Southwest Light Rail Transit:

A Citizens Assessment

Prepared for the
Minneapolis Mayor and City Council



by

Sarai Brenner
Sandi Larson
Kathy Low
Georgianna Ludcke
Mary Pattock
Claire Ruebeck

On behalf of

LRT-Done Right












August 27, 2014
2


Table of Contents

Safety 3

Equity 5

Environment 7

Cost-Benefit 8

Governance 9


Exhibits

Safety

USDOT, Crude Oil and Ethanol Train Accidents i

Southwest LRT - Metro Green Line Location Blast and Evacuation Zone Map ii

DOT 2014, DOT Proposes Rules for Rail Transit of Flammable Materials iii

Equity

Southwest Population Density of Current and Alternate Alignment vi

Salon.com, Why Mass Transit is Doomed in America vii

MPR News, A Stop-By Stop Look at Southwest LRT xi

Environment

Hill and Lake Press, SWLRT: When Green is Grey xiii

Cost

Forbes, Bus LRT Spurs Development Better than Light Rail xvi

Governance

Star Tribune, Southwest LRT - The Wrong Project for the Wrong Reasons xviii


3
SAFETY

Routing SWLRT in the Kenilworth Corridor creates unacceptable
safety risks for Minneapolis residents, trail users, and transit
riders.

Class 3 flammable liquid is being transported in the Kenilworth Corridor: Ethanol is a class
3 flammable liquid the same classification as oil. The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) says ethanol trains are every bit as dangerous as Bakken oil trains. Under common
carrier obligation, railroad companies cannot refuse to carry dangerous cargo. TC&W reports to
be regularly transporting potential explosive ethanol tank cars through the Kenilworth Corridor.

Freight-rail trackage rights exist in the Kenilworth Corridor: Effective August 1998, the
Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company (TC&W) was granted a railroad easement in the
Kenilworth Corridor. Per the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Contract No.
A18158, the trackage rights were to be temporary. However, freight trains continue to travel in
the Kenilworth Corridor and present a threat to Minneapolis.

Derailments and disasters are alarmingly on the rise: In April 2014, the Renewable Fuels
Association reported to the NTSB that from 2006 to 2013 there were 2 million total shipments of
ethanol, with 226 cars derailing, 91 of them releasing ethanol. In 2013 an oil train derailment and
explosion obliterated the town of Lac Mgantic, Quebec, killing 47 people. The presence of
SWLRT and its potential for derailment could cause a freight train explosion in the Kenilworth
Corridor. Mark Wegner, CEO of TC&W, indicates that his company is aware of this danger and
chooses to travel no more than 10 miles per hour in the Kenilworth Corridor to minimize risks.
Additionally, the freight trains cross an active thoroughfare, at grade, which increases the
likelihood of crashes and derailment. It is plausible that a disaster similar to Lac Mgantic could
occur in the Kenilworth Corridor.

Homes, an elementary school, businesses, well-used parks/playgrounds and the proposed
shallow tunnel are located in the evacuation and blast zones of the Kenilworth Corridor:
The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) recommends an evacuation zone of
a -mile radius from a train derailment fire involving Class 3 flammable liquids, which includes
ethanol and oil. The blast zone, where the shock wave and fire would immediately occur, has
been documented to extend up to mile from the crash site. The Kenwood Elementary School is
located approximately mile from the Kenilworth Corridor.

Emergency responders are not prepared to handle disasters: Firefighters and law
enforcement officers have not had effective training regarding train crashes that involve class 3
flammable liquids. As reported in the Capitol Chatter, Dave Christianson of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation claims that problems exist on several levels, including lack of
training, lack of proper equipment, and aging 1960s-era rail cars. Real risks lurk in the
Kenilworth Corridor.
4

Weak safety requirements: Currently there is no risk assessment required regarding freight rail
route selection. However, the U.S. DOT is developing regulations that may bar locating freight
trains and transit routes in near proximity. It is not prudent to proceed with the SWLRT project in
the Kenilworth Corridor until safety requirements are implemented.

Missing Environmental Impact Study (EIS): The risks associated with building the SWLRT in
the Kenilworth Corridor should be assessed before deciding to proceed; this would be
accomplished with an EIS. Moving forward with municipal consent for the SWLRT in the
Kenilworth Corridor without knowing the likely collateral damage and safety risks would be
unwise and careless.

Dangers to SWLRT riders from a freight accident: Despite growing recognition of the
dangers of freight accidents, the current proposal would build light rail next to freight rail in the
Kenilworth Corridor, where thousands of transit riders and residents could be harmed or killed in
the event of a crash, derailment and/or explosion. We know of no other instances where new LRT
lines are being co-located with freight, and few corridors where they coexist in such close
proximity. Locating the SWLRT in the Kenilworth Corridor is hazardous.

5
EQUITY

SWLRT would serve Minneapolis residents poorly and widen the
equity gap.

Low Minneapolis ridership projections: If we trust the Met Councils ridership projections, the
average weekday ridership forecasts for the three North Minneapolis stations are shockingly low:
only about 750 daily round-trip riders by the year 2030!
[T]o pretend the proposed alignment will create significant North Minneapolis ridership flies
in the face of geography and logic. (Russell Palma, quoted in MinnPost, 8/26/14)

Remote and inaccessible: These are words the Mayors office used to describe Minneapolis
stations. Low ridership would be a natural result.

Most SWLRT riders will be from the suburbs: More than 82% of the projected ridership
would be from suburban stations. In fact, the Star Tribune called Eden Prairie the big winner in
projected SWLRT ridership (7/21/14).

Suburban transit to downtown is already excellent: Eden Prairie commuters are
overwhelmingly satisfied with award-winning SouthWest Transit express bus service (2013
survey). They prefer its faster service with stops in the downtown jobs center. In addition to
creating new circulator routes in the suburbs, SouthWest Transit plans to continue this
outstanding express bus service to downtown even if SWLRT is built.

Rail is historically prioritized over bus in times of budget cuts: Experience in other cities (e.g.
Oakland, Portland) shows that during cyclical budget reductions, urban buses are cut while light
rail service is maintained. In urban areas that have seen LRT development, grassroots action
groups have sprung up in a largely losing battle to slow the cuts to city bus services.

No equity guarantees: The Met Councils new equity plan, which promises to build bus shelters
and put in new bus lines, makes no guarantees.

Regressive sales tax: Minneapolis residents of all income levels will pay taxes for this line, but a
transit sales tax is regressive. The benefits of this, the most expensive public works project in
Minnesotas history, should be more equally distributed.

Difficult access to retail jobs: Unlike the Hiawatha Blue Line that runs to the Mall of America,
the proposed SWLRT stops about mile short of the Eden Prairie Mall where some jobs for
Minneapolis residents may be available.



6
Encourages sprawl and runs counter to the Citys goal to increase urban density: Fully 43%
of total ridership is expected at the most distant six stations in Eden Prairie and Minnetonka.
SWLRT sprawl will extend beyond Eden Prairie. The fast growth and major population increases
projected by the Met Council in Thrive 2040 for the exurban edge, including Chanhassen,
Waconia, Shakopee and Chaska, will be facilitated by the 8-to-18 mile proximity to Eden Prairie
Park & Ride stations.

Does not serve Minneapolis transit-dependent residents: For Minneapolis to endorse SWLRT
(a high-cost, high-end transit service for affluent suburban and exurban communities that fuels
sprawl), while Minneapolis transit dependent riders have inadequate bus routes and shelters, is
starkly inequitable and NOT progressive urban policy.

The bottom line: SWLRT line skirts North Minneapolis and avoids areas where transit-
dependent people live and where Minneapolis jobs are located while providing enhanced transit
service to other municipalities.




7
ENVIRONMENT

Municipal consent before completion of a new DEIS is risky and
potentially illegal.

An updated DEIS: The shallow tunnel option was NOT studied in the draft environmental
impact statement completed in 2012. Common sense demands that the decision to move forward
with the proposed shallow tunnel design should only occur after the environmental effects of the
proposal are fully identified and alternatives properly explored.

Unanswered questions: Solid evidence is needed to support the conclusion that a shallow tunnel
will not interfere with groundwater movement and activity; comprehensive capacity- analysis is
needed for sanitary and storm sewer systems; and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment is
needed. Without that information, the City Council (and the citizenry in general) cant make an
informed decision the exact scenario Minnesota law is intended to prevent.

2012 DEIS against co-location: The 2012 DEIS did not carefully study co-location of freight
and light rail since it was expected that freight rail would be moved. In fact, the DEIS
recommended relocating the freight rail from the Kenilworth corridor if light rail is built there.

Minneapolis Park Board/engineers have serious concerns: Barr Engineering, consultants hired
by MPRB, raised other issues that need to be resolved before the project is approved and begun.
They question the effectiveness of sheet-pile sealing and seal-pour performance. Will this have
significant and irreversible consequences for the Chain of Lakes and surrounding parkland, which
experienced over 5.8 million visits in 2012? The MPRB stated it would only consider the
shallow tunnel option if (among other requirements) all technical questions posed by the
MPRB are satisfactorily resolved. The Minneapolis City Council should demand no less.

Ethanol dangers to our lakes/ground water: We have recently become aware of the amount of
ethanol carried on the freight trains running through the corridor and the dangers it presents.
Because ethanol doesnt float on water, but mixes with it, a spill into the Kenilworth canal could
mean the lakes would have to be pumped dry. Meanwhile, the ethanol would mix with ground
water and enter into neighborhood basements, causing further risks.

Responsible stewardship: It is up to the City Council to make sure, before proceeding any
further by granting municipal consent, that the DEIS is completed so the project will not
adversely affect the environment which includes our lakes, groundwater, sewer systems and
surrounding structures.



8
COST-BENEFIT

Minneapolis is the loser.

High opportunity-cost for Minneapolis: The opportunity-cost of building Southwest Light
Rail is whatever other improvements could have been made but cannot happen if all the
money is spent on one megaproject. For example, the $1.5 billion dollar SWLRT budget
could buy us 3,000 hybrid buses (more than we can dream of), 25,000 heated shelters
(enough for three per stop), free fares for 2 years (!!), or 15 million hours of service (about
6.5 times what Metro Transit currently operates). Right now the entire annual budget for
all Metro Transit service is only $310 million. (Quote from MinnPost/Streets.mn article
2013)

Better options exist: At $1.7 billion (plus at least $23 million in annual operating costs) for
the estimated 33,000 daily rides in 2030, this alignment is not cost-effective. Seattles
enhanced bus service, for example, currently serves 50,000 daily riders over six
geographically dispersed city routes built at a capital cost of $221 million. A light rail
alignment that includes accessible service to more urban residents would be at least
somewhat more cost-effective and equitable.

Costly price tag, minimal reduction in traffic congestion: More than 2/3 of projected
SWLRT riders are already using transit or carpooling. According to the 2012 Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, the entire route will eliminate only 4,000 round trips by
other vehicles (cars and buses) by 2030.

Cost-benefit ratio the worst for Minneapolis: The low Met Council ridership projections
for the three North Minneapolis stations are distressingly low compared to what they could
be, if project funds were spent on a populated route. For example, the 3C alignment option
would have served employees who work within the Minneapolis Lifesciences Corridor along
Chicago Avenue, which includes 19 health and medical institutions, 61 research labs and
clinics, more than 2,300 physicians, 12,000 employees and 250 researchers. (Met Council
representatives have stated that they are revising the ridership figures, but perhaps they will
simply change methodology to produce more optimistic figures.)

Destruction of urban assets: Minneapolis, the City of Lakes, would bear almost all of the
environmental costs, bringing into question its very essence as a green city that values its
lakes and natural areas. These areas, once lost, are almost impossible to reclaim.

Little development potential: There is little to no opportunity for transit oriented
development in the Kenilworth corridor.

9
GOVERNANCE

Minneapolis is becoming politically impotent.

Underrepresentation: Minneapolis, the states largest city and its economic driver, has been
underrepresented and outvoted relative to population and impact throughout the SWLRT
discussions both on the Met Council, which overwhelmingly supports suburban interests, and
on the Corridor Management Committee.

Broken promises: Minneapolis has allowed itself to become the victim of broken promises. Most
significantly, it preferred the Nicollet Avenue alignment but was pressured to accept the
Kenilworth alignment in exchange for a promise to remove the freight rail from Kenilworth; that
promise was broken.

Untoward pressures: The Minneapolis Mayor and City Council have been subjected to
extraordinary pressures, even threats, from the Metropolitan Council an unelected body to
withhold funding for other City projects if they dont vote yes on SWLRT.

Lost negotiations: Minneapolis lost in its negotiations with the Met Council, gaining only
things the Met Council would have had to or wanted to provide in any case, such as landscaping.

Self-inflicted damage: It would be irresponsible for Minneapolis to surrender to pressures to act
against reputable advice and its own best interests, ignoring

o Federal and state requirements for a study of the environmental impact of the current
proposal it is common sense to get the facts before acting;
o Recommendations of the 2012 DEIS, which recommended against co-location;
o Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board concerns about the effect of the project on
the Chain of Lakes;
o U.S. Department of Transportation rules proposed on July 30, 2014, concerning rail
transport of hazardous substances, particularly requirements for rerouting;
o The pleas of its own constituents not to damage their lakes and neighborhoods; not to
jeopardize their lives and safety; and to avoid establishing a transit system that will
promote urban sprawl, privilege already privileged suburbanites, and hardwire forever the
architecture of second-class transit for the North Side.

Responsibility: If the City Council allows the Met Council to override it on SWLRT, it will have
ceded its ability to govern itself, and its responsibility to represent the people of Minneapolis and
their best interests. It will effectively be governing in name only and have established a political
precedent that will inexorably permit the degradation of our beautiful City of Lakes to a mere
suburban utility.