If you’re going to spend $200 million, shouldn’t you sample first?
Test their desirability before going all in
I have enjoyed the debate over whether Minneapolis should spend $200 million on streetcars. The reality is that building a healthy transit system is critical for the region’s future, but retrofitting streetcars is an untested tool for doing so. Many transit experts are skeptical about the efficiency of streetcars in getting people where they need to go. A simple solution would be to test these routes before spending $200 million. For around $10 million, you could buy vehicles like those used for rail service but with rubber tires and diesel engines. You could run them for a year or two to see exactly what ridership would be. That way you would know whether the investment made sense or not. Once that was done, we could use these vehicles to test other routes, such as on Robert Street or W. 7th Street in St. Paul, and other places where similar service is being explored.
CAROL BECKER, Minneapolis
Anyone willing to make the tough decision?
Is anyone really surprised that the option to reroute freight trains through St. Louis Park in order to clear the way for light rail in Minneapolis is back on the table (“Contentious light-rail plan gets new support,” Jan. 31)?
There is a solution, and nobody wants to address it: Get rid of the bike trail and place both light rail and freight in the Kenilworth Corridor without any tunnels, raised platforms, etc. If I’m correct, some properties will have to be condemned to reroute freight, and the right of eminent domain will be employed. If that’s true, the same condemnation procedure should be considered in the Kenilworth Corridor to make room for both freight and light rail.
If the above recommendations are unpalatable, perhaps the Kenilworth Corridor proposal for LRT should be abandoned. However, I’m willing to bet that St. Louis Park is going to be the loser regardless.
BERNIE DEVINE, Minnetonka
It’s not cool to give deniers a platform
Since weather varies because of natural causes like the “El Niño” effect and the 11-year solar cycle, if you measure temperatures starting with a hot year like 1998, you can make the argument Rolf E. Westgard does that “there’s been no warming for 15 years” (Short Takes, Jan. 31). Thus, a 10- or 15-year cycle can mask the devastating long-term rise in global temperatures, the disastrous 4-percent-plus rise in Arctic temperature and the resulting climate change.
I am surprised and angry that the Star Tribune continues to give print space to misleading “facts” that influence public opinion and the making of smart energy policy. Westgard claims to be a geologist, but fails to mention that the American Geological Society has consistently accepted the established science that global warming is real, is potentially devastating and is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.
It’s OK to try and fail with alternative energy solutions, but it’s not OK to fail to try.
JEANNE JOHNSON, Alexandria, Minn.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.