Those who wildly support Gov. Mark Dayton's obsession with Southwest light rail would like to blame opposition on the House majority. But consider other rail issues for perspective. "Zip Rail" — a high-speed line between the Twin Cities and Rochester — also was opposed, especially in Goodhue County, where it would have sliced through farm country without even stopping. The project died under a blizzard of grass-roots opposition. We hear stories that many NIMBY people in upscale neighborhoods around Lake of the Isles also violently resist Southwest light rail and its high cost.
Dakota County opted not to have any uneconomical light rail but has opted for the Cedar Avenue busway public-transit alternative. Also consider that a recent $42 million rail upgrade from Northfield in Rice County to Randolph in Dakota County serves a new unit train grain loading facility. An 11-mile rebuild of the railroad north from Randolph to the Pine Bend refinery could create a nearly straight rail route from Owatonna to Northfield, Randoph, Pine Bend and on to St Paul. Such enhancements of existing rails to support light-rail passenger service and freight service that supports job growth could well attract Republican support in the Legislature from outstate.
Meanwhile, it is clearly entirely the intransigence of Dayton and the DFL Senate majority holding a bonding session hostage to pouring money into a Southwest line that gives no benefits to citizens outstate is a problem that will not help the DFL on Nov. 8.
Doug Jones, Nerstrand, Minn.
• • •
In an Aug. 19 editorial counterpoint ("The 'transit impasse,' truth be told, has Minneapolis acting like a brat"), Fritz Knaak says that "rail advocates have been unable to point to any measurable impact on congestion in the metro area as the result of the billions already being spent on rail … ."
This is, of course, an all-too-effective diversion from the true value and purpose of light rail. As has been proven, it is impossible to eliminate traffic congestion by building more freeway lanes, and it is probably impossible to do it by building transit. Despite alternatives, a seemingly endless number of people will insist on driving despite high levels of inconvenience. Even if "build, baby, build" did work, the metro area may be approaching a traffic volume limit because housing, businesses and other valuable infrastructure are in the way of road expansion. An example (among many) is the Lowry Hill Tunnel, causing backups stretching from Interstate 94 onto I-394 and I35-W almost continually.
The value in light rail is that it facilitates a new kind of population growth less dependent on driving. The proof Knaak demands to support transit is the recent astounding increase in quality high-density housing construction near rail lines. If that housing and a lifestyle adjustment doesn't appeal to every car commuter backed up now, it will to some and to many new Twin Citians who will bring middle-class growth and vitality to the metro and state. The even-greater-than-expected light-rail ridership figures (more real proof for Knaak) indicate that transit is filling a need. Business support for rail transit is another reason Republicans like Knaak should change to a more constructive stance.
D.C. Smith, Minneapolis
• • •