E-Democracy builds online public space in the heart of real democracy and community. Our mission is to harness the power of online tools to support participation in public life, strengthen communities, and build democracy.
The urban forest is going into the chipper almost as fast as it is being cut down (almost).
Part of the Greenway, by Bass Lake Preserve past Louisiana Avenue is closed to bike traffic. Bikers have been making paths on either side of the barriers to enter the trail because they need it. Closing Cedar Lake Trail, Kenilworth Trail, and part of The Greenway Trail leaves few options. The detour is far away -Minnetonka Avenue.
I needed to get to appointments at Methodist Hospital and ended up in heavy, busy, fast, scary street traffic on Excelsior Boulevard (no bike lane).
My phone call was returned (message left) from SWLRT, but I haven't reconnected with them yet for more information about the Greenway closure.
Each leaf on every tree converts a certain amount of CO2 i to stuff like chlorophyl, etc. The SWLRT will replace that loss of CO2 with CO2-producing energy consumption. Thus SWLRT is a global warming project and proves humans are causing the warming. So to make the project CO2 neutral should be mandatory .
Sent from iPad John Ferman Minneapolis, MN
My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland and as a result have a severe morale fibre deficiency, so I should not be expected to save the world."
> On Jun 21, 2019, at 11:05 PM, Trish Brock @forums.e-democracy.org> wrote: > > â 4 file links â > > The urban forest is going into the chipper almost as fast as it is being cut down (almost).
> On Jun 23, 2019, at 5:30 PM, Trish Brock <<email obscured>> wrote: > > Thank You for your good point, Jack Ferman. > How can this project be made CO2 neutral? > > Trish Brock > Stevens Square, Minneapolis > About/contact Trish Brock: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/trishbrock > > > 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules. > If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at > <email obscured> before continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > > > ------------------------ > Reply: Reply-All or visit http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2U6eznEvOZGw1zlLx31L7t
CO2 neutrality should be a mandatory part of environmental impact statements.
Sent from iPad John Ferman Minneapolis, MN
My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland and as a result have a severe morale fibre deficiency, so I should not be expected to save the world."
> On Jun 23, 2019, at 5:30 PM, Trish Brock <<email obscured>> wrote: > > Thank You for your good point, Jack Ferman. > How can this project be made CO2 neutral? > > Trish Brock > Stevens Square, Minneapolis > About/contact Trish Brock: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/trishbrock > > > 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules. > If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at > <email obscured> before continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > > > ------------------------ > Reply: Reply-All or visit http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2U6eznEvOZGw1zlLx31L7t
Southwest Light Rail Transit is the only Minnesota LRT project that did not receive state funding. The $1-plus-billion local money is being paid by a doubling of Hennepin County transit sales tax that began October 2017. Hennepin County also agreed to pay $30-million per year operating costs.
Federal matching funds may not come through.
SWLRT is the most expensive public works project ever proposed in our state. See the 3/17/17 letter documenting state Republican opposition to SWLRT http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Chao+letter.pdf that reviews environmental, cost, route and low ridership projections for SWLRT.
The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has consistently opposed the project because of its intrusion into the cityâs famous Chain of Lakes.
A semi-submerged rail tunnel is planned between Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles, at the top of the Chain, requiring an estimated 24,000 gallons per day of dewatering. Half of that total would be sent off-site to be cleaned and funneled into the Mississippi. The other 12,000 gpd would be pumped back into ground with possible flooding consequences for nearby homeowners.
The half-mile tunnel would block groundwater circulation. Our area has seen a measurable recent increase in rainfall.
The late Democratic Congressman Martin Sabo called the SWLRT plan âdespicableâ in a 6/19/14 news conference because it was being promoted as an âequity planâ for the predominately African American Northside. Current route of the SWLRT does not service the black Northside or the white Uptown populations but rather non-populated parkland for fast entrance into and exit out of Minneapolis.
âExternalityâ costs such as the health effects of clear cutting a 40-ace urban forest that scrubbed carbon out of the air while furnishing oxygen or removing 12,000 gallons per day out of the groundwater source of the Chain of Lakes are not (yet) part of the approximate $2.2-plus-billion estimate SWLRT cost. Kumi Naidoo, former executive director of Greenpeace International reminds us, âNature does not negotiate.â
The phone number I was given to follow-up with an inquiry regarding the closed bike lane on the Greenway has an automated message: Mailbox Full. No contact available for SWLRT (and many many people desperately attempting to contact). No safe bike route from Minneapolis to Hopkins.
Susu Jeffrey, You have been an outstanding contributor to the subject of SWLRT. I appreciate your comment as well, Jack Ferman. Hard to believe I stood for almost two hours in a destroyed natural environment talking to a very knowledgeable person who had stopped to ask me how far he could get on the bike trail. I told him that he could go just a small bit further and if it wasn't a holiday (Labor Day) he wouldn't have even gotten as far as he had. He had taken his one year old daughter (in a front carrier against his body) to Hopkins on the Greenway bike trail on his bike. He wanted to take her again now that she is six. I told him he probably wouldn't be going with her now until she was 9 or maybe 10 years old. All bike trails to St. Lewis Park and beyond are closed. The detours are far away. They are not safe. Lake Street, the closest route to Louisiana Avenue (my storage space and medical specialists at Methodist Hospital) has no bike lane, just busy vehicle traffic. We talked about the mental health effects of people who are constantly running into orange cones, construction, and detours, unable to get to where they need to go. We talked about the mental health effects of communities losing their beautiful serene places while everything becomes busy and noisy. It makes me sad and sick. Some of us really relied on the serene beauty just outside the growing city. I know a lot of people do not particularly care about bicyclists, but I am sad for bicyclists who loved the Greenway. It is an obscene devastation. At least homeless persons will have a place to be out-of-the-cold. Aside from that, our expectations are low for actual usage of this light rail line.
Interesting that you think the usage will be low. Just chatted with my wife's cousins over the weekend about this... One lives in St. Louis park and one in Eden Prairie. Both told me they are very excited to not have to commute by car 3-4 times a week into the city for work. I realize this is anecdotal, but I am sure they are not alone in their excitement even if the timeline is a bit long for them. More cars off the road is better in the longterm for the environment. Now I just hope they make the trains faster!
If you look at the 2 corridors where the 2 existing LRT lines have been built, the traffic in those corridors has increased dramatically. Anyone who thinks the SWLRT will take âMore cars off the roadâ is either delusional or just hasn't been paying attention.
I donât see how the fact that traffic remains in the corridor equals that cars arenât coming off the road. The lines have continued to increase ridership - it should be a baseline that those people are in fact driving less as a result of the SWLRT.
I donât have a background in traffic engineering but I would think that a similar rule of thumb applies to the situations where more highway lanes are added and traffic is not reduced. Cars fill the available space but I still believe that increased public transportation is a positive step for this community even though we have not seen (to my knowledge) major improvements in vehicle congestion.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:32 PM Sheldon Gitis <<email obscured>> wrote:
> If you look at the 2 corridors where the 2 existing LRT lines have been > built, the traffic in those corridors has increased dramatically. Anyone > who thinks the SWLRT will take âMore cars off the roadâ is either > delusional or just hasn't been paying attention. > >
I imagine the express bus, much like the one I take to work too, still sits in traffic behind hundreds of single occupantvehicles... The train is only slowed by a limited number of stops. You are right, they should bus now but I donât see why having two modes of mass transit would be bad in the long term...
I had to change my thinking too as a lifelong driver. I had to face up to the fact everyone can and should be opting for mass transit. The elderly, families with children, people with mobility issues, poor, rich, etc already do so every day. In all seasons no less, and people who take the bus or train every day know that...what needs to happen is to get the majority of single occupant drivers over their ego because no one is too good for mass transit. We should also be supporting transit over building more carcentric infrastructure. Car-centric infrastructure expansion has done and will do far more environmental damage in the long term.
It will be great once we have tens of thousands of new residential units within walking distance to SWLRT station areas (such as West Lake) so more people can live car-lite or car-free lifestyles that are so in demand in our current market.
We can extend the environmental value of this project even further by significantly upzoning station areas. Imagine a thousand new residential units in towers surrounding the new Cedar Lake / 21st St station in the Kenilworth corridor. A 5 minute train ride from downtown, a public beach at their doorstep. More neighbors, please!
All this talk of "greening" would crack me up if it weren't so devastatingly wrong.Landfilling perfectly good (or great ) housing to build mediocre tiny boxes. (Often with cheap material leaking toxic fumes)Green?Filling every lot to the very edge so planting trees is impossible!Not even considering the value of old growth trees and their ability to absorb carbon -demolished to make way for more paving.Environmentally reasonable, responsible?Increasing the allowed impervious surface area means an increase in polluted storm water run-off.(Not to mention our aging storm water system not being up to the increasing demands.)Eco-friendly?I am seeing nothing green about the projects in my area.LEED certified is a joke when all factors are considered.Yes, I can imagine thousands more people in highrises too near Bda Mka Ska (in violation of the SOD, btw).I also envision months/years (not days/weeks) when lakes are closed due to polluted run off making them inhospitable for swimming.Imagine Bda Mka Ska without the sail boats...with massive algae blooms in their stead.Density should not come at such a high cost to the environment.Carin PetersonSheridanSent via the Samsung Galaxy, powered by Cricket Wireless
-------- Original message --------From: Matt Steele <<email obscured>> Date: 9/5/19 8:28 AM (GMT-06:00) To: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org Subject: Re: [Mpls] The ungreening of the Greenway (the smell of freshly mown trees) It will be great once we have tens of thousands of new residential units within walking distance to SWLRT station areas (such as West Lake) so more people can live car-lite or car-free lifestyles that are so in demand in our current market.We can extend the environmental value of this project even further by significantly upzoning station areas. Imagine a thousand new residential units in towers surrounding the new Cedar Lake / 21st St station in the Kenilworth corridor. A 5 minute train ride from downtown, a public beach at their doorstep. More neighbors, please!Matt SteeleNorthrop, MinneapolisAbout/contact Matt Steele: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mattsteele1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.  If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at  <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.------------------------ Reply: Reply-All or visit http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7CxP9pYAbq7bufvEeu3e7N New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org    Digest: Subject: digest on    Leave: Subject: unsubscribe Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mplsHelp? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
The line that should have been built 30 years ago is in the corridor now occupied by the looney-laned 394 bottleneck boondoggle. There was plenty of right-of-way consumed by that concrete project catastrophe to accommodate an LRT line. This line, a $2B âget the moneyâ disaster bulldozed through the Minneapolis chain of lakes, is not the the line that âshould have been built decades ago!â nor is it a line that should have ever been built.
Apparently Will did not read my post very carefully. I did not say "traffic remains in the (LRT) corridor(s)." I said, "traffic in those corridors has increased dramatically." And while I agree increased public transportation would be a good thing, the billions of dollars that have been spent on the 3 LRT lines has not significantly, if at all, improved public transit, nor in fact, was it ever really intended to improve public transit. As Jeff Skrenes astutely pointed out at a public hearing on the Central Corridor LRT line, the priorities of these "get the money" projects are ass-backwards. Improving public transit is at best an afterthought, after the government agencies, real estate developers, banks, construction contractors, engineering consultants and others all get paid. The SWLRT shot through a quarter-billion dollars just applying for the federal grant. How many bus/transit van rides could you provide for $250,000,000?
While it may sound counter-intuitive, a limited-stop LRT line on a dedicated ROW does not necessarily mean faster commutes for the majority of public transit riders. Using the 2 existing LRT lines as examples, unless you happen to be living very near one of the lines, and can quickly and easily walk or bike to one of the stops, or you're traveling downtown or to the airport or the megamall or the U and you can quickly and easily drive to one of the stops, neither line has sped up your commutes. In fact, due to the reduced and redirected bus service caused by the 2 projects, many transit-dependent people now have longer commutes.
I donât know that there is any statistical correlation between increased traffic and the LRT. Just because you try to make it so doesnât mean itâs true.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 7:11 PM Sheldon Gitis <<email obscured>> wrote:
> The line that should have been built 30 years ago is in the corridor now > occupied by the looney-laned 394 bottleneck boondoggle. There was plenty > of right-of-way consumed by that concrete project catastrophe to > accommodate an LRT line. This line, a $2B âget the moneyâ disaster > bulldozed through the Minneapolis chain of lakes, is not the the line that > âshould have been built decades ago!â nor is it a line that should have > ever been built. > > Apparently Will did not read my post very carefully. I did not say > "traffic remains in the (LRT) corridor(s)." I said, "traffic in those > corridors has increased dramatically." And while I agree increased public > transportation would be a good thing, the billions of dollars that have > been spent on the 3 LRT lines has not significantly, if at all, improved > public transit, nor in fact, was it ever really intended to improve public > transit. As Jeff Skrenes astutely pointed out at a public hearing on the > Central Corridor LRT line, the priorities of these "get the money" projects > are ass-backwards. Improving public transit is at best an afterthought, > after the government agencies, real estate developers, banks, construction > contractors, engineering consultants and others all get paid. The SWLRT > shot through a quarter-billion dollars just applying for the federal grant. > How many bus/transit van rides could you provide for $250,000,000? > > While it may sound counter-intuitive, a limited-stop LRT line on a > dedicated ROW does not necessarily mean faster commutes for the majority of > public transit riders. Using the 2 existing LRT lines as examples, unless > you happen to be living very near one of the lines, and can quickly and > easily walk or bike to one of the stops, or you're traveling downtown or to > the airport or the megamall or the U and you can quickly and easily drive > to one of the stops, neither line has sped up your commutes. In fact, due > to the reduced and redirected bus service caused by the 2 projects, many > transit-dependent people now have longer commutes. > >
Will, you don't need "statistical correlation", whatever that may be, to observe the ugly traffic mess. Both LRT lines were all about so-called "economic development" which translates into dramatically increased motor vehicle traffic pouring in and out of parking facilities at the U, at the stadiums, at the megamall, downtown, at the airport, at the big box stores, at the clusters of apartment buildings etc.
On 9/5/19, Will O'Keefe <<email obscured>> wrote: > Sheldon, > > I read your email plenty carefully. > > I donât know that there is any statistical correlation between increased > traffic and the LRT. Just because you try to make it so doesnât mean itâs > true. > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 7:11 PM Sheldon Gitis <<email obscured>> > wrote: > >> The line that should have been built 30 years ago is in the corridor now >> occupied by the looney-laned 394 bottleneck boondoggle. There was plenty >> of right-of-way consumed by that concrete project catastrophe to >> accommodate an LRT line. This line, a $2B âget the moneyâ disaster >> bulldozed through the Minneapolis chain of lakes, is not the the line >> that >> âshould have been built decades ago!â nor is it a line that should have >> ever been built. >> >> Apparently Will did not read my post very carefully. I did not say >> "traffic remains in the (LRT) corridor(s)." I said, "traffic in those >> corridors has increased dramatically." And while I agree increased public >> transportation would be a good thing, the billions of dollars that have >> been spent on the 3 LRT lines has not significantly, if at all, improved >> public transit, nor in fact, was it ever really intended to improve >> public >> transit. As Jeff Skrenes astutely pointed out at a public hearing on the >> Central Corridor LRT line, the priorities of these "get the money" >> projects >> are ass-backwards. Improving public transit is at best an afterthought, >> after the government agencies, real estate developers, banks, >> construction >> contractors, engineering consultants and others all get paid. The SWLRT >> shot through a quarter-billion dollars just applying for the federal >> grant. >> How many bus/transit van rides could you provide for $250,000,000? >> >> While it may sound counter-intuitive, a limited-stop LRT line on a >> dedicated ROW does not necessarily mean faster commutes for the majority >> of >> public transit riders. Using the 2 existing LRT lines as examples, >> unless >> you happen to be living very near one of the lines, and can quickly and >> easily walk or bike to one of the stops, or you're traveling downtown or >> to >> the airport or the megamall or the U and you can quickly and easily drive >> to one of the stops, neither line has sped up your commutes. In fact, >> due >> to the reduced and redirected bus service caused by the 2 projects, many >> transit-dependent people now have longer commutes. >> >>
> Will, you don't need "statistical correlation", whatever that may be, > to observe the ugly traffic mess. Both LRT lines were all about > so-called "economic development" which translates into dramatically > increased motor vehicle traffic pouring in and out of parking > facilities at the U, at the stadiums, at the megamall, downtown, at > the airport, at the big box stores, at the clusters of apartment > buildings etc. > > On 9/5/19, Will O'Keefe <<email obscured>> wrote: > > Sheldon, > > > > I read your email plenty carefully. > > > > I donât know that there is any statistical correlation between increased > > traffic and the LRT. Just because you try to make it so doesnât mean itâs > > true. > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 7:11 PM Sheldon Gitis <<email obscured>> > > wrote: > > > >> The line that should have been built 30 years ago is in the corridor now > >> occupied by the looney-laned 394 bottleneck boondoggle. There was > plenty > >> of right-of-way consumed by that concrete project catastrophe to > >> accommodate an LRT line. This line, a $2B âget the moneyâ disaster > >> bulldozed through the Minneapolis chain of lakes, is not the the line > >> that > >> âshould have been built decades ago!â nor is it a line that should have > >> ever been built. > >> > >> Apparently Will did not read my post very carefully. I did not say > >> "traffic remains in the (LRT) corridor(s)." I said, "traffic in those > >> corridors has increased dramatically." And while I agree increased > public > >> transportation would be a good thing, the billions of dollars that have > >> been spent on the 3 LRT lines has not significantly, if at all, improved > >> public transit, nor in fact, was it ever really intended to improve > >> public > >> transit. As Jeff Skrenes astutely pointed out at a public hearing on > the > >> Central Corridor LRT line, the priorities of these "get the money" > >> projects > >> are ass-backwards. Improving public transit is at best an afterthought, > >> after the government agencies, real estate developers, banks, > >> construction > >> contractors, engineering consultants and others all get paid. The SWLRT > >> shot through a quarter-billion dollars just applying for the federal > >> grant. > >> How many bus/transit van rides could you provide for $250,000,000? > >> > >> While it may sound counter-intuitive, a limited-stop LRT line on a > >> dedicated ROW does not necessarily mean faster commutes for the majority > >> of > >> public transit riders. Using the 2 existing LRT lines as examples, > >> unless > >> you happen to be living very near one of the lines, and can quickly and > >> easily walk or bike to one of the stops, or you're traveling downtown or > >> to > >> the airport or the megamall or the U and you can quickly and easily > drive > >> to one of the stops, neither line has sped up your commutes. In fact, > >> due > >> to the reduced and redirected bus service caused by the 2 projects, many > >> transit-dependent people now have longer commutes. > >> > >>
The loss of all those trees means the loss of those CO2 eating leaves. The reduced CO2 capture is to be replaced by CO2 producing powerment of the trains. We should insist the trains run on solar or geothermal only. The current design is pro-global warming.
Where are all of these people who love trees to fight the good fight when MnDOT spends hundreds of millions of dollars anually on sprawl-inducing highway expansions on the periphery, or when developers develop thousands of acres of greenfield real estate annually?
Some of us are supporting American Farmland Trust, actually. And we need the roads to get products to market-- that is actually one of the planks Abraham Lincoln used in the election to the Illinios leg.
City trees are one thing. Agricultural income and infrastructure support are fodder for a different list.