park
Paul McCullough 9840 Edgewood Rd Bloomington
Peg Berlin 6050 Woltberry Ln Golden Valley
Rachel Raz 3031 Alabama Ave Sorenson
Ray Pietz 2721 Brunswick Ave Bronx Park
Raymond Aver 3219 Blackstone Sorenson
Rekecca Thelen 3039 Alabama Ave Sorenson
Renata Anderson 3312 Idaho Ave S Lenox
Richard Earle 2628 Florida Ave S Bronx Park
Rick Person 2049 Utah Ave Westwood Hills
Robert Lipinski 3201 Louisiana Ave S Lenox
Rolf Peterson 3536 Zinran Ave S Aquila
Ron DaBruzzi 2651 Yosemite Ave Birchwood
Rosemary Hall 8022 Cedar Lake Road Cedar Manor
Sharon Duncan 3249 Florida Ave S Lenox
Sharon Lehrman 2610 Vernon Ave S Birchwood
Shauna Dorholt 2748 Blackstone Ave Birchwood
Steve Ferrall 2912 Alabama Ave Birchwood
Susan Feger 5921 W. 34th St Sorenson
Tanya Ess 4248 Yosemite Ave S Brookside
Ted Norrgard 2824 Yosemite Ave Birchwood
Terry Soltis 3205 Dakota Ave S Lenox
Theresa Schneider 1625 Hampshire Ave Eliot
Thom Miller 2900 Yosemite Ave Birchwood
Tiera Rozman 2108 Parklands Rd Lake Forest
Tim Sales 4129 Brookside Brookside
Toby Keeler 6012 Minnetonka Birchwood
Tom Mahoney 4257 Toledo Ave S Browndale
Tracey Donesky 2616 Vernon Ave Birchwood
Trent Seaman 3275 Xenwood Ave Sorenson
Tylor Bolaud 2929 Yosemite Birchwood
William Donlon 2729 Brunswick Ave Bronx
William Mate 4330 Brookside Brookside
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 50
Attendance List - Listening Session
April 28, 2011
NAME ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD
Abdi Ismail 3236 Brunswick Ave S Lenox
Amanda Brink-Tusen 3100 Edgewood Ave S Lenox
Ben Weisner 2817 Zarthan Ave Birchwood
Betty Shaw 2649 Huntington Fern Hill
Bill Donlon 2729 Brunswick Bronx
Bill James 3224 Florida Ave S Lenox
Brian Granquist 3115 Colorado Ave S Lenox
Bryan Bartness 2540 Pennsylvania Ave Willow Park
Carma Hayenga 2700 Brunswick Ave Bronx
Carol Donlon 2729 Brunswick Bronx
Carol Stewart 2036 Jersey Ave Eliot
Carolyn Cleveland 4209 Alabama Ave Creekside
Celeste Gaspard 6210 Hamilton Street Sorenson
Chris Maurer 2748 Brunswick Bronx Park
Clark Eichelberger 2632 Webster Ave Birchwood
Claudia Johnston 3931 Joppa Ave Minikahda Vista
Dan Goldman 8800 W. 36th Street Aquila
David Philbrook 2801 Colorado Ave Bronx Park
David Teigland 2635 Alabama Ave
Doreen Pearson 2706 Yosemite Ave Birchwood
Dorothy Doyle 3041 Maryland Ave S Oak Hill Park
Doug Bruce 9850 Edgewood Road Bloomington
Duane Googins 3380 Library Lane Lenox
Emil Jakubic 2940 Florida Ave Lenox
Eric Knudson 3764 Brunswick Ave S Elmwood
Evelyn Wolovitch 2571 Xenwood Ave Birchwood
Finlay Donesky 2616 Vernon Ave S Birchwood
Fritz Vandover 5915 W. 42nd Ave Brookside
Gail Miller 3380 Library Lane Lenox
Helene Herbst 2717 Alabama Birchwood
Jami LaPray 3256 Blackstone Ave Sorenson
Janet Ungs 2554 Alabama Ave Birchwood
Jerry Vasquez 3351 Brunswick Ave Sorenson
Jim Mattison 3017 Jersey Ave Lenox
Jodie Fahey 3325 Dakota Ave Lenox
Joe LaPray 3256 Blackstone Ave Sorenson
Joel Glotter 4300 Cedar Lake Ave Lake Forest
John Olson 2829 Yosemite Ave S Birchwood
Joyce Koshiol 1801 Dakota Ave Eliot
Julia Del Cel 2920 Blackstone Ave Birchwood
Kandi Arries 3051 Brunswick Ave Lenox
Karen Hroma 2752 Blackstone Ave Birchwood
Katherine McManus 2925 Xenwood Birchwood
Kathryn Kottke 2712 Brunswick Ave Bronx
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 51
Attendance List - Listening Session
April 28, 2011
NAME ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD
LeeAnn Landstorm 2701 Yosemite Ave Birchwood
Linda Hatfield 4181 Zarthan Ave Brookside
Liz Diericky 2635 Alabama Ave Birchwood
Louise Kurzeka 3301 Library Lane Lenox
Luverne Nohrenberg 2932 Alabama Ave Birchwood
Maggie Wenner 3369 Brunswick Ave Sorenson
Mark Scott 3236 Jersey Ave S Lenox
Marsi Herman 2742 Xenwood Ave Birchwood
Mary Beth Gaines 5740 W. Lake Str Sorenson
Mary Hunt 7021 W 23rd St Eliot
Mary Kate Term 3231 Yosemite Ave S Sorenson
Mary Topic 3237 Colorado Ave S Lenox
Michele Maurer 2748 Brunswick Bronx Park
Mike Hough 3225 Blackstone Ave Sorenson
Mike Rozman 2108 Parklands Rd Lake Forest
Miles Koshiol 1801 Dakota Ave S Eliot
Morgan Philbrook 2936 Blackstone Ave Birchwood
Nate Paul 3266 Blackstone Sorenson
Omar Zaidi 4129 Xenwood Ave Brookside
Pat Corder 3041 Maryland Ave S Oak Hill Park
Renee Beltrand 2805 Zarthan Ave S Birchwood
Robert Lipinski 3201 Louisiana Ave S Lenox
Ronna Bartness 2540 Pennsylvania Ave Willow Park
Rose Jakubic 2940 Florida Ave Lenox
Shannon McKenzie 3244 Brunswick Ave S Lenox
Sharon Duncan 3249 Florida Ave Lenox
Sherry Frederick 7801 Victoria Circle TexaTonka
Shirlee Nohrenberg 2932 Alabama Ave Birchwood
Terri Spencer 3351 Brunswick Ave Sorenson
Thom Miller 2900 Yosemite Ave Birchwood
Tiera Rozman 2108 Parklands Rd Lake Forest
Toby Brink-Tusen 3100 Edgewood Ave S Lenox
Tom Cremons 3035 Brunswick Ave Lenox
Tom Larson 3751 Brunswick Ave Elmwood
Tom Pearson 2706 Yosemite Ave Birchwood
Tracy Wheeler 3129 Kentucky Ave Lenox
Vlado Kecrua 2814 Blackstone Ave Birchwood
Zinaida Kechman 2814 Blackstone Ave Birchwood
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 52
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 53
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 54
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 55
- 1 -
Themes
from the April 27th & 28th
Listening Sessions and Written Comments
1. Safety Concerns
Safety concerns garnered more comments than just about any other issue. Concerns
expressed included the need for pedestrian crossings in several locations, the potential for
derailments in general and specifically spills, explosions and fires potentially caused by
derailments; concern that the potential for derailments is increased by the tight curves,
steep grades and raised rail beds along the MN&S. Concern was expressed about the
curves creating blind intersections, the proximity of the tracks to schools and kids; the
speed of trains, fumes from idling trains, air pollution, and the threat that hazardous
materials on the trains present to the schools and neighborhoods along the tracks.
Observations:
These are all important issues that need to be addressed in the choice of routes, design of
the project and provision of appropriate mitigation. Many of the safety issues are of
concern no matter which route is chosen for TC&W trains. Other issues like the
proximity of the tracks and the High School; or, LRT trains operating in the same
corridor as freight rail are specific to one route or the other.
2. Train Operations
Several comments were made regarding the steep grades, tight curves, tight ROW and
elevated track bed on the MN&S route through St. Louis Park.
Others made suggestions about how to fit freight rail and LRT through the Kenilworth
corridor by using single track for LRT instead of dual tracks, reducing the separation
requirement between LRT and freight rail tracks.
Specifically it was asked what is the track separation requirement, recognizing that the 25
ft separation is not a federal standard?
Suspicion was raised about role the State Rail Plan has played in the proposal to route
TC&W trains onto the MNS tracks. The idea was expressed that the real reason for the
MN&S being proposed as the location for TC&W trains was to further the objectives of
the State Rail Plan in general and the Dan Patch Commuter Rail proposal specifically.
The concern was that making improvements to the MNS tracks for TC&W trains was
opening the door to many more freight trains and potentially high speed passenger rail on
the MNS route.
Observations:
Regarding the characteristics of the MN&S route compared to Kenilworth, the SEH
analysis generally agrees with the comments from the Listening Sessions. The MN&S
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 56
- 2 -
route does have more and steeper grades, tighter curves and more elevated tracks.
Regarding the ROW, it varies significantly for both routes.
Regarding track separation requirements, they are largely set by the railroads themselves.
The separation between tracks is needed for safety and maintenance. The speed and
frequency of train traffic on adjoining tracks influences the separation needed.
Indications are that a separation of 25 feet between freight rail and LRT tracks is the
starting point for discussion with the railroads. A larger separation maybe needed
considering the speed and frequency of the LRT trains.
Regarding use of a single LRT track instead of dual tracks within the pinch point of the
Kenilworth corridor, it is a less than ideal arrangement and greatly compromises the
overall design of the LRT system. This would be the only single track section of the LRT
system in the Twin Cities and it is very unlikely this configuration would be acceptable.
In addition to the safety concerns inherent with trains sharing a single track, it also limits
the train frequency.
Regarding the State Rail Plan, the MN&S route does appear in MNDOT Comprehensive
Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan. However, the obstacles to greater use of the
MN&S route are substantial. The existing major barriers outside of St. Louis Park make
it very unlikely freight trains other than the current CP or the rerouted TC&W trains
would ever come through St. Louis Park. Commuter rail has even bigger obstacles, and
the track improvements being contemplated in the MN&S Study would not be adequate
for high speed passenger rail.
3. The Wye
Concern was expressed that the MN&S Study’s plans do not replace the Oxford Avenue
industrial area (Skunk Hollow) “switching wye” with a direct south bound connection
from the CP tracks to the MN&S. This would mean that any TC&W train traffic that
wants to go south on the MN&S would either undertake a noisy, time-consuming series
of switching maneuvers on the wye tracks; or, they would need to use a new north bound
interconnection to the MN&S to access the MN&S tracks and then reverse direction and
head south. Concerns were expressed both for the potential noise and disruption in the
neighborhoods near Skunk Hollow; and, for the additional potential train traffic in the
neighborhoods along the MN&S tracks north of Hwy 7, including the High School area.
Observations:
TC&W trains are not currently using the MN&S tracks to travel south; and, the
connection to the south is not needed to replace the Kenilworth route. However,
switching in the Skunk Hollow area is a serious problem when it occurs; and, removal of
the wye is one of the requirements the City identified in its July 2010 rail resolution.
4. Noise and Vibrations
Concern about train noise and vibrations and there impacts on, livability, the High School
activities and student learning, property values and the neighborhoods in general were
raised by several participants in varied ways.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 57
- 3 -
Observations:
Whistle Quiet Zones (WQZ) and new tracks will improve noise levels, however further
work is needed on the vibration issues. There is conflicting information on what the level
of vibration will be and information about what can be done to mitigate vibrations is
needed. Vibration and noise impacts at the High School need particular additional work.
5. Access & Traffic Concerns
Concern was expressed about train traffic impacts on neighborhood walk-ability, closure
of the 29th Street at grade crossing, trains blocking multiple intersections along the
MN&S tracks at the same time. Accessibility between Central Community Center
(Spanish Immersion School) and the High School was a major concern.
The issue of increased train traffic affecting bus transit routes was raised.
Observations:
Blockage of traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, buses by trains are a major issue for both
reroutes. Access to schools, parks, shopping areas, regional trails, community facilities
(libraries to dog parks), transit stops and stations all deserve careful consideration. City
staff and SEH are doing additional work on pedestrian circulation specifically.
6. Property Value Concerns
Concerns were expressed about the impact of increased train traffic on individual home
values, and the neighborhoods as a whole. Fear that the train traffic would lead to
decreased standard of living, decline in the quality of neighborhoods, reduced home
ownership and increased rental property.
Observations:
According the City Assessor future changes in rail routes and traffic volume may
influence property values in St. Louis Park. Proximity to railroad tracks can have an
affect on property values as can proximity to freeways and other external influences.
Valuation professionals such as appraisers and assessors carefully review market
transactions in developing adjustment factors for external influences along with many
other market attributes. Speculation on short term or long term influence can vary
considerably as does the market response from individual buyers and sellers. The
assessing office reports that their current annual modeling of market values varies within
a range of 3-12% along rail tracks, highways and other similar external influences.
7. Mitigation
A general belief was expressed that the mitigation proposed in the MN&S Study to date
was woefully inadequate and uncreative. There was a hope that the MN&S Study
process would have involved more give and take discussion about creative solutions to
the negative impacts associated with increased train traffic on the MN&S route. Many
mitigation ideas were suggested. Some of the key ideas suggested were creating a true
rail corridor with sufficient buffering between the tracks and abutting properties, the
purchase of properties close to the tracks, consideration of building a new High School
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 58
- 4 -
away from tracks, noise/vibration mitigation especially at the High School, a new traffic
signal at Minnetonka Blvd to compensate for the closure of W 29th St, grade separated
rail crossings, grade separated pedestrian crossings and replacement of impacted
wetland/flood storage areas.
Concern was also expressed as to how the community can be assured that mitigation
measures will actually be implemented in these tough times with tight public budgets. It
was asked, what happens if the mitigation that is implemented turns out to be
insufficient?
Observations:
Once the MNS EAW is published we will know more accurately exactly what mitigation
is envisioned as part of the MNS proposal. Table 10 in SEH Tech Memo #4 includes a
range of potential mitigation measures to consider that go beyond the measures
anticipated be included in the MNS EAW. Many of the SEH ideas are similar to ideas
suggested at the Listening Sessions and in written comments.
8. Livability and general comments about impacts
People commented that the overall effect of increased train traffic on the MN&S was a
loss of livability; a loss of walk-ability, a detriment to the schools and inconsistent with
the City’s Vision and commitment to Children First. It was also commented that trains
already traveling on the BNSF tracks are already hurting the community.
Observations:
Ultimately the objective of the analysis of the potential routes for the TC&W trains, is to
discern what approach is in the overall long term best interests for St. Louis Park
including consistency with the City’s Vision and values. Trains travel through St. Louis
Park now and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. No matter which route
TC&W trains use, mitigation and other efforts will be needed to protect and enhance the
livability of our community.
9. LRT
The importance of SWLRT and support for SWLRT was expressed by many. They saw
LRT as a high priority for the community and a net plus even if train traffic had to be
rerouted to the MN&S. Some felt the connection between the freight rail and LRT issue
meant the projects should be considered together, others thought they should be
considered as unrelated separate projects. It was pointed out that the SWLRT DEIS
process provides another opportunity for the City to raise concerns about freight rail
rerouting.
Observations:
The City is on record in strong support of SWLRT. The City continues to participate in
the planning for its implementation. It also is clear that the routing of freight rail affects
LRT and vice versa. The expectation is that the City will comment on the MNS EAW
and the SWLRT DEIS.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 59
- 5 -
10. Regional Trail
Written comments were received regarding the importance of the regional bike trails, the
increasing levels of biking, and the communities support for trails.
Observations:
St. Louis Park has a strong tradition of support for sidewalks and trails for pedestrians
and bicyclists, including regional trails. It is part of the City’s Vision.
11. Cost of Project
Concern was expressed that this is a waste of time and money, when other infrastructure
is falling apart. A commenter noted that Kenilworth route appears to be less expensive,
and therefore the best route.
Observations:
The cost of improvements for creating a permanent route for the TC&W trains is difficult
to accurately estimate at this time. It does appear that the raw basic estimate of the cost
of constructing the necessary improvements and the minimum property acquisitions
needed are less for the Kenilworth route than the MNS route. However, these are all very
preliminary numbers; and, in the case of the Kenilworth estimates, they leave out the cost
of relocating the regional trail and any additional costs incurred to over come any
problems created from freight rail at the LRT stations.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 60
- 1 -
Key Findings from SEH Tech Memo #4
Physical Characteristics
1. Kenilworth is generally physically a better rail corridor; less grades, gentler
curves, fewer single family homes in close proximity to tracks, fewer at grade
crossings, and no community facility comparable to SLP HS on the route.
2. Kenilworth corridor is already occupied by the regional trail and will include the
LRT line. This complicates accommodating freight rail in terms of fit and
operational safety even with the Regional Trail relocated.
3. TCW use of the MN&S is an intensification of the use of an existing track. TCW
permanently routed through Kenilworth is means two rail functions for the
corridor where one rail function takes place today.
4. Freight train traffic in Kenilworth will require at least partial relocation of the
regional bike trail to an as yet undetermined location.
Safety
5. There are safety benefits and downsides to both the MN&S and the Kenilworth
routes for SLP from a safety perspective. The MN&S route is clearly better from
a traffic/train hazard perspective and regional trail access perspective (e.g.
Wooddale and Beltline); but, it exposes the High School area and more single
family homes to train impacts than the Kenilworth route.
6. The MN&S route eliminates 2 major at grade crossings (Beltline and Wooddale)
and approximately 1 1/4 mile of freight rail tracks in St. Louis Park.
Switching
7. Neither route as currently conceived addresses future skunk hollow switching
adequately. The MN&S route marginally addresses the switching issue by
providing a northbound connection to the MN&S tracks, which conceivably could
be used to access MN&S southbound as well. However this technique increases
the impacts on the neighborhoods to the north of Hwy 7.
Whistle Quiet Zone (WQZ)
8. Implementation of a WQZ would be of benefit to the community. It would reduce
noise impacts and upgrade track on the MN&S route. These are improvements
that are not likely to occur without rerouting of TCW trains to MN&S.
Vibration Impacts
9. Vibration impacts need further study. Conflicting analyses leave the level of
impact likely to be experienced uncertain. More work is needed on this topic.
Costs
10. The raw construction cost for the Kenilworth appears to be a less expensive route
than the MN&S route depending on exactly how much acquisition is done. It also
leaves as an open question the issue of the cost of relocating the regional trail,
potential costs to accommodating freight rail at LRT stations and whatever
mitigation requirements emerge from a more detailed design process involving
the City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Parks and Minneapolis residents.
LRT & Station Area Development
11. Kenilworth route complicates the Wooddale and Beltline Blvd LRT station
designs, especially access to the stations. It also may potentially affect ridership.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 61
- 2 -
12. The Kenilworth route is a negative influence on redevelopment around the LRT
stations, but it certainly does not eliminate the potential. The Wooddale station
area has seen significant redevelopment even with the existing freight rail traffic
present.
13. Presence of freight rail at Beltline Blvd creates significant traffic issues that
would require grade separating freight rail from Beltline Blvd traffic to be solved.
Today when freight trains are present at peak hours, significant back ups occur.
This disruption is likely to get worse in the future as more development occurs in
this area and with the opening of a LRT station at Beltline Blvd.
Mitigation: Protecting Single Family Homes
14. Acquisition of properties on the east side of the existing MN&S tracks could
significantly improve safety, reduce noise and vibration impacts and provide other
potential community benefits (potential trail) for the portion of the MN&S route
through single family residential areas.
Mitigation: Maintaining Mobility
15. Creation of a new grade separated Hwy 7, north side frontage road would greatly
reduce the disruption creating by train traffic on vehicle movements in the Lake
St, Walker, Wooddale/Dakota area. This would be particularly beneficial for
access between the High School and the Central Community Center.
16. The potential for train induced back-ups on Lake Street extending all the way
onto Hwy 7 are real and unacceptable and could reduce the effectiveness of a new
grade separated frontage road on the north side of Hwy 7. Closure of the Lake
Street/Hwy 7 access would improve this situation but would require the new Hwy
7/Louisiana interchange be constructed.
High School/Lake Street Issues
17. Reducing noise and vibration impacts and expanding the buffer between the land
uses and the MN&S tracks in the vicinity of the High School and the Lake street
commercial area are extremely difficult. Further study needed for how to reduce
vibration/noise impacts on the High School. Any expansion of rail buffer space
or ROW would require acquisition of virtually all the parcels from Lake Street
Park to Library Lane along the NW side of Lake Street.
18. Improving access across the MN&S tracks in the vicinity of the High School is
very difficult. Improved gating of sidewalks and at grade street crossings can be
installed, however grade separated pedestrian crossings would be difficult to
construct and difficult to locate in a way that they would actually be used.
Property Values
19. According the City Assessor future changes in rail routes and traffic volume may
influence property values in St. Louis Park. Proximity to railroad tracks can have
an affect on property values as can proximity to freeways and other external
influences. Valuation professionals such as appraisers and assessors carefully
review market transactions in developing adjustment factors for external
influences along with many other market attributes. Speculation on short term or
long term influence can vary considerably as does the market response from
individual buyers and sellers. The assessing office reports that their current
annual modeling of market values varies within a range of 3-12% along rail
tracks, highways and other similar external influences. Property valuation studies
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 62
- 3 -
referenced in comments from residents appear to be based on analysis of changes
in train traffic of from 10 to 45 trains per day. Proposed changes on the MN&S
are 4 to 6 trains per day.
Viability of Kenilworth for Freight Rail
20. The analysis of Kenilworth as a potential route for freight rail, suggests that it is
potentially a viable alternative to the MN&S route.
Jurisdictional Complexity
21. Both the MN&S and Kenilworth routes carry with them questions about
acceptability to the railroads. The MN&S route’s steeper grades, bridges and
elevated tracks raise operational issues for the railroads. The sharing the corridor
and the spacing between tracks are open issues with the railroads regarding the
Kenilworth route.
22. The Kenilworth route carries with it increased jurisdictional complexity. The City
of Minneapolis, the Minneapolis Park Board, the Kenilworth neighborhood
organizations, and the organizations involved with the regional trail all would
need to be involved in the Kenilworth route decision in some way.
23. Use of the Kenilworth corridor as the permanent home for TCW trains would
affect the SWLRT DEIS and in particular the “4f” analysis regarding potential
impacts on parkland.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 63
Eliot
Aquila
Lenox
Fern Hill
Wolfe Park
Oak Hill
BlackstoneWestwood Hills
Birchwood
Elmwood
Sorensen
Triangle
Creekside
Bronx ParkCedar Manor
Cobblecrest
Lake Forest
Texa Tonka
Willow Park
Minikahda Vista
Browndale
South Oak HillKilmer PondBrooklawnsMeadowbrook
Eliot View
Cedarhurst
Shelard Park
Brookside
Minne-haha
PennsylvaniaPark
Crest-view
AmhurstWest-dale
Minikahda Oaks
Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Freight Rail Listening Sessions Map
Geocoding Result: FreightRailAttendeesSPOKE
ATTENDED
ATTENDED & SPOKE
SLPSDE.GENERAL.RAILROAD
Neighborhoods
Shelard Parkway
I-394 I-394
Flag AveHighway 169Edgemore DrTexas AveLouisiana AveHwy 7
Texas AveExcelsior WayHwy 100Hwy 100Soo Line RRHwy 7
Minnetonka Blvd
28th St W
Burlington
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
R
R
France AveExcelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Natchez Ave44th St
Northw
e
st
er
n
R
R
Douglas Ave
22nd St W
Hwy 7
0 0.5 1
Miles
April 27 & 28th, 2011
ATTENDED
ATTENDED & SPOKE
* Not shown are 9 attendees that
reside outside of St. Louis Park
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 64
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: St Louis Park City Council
FROM: Dave McKenzie, P.E.
DATE: April 18, 2011
RE: Tech Memo # 4 -DRAFT
Comparison of the MN&S Route and the Kenilworth Route
SEH No. 114331
Introduction
This draft memorandum summarizes background information to assist the City of St. Louis Park with
updating its freight rail policy. The memorandum consists of four sections.
1) Background information of Railroad Operations.
2) Comparison of the Kenilworth Corridor and the MN&S Corridor
3) Impacts to the City of St Louis Park
4) Potential Mitigation Measures, if the MN&S corridor is chosen
The analysis and information provided in this report focuses on two potential permanent routes for
TC&W trains that pass through St. Louis Park and the Cedar Lake area of Minneapolis as they move
between Southwestern Minnesota and rail destinations in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The two potential
TC&W routes are highlighted on Map 1, which shows the general study area for this memorandum.
Railroad Operations
There are three railroads operating within the area of study on railroad rights of way and track that are
owned by either BNSF or CP railroads. TC&W has rights to operate on at least portions of both rail
systems. Today they operate primarily on the CP. Table 1 outlines the existing train operations within St
Louis Park by segment of track.
Future Rail Operations
Over the past decade train operations within St Louis Park have been relatively stable. Changes have
occurred however the total level of train traffic has changed very little. For the near future total train
activity in St. Louis Park is not anticipated to change. Even if TC&W trains are routed onto the MN&S
tracks overall train activity is not expected to change. Train traffic on MN&S would be increased and
train traffic on the CP’s Bass Lake Spur east of Wooddale Avenue would be eliminated.
Projecting future train operation is difficult because many variables involved. Some of the variables are:
World and national economy
Capacity of the railroad network
New plants or products being shipped (ethanol, distilled grains, containers)
New destinations
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 65
2
Oil prices
World food supplies
Capacity of other transportation systems(highways, truck, barges, ships, ports)
Government policies
Future of passenger rail system
Railroad ownership changes
Railroad Regulations
Making different assumptions for these various factors will produce widely different projections. Even
the future rail activity of a regional railroad, like TC&W, is subject to so many factors that it is
impractical to attempt to predict future train car volumes. Recent activity is as good a predictor of future
activity as any at this time. As a result this memorandum focuses on the impacts associated with the level
TC&W train activity occurring today.
It is important to note that even if TC&W’s basic freight business were to increase, it would be
accommodated by adding cars to the existing trains rather than adding more trains. The existing daily
trains have the capacity to pull more cars if the demand for freight transport were to increase. Even today,
the precise number of cars in each of the daily trains varies based on market demand.
Unit trains such as ethanol or coal trains are not daily occurrences and due to their size have less capacity
to accommodate increased demand by simply adding cars to existing trains. If market conditions increase
the need to transport unit train commodities, the increased demand would be handled by adding trains.
TC&W currently handles about 10 unit trains per month.
The State Rail Plan projected that total train activity in Minnesota would increase by approximately 25
percent over the next 20 years. However that projection does not mean every rail operation will see a
25% increase. Some will increase, some will stay the same and some will decrease and predicting which
railroad in which location will experience an increase is a different and exceedingly difficult question.
As was stated above, if the TC&W were to experience a 25% increase in general freight demand, it would
probably mean its two existing trains would increase the number of cars pulled. If unit train demand it
could increase the number of unit trains by one or two trains per week.
CP RR and BNSF RR projections would be influenced more by world and national activities than
TC&W. However the CP daily train on the MN&S is serving only a few customers at this time and is
pulling very few cars. If demand increased the CP daily train has capacity to easily triple the cars pulled
without adding another train. The MN&S track capacity is a constraint for increases in future train
activity both because of the limited places for trains to meet and the slow speed.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 66
3
Table 1 – Existing Train Operations
Rail Segments of
Interest Description
CP Railway
Operates one local train, round trip, 5 days per week (approximately 10-30 cars).
CP Rail MN&S
Sub
TC&W (Trackage Rights)
TC&W is currently not running trains on the MN&S line.
TC&W currently has the right to operate on the MN&S corridor, both north to get to
the Camden river terminal in north Minneapolis as well as south to get to the Savage
river terminals.
TC&W also has the option of running north on the MN&S Sub to CP’s Humboldt
yard to get into Minneapolis and St. Paul.
CP Railway
N/A
CP Rail Bass Lake
Spur
TC&W (Trackage Rights)
Regular Operations (5 days/week and 6 days/week)
o 1 eastbound train (< 80 cars) bound for CP’s St. Paul Yard during the AM.
o 1 eastbound train (~ 30 cars) bound for Minnesota Commercial’s Main Rail Yard
in the Midway and Union Pacific’s Western Avenue Yard during the AM.
o 2 westbound trains bound for Hopkins during the PM.
Longer “Unit” Trains (full trainloads of one commodity)
o Ethanol = approximately 1 loaded and 1 empty ethanol unit train per week
(typically 80 cars in length).
o Coal = approximately 2 loaded coal trains per month (typically 123 cars in
length).
CP Railway
Serves one industrial customer.
CP Rail
Interchange Track
(Interconnect or
Switching Wye)
TC&W (Trackage Rights)
TC&W uses this interchange point to reach the Camden river terminal in north
Minneapolis (to the north) as well as the Savage river terminals (to the south). Due
to current market conditions, this movement is not currently occurring but could
resume if market conditions favoring movement of grain by barge develop.
TC&W also has the option of running north on the MN&S Sub to CP’s Humboldt
yard to get into Minneapolis and St. Paul.
TC&W uses this interchange point for locomotive maintenance movements and to
interchange with Progressive Rail Incorporated.
BNSF Wayzata
Subdivision
BNSF Railroad
BNSF operates approximately 15 trains per day at speeds up to 60 mph
The TC&W and CP have trackage rights beginning at Cedar Lake Junction near
I-394 extending into St Paul.
Kenilworth MN&S Comparison
The analysis of the Kenilworth and MN&S corridors provided below includes:
1. a base line comparison of the characteristics as they exist today; and,
2. a comparison of the two potential permanent routes for TC&W trains.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 67
4
This comparison of the Kenilworth and MN&S corridors is a compilation of the existing land use and
traffic data. It is intended to be a base line statistical comparison of the corridors as they exist today. It is
intended to help evaluate the two corridors. Map 1 shows the general study area. There is no attempt to
rate or weight the various categories. The comparison should not be considered to be at the level of detail
of an EAW. The data used for the this memorandum was taken from various sources including the
MN&S Study, the SWLRT environmental documentation and City sources.
The MN&S Rail Study and EAW being prepared by Hennepin County on the MN&S corridor is in final
preparation and is expected to be published May of 2011. Information used from that study is based on
the studies and background materials generated during the PMT process and meetings held during its
study. The data used from the MN&S study should be considered preliminary information and subject to
change until the study and EAW are complete. If there are changes when the final data becomes available
it will be incorporated into this document.
The Alternative TC&W Routes
For comparison purposes the west end of the two alternative TC&W route alignments begin on the CP
tracks just east of Minnehaha Creek about 2,800 feet west of Louisiana Avenue. This where the new
track needed to connect the CP tracks to MN&S would begin. Cedar Lake Junction, just west of the I-394
bridge over the BNSF tracks approaching downtown Minneapolis serves as the eastern end of both
alternative TC&W routes for this analysis. These points provide a Point A to Point B comparison for the
two alignments. The two corridors are both about 5 miles long with the MN&S corridor slightly longer.
Kenilworth Route
The Kenilworth alignment would generally follow the existing CP freight track but to accommodate the
SWLRT, the track would shift to the north side of the HCRRA right of way just west of Wooddale
Avenue and continue shifted to the northwest edge of the right of way until near 21st Street, where it
would return to the existing freight track alignment. This is the alignment identified as Alternative 2a in
SEH Tech Memo #3. This alternative accommodates both freight rail and LRT in the Kenilworth
corridor and requires a partial relocation of the existing regional trail.
MN&S Route
The MN&S alignment creates a new freight track to the south of the existing CP track beginning near
Minnehaha Creek. The new track ascends over the existing Bass Lake spur track and LRT track east of
Louisiana, curves to the north connecting to the existing MN&S at Hwy 7 and continues north more or
less following the existing MN&S alignment. The track shifts slightly to the east near Minnetonka
Boulevard. The alignment connects to the BNSF tracks by reconstructing the wye track in the “iron
triangle” area east of Dakota Park. The MN&S route also includes constructing a new 12,500’ siding on
the BNSF right of way. Creating the new CP to MN&S to BNSF interconnections means trains would no
longer travel the existing Bass Lake spur track through the Kenilworth Corridor. It is assumed that the
Bass Lake Spur to Wooddale from the west and the “Skunk Hollow” wye tracks would remain in place.
The existing Bass Lake spur east of Wooddale, through the Kenilworth corridor would be removed.
Comparison of the Corridors for Rail Operational Suitability
Trains generally like flat, straight alignments. Neither one of these corridors fit that description. Both
routes feature long relatively steep grades and multiple curves.
Grades and Elevations
The net elevation change from Cedar Lake Junction (east terminus of both routes) to Minnehaha Creek
(west end of both routes) is about 60 feet. However both routes have hills between these common points
that add to the difficulty of operating trains. The proposed MN&S route requires construction of a
railroad bridge up and over the existing CP railroad’s Bass Lake Spur. This creates the high point on the
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 68
5
MN&S route at roughly 93 feet above the Cedar Lake Junction on the east end of the route. The high
point on the Kenilworth route is about 71 feet above Cedar Lake Junction. Table 2 and Table 3 illustrate
the elevations of the MN&S and Kenilworth routes respectively. They also show the relative steepness of
the grades. The maximum grade on the MN&S is 1.5% and the Kenilworth is .77%. The Kenilworth
.77% grade is an existing condition and is the grade between Lake Street and Wooddale Avenue, the high
point on the Kenilworth route.
Curves
There are multiple curves on both routes. Generally the curves on the MN&S route are tighter. The new
connection between the Bass Lake Spur and the MN&S would be the tightest curve, an 8 degree curve.
Railroad Right of Way
Railroad right-of-way is defined as property owned or controlled by a railroad. The needed right-of-way
width is determined by the number of tracks, drainage requirements, embankment width, and available
land. Typical railroad right-of-way is 100 feet, but could vary between 20 and 300 feet. Table 4
identifies the existing railroad right-of-way characteristics for the rail segments of interest within the
City. Map 2 shows the current railroad ownership.
The MN&S right of way is very irregular and reflects the fact that it was acquired after land had been split
into lots. The right of way varies from 34 ft to 145 ft with much of it 66 ft or 100 ft wide.
The Kenilworth with the existing freight rail tracks is 44 ft to 200 ft wide. However adjacent to the
HCRRA right of way is right of way owned by other public entities in some cases. The City of
Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park Board own property in the corridor.
At Grade Crossings
Both routes have significant stretches of track uninterrupted by at grade crossings. West of Wooddale
Avenue there are no at grade crossings on the CP in the Study Area. On the MN&S route, from the
connection to the BNSF tracks and on the BNSF itself, there are no at grade crossings. The MN&S route
has more at grade crossings than the Kenilworth route. Most notably they are concentrated in the Walker
to Dakota Avenue stretch of track from Hwy 7 to the High School. The Kenilworth at grade crossings are
on higher traffic streets. Dakota and Lake Street are the highest volume streets on the MN&S route with
4500 and 3850 Average Daily Trips (ADT) respectively. The Kenilworth route has two streets with ADT
over 10,000; Beltline Blvd with 14,100 ADT and Wooddale Avenue with 11,300 ADT. Tables 6 and 7
provide more details on the road crossings.
A detailed data list is in Table 5. The table shows the existing conditions for both corridors and the
changed condition depending on which option is chosen.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 69
6 Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 70
7 Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 71
8
Table 4 – Existing Railroad Right-of-Way for the Rail Segments of Interest
Rail Segments of Interest Right-of-Way Description
Between CP
Rail Bass Lake
Spur and
BNSF Wayzata
Subdivision
Mainline
North of 27th Street width varies from 280 feet to include triangle shaped
parcel formerly used for interconnect to BNSF mainline.
Right-of-way is 66 feet between 27th Street and Minnetonka Blvd, south of
Minnetonka Blvd.
Right-of-way consists of several parcels varying in width from 34 feet to 145
feet with a typical width of approximately 100 feet.
CP
Rail
MN&S
Sub South of CP
Rail Bass Lake
Spur
North of 39th Street right-of-way is composed of several parcels varying in
width from 80 to 153 feet.
Between 39th Street and Excelsior Blvd, right-of-way width is 66 feet constant.
South of Excelsior, right-of-way varies from 66 to approximately 164 feet.
East of CP Rail
MN&S Sub
The right-of-way over this segment is divided into two parallel parcels.
CP owns the south half (about 70 feet), and HCRRA owns the north half of
this right-of-way (about 100 feet).
The total right-of-way width varies from 75 feet to 235 feet.
CP
Rail
Bass
Lake
Spur West of CP
Rail MN&S
Sub
The right-of-way over this segment is divided into two parallel parcels.
CP owns the south half (about 70 feet), and HCRRA owns the north half of
this right-of-way (about 100 feet).
The total right-of-way width is constant, measuring between 164 and 170 feet
over this entire segment.
CP Rail Interchange
Track (Interconnect or
Switching Wye)
There are only a few right-of-way parcels owned by the CP over the length of
the interconnect.
Much of the segment is located within easements on private property.
The right-of-way that remains varies in width from 31 to 90 feet.
Kenilworth Corridor
The Kenilworth corridor is owned by HCRRA and varies in width from 44 feet
and 200 feet. There are various publicly owned parcels adjoining the HCRRA
.
The Kenilworth corridor was purchased by HCRRA from the CNW Railroad
for the purposes of transit. The existing corridor has a freight track and trail
and has been identified as the preferred SW LRT alignment.
BNSF Railroad BNSF right of way varies between 100’ and 150’ wide but does have the
Cedar Lake trail on a easement within their property.
Source: St. Louis Park Railroad Report, 1999. SEH, Inc.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 72
9 Table 5 Freight Rail Route Options – Comparison Table Entire Route Existing Conditions Conditions if Kenilworth is chosen Conditions if MN&S is chosen Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Train Operations # of trains/day - now 4-5 2 4-5 2 0 6-7 # of trains/day - future (2030) 5-6 2-4 5-6 2-4 0 8-10 Train Speed (mph) 10/25 10 10/25 10 10/25 10/25 Track Route Length (FT) Minnehaha Creek to Cedar Lake Jct 24,600 N/A 24,600 N/A N/A 26,400 Track new & upgraded (FT) 0 0 18,800 0 0 27,610 Track Removed (FT) N/A N/A 0 0 18,800 0 RR Bridge constructed (FT) N/A N/A 240 0 0 3,490 RR Bridge rebuilt (FT) N/A N/A 280 0 0 245 Track Grade Maximum .77% 1.9% .77% 1.9% N/A 1.5% Track Curvature Maximum (degree) 4 6 4 6 N/A 8 Turnouts (No) 1 5 1 0 0 5 Road Crossings # of At-grade Crossings 4 6 4 6 0 5 # of Crossing with ADT < 2,500 1 3 1 3 0 2 # of Crossings with ADT 2,500-9,000 1 3 1 3 0 3 # of Crossing with ADT > 9,000 2 0 2 0 0 0 # of Crossings closed N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 # of Crossings with rr signals 3 4 2 4 0 5 # of Crossings s Quiet Zone 2 0 4 0 0 5 Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 73
10 Existing Conditions Conditions if Kenilworth is chosen Conditions if MN&S is chosen Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Residential Impacts Table 5 (cont) Home 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of homes < 25’ Parcel 0 16 0 16 0 16 Home 0 2 0 2 0 0 # of homes 26’-50’ Parcel 0 69 1 69 1 69 Home 13 53 11 53 0 53 # of homes 51-100’ Parcel 20 30 11 30 7 30 Home 35 127 35 127 35 127 # of homes 101-200’ Parcel 57 148 57 148 57 148 Multi Family # of units < 25’ Units 3 0 3 0 0 0 # of units 26’-50’ Units 30 0 52 0 0 0 # of units 51’-100’ Units 154 4 135 4 0 0 # of units 101’-200’ Units 294 96 175 96 60 160 Total Housing Units Affected # of units < 25’ Units 3 0 3 0 0 0 # of units 26’-50’ Units 30 2 52 2 0 2 # of units 51’-100’ Units 167 57 63 57 7 53 # of units 101’-200’ Units 351 244 233 244 253 287 Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 74
11 Table 5 (cont) Existing Conditions Conditions if Kenilworth is chosen Conditions if MN&S is chosen Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Institutional Impacts Schools within 1/8 mile (#) 0 5 0 5 0 5 Parks within 1/8 mile (# ) 2 7 2 7 2 7 Business Impacts # of Industrial Building within 500’ 58 66 58 66 58 66 # of Commercial Building within 500’ 10 15 10 15 10 15 Right of Way # of Residential Property acquired N/A N/A 34 0 0 2 # of Business Property Acquired N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 # of partial parcel takes N/A N/A 0 0 0 12 # of Institutional Property Acquired N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 75
12 Table 5 (cont) Existing Conditions Conditions if Kenilworth is chosen Conditions if MN&S is chosen Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor SW LRT Issues # of Stations next to frt rail 0 0 6 0 1 1 # of grade separation over frt rail 0 0 1 0 0 1 Costs Construction costs $30,000,000 $71,172,000 Property acquisition $5 - $40,000,000 $5,500,000 Total $35 - $70,000,000 $76,672,000 Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 76
Table 6 – At-Grade Crossing Summary for the Rail Segments of Interest
Rail Segments of Interest Crossing # Location 24-Hour
Traffic Count
Existing
Control Recent or Planned Improvements
North of BNSF
Wayzata
Subdivision
Mainline
#854230K Cedar Lake
Road
12,207
(2009)
Overhead
Flashers None
#854231S W. 28th
Street
1,200
(2009)
Stop Signs with
Crossbucks New signals with gates
#854232Y W. 29th
Street
190
(2011)
Stop Signs with
Crossbucks Close
#854233F
Brunswick
Avenue
(North)
N/A
(Pedestrians
Only)
None Roadway Crossing Closed 2005. Pedestrian
Crossing Constructed 2006.
#854234M Dakota
Avenue
4,500
(2009)
Flashers and
Gates
Gates and New Concrete Surface
Constructed 2005.
#854235U Library Lane 1958
(2011) Flashers
#854236B Lake Street 3,850
(2009)
Overhead
Flashers
Programmed for Gate Installation in
2011/2012.
Between CP Rail
Bass Lake Spur
and BNSF
Wayzata
Subdivision
Mainline
#854237H Walker
Street
2,905
(2009) Flashers New signals with gates
#379742T
Brunswick
Avenue
(South)
N/A
(Pedestrians
Only)
None Roadway Crossing Closed 2003. Pedestrian
Crossing Constructed 2004.
#854241X Alabama
Avenue
3,025
(2009) Flashers Programmed for Gate Installation in
2011/2012.
#854242E Excelsior
Boulevard
25,500
(2007)
Overhead
Flashers and
Gates
None
#854243L W. 41st
Street
976
(unknown)
Stop Signs with
Crossbucks None
#854244T W. 42nd
Street
258
(unknown)
Stop Signs with
Crossbucks None
#854245A
Brookside
Avenue
North
1,160
(unknown) Flashing Lights None
CP Rail
MN&S
Sub
South of CP Rail
Bass Lake Spur
#854246G
Brookside
Avenue
South
1,160
(unknown) Flashing Lights None
#397741L
&
#185195B
Wooddale
Avenue
11,300
(2009)
Overhead
Flashers and
Gates
None
East of CP Rail
MN&S Sub
#187142J Beltline/
Ottawa Ave
14,100
(2009)
Overhead
Flashers and
Gates
None
CP Rail
Bass Lake
Spur
West of CP Rail
MN&S Sub None N/A N/A N/A N/A
#379744G Oxford
Street
3,300
(unknown) Crossbucks None CP Rail Interchange Track
(Interconnect or Switching Wye) #379745N Louisiana
Avenue 10,500 (2007) Overhead
Flashers None
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 77
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 78
15
Land Use
The land use between the two alignments varies. The MN&S Section passes through a variety of land uses, including
primarily industrial and commercial on the south end; residential, parkland, and community uses along the stretch
between Highway 7 and 27th Street; and residential/green space on the northern end. The Kenilworth Section passes
through primarily industrial and commercial on the west end, transitioning into a mix of multifamily and industrial in the
middle and a mix of high density residential, single family and parkland on the northeast end. The MN&S has more
single family and school related uses, while the Kenilworth has more parkland and multifamily.
Residential Properties
There is a significant number of residents living along both routes. However residents along the MN&S tend to be closer
to the tracks than the residents along the Kenilworth route and the MN&S route is mostly single family homes. Within 50
ft of the center line of the MN&S tracks there are 85 single family lots and 2 single family homes, all of them in St. Louis
Park. Along the Kenilworth route there are none that close today. There are 33 multi-family parcels and 13 townhomes
within 50 ft of the centerline of railroad tracks in Kenilworth, all in Minneapolis. No multi-family structures or parcels
that close along the MN&S.
Institutional Uses
There are no institutional uses identified along the Kenilworth route within 1/8th mile of the freight rail tracks and five
along the MN&S. Most notably St. Louis Park High School is located adjacent to the MN&S tracks between Dakota
Avenue and Library Lane.
Business Uses
Business uses range from industrial plants, warehouses, big box stores and local retail and restaurants along both
corridors. The MN&S corridor businesses are located on the southern end with a concentration around the Lake/Walker
area. The MN&S businesses on Oxford Road will be affected by proposed bridge with partial easements. It appears that
one business (9600 Oxford Road) will be taken in full since their building in under the bridge. Several of the business
along Lake Street have express concerns about existing noise and vibration issues and if the proposed project will cause
greater issues.
The Kenilworth Corridor business are located further away from the track and are more industrial in nature. The corridor
north of Lake Street is residential and parkland.
Right of Way
The MN&S right of way is very irregular and reflects the fact that it was acquired after land had been split into lots. The
right of way varies from 34 ft to 145 ft with much of it 66 ft or 100 ft wide.
The Kenilworth with the existing freight rail tracks is 44 ft to 200 ft wide. However adjacent to the HCRRA right of way
is right of way owned by other public entities in some cases. The City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park Board
own property in the corridor
Impacts to the City of St Louis Park
The SW LRT project is a driving force for the need to address the issue of finding a permanent home TC&W train traffic
in the short term. A permanent location for TC&W traffic is needed before the SWLRT line can be constructed. While
separate questions and projects, they are intertwined and influence one another. The decision between choosing the
Kenilworth Corridor and MN&S Corridor has significant impacts to the City, some positive and some negative. Some of
the key impacts on St. Louis Park are highlighted below.
SWLRT Project and Station Planning
The existing concept plan for the SWLRT line assumes that freight traffic no longer exists in the Kenilworth corridor. It
assumes that the TC&W trains now operating in Kenilworth will be rerouted to the MN&S and that the improvements
necessary for that rerouting will have been completed by the time the SWLRT is constructed.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 79
16
If TC&W trains continue to operate in Kenilworth route, design modifications to the SWLRT line would be needed. Key
factors include the following.
1. A new LRT bridge over CP Bass Lake Spur tracks near Wooddale Avenue. If freight rail and LRT both operate
in the Kenilworth corridor, the position of the freight rail and LRT tracks relative to one another needs to be
switched to put the freight rail tracks north of the LRT tracks. This would be most easily accomplished by
constructing an LRT bridge over the freight tracks near Wooddale Avenue.
2. Freight rail and LRT both in the Kenilworth corridor requires at least partial relocation of the regional trail now in
the Kenilworth corridor.
3. Additional right of way will need to be acquired in the Kenilworth Corridor. Primarily this means acquisition of
property and likely relocation of residents at the Cedar Shores town homes. It also means working with the City
of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Park Boards regarding the use of property they own in the Kenilworth corridor
that has been planned to be used for the SWLRT line and now would also be necessary for freight rail use.
4. Additional “4f” parkland review issues. The SWLRT concept plan currently raises environmental review issues
due to the traversing of park/parkway properties by the proposed SWLRT tracks and trains. To the extent that
these crossings are consider minimal or de minimis intrusions they can be allowed, the addition of freight rail
tracks could complicate reaching that finding.
All of the above factors complicate and add costs to the implementation of the SWLRT project. The consequences of that
added complexity on the timing, funding, cost and odds of successful implementation of the SWLRT project in the near
future are difficult if not impossible to ascertain with any certainty. They affect St. Louis Park to the extent that the City
is believes the LRT project is important and beneficial for the community. Clearly any increase in the complexity of the
SWLRT project is a hindrance to moving forward successfully. How much of a hindrance and its exact impact is hard to
say.
For St. Louis Park itself, the most significant potential impact of TC&W traffic continuing in the Kenilworth corridor is
the potential impacts on the Wooddale and Beltline station areas. Kenilworth freight rail would also affect the three
stations in Minneapolis.
Freight rail in Kenilworth route will affect the operation of the actual stations and development in the area surrounding the
stations. It is difficult to quantify the precise impacts freight rail will have on the stations and development. To help
understand this issue as it relates to station area planning, we have asked assistance from SRF Consulting Group, who has
already been working on LRT station area planning at the Beltline area. Their role is to help identify issues and principles
that could assist the City evaluate the potential impacts from freight rail on the station areas and to assist in arriving upon
planning principles. They have compiled a list of issues assuming freight railroad and LRT share the same corridor. It is
worthwhile to note that even if the MN&S route is chosen for TC&W trains, the Blake Road station in Hopkins and the
Louisiana Avenue station in St. Louis Park would have similar issues. The Louisiana Avenue station would have the
advantage of grade separation which would simply the problems created by the present of freight trains at the LRT
stations.
Key issues identified so far stem largely from the barrier to access that at grade freight rail tracks present to pedestrians,
people on bikes and vehicles; and, the impact on the character of the area. The impact of the barriers to access is
heightened since the level of traffic of all kinds is expected to increase due to the LRT stations. The inclusion of freight
rail within the SW LRT corridor would:
1. Create a barrier for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access on north side of the transit corridor
2. Create increased vehicle queues along Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard
3. Create additional design challenges for the possibility of Beltline Boulevard grade separation
4. Tend to create a more industrial or utilitarian setting than that of an exclusive transit way corridor; thereby making the
corridor somewhat less attractive for development
5. Present increased safety concerns with increased traffic congestion and queues
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 80
17
A total of six future LRT stations are planned along the Kenilworth route, three in St. Louis Park and three more in
Minneapolis. The Kenilworth stations are:
1. Louisiana Avenue – St. Louis Park
2. Wooddale Avenue – St. Louis Park
3. Beltline Blvd – St. Louis Park
4. West Lake Street – Minneapolis
5. West 21st Street – Minneapolis
6. Penn Avenue – Minneapolis
One station, the Louisiana Avenue Station is along the MN&S route in addition to being along the Kenilworth.
Each of the St. Louis Park stations is located on a major north-south collector or connector street with adjoining trail or
sidewalk in order to provide access to the LRT stations from a ½ mile walking radius, potential feeder bus services, “kiss
and ride” patrons; and, in the case of the Louisiana and Beltline Stations, “park & ride” patrons. The stations were also
chosen and planned to support future development that would in turn support the transit system. The projected ridership
for the stations is provided in Table 8.
Table 8
SWLRT Projected Boardings (Alternative 3A)
Station Daily Boardings Park & Ride
Blake Road 1,600 Yes
Louisiana Avenue 1,200 Yes
Wooddale 1,200 Yes
Beltline Road 1,400 Yes
West Lake 2,850 No
21st Street 1,050 Yes
Penn Ave 600 No
Roadway System
It is anticipated that the EAW will have a substantial section on impacts to the City roadways, but will show some
impact to the intersections of Walker, Library, Lake, and Dakota especially at certain critical times of the day: rush
hour and school dismissal. The impacts should be relatively short but even a few minutes disruption when school
buses are operating affects the bus operations.
The two highest volume roads (Beltline and Wooddale) in the study area cross the Bass Lake spur and are at the
locations of SWLRT stations. With the opening of the LRT stations traffic will increase on these roads and will
become difficult to manage. The traffic analysis in the DEIS for SWLRT anticipates that Beltline will not function
well without improvements once LRT operating, much less if freight trains are also operating. The SW LRT
approved plan does not show a grade separation at Belt Line but it may need to be added to address the traffic issues
anticipated at this location. Beltline already has traffic congestion issues under current conditions. The addition of
LRT station traffic and retention of freight rail tracks will add to the challenges. The freight rail track across Beltline
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 81
18
makes it a real challenge to construct a grade separation. The SW LRT station planning effort is studying those
options.
Pedestrian System
Pedestrians near freight rail tracks is a conflict that sometimes is difficult to measure or control. The closeness of the
schools to the MN&S tracks has highlighted the pedestrian issues associated with the MN&S route. The two major
regional trails in St Louis Park that are close to freight rail tracks, are also areas for concern. In particular the access
points to the SWLRT trail at Beltline and Wooddale are heavily used by pedestrians and bicyclists. Selection of the
Kenilworth route would continue train traffic at these busy ped/bike access points. Selection of the MN&S route
would remove trains not only from the Beltline and Wooddale trail access points, but from three miles of regional trail
right of way.
Primary hubs of pedestrian and bicycle activities in the vicinity of the alternative rail routes include St. Louis Park
High School, Central Community Center/Park Spanish Immersion School, Hobart School, the commercial areas along
Lake Street and W.36th Street; three future LRT stations and, a series of parks and two regional trails. There is little or
no actual pedestrian or bicycle traffic volume information available for any locations near either of the freight rail
routes. Clearly four areas with significant pedestrian and biking activity along the routes in St. Louis Park stand out.
They are
1. The High School, its football field, adjacent commercial area on Lake Street, and the connection with the
Spanish Immersion/Community Center via Dakota Avenue;
2. The regional trail access point and future LRT station location at Beltline Blvd;
3. The regional trail access point and future LRT station location at Wooddale Avenue;
4. The Dakota Park/dog Park and Hobart School;
5. Both the MN&S and the Kenilworth routes parallel regional trails for extended distances.
In addition much of the MN&S route between Walker Street and Dakota Park passes through a pedestrian scaled
retail/service area and residential neighborhoods that are served by a grid system of streets and sidewalks that create a
very walkable community.
Despite the heavy use of the regional trails in the study area including the Kenilworth Trail, the record provides some
history of safety. Cedar Lake Parkway in Kenilworth corridor is a significant at grade crossing with TC&W trains; a
mixture of pedestrians, vehicles and bicyclists use this skewed crossing which is also within a quiet zone. A recent
search of the FRA database shows no record of any incidents involving trains and pedestrians or vehicles.
Noise and Vibration
The EAW has concluded that noise will be a major conflict primarily the train horns. Their mitigation plan is to
institute a quiet zone. This will reduce the high level of noise, but noise will still be apparent.
The vibration tests that were run for the EAW indicated that train vibration within about 40 feet of the tracks needs to
be mitigated, even though many residents and business people have indicated that it is bothersome further away. The
high school has indicated that some of their equipment have problems with adjustment because of the vibration. There
are two homes within that 40-50’ impact range. The strip of businesses along Lake Street also are in this range.
Switching Wye
The system of tracks in the Oxford Street industrial area (Skunk Hollow) is the switching/interchange wye which
provides access to potential rail customers in the Oxford industrial area and a means for connecting the CP Bass Lake
Spur to the MN&S tracks. The wye makes it possible even today for trains on the Bass Lake Spur to connect to the
MN&S tracks and proceed south or north. The wye is also being used by CP to access one customer which is located
on Oxford Street west of Louisiana Avenue. The wye tracks are not included as part of either alternative TC&W
route. The MN&S route would eliminate the need to use the wye to connect from the Bass Lake Spur to the
northbound MN&S tracks. It could also be used as an alternative means for connecting from the Bass Lake Spur to
the MN&S southbound tracks. Neither alternative route would eliminate the need to service the lone rail customer in
the Oxford Street area.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 82
19
The wye tracks stretch from Minnehaha Creek to the east across Louisiana Avenue at grade to the MN&S tracks. The
northern arm of the wye crosses Oxford Street diagonally at grade.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 83
20 Table 9 Freight Rail Route Options – Comparison Table City of St Louis Park only Existing Conditions Conditions if Kenilworth is chosen Conditions if MN&S is chosen Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Train Operations # of trains/day - now 4-5 2 4-5 2 0 6-7 # of trains/day - future (2030) 6-7 2-4 6-7 2-4 0 9-11 Train Speed (mph) 10/25 10 10/25 10 10/25 10/25 Track Route Length (FT) Minnehaha Creek to Cedar Lake Jct 24,600 N/A 24,600 N/A N/A 26,400 Track new & upgraded (FT) 0 0 18,800 0 0 27,610 Track Removed (FT) N/A N/A RR Bridge constructed (FT) 180 2,450 RR Bridge rebuilt (FT) 340 395 Track Grade Maximum .77% 1.9% .77% 1.9% N/A 1.5% Track Curvature Maximum (degree) 4 6 4 6 N/A 8 Turnouts (No) 1 5 1 0 0 5 Road Crossings # of At-grade Crossings 2 6 2 6 0 5 # of Crossing with ADT < 2,500 0 3 0 3 0 2 # of Crossings with ADT between 2,500-9,000 0 3 0 3 0 3 # of Crossing with ADT > 9,000 2 0 2 0 0 0 # of Crossings closed N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 # of Crossings with rr signals 2 4 2 4 0 5 # of Crossings s Quiet Zone 0 0 2 0 0 5 Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 84
21 Table 9 (cont) Existing Conditions Conditions if Kenilworth is chosen Conditions if MN&S is chosen Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Residential Impacts Single Family Home 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of homes < 25’ Parcel 0 16 0 16 0 16 Home 0 2 0 2 0 2 # of homes 26’-50’ Parcel 0 69 0 69 0 69 Home 0 53 0 53 0 53 # of homes 51-100’ Parcel 0 30 0 30 0 30 Home 11 127 11 127 0 127 # of homes 101-200’ Parcel 11 148 11 148 0 148 Multi Family # of units < 25’ Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of units 26’-50’ Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of units 51’-100’ Units 0 4 0 4 0 0 # of units 101’-200’ Units 216 96 156 96 60 160 Total Housing Units Affected # of units < 25’ Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of units 26’-50’ Units 0 2 0 0 0 2 # of units 51’ – 100’ Units 248 57 11 57 0 53 # of units 101’-200’ Units 305 224 167 144 60 208 Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 85
22 Table 9 (cont) Existing Conditions Conditions if Kenilworth is chosen Conditions if MN&S is chosen Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Kenilworth Corridor MN&S Corridor Institutional Impacts Schools within 1/8 mile (#) 0 5 0 5 0 5 Parks within 1/8 mile (# ) 2 7 2 7 2 7 Business Impacts # of Industrial Building within 500’ 50 66 50 66 50 66 # of Commercial Building within 500’ 10 15 10 15 10 15 Right of Way # of Residential Property acquired 0 0 0 0 0 2 # of Business Property Acquired 0 0 0 0 0 1 #of partial parcels taken 0 0 0 0 0 12 # of Institutional Property Acquired 0 0 0 0 0 0 Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 86
23
Mitigation of the MN&S
Railroad traffic brings with it a variety of impacts many of which have been highlighted earlier
in this memorandum. At least some of the negative impacts can be ameliorated through
mitigation measures. Table 10 below outlines potential mitigation measures that could be
considered to address negative rail traffic impacts within the MN&S corridor. It may be
appropriate to implement many of the items listed. In some cases a range of potential solutions
to a particular impact are listed. In that case implementation of a more comprehensive mitigation
item may eliminate the need for one or more of the other items on the list. It is assumed the cost
to implement the measures noted below would not be borne by the City of St. Louis Park
A similar table of potential mitigation measures could also be created to address negative
impacts associated with permanently routing TC&W freight traffic on the Kenilworth route.
However the mitigation focus in this memorandum is on the MN&S route since this is the route
currently being evaluated in the MN&S Freight Rail Study and for which an EAW is being
prepared and the most detailed information is available.
It is anticipated that the MN&S EAW will identify and address a variety of specific impacts and
necessary mitigations for things like meeting wetland regulations, wildlife habitat issues, etc.
These EAW technical mitigation actions would be in addition to the items listed in the table for
consideration.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 87
Table 10
Potential Mitigation Measures
24
Measure Description Comments
Welded rail track Replace and upgrade the
MN&S track with seamless
tracks reducing noise and
vibrations
Included in the MN&S study concept plan
Track improvements Install 136# CWR
Install rail lubrications
Concrete ties to reduce the
vibration
Believed to be included in the MN&S study
concept plan
Mandatory environmental
requirements met
wetland, floodplain,
hazardous materials handling,
wildlife habitat, etc.
Included in the MN&S study concept plans
Whistle Quiet Zone Upgrade of at grade rail
crossings safety measures to
eliminate the need to blow
whistles or horns as trains
approach intersections
Horns are the most significant noise impact
associated with freight trains using the
MN&S route. The WQZ eliminates this
issue. Trains would still have the right to
sound horns if needed. WQZ is included in
the MN&S study concept plans
Better fencing and signing of
the RR ROW
Ensure fencing is in place
where appropriate to
discourage people intruding
unsafely on the MN&S tracks
Some fencing exists today and needs
replacing. MNS concept plan incorporates at
least some fencing.
Create grade separated frontage
road on north side of Hwy 7
Lengthen the MN&S bridge
over Hwy 7 to provide space
to create a frontage road on
the north side of Hwy 7
This would provide a grade separated
connection between the east and west side of
the MN&S tracks north of Hwy 7. This
would make it possible for school buses to
move between the Spanish Immersion and
High School even when a train is on MN&S
Create pedestrian and non-
vehicle access under MNS
tracks at Dakota Park
Build an under pass at 27th St. This connection would give pedestrians and
bicyclists access to Dakota Park, Hobart
School and the N.Cedar Lake regional trail
from the east side of the MNS tracks north of
Minnetonka Blvd
Expansion of MN&S ROW in
residential area
Acquire homes immediately
east of MN&S tracks north of
approximately the intersection
of MN&S tracks with
Brunswick avenue.
Realign and center the MN&S
tracks to the east of the
current alignment. Includes
shifting bridge over
Minnetonka Blvd to east.
Approximately 40 homes would need to be
acquired, and removed. Resulting ROW
could be almost 200 ft. If a 100 ft RR ROW
was used, remaining land could be used for
north-south trail and single family home lots.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 88
25
Table 10 (cont)
Housing Buyout program Create a program to purchase
homes adjacent to MN&S
tracks from willing sellers
Anyone who wanted to sell, could sell their
home for fair market price. Homes
purchased could be evaluated as to whether
they should be removed, remodeled or
resold.
Structure Improvement
Program
Create a loan and/or grant
program to provide technical
assistance and financial help
for property owners to make
noise and/or vibration
mitigation improvements
New tighter windows, insulation, central air
conditioning and other improvements could
be made to further reduce noise and vibration
problems.
Sound and vibration mitigation
improvements at the High
School
Replacement or upgrading of
equipment, and/or physical
improvements at the school.
The intent would be to reduce and minimize
train generated disruptions at the School
Pedestrian over pass near High
School and Dakota Avenue
Create a pedestrian bridge
over the MNS tracks that
connect the High School to
the Lake Street area and
football field.
A more detailed look at where best to locate
the overpass would be needed. The goal
would be to connect the schools facilities and
the high school to the Lake St. commercial
area.
Pedestrian bridge over Hwy 7 Create bridge close to the
MN&S bridge over Hwy 7
which would provide access
for pedestrians to the
neighborhoods south of Hwy
7 and the LRT regional trail.
Goal would be to provide students especially
with an alternative to using the RR bridge as
a pedestrian bridge
Reroute coal trains west of
metro area
Rehabilitation of tracks in
Appleton MN area to
accommodate coal trains
This improvement could eliminate the need
for coal trains to pass through SLP
Elimination of CP tracks east
of Wooddale Avenue
Sidings as well as through
tracks east of Wooddale
would be removed
This would eliminate the possibility of cars
being stored in this area or trains blocking
Wooddale or Beltline. This action appears to
be already anticipated in the SWLRT design.
Removal of north arm of the
switching wye
With new connection from
CP to MN&S tracks, the
north arm of the existing
switching wye is not
absolutely needed. Trains CP
trains could serve the existing
customer by using the south
arm of the switching wye.
This would also mean TC&W trains that
wished to go south on the MN&S would
need to connect to the MN&S first by using
the new connection heading north on MN&S
and then proceed south.
Removal of the north wye arm would free up
the ROW for other purposes and eliminate an
at grade crossing at Oxford.
Complete removal of Oxford
industrial area switching wye
Requires working with the
existing freight rail customer
on Oxford St. to ensure their
needs continue to be met
before south arm of the
switching wye could be
removed
This would eliminate crossing at Louisiana
Avenue and Oxford,, make significant ROW
available to other purposes and eliminate an
impediment to future combining or re-
alignment of parcels in the area.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 89
26
Table 10 (cont)
Grade separated RR
intersections Walker to
Brunswick
Place MN&S tracks on
overhead structure from prior
to Walker St. to past Dakota
Ave.
This would entail building approximately
3,100 ft of additional RR bridge structure
and would result in elimination of at grade
crossings at Walker, Lake, Library Lane and
Dakota Avenue.
Funding and construction o f
Louisiana & Hwy 7
Interchange
Construct new grade
separated Louisiana/Hwy 7
interchange
This project includes closing of the Lake St
access to Hwy 7, thereby eliminating any
concern about rail generated queues
extending back onto Hwy 7.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 90
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 91
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 92
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 93
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 94
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 95
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 96
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 97
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 98
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 99
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 100
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 101
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 102
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 103
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 104
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 105
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening SessionsPage 106
1
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Freight Rail
Please note there are also FAQs available at www.mnsrailstudy.org
1. Why is rerouting freight rail being discussed?
Freight rail trains are currently operating on the east-west Bass Lake Spur and
Kenilworth corridor line in St. Louis Park. The Southwest Light Rail Transit
(SWLRT) project has assumed that there is not room for the current freight rail and
planned light rail in the Kenilworth corridor, and that freight rail would be moved.
2. What rail companies own and use the routes?
Twin City & Western (TC&W) is the main operator on the east-west route (Bass
Lake Spur and Kenilworth) and has rights to use the north-south route (MN&S).
Canadian Pacific (CP) owns the MN&S line and a portion of the Bass Lake Spur.
Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) owns a portion of the
Kenilworth corridor. Click here for maps.
3. What are the freight rail routing options?
One option is to move the freight trains to the MN&S line that runs north-south in
St. Louis Park (see www.mnsrailstudy.org). The other option is to keep the freight
trains and the light rail in the Kenilworth corridor. Several other routes for freight
trains were evaluated and were determined to be infeasible for a variety of reasons.
4. What would physically need to take place for freight trains under each option?
For the Kenilworth option, the freight tracks would need to be relocated and the
light rail tracks would have to be moved from where they are currently shown in
plans. The regional trail would not fit in a portion of the corridor and would have to
be relocated. Some residential properties would have to be acquired to have the
right-of-way necessary for this option.
For the MN&S route, a new bridge structure would need to be constructed to go
over the existing rail lines to connect with the MN&S line going north. New track
at the “iron triangle” at the north end would also be needed to connect on to the
BNSF line. Some industrial properties and some residential properties would have to
be acquired for this option.
5. Who will decide on the future route for freight trains?
Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) is proposing the MN&S
reroute, however others will be involved in the decision on the future route. The
railroad companies, along with several government agencies will have to agree on a
route, and then seek funding for either route. The City of St. Louis Park is a
stakeholder, and has some influence on the decision.
6. What is the cost comparison between the alternatives?
The estimated construction and acquisition cost for the MN&S reroute is
$76,672,000. The estimated cost for the Kenilworth route is $35 - $70,000,000.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 107
2
The variation in the range for the Kenilworth route is because it is uncertain how
much property would have to be acquired for this route.
7. Who would pay for upgrading the routes?
Funding for upgrades or changes to the routes has not been identified. The City of
St. Louis Park has gone on record saying it will not pay for re-route costs.
8. How many more trains will result from the reroute?
The number of trains traveling through St. Louis Park will not increase because of
the reroute. The 4-6 trains per day would be shifted from the east-west route to the
north-south route. The number of trains on any route depends on market
conditions, which vary over time and are hard to predict.
9. Can trains increase without the re-route?
Yes – there are no restrictions on the amount of train traffic allowed on either route.
TC&W and CP can operate on both routes in St. Louis Park.
10. Would an MN&S reroute include a connection to the south or could there still
be switching and blocking?
As a part of the MN&S rerouting study and EAW, the wye would remain; switching,
blocking and storage of rail cars does not change. Trains are not currently using the
wye to go south, however they could in the future.
11. What would be the speed of the trains in either option?
The speed allowed in either option would be up to 25 miles per hour. Track
conditions, including elevations and curves will dictate the actual speed, which is
expected to be between 10-25 mph.
12. How fast do trains travel on the MN&S Line today?
Trains travel about 10 miles per hour on the MN&S line today.
13. How could a reroute affect property values?
Future changes in rail routes and traffic volume may influence property values in St.
Louis Park. Proximity to railroad tracks can have an effect on property values as can
proximity to freeways and other external influences. Valuation professionals such as
appraisers and assessors carefully review market transactions in developing
adjustment factors for external influences along with many other market attributes.
Speculation on short term or long term influence can vary considerably as does the
market response from individual buyers and sellers. The assessing office reports that
its current annual modeling of market values varies within a range of 3-12% along
rail tracks, highways and other similar external influences.
14. What are whistle quiet zones and who regulates them?
Whistle quiet zones are areas where safety measures are added so that train whistles
would not be used at intersections. The intent is to have a quieter train operation
through the community without compromising safety. Whistle Quiet Zones are
regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The FRA has to approve of
the proposed safety provisions before it will grant approval of a Whistle Quiet Zone.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 108
3
15. What is the city’s position on the route options?
In 2010, the City Council passed a resolution (click here for resolution10-070)
which states that it opposes rerouting unless a number of conditions are met. The
Council is reviewing the latest information and will discuss its policy over the next
month or so.
16. What happens to freight rail rerouting if LRT does not happen?
It is uncertain what would happen however TC&W currently operates on a
temporary arrangement with Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority on tracks
that are in poor condition and need upgrading. A permanent route for TC&W
trains is still needed.
17. Does the easement the City holds on the Golden property give the city control
over a routing decision?
Further legal research is required on the easement the city holds, however it should
not be assumed that the easement gives the City the final say or control over whether
the freight rail reroute occurs or not.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions Page 109
Meeting Date: May 9, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 9, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2010 Solid Waste Annual Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of solid waste activities in 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any concerns or questions relating to the solid waste program? If so,
please contact staff.
BACKGROUND:
On October 1, 2008 the City entered into a 5-year contract with Eureka Recycling for collection and
processing of recycling materials and with Waste Management for the collection and disposal of
garbage and yard waste.
Each year staff prepares a report that summarizes the solid waste program activities that occurred
during the previous year. The report includes the following information: amount of materials
collected, customer’s level of service, recycling participation, SCORE Grant, City clean up days
data, county household hazardous waste event data for the event held in SLP, program education,
educational tagging, performance indicators, solid waste program finances, and future goals &
initiatives.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As noted in the attached report, the Refuse Fund has a healthy fund balance.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City’s refuse and recycling activities support or complement the following Strategic Direction
adopted by the City Council: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
Focus areas:
Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Attachments: 2010 Solid Waste Report
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Public Works Department
2010 Solid Waste Program
Annual Report
April 6, 2011
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 2
Page 1 of 14
1. PURPOSE
This report summarizes the activities of the residential Solid Waste Program for 2010.
The purpose of the Solid Waste program is to provide a service responsive to citizens’ needs to
ensure a vital community. Program goals include: High Quality Service, Environmental
Stewardship, Cost Effective Services, Effective Communication, and the Continual Evaluation of
Program and Industry.
2. COLLECTION
Summary
The numbers in this report include tonnages as reported from Waste Management and
Eureka Recycling for 2010. Garbage, yard waste and recycling is collected at the curb on
a daily basis. Additionally, Waste Management collects garbage and bulky recyclable
materials at the annual spring and fall clean up events.
Garbage and recycling tonnages are slightly down from 2009, and yard waste is
significantly down. The decrease in yard waste could be due to the state compostable
bag law that went into effect January 1, 2010. The decrease in garbage and recycling
may be indicative of a down economy.
The following table summarizes the tonnages collected for garbage, recycling, and yard
waste for 2008, 2009 and 2010. The tonnages include materials collected curbside and at
the clean up events. Clean up event information can be found in section 3.
Yearly Collection Summary
Tons Collected Item 2008 2009 2010
% Change
2009 - 2010
Garbage 9,031 8,799 8,505 - 3.3
Recycling 3,562 3,652 3,529 - 3.4
Yard Waste 3,651 3,663 2,785 - 24.0
Total 16,244 16,114 14,819
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 3
Page 2 of 14
Yearly Collection Summary
Tons Collected Year Garbage Recycling Yard Waste Total
1987 17,623 1,727 2,364 21,714
1988 14,317 2,482 2,521 19,320
1989 13,616 2,978 3,297 19,891
1990 12,296 3,270 3,288 18,854
1991 10,979 3,840 2,941 17,760
1992 10,836 4,098 3,774 18,708
1993 10,487 4,011 3,987 18,485
1994 10,519 4,131 3,639 18,289
1995 10,241 4,147 3,639 18,027
1996 10,462 3,902 4,246 18,610
1997 11,703 3,924 3,818 19,445
1998 10,243 3,588 4,128 17,959
1999 10,064 3,820 4,871 18,755
2000 10,005 4,033 3,942 17,980
2001 10,401 3,290 3,796 17,487
2002 10,188 3,525 3,679 17,392
2003 9,821 3,614 3,511 16,946
2004 8,946 4,339 3,997 17,282
2005 9,018 4,436 3,720 17,174
2006 9,000 4,251 2,405 15,656
2007 9,300 3,861 3,039 16,200
2008 9,031 3,562 3,651 16,244
2009 8,799 3,652 3,663 16,114
2010 8,505 3,529 2,785 14,819
Total 256,400 88,010 84,701 429,111
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 4
Page 3 of 14
Service Levels
The City of St. Louis Park has a volume based pay-as-you-throw program designed to
encourage recycling and waste reduction. Residents are free to choose the service level
and cart size that best fits their needs. The levels of service and rates changed in late
2009. Residents may now choose from 12 (instead of 8) levels of service using
combinations of 30-, 60-, or 90-gallon carts. Due to the change, monthly totals were not
available for all service levels as indicated by "n/a" in the table below.
Customers by Level of Service
Service Level
2008
Monthly
Average 1
2009
Monthly
Average
2010
Monthly
Average
30 gallons 4,011 4,087 4,105
60 gallons 5,694 5,728 5,748
90 gallons 2,009 2,045 2,079
120-180 gallons 429 n/a n/a
120 gallons n/a 25 99
150 gallons n/a 10 39
180 gallons n/a 313 183
210 gallons n/a 0 1
240 gallons n/a 0 2
270 gallons 23 23 18
360 gallons 16 14 13
450 gallons 0 1 1
540 gallons 1 1 1
Avg. Total Customers 12,144 12,209 12,215
1 Service levels were not available for the first half of the year, used 2007 percentages.
Garbage Tonnages
Garbage tonnages include collection of carts, bulky items at the curb and clean up
events1, and recycling residuals 2. Waste Management collected garbage from January 1 -
December 31, 2010.
The table below shows the breakdown of garbage tonnages collected from residents in
2008, 2009 and 2010. The tonnages collected in 2010 were lower than in 2008 and 2009,
which is consistent with what was experienced across the metro area.
1 Bulk items include household goods such as sofas, fans, basketballs, yard and garden equipment, and pianos that
are disposed of as garbage.
2 Recycling residuals include items picked up from recycling bins that are not recyclable and are therefore disposed
of as garbage. Eureka collects and reports on recycling residuals.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 5
Page 4 of 14
Garbage Collection Summary
Tons Collected Item
2008 2009 2010
Carts 8,427 8,304 8,101
Bulky Items 523 452 363
Clean Up Events 22 21 29
Recycling Residuals 59 22 12
Total 9,031 8,799 8,505
Note the significant decrease in the amount of recycling residuals over the past three
years. This may suggest that residents are doing a better job of keeping non-recyclables
out of their recycling bins.
Garbage Collection
9,031 8,799 8,505
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
2008 2009 2010Tons Collected
Recycling Participation
Participation rates were slightly higher in 2010 even though recycling tonnage decreased
by 3.3%. Recycling participation is reported two ways:
1. The set-out rate is the average number of households that set materials out for
recycling collection on a given day. For example, every Monday for one month,
collection drivers count the number of households that set out recycling on that day.
Then the four numbers are averaged to determine the average number of households
who set out recycling on a given Monday.
2. The participation rate is the number of households who set materials out for
recycling collection at least once over a period of one month (October is measured by
the County annually) as compared to the total number of households in the program
(100%). The participation rate is a better indication of overall recycling participation
because it includes households that recycle at least once a month, recognizing that
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 6
Page 5 of 14
some households may not set out recycling every week. It more accurately indicates
how many households are participating in the recycling program overall, as opposed
to the number of participants on a specific day.
The table below shows yearly participation in the recycling program.
Year Set-Out Rate Participation
2007 n/a 67%
2008 n/a 71%
2009 67% 89%
2010 67% 90%
Recycling Tonnages
Recycling includes collection at the curb and clean up events. Eureka collected bin
materials at the curb. Waste Management collected appliances, tires, metal and
electronics at the curb and clean up events.
Recycling tonnages have slightly fluctuated over the past three years, as shown in the
table below. In general, it appears that as the economy is improving the numbers are
returning to a level more similar to 2008.
Recycling Collection Summary
Tons Collected Item
2008 2009 2010
Bins 3,514 3,452 3,490
Appliances 1 35 26 25
Electronics 2 54 7
Tires 1.6 .5
Metal 42 5
Bikes n/a .2 1
Household Goods 2.5 1.5 .4
Total 3,562 3,486 3,529
1 Appliance tonnages are based on Hennepin County ReTRAC
conversion of 150lbs per appliance.
2 Electronic tonnages are based on Hennepin County ReTRAC
conversion of 70lbs per electronic (changed in 2009 from 75lbs).
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 7
Page 6 of 14
Recycling Collection
3,562 3,486 3,529
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2008 2009 2010Tons Collected
SCORE Grant
The city received a SCORE grant of $103,342 from Hennepin County in 2010. The grant
agreement requires the city to make reasonable efforts to meet or exceed the average
pounds per household of recyclables collected from the residential recycling program in
the base year of 2007.
The base year pounds per household is determined by dividing the total pounds of
recyclables collected in 2007 by the total number of households participating in the
curbside recycling program in 2007.
Failure to achieve this annual goal will result in the requirement that a plan be submitted
for Hennepin County approval that specifies the efforts the recycling program will
undertake to increase the recycling percentage within 90 days of the submittal of the
municipal or consortium year-end report. If the average pounds per household in any
given year decreases from the base year by more than 10%, the County reserves the right
to withhold that municipality’s or consortium’s grant funds until the County is satisfied
that reasonable efforts have been made to maintain the base year pounds per household.
The table below shows the comparison between 2010 and the 2007 base year.
Recycling Pounds per Household
Item Base Year
2007 2010 Change
Pounds Collected 7,722,000 7,058,000 - 664,000
# of Households (HH) 12,220 12,365 + 145
Pounds/HH 631 571 - 10%
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 8
Page 7 of 14
Yard Waste
Yard waste significantly decreased from 2008 and 2009. The decrease in yard waste
could be due to the state compostable bag law that went into effect January 1, 2010.
Another reason could be that trees dropped leaves early in 2010 so much of the yard
waste that would have been carried over to 2010 was already collected in 2009. The
amount of yard waste also depends upon the weather, as well as the residents’ use of the
yard waste program.
Waste Management started collecting pumpkins, along with yard waste, in November
2010. The goal is to remove pumpkins from the garbage and compost them along with
yard waste either by collecting them curbside or through backyard composting.
About 65% of the city’s households have the “No Grass Clippings” yard waste option.
Many residents leave their grass clippings on the lawn or use them in compost bins. The
City continues to promote residential composting.
The graph below shows yard waste tonnages collected from residents in 2008, 2009 and
2010.
Yard Waste Collection
3,651 3,663
2,785
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2008 2009 2010Tons Collected
3. CLEAN UP EVENTS
Two clean up events were held for St. Louis Park residents in 2010 and one household
hazardous waste event was held for Hennepin County residents. The spring and fall clean up
events were sponsored by Waste Management and the household hazardous waste event was
sponsored by Hennepin County.
Spring and Fall Clean Up Events
The spring and fall clean up events were held on June 12 and October 9 at the Junior
High from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 9
Page 8 of 14
The table below summarizes the items collected at the clean up events. In 2010, the
events attracted 750 vehicles and collected a total of 56 tons of material. Of this, about
48% was recycled and 52% was trash.
2009 was the first year that residents had to pay for electronics, which may be one of the
reasons for the decrease in electronics tonnages from 2008 to 2009.
Cleanup Event Collection Summary
Item 2008 2009 2010
Trash 19.02 tons 14.49 tons 22.69 tons
C & D 1 3.37 tons 7.04 tons 6.39 tons
Metal 3.99 tons 2.38 tons 4.97 tons
Tires 110 tires 58 tires 49 tires
Electronics 5.24 tons 2.99 tons 6.32 tons
Appliances 232 appliances 96 appliances 181 appliances
Household Goods (reuse) 2.5 tons .10 ton .40 ton
Bikes (reuse) 32 bikes 18 bikes 113 bikes
Attendees 546 vehicles 434 vehicles 750 vehicles
1 C & D is Construction and Demolition debris (not reused, considered trash)
2010 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Event
Hennepin County sponsors annual Household Hazardous Waste collection events
throughout the county. St. Louis Park hosted one of the events, which was held at the
Economic Development Authority parking lot in the southwest quadrant of Highway 7 &
Louisiana Avenue. The event is open to all Hennepin County residents. The collection
event was held on June 9-12 from 9am to 4pm, which coincided with the spring clean up
event. Many of the same residents participated in both events. There were a total of
1,682 vehicles that dropped off 169,339 pounds of hazardous waste.
Household Hazardous Waste Totals
Year # of Vehicles Pounds
2007 1,770 120,779
2008 1,323 89,110
2009 1,843 142,664
2010 1,682 169,339
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 10
Page 9 of 14
4. PROGRAM EDUCATION
Program education is a joint effort by the City, Eureka, and Waste Management. The
contract requires the haulers to facilitate ongoing communication with residents, host an
annual open house for all residents, offer tours of its facilities, provide articles for publication
or distribution, and assist the city with other educational efforts.
Staff provides public information and education through various media to encourage waste
reduction and recycling. Educational efforts in 2009 were focused on plastic recycling,
properly sorting recyclables, proper cart placement, and overfilled carts.
Staff participated in the following educational efforts in 2010:
Park Perspective articles
Individual mailings
Visited with residents
Earth and Arbor Day Celebration
National Night Out
Cable television and the city’s
external web site
Home Remodeling Show
Distributed information at the spring
and fall cleanup events
Tagging
Consulted Girl Scouts on
multifamily recycling project
Tagging
Tagging involves haulers leave an educational tag on the cart, bin, or yard waste
container when non-compliance issues are found. The tables below show tagging totals
for Eureka and Waste Management.
Eureka Tag Summary
Number of Tags Issued Tag Description 2008 2009 2010
Not Out by 7am 29 172 311
Used Plastic Bags 971 5,910 8,002
Plastic Bottles Only 2,129 12,207 11,616
Non-Recyclable 1,390 8,052 14,762
Not Sorted Properly 1,429 6,956 13,011
Cardboard Not Flattened/Too Large 281 811 861
Textiles 18 111 321
Cannot Accept Hazardous Materials 171 2,161 1,749
Extra Bins Needed 4 188 155
Thank You For Recycling Properly 6 67 1,916
Total 6,428 36,635 54,393
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 11
Page 10 of 14
Eureka issued 54,393 educational tags in 2010. The breakdown by month is shown in the
graph below.
2010 Eureka Monthly Tag Totals
3,537
3,929
5,120 4,763 4,741
5,997
5,034
4,232 3,929
3,383
4,859 4,869
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec# of TagsTags
Waste Management issued the most tags for residents for setting out bulk items that were
not prepaid, placing their cart in the street or sidewalk, and overfilling their carts.
Waste Management Tag Summary
Number of Tags Issued Tag Description 2008 2009 2010
Cart in Street 734 2,065 2,984
Bulk Items 386 2,219 2,706
Extra Refuse Stickers 460 1,298 977
Overfilled Cart 871 1,566 725
Boxes Cut & Bundled 229 14 372
Yard Waste in Garbage 116 583 617
Bag Trash 163 401 56
Miscellaneous Tags 1 337 679 589
Total 3,296 8,825 9,026
1 Total of the remaining tags. For 2008 only - includes (waxed paper,
Styrofoam, gas containers, etc).
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 12
Page 11 of 14
Waste Management issued 9,026 educational tags in 2010. The breakdown by month is
shown in the graph below.
2010 WM Monthly Tag Totals
974
1,043
781 724 775 806
488
666 707
466
685
911
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec# of TagsTags
A major reason for the increase in the issuance of educational tags from 2008 to 2010 is
the hiring of a City Solid Waste Field Inspector who oversees the haulers and holds them
accountable.
5. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Staff and City Council have developed solid waste performance indicators that measure
quality and cost of the program in order to better monitor the contractor and better evaluate
the Solid Waste Program goals.
The continual monitoring, evaluation and responsiveness to residents should ultimately
increase the level of resident satisfaction with the solid waste program.
The Performance Indicators attachment shows the tracking of specific indicators for the
program.
6. FINANCES
During 2010, the total revenues were $2,509,469 and the total expenditures were $2,394,645.
In 2010, Hennepin County garbage disposal charges were $40/ton for the first 3 months, then
rising to $43/ton for the remainder of the year. In 2010, the disposal costs for yard waste was
$43/ton for the first 8 months, then decreasing to $38/ton for the remainder of the year during
the non-flight period for emerald ash borer.
The Refuse Fund balance at the end of 2010 is estimated to be $2,713,877, which reflects an
increase of $114,823 or 4.42% from 2009. The increase is mostly the result of recycling
revenue sharing. Capital reserves are being held for the future purchase of yard waste /
organics carts. The Finance Department has recommended maintaining a minimum fund
balance of $627,367 (three months of revenue), beyond what is needed for capital
expenditures.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 13
Page 12 of 14
See the attached graph for fund balance details. The 2011-2014 projections come from the
2009 Utility Rate Study done by Elhers.
7. FUTURE GOALS AND INITIATIVES
The ultimate goal of the program is to increase recycling, reduce refuse and yard waste
collected, and reduce service issues. Specific goals and initiatives include:
Increase awareness of backyard composting
Partner with Hennepin County on outreach efforts aimed at increasing recycling
Research options for a multi-family recycling program
Conduct a resident survey to measure program satisfaction
Work with haulers to expand the list of items collected and recycled to reduce the amount
of garbage going to the incinerator (HERC).
Attachments:
Refuse Fund Balance Chart (1993-2014)
Performance Indicators
O:\Pubwks\Solid Waste\Reports - City\2010\2010 Annual SW Report.doc
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 14
Page 13 of 14 Refuse Fund Balance($1,000,000)$0$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,0001993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Actual 1993 - 2008 Projected 2009 - 2013DollarsExpensesRevenuesFund BalanceMinimum Recommended BalanceStudy Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual ReportPage 15
Page 14 of 14 ST. LOUIS PARK SOLID WASTE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Waste Management Eureka Indicators Target Measure 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Target Measure 2008 2009 2010 Recycling Rate 1 N/A 42% 42% 42% 45% 43% N/A N/A N/A 45% 44% 45% 43% Recycling Participation Rate 2 N/A 59% 73% 69% 71% 67% N/A N/A N/A 85% 71% 89% 90% Recycling Set Out Rate 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65% N/A 67% 67% Households HH (Customers) N/A 12,207 12,220 12,219 12,217 12,220 12,144 12,347 12,359 N/A 12,144 12,347 12,359 Recycling (Ton/HH) 0.40 0.29 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.32 N/A N/A N/A 0.40 0.29 0.28 0.29 Recycling (Cost/HH) $48 $32 $28 $29 $29 $31 N/A N/A N/A $48 $32 $36 $33 Recycling (Cost/Ton) $120 $109 $82 $82 $88 $97 N/A N/A N/A $120 $110 $127 $116 Garbage (Ton/HH) 0.75 0.81 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.76 0.74 0.71 0.69 N/A N/A N/A N/A Garbage (Cost/HH) $156 $97 $97 $101 $101 $100 $100 $91 $94 N/A N/A N/A N/A Garbage (Cost/Ton) $208 $130 $132 $135 $134 $141 $135 $128 $136 N/A N/A N/A N/A Yard Waste (Ton/HH) 0.25 0.28 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.23 N/A N/A N/A N/A Yard Waste (Cost/HH) $36 $24 $26 $26 $26 $25 $30 $36 $32 N/A N/A N/A N/A Yard Waste (Cost/Ton) $144 $84 $79 $86 $91 $100 $99 $120 $143 N/A N/A N/A N/A Complaints 4 ≤ 40 17 64 64 62 50 77 34 21 ≤ 20 5 18 21 Missed Pickups ≤ 416 1,225 529 315 498 379 498 200 216 ≤ 104 150 169 188 Contract Penalties 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 2 Program Satisfaction 5 90% N/A N/A N/A 85% N/A N/A 96% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Customer Service Satisfaction 5 80% N/A N/A 81% N/A N/A N/A N/A 92% N/A N/A N/A 90% NOTE: The 2008 recycling numbers for Waste Management were combined under Eureka. Recycling Target Measures were determined through discussions with Eureka and are based on the current recycling program. 1 Recycling Rate % = Recycling Tonnage/(Recycling Tonnage + Garbage Tonnage) x 100. Recycling tonnage includes bin recyclables, tires, metal, electronics, appliances, textiles, and yard waste. 2 Recycling Participation Rate is the number of households that set out materials at least once over a period of one month, usually measured annually in October. 3 Set out rate is the average number of households that set out materials on any given day. 4 The Complaint category includes Litter, Property Damage, and Complaints. It only includes the Complaint category starting in 2010. The new Target Measure was determined by averaging the total complaints from 2003-2008. Actual complaints were 5% lower than the old target measure. Using 5% as a guide, the new Target Measure is 60 complaints per year, with 2/3 allowed for Waste Management and 1/3 for Eureka, which is based on the number of touches per address. 5 Satisfaction with the program is taken from the Solid Waste Program Survey results. 6 Satisfaction with customer service is taken from the Solid Waste Customer Service Satisfaction Survey results. Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Annual ReportPage 16
Meeting Date: May 9, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Minnehaha Creek Re-Meander Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This report provides Council with background information on a cooperative project underway
between the City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). As a report item, no
immediate policy is under consideration. However, Staff anticipates the following policy
considerations, related to this project, may come before the Council in the future:
Does the Council support moving the canoe landing at the Issac Walton Creekside Park
approximately 50 feet to the west of its existing location?
Does the Council support the installation of a trail along Minnehaha Creek, between
Louisiana Ave. and Meadowbrook Rd.?
Does the Council support MCWD efforts to acquire certain parcels in the area to allow
for water quality improvements, if such acquisitions would eliminate business activity
associated with the existing rail spur?
BACKGROUND:
In the summer of 2010 the City was approached by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) about a potential re-meander of Minnehaha Creek between Louisiana Ave. S. and
Meadowbrook Rd. Following the initial meeting, MCWD identified the state’s Clean Water
Fund as a potential funding source for the re-meander. With assistance from MCWD, the City
applied for and received a grant of $300,000 from the State Board of Water and Soil Resources
through the Clean Water Fund.
The 2011 Clean Water Fund grant has a two-year term, and will fund the majority of the
construction work associated with the re-meander. The City will serve as administrator for the
grant, while the MCWD will manage the project consultants and contractors. MCWD is funding
the engineering work associated with the project, and will cover project costs if they exceed the
funds available through the grant. The initial engineering work includes soil testing along the
proposed re-meander. If major contaminants are discovered, the project’s scope would be
modified.
Four major environmental improvements will be initiated by moving forward with the project.
The easiest to identify is that of the creek re-meander. The creek channel was straightened
during the industrial development of St. Louis Park; re-meandering will restore the creek to a
more natural channel and slow the conveyance of water runoff, while improving the floodplain
characteristics of the creek. The other three major improvements include streambank
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Re-Meander Project
stabilization, stormwater management, and vegetative restoration. Taken together, these
improvements will reduce erosion around the creek, reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients
entering the creek, and improve habitat characteristics for wildlife within the creek corridor.
The proposed re-meander includes an option for a trail along the creek. A trail in this part of the
City has long been included in the goals section of the Comprehensive Plan, and would conform
to the recent Sidewalk and Trails planning work. Because the construction includes re-grading
much of the area around the creek, it is possible to include the grading necessary to support a
trail as part of the project. Final completion of the trail is not included in the overall project cost,
although the Parks and Recreation Department has discussed how the trail base could be paved
with limestone in the future. At the present time, discussions regarding a trail along the creek are
focused on the twin objectives of increasing potential recreational opportunities in the area and
increasing access between areas south of the creek (such as Meadowbrook Apartments) to the
future Louisiana Ave. transit stop on the Southwest LRT line. Ultimately, MCWD would like to
provide the City with the opportunity to connect trails along the creek in this location to the SW
LRT Trail running east-west through the community.
Construction of the re-meander may require that the existing canoe launch at the Issac Walton
Creekside Park be moved to the west. Moving the canoe landing would be included as a project
cost. It is expected that access to the canoe landing would also be maintained; Parks and
Recreation Staff will work closely with the project engineers to ensure that the canoe landing
will continue to meet the needs of the community into the future.
Engineering work on the project is underway. Representatives from MCWD met with the Parks
and Recreation Committee in April; as the design for the re-meander of the creek is better
understood, further review by the Parks and Recreation Committee is expected. The project will
also require some neighborhood input before moving forward; particularly important is an
opportunity for neighborhood representatives to provide input regarding the proposed trail and its
potential routes. In addition to the general review needed, the City Council will also be required
to take action on a Conditional Use Permit for excavation and fill before the project can go
forward. If the project engineering moves forward at its current pace, it may be possible to
construct the proposed re-meander during the winter of 2011/2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City is not participating financially in this project, although City Staff are providing input
and grant administration. If a trail is desired as part of the project, the grant funds will be
sufficient to complete the grading – but will not provide funding for laying a limestone or paved
surface along the trail. The Parks and Recreation Department has indicated that funding for such
a trail could be included in the future Capital Improvements Plan.
In the long term, Staff has requested that the project engineers focus on designing a trail that
includes minimal amounts of boardwalk or raised sections. Maintenance costs for boardwalk
tend to be higher than for a well constructed at-grade trail; additionally, winter access along a
boardwalk would not be possible.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed re-meander, its associated environmental attributes, and the potential for trail
construction along the creek meet various Vision goals. The project would enhance the City’s
environmental stewardship, and, by bringing residents closer to the creek, increase
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Re-Meander Project
environmental consciousness within the community. The project would also help develop the
city’s network of trails.
Attachments: Project Area Map
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Minnehaha Creek between Louisiana Ave. & Meadowbrook Rd.Louisiana Ave. S.Meadowbrook Rd.Oxford St.Legend
Publicly Owned Parcels
Canoe landing
Canoe landing
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Re-Meander Project Page 4
Meeting Date: May 9, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Community Days of Service 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Report prepared for Council information, no policy consideration needed.
BACKGROUND:
In 2009 faith communities of Hopkins and Minnetonka organized a community service day in
which members of community faith groups volunteered their time and energy to work in the
community. In 2011, St. Louis Park Chaplain Pastor Ray Peterson contacted the faith
communities in St. Louis Park to see if there was interest in partnering with Hopkins and
Minnetonka. The single day of service expanded to a two day Community Days of Service
Weekend May 21 – 22, 2011.
The Community Days of Service is an initiative organized and led by the St. Louis Park,
Hopkins and Minnetonka faith communities, in partnership with their cities and community
organizations, for the purpose of caring for neighborhoods, engaging members in living out their
faith through service, and building bridges among faith communities.
Everyone is invited to join with people from community faith organizations in St. Louis Park,
Hopkins and Minnetonka as they gather on Saturday, May 21 and Sunday, May 22 to make a
difference in our neighborhoods and around the world. Community service projects have been
coordinated for people of every age and ability; everyone from young families to seniors can
take part.
A team of faith leaders has been working with the cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins and
Minnetonka along with the school districts to develop a number of different service projects in
the area. Some sample projects include: playground and park clean up, neighborhood school
refurbishing, quilt/blanket making for shelters, Habitat Brush with Kindness, and tree planting at
Westwood Nature Center.
This is an excellent opportunity for the different faith communities in these three cities to work
together and make a positive impact in our community.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Community Days of Service is aligned with the Council Strategic Direction: St. Louis Park
is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Community Days of Service 2011
Attachments: Community Days of Service Brochure
Community Days of Service Poster
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Publicity and Communications Pastor John Nelson Gethsemane Lutheran 952-935-1753 jnelson@glconline.org Community Days of Service Saturday‐Sunday MAY 21‐22, 2011 Join with area faith communities as we gather together to make a difference in our neighborhood and around the world. Community Days of Service 2008‐2010 Volunteers engage in a variety of community projects. Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 6) Subject: Community Days of Service 2011Page 3
How do I get involved? 1. Project list and registration at cds2011.eventbrite.com 2. Scroll through more than 30 available service opportunities. 3. Sign up by choosing the number of volunteer tickets for your selected project. 4. Click the orange “Register” button at the bottom of the list. 5. Your “Order Summary” is a review of the projects you have chosen. Confirm the information and complete the registration form. 6. You will receive an email reminder, in advance of the project day, with important information (project address, etc.) and/or last-minute instructions. Stay Connected! Visit us on Facebook (search Commu-nity Days of Service) to stay up-to-date on the latest project developments and event information. If you are a member of Facebook, “Like” us to receive regular status updates. Note: Even if you are not a member of Facebook, you can still view the page. Service Projects We hope to engage over 700 volunteers in service projects at our local schools, city parks and other community organizations. There are opportunities for all ages and abilities. This event is open to the community. Invite your friends, neighbors and family to join in the fun! Sample Projects Include: • Painting and clean-up projects at neighborhood schools and centers • Rolling bandages, assembling care kits and sewing kits, helping with quilt and blanket-making for international relief agencies • Meal assembly at Feed My Starving Children • Providing entertainment for seniors • Outdoor park clean-up, tree planting, and gardening projects • Sorting and organizing donations at ResourceWest and ICA • Habitat for Humanity/A Brush with Kindness and ARC Value Village projects • Minnehaha Creek Cleanup Purpose Community Days of Service is an initiative organized and led by the Hopkins, Minnetonka and St. Louis Park faith communities, in partnership with our cities and community organizations, for the purpose of caring for our neighborhoods, engaging our members in living out their faith through service, and building bridges among faith communities. Make a Donation If you, your business, your congregation or other organization would like to make a financial contribution to CDS, please send your check to: Community Days of Service 12007 Excelsior Blvd Minnetonka, MN 55343 Funds will be used to offset expenses and materials for various service projects. Any remaining funds will be donated to ICA, ResourceWest and S.T.E.P. Our fundraising goal is $7,500. Donations are tax-deductible. Cold Stone Creamery Fundraiser Stop in to Cold Stone Creamery in Hopkins on Sunday, May 22, from noon - 5 pm and ICA (your local food shelf) will receive a percentage of sales. Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 6) Subject: Community Days of Service 2011Page 4
Neighborhood Painting
& Clean‐up
Quilting, Care Kit Assembly,
Bandage Rolling, “No‐sew”
Blankets
Tree Planting,
Landscaping & Gardening
Donation Sorting
& Organizing Join with faith communities in
Hopkins, Minnetonka and
St. Louis Park as we
gather together to make a
difference in our neighborhood
and around the world.
Community
Days of Service
SAT ‐SUN, MAY 21‐22
Service projects for all ages and abilities
For more information
about each project and how
YOU can get involved visit
cds2011.eventbrite.com
or
Find us on Facebook
Search: Community Days of Service
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Community Days of Service 2011 Page 5