Andrew was, after all, a kid after my own heart. He was bright, always questioning why, even if some of his questions were a means to attempt to justify getting out of schoolwork. I was that kind of kid, too. And he even seemed happy to see me long after we had both parted ways with the school where he had been my pupil. He worked at a local grocery store, and one day he was proud to tell me how he was doing well in high school and his aspirations for beyond. It absolutely crushes me that the future of this young man, a person for whom I had a hand in his upbringing in my role as a teacher, has been snuffed out.

This death also hits home in that Andrew was struck while riding his bicycle, and that it happened so close to my own home. I do use my bicycle frequently, not simply as recreation but transportation, taking my kids in tow as well. The church parking lot that he was exiting is along the very route that I plan to take my children frequently this summer. I have to pass it to get to a nearby lake that has a public beach and water park. This accident does chill me in that aspect. The road is four lanes wide and built to highway standards, and even though there are sidewalks it’s still unnerving to be a pedestrian or cyclist along this stretch of road at times.

The reports say that alcohol was not involved in the accident. That is very plausible, considering the area. I can only speculate, but it looks to me to be the fatal combination of poor road design, a youthful sense of indestructibility, and bad driving habits. The poor design is that this is a “stroad”, a frequently seen hybrid of a street and a road that takes the wide, free-flowing design of a highway (road) and mixes in the frequent access points and pedestrian amenities of a local street. No matter how many safe design “tricks” you try and incorporate into a situation like that, you still have cars traveling at well over the posted 45 miles per hour while other elements, be they pedestrians, cyclists, or other cars, can suddenly appear from any number of intersections and entrances along the route.

The other two factors I can speak of from experience: There have been many times where I have been sure that I could beat that oncoming car (walking, biking, or driving), basing my estimation on the oncoming vehicle’s distance and the posted speed limit. Andrew also had the added danger of the cover of darkness and I have no idea just how well lit his bike was or if he had dressed for visibility, another two faults that I have committed as well. From the perspective of the car, give a driver a highway-width lane and a clear shot, and it’s all too easy to reach highway speeds no matter what the number on the sign says you should be driving at. I am guilty of this, too, even on the very stretch of road where young Andrew met his untimely demise.

Today, I will take a moment to say a prayer in mourning. And, until those old habits start to creep on back in to my daily life, I will make a concerted effort to be that safe driver, that safe cyclist. I can make that extra effort to not get too comfortable between my two while lines on the road and press that gas pedal a little further than the sign says I should, no matter how much the design of the road will allow it. I can take those extra steps to keep myself safe on my bicycle and especially do the same for my children as we make our way to the beach. I encourage you to do the same, for yourself, for your family, for the memory of Andrew, a young man whose life was cut short in the act of simply cycling home.

Take a look at the other shopping destinations, most of them suburban malls, and you’ll see what I mean. Ridgedale has Macy’s, JCPenney, and Sears. Eden Prairie Center has Target, Von Mauer, and Kohl’s. Even Knollwood, the little half-empty mall just outside Hopkins city limits, has a Kohl’s. The anchor stores, big retailers that draw in larger numbers of customers, are thus called anchors because the smaller retailers sort of hitch themselves on and use the big stores’ draw to pick up on that flow of customer traffic.

Hopkins does have many components that make it a destination in the region. There’s a wide spectrum of dining, some decent night life, a cinema and a theater, and there’s even still some retail and services: A grocer, a pharmacy, a hardware store, a florist, some stores for women’s clothing and accessories, and much more, mostly locally owned mom-and-pop places. But the variety of businesses is skewed toward dining and entertainment, and when it comes down to getting some serious shopping done Hopkins residents go elsewhere. Just this last weekend, my wife and I made excursions to two of the malls mentioned, Ridgedale and Knollwood, and in both cases we were drawn in by an anchor store, stayed for lunch, and then also hit up some of the smaller stores as well. If downtown Hopkins had such a place, it could be a magnet for customers, that needed anchor upon which a vibrant shopping district can tie itself to.

A big question is just who would fit in Hopkins. One could naturally assume that a one-off, mom-and-pop department store would be ideal, but also the least likely. Not only would it be a risky venture, such niche stores only seem to succeed as high-end luxury, something that Hopkins is not and should not aspire to be in the near-term (we can let that daring entrepreneur set up at 50th and France). No, I would look to an established chain that has success surviving within the context of a “traditional” downtown even today, as well as one that doesn’t have a presence as close by as Ridgedale or Eden Prairie. On top of that list, for me, is Herberger’s. Their closest store is Southdale (not too far, but still…), and one only needs to look at their downtown St. Cloud store to see that they do have a model for how to succeed in such a setting. Alternatively, one could look to places like Marshall’s or Nordstrom Rack, two stores that could fit in the area as direct competition to the nearby TJ Maxx in Knollwood. Another idea could be to look outside of the Twin Cities for some other nearby chain that could be convinced to want a foothold in the area. Maybe ShopKo has experience with smaller-scale stores (or multi-level ones like the downtown Minneapolis Target) and is just waiting for the perfect opportunity to get in to the area.

The other big question is where does this store fit. After all, the model for department stores (or any large store) since the 1950s has been the ubiquitous big-box, the large, flat, space-consuming single-level store surrounded by ample surface parking. This is not what I’m suggesting goes in (again, look at Herberger’s in St. Cloud), but this store is still going to take a significant amount of space. Ideally, this should be as close to Mainstreet and/or 8th Avenue South as possible, as these two streets are the axis upon which downtown is set upon. One could look to the Johnson Building as the ideal location, as the city is eyeing it up for redevelopment in anticipation of the Southwest Light Rail station being built right across Excelsior Boulevard. Other possible locations could be the Elk’s Club (assuming they can be convinced to move and adjacent properties could be added to the site… Imagine a store that fronts 8th Street stretching from where the Elks are now all the way to a grand entrance on the corner where Curry ‘N Noodles currently sits), the single-story commercial building behind Marketplace Lofts (taking up the surface lot behind that building as well), or even the Post Office site (assuming that the USPS continues to consolidate operations into larger facilities and leaves Hopkins with a smaller “retail store” instead of the larger facility we currently have). All of these assume that a parking ramp would be needed, and I would anticipate that it would be a free municipal ramp, for the dual reasoning that a precedent has been set by the existing ramp that serves our downtown as well as the prospect of just worrying about constructing the store and not having to maintain a vast parking lot could be used to draw in a retailer.

Hopkins is in need of a lot of little pieces in order to transform itself from a quaint downtown into a serious competitor against the sprawling suburban shopping centers that have sprung up nearby. One can talk of wanting to see a men’s clothing store come in, or a children’s clothing store, or a bookstore or music store or electronics store or whatever other kind of retail that makes up the fabric of a robust shopping district. But all of these still need that one bit of ballast to hold them in place, that department-style anchor that draws in customers for their major shopping needs and then sets them loose to spend money at whoever else hangs a shingle. Just imagine that all the residents in the increasingly denser-populated core of Hopkins didn’t need to leave the city and spend their money in Minnetonka or Edina or Eden Prairie just to buy something as necessary as a pair of (dare I say it) underwear, or if people got off the light rail at the downtown station on their way home from work and did some quick shopping in downtown Hopkins before hopping in the car they left and the park-n-ride and heading home just because it’s that much more convenient than driving from the station to Eden Prairie Center then to home. That’s the kind of future Hopkins can have, and all it would take to attract more small businesses into these smaller, vacant storefronts is just one business that is willing to go big.

Friends, this is no way to enjoy this state treasure. Something must be done to save the Jucy Lucy, lest they pack up the grills and head out of town! If we act fast, we can save the Jucy Lucy, provide a better dining experience, and show everyone what true fans of the Jucy Lucy this state is! Lucky for everyone, I have that plan.

People of Minnesota, we need to build a new Matt’s Bar. A better Matt’s Bar. A “People’s Matt’s Bar”! Yes, the Jucy Lucy needs to be saved, and the state of Minnesota is responsible for footing the bill. And if we don’t, well, then it’s our fault if we lose the Jucy Lucy forever.

I propose we build a new, larger, $10 million bar. Imagine the dining experience that Jucy Lucy fans could have! Comfier, luxury booths! More space for waiting customers! A separate bar and kitchen area! Huge televisions on the walls! And, best of all, a brand new parking lot with valet parking!

Yes, we could have all this, plus the owners of Matt’s Bar can capture so much more revenue that they’ve been missing out on! Why, they could charge just a little more for the enhanced dining room experience. Let’s not forget the parking revenue, a must if they are to stay competitive with other restaurants. And there’s the ad revenue and naming rights for the bar… After all, a Jucy Lucy would taste just as good if the place was called “TCF Bank Bar”, right?

Just how much is it worth to the state to keep the Jucy Lucy? Why, for this $10 million deluxe dining palace, the state only needs to chip in $4 million of the total cost. It’ll be easy to raise, we can just create new revenue through expanding gambling! Voila! Free money to give to Matt’s Bar! And, of course, Minneapolis needs to pay $2 million as the local partner for the honor of keeping the Jucy Lucy in their city. That revenue can be raised through a special sales tax in the Powderhorn Park neighborhood around Matt’s Bar. After all, the businesses nearby will all receive a boost just from having this magnificent, new bar nearby. The owners of Matt’s Bar will chip in for the rest with a $2 million loan from the Chamber of Commerce and from the funds from diners buying in to their new “Mug Club”… But if it ends up costing more than $10 million, then the state needs to find more money.

Yes, it’s worth it! Think of all those construction jobs! Think of the waitresses’ and bartenders’ jobs! Would you risk letting those jobs slip away? Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! And tasty, tasty Jucy Lucys! And since this will be the people’s bar, Matt’s Bar will merely be tenants paying a low, negotiable rent to the state instead of those pesky property taxes that other business owners pay. Just think of the pride that you, a tax-paying Minnesotan, will have when you pass by the new bar! Not only has your money provided jobs, but you can look on with pride of being a partial owner of the building that houses the Jucy Lucy.

We can start building as soon as we approve the funding. The new bar can be partially build next to the current bar, and when it comes time to demolish the old bar then Matt’s Bar will be temporarily relocated at the 5-8 Club. Of course, we’ll need to compensate Matt’s Bar for any lost revenue while they’re displaced for construction. And we’ll need to build them their own grilling surface and temporary seating at the 5-8. But it’s all worth it to keep this treasure in our state!

Yes, People of Minnesota, the Jucy Lucy is an important asset that we need to do everything in our power to keep. So, open up the public checkbook! Real Jucy Lucy fans are counting on you for their enhanced dining experience! If Matt’s Bar doesn’t start making more money soon, they could pack up and leave us tomorrow!!!! Friends, we as a state cannot afford to lose the Jucy Lucy. This plan is a necessary one! We must act now!

Okay, so maybe it does sound ridiculous. Matt’s Bar is a privately owned business, and they have ways of raising or obtaining money without public help, no matter how dearly we love those burgers The people of Minnesota wouldn’t be dumb enough to fall for such a scam anyway. Right?

In this last post, I wanted to look at the project in photos. Which of these photos better represents a pro-business, smart-growth government investment that will get the most return out of the taxpayer money that is spent?

Exhibit A:

• Four lanes of roadway
• A wide median/ turn lane
• A barely used sidewalk close by speeding traffic
• Cars that go by too fast for drivers to notice what businesses are there
• Businesses need parking lots, taking up space that could be used for larger buildings/more revenue-generating space
• Roadway is designed to get cars through the area as efficient as possible… Get them to go past as fast as we can allow them… Customers bypass the area and spend their money elsewhere
• Neighbors across the street had to be demolished, reducing the tax base in a small city with no space to grow

Exhibit B:

• Two lanes, only half as much to pave
• A sidewalk where pedestrians feel safe
• Slower traffic in which drivers can see what businesses and services are around more easily
• With more pedestrian traffic bringing in customers, less space is needed for parking cars and buildings can take up more of their lots (more revenue generating space)
• Dense, higher value development on both sides of road means more property taxes contributing to the city budget
• Road is designed to bring customers to the stores, not to encourage them to bypass the area

The current plan for the reconstruction of Shady Oak Road is more like “Exhibit A”. We have sufficient high capacity north-south routes in the area, and decimating the west end of Hopkins just so drivers have yet another way to bypass the city is not a smart investment. I say we pull for “Exhibit B”, a smart investment that sets up businesses to flourish in a time when we need to make the most out of all our infrastructure investments. We should not pay for something that encourages customers to just keep driving past.

The total value of the properties to be demolished is $2,883,100. Nearly $2.9 million of this $12.5 million project ($2.8 million from Hopkins, $2.5 million from Minnetonka, $7.2 million in “free” money from the Federal Government) is going toward the acquisition of property, provided that they’re purchased at the 2011 assessed values. That’s over 23% of the cost of the project. The taxes collected on these properties in 2011 was $51,272.66. Assuming that the road lasts 30 years (the typical lifespan of a road before it needs to be completely torn up and rebuilt), that’s at least $1,538,179.80 in lost revenue to the city and county (more than that, since property values and taxes tend to go up). On top of that financial hit, we’ll need to pay for the reconstruction of the road again, and in that future time I doubt that we’ll get that “free” money from the feds.

For a city boxed in to four square miles, can we afford to lose this income? That money goes toward all the services provided and the maintenance of our infrastructure. Is it wise to just demolish buildings for a faster way to get cars to bypass our city? Is it fair to ask the rest of the city to make up for the lost revenue so that drivers can get from one part of Minnetonka to another a minute faster?

Now let’s  take a look at Leaman’s Liquors and Nelson’s Meats and Bakery. With the plan as drawn up, they will have a road similar to Excelsior Boulevard running right up to their front doors. I ask that the city consider a two-lane road with adequate street parking near the businesses and ample sidewalks, much like on Mainstreet. To illustrate my point, I found two properties, one on Main and one on a new segment of Excelsior, that are similar to the Leaman’s/Nelson’s buildings on Shady Oak:

The first property is 1023 Mainstreet, which houses the Boston Garden and a couple other businesses. In 2011, the building was assessed at $732,000 and the property taxes collected were $26,717.62.  If you look at 9092 Excelsior Boulevard, a multi-tennant retail space near the intersection of Excelsior and Jackson, it’s valued at $369,000 with $12,793.78 in taxes collected. These are two similar buildings, but because of its undesirable location the one on Excelsior has a lower value and pays less than half of the taxes owed by the building on Mainstreet. From the perspective of the city, the building on Excelsior is paying far less to be on a street that’s far more expensive to maintain than Mainstreet.

Let me repeat that: The building on Excelsior Boulevard payed $12,793.78 in 2011, and the city and county need to maintain a 4-lane highway similar to what is planned for Shady Oak with that money. The building on Mainstreet payed $26,717.62 and the city needs to maintain only a 2-lane road, plus this building sees far more customers even though the businesses on Excelsior have far more cars driving by. And that’s just the problem, though… They’re only driving by, intent upon getting through Hopkins to somewhere else.

So, for the $2.8 million contribution that Hopkins is being asked for the construction of this 4-lane quasi-highway, we are losing an additional $1.5 million in tax revenue over the 30-year lifespan of the road. On top of that loss, the properties on a more expensive 4-lane throughway contribute around 50% less in property taxes than those on more cost-friendly 2-lane street. As an added hit to our businesses, those on the busy 4-lane roads see fewer customers because cars are less willing to slow down (much less stop) and pedestrians avoid the area.

The numbers don’t add up. This project makes no sense for Hopkins. If the project goes forward as planned, the City of Hopkins should demand to be compensated for our financial losses instead of paying for an “improvement” that makes our city less valuable.

Shady Oak Road, as it currently stands between Highway 7 and Excelsior Boulevard, is a two-lane remnant of crumbling back-country road that is terrible to drive on and worse to walk along. One would think that, with the city’s goals of eking out every last bit of value within the city limits and creating a smart, walkable city, that we would see plans for a rebuilt two-lane street with sidewalks and wide boulevards. Instead, they are widening this stretch to create a five-lane swath of STROAD, taking out a few houses and eliminating parking spaces for businesses along the way.

Wait, what is a “stroad” anyway? If you follow the intelligent fellows over at Strong Towns, they will start off by telling you what a “street” and a “road” are. A “street” is a collection of places lining a strip of pavement created to gain access to these places. Think of your neighborhood, or a downtown street. The intent of the pavement and sidewalk systems for a “street” are there so you can get to your house or a business. A “road” is a strip of pavement created to move cars from one place to another in the most efficient means possible, much like a highway. A “stroad” is an unfortunate hybrid of the two, an awkward stretch of pavement that is unpleasant to walk along and horribly inefficient at moving traffic (due to the high number of driveways and intersections) that typically lowers the property values of the places along it.

A “stroad” is what is planned for this stretch of Shady Oak Road, and it’s a near-mirror of what the folks over at Strong Towns have been talking about with the College Drive project going on in their city. At the open house detailing the Shady Oak Road project, they laid out the cost of the project: Hopkins is paying $2.8 million, Minnetonka is paying $2.5 million, and the federal government is chipping in $7.4 million, provided that they build it big and wide. That’s right, not only is small, urban Hopkins having to conform to Minnetonka’s suburban-sprawl method of development, we’re having to pay more and getting far less out of the deal.

And just how bad of a deal is Hopkins getting for their $2.8 million? Take a look at the map of the project. At the south end of the project (the left side of the map), Hopkins businesses are getting this wide, fast street put right up to their front doors. It eliminates their few parking spots and puts cars whizzing by mere feet from their door, providing an unsafe place for pedestrians to get in the front door. North of Main Street, the project is tearing out a commercial building and ten homes on the Hopkins side of the street. That’s a lot of valuable, taxable space that is being lost, and we’re paying $2.8 million for it. Nothing is being demolished on the Minnetonka side of the road.

This is a ridiculous project for Hopkins to be willing to partake in. There is no good reason to widen this road. The city gets no value out of putting in the means for cars to pass through that neighborhood faster. We are sacrificing businesses to the altar of bad urban planning, and for what? Oh, if we do it then the feds will toss $7.4 million our way. Once this project is finished, who in their right mind would want to start a business along this stroad? Who in their right mind would want to live along here? The property values are just going to drop, and in this economic climate cities can’t be paying money to ultimately earn less money.

And then, sometime in the future, we’re going to have to redo this $12.7 million dollar project all over again once the pavement is worn out, except that when that happens there won’t be the matching federal dollars, nor will there be the tax base along the route to help pay for the work since we will have destroyed all that taxable property.

Here’s how we could do it better:

1. Tell the feds to take their $7.4 million and shove it. There are far too many strings attached, and taking the money means diminishing the value of the places in our city for the sake of allowing cars to pass through faster.

2. Take the $5.3 million that the two cities are willing to spend and build a street, not a stroad. Keep it two lanes (three with a turn lane, if need be). Build sidewalks along the whole way. Keep the speed limit low so that drivers slow down and pay attention to the businesses along the way instead of zipping past. More importantly, keep the cars slow for the safety of the children that live along Shady Oak.

3. Divert all the big, heavy traffic to the north-south freeways that are already close by. Highway 169 isn’t far, and neither is Interstate 494. If the federal government wants to help out with this project, have them spend their $7.4 million on an interchange at 494 and Excelsior Boulevard.

4. If the city of Minnetonka still wants a stroad for cars to zip by, then why don’t they take out some homes and widen Baker Road instead? Let them destroy their own city and leave ours alone.

This project should be a non-starter for Hopkins. Freeways and highways are designed for bypassing cities, and what they’re proposing here is a  highway/street hybrid that is designed with the sole intent of moving cars through faster with no regard for adding value to our city considering the expense. This is dumb. Designing a road to get cars to zip by faster does nothing to help a business, nor does it do anything for the safety and well-being of the residents whose homes won’t be destroyed by this project. It drives away customers who feel unsafe about walking up to the front door (if they notice the business at all, what with how fast they’ll be going by) and drives down the value of homes where front lawns are nothing more than useless buffers between the houses and busy roads.

My plea to the Hopkins city council is this: Don’t invest in this project if all it does is destroy homes and businesses. Work with the county and Minnetonka to rebuild the road in a way that will truly benefit the residents and businesses in our city, not just build another way for cars to bypass the town.

This is from the Downtown Hopkins Station Area Planning Report, and it illustrates the problem. At the center of the map is the station itself, with one dotted circle representing a quarter mile and the larger one a half mile radius. The very northern edge of the quarter mile radius touches Mainstreet, where all the businesses are. So, when people disembark from the light rail at this station, they need to cross the busy, four-lane Excelsior Boulevard, walk a quarter mile, and then walk further to their destination. And just why is this? Why not just run it down Mainstreet? The answer actually lies in the next station to the west, Shady Oak:

This is from the Shady Oak Station Area Planning Report. The red line is the rail line, and at some point the Met Council was trying to decide whether to run it south from Shady Oak or continue it west along the old freight rail line. For some reason, and I have no clue why they decided to do the right thing here and not elsewhere, they were smart enough to turn the line south and have it connect to more populated areas in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie instead of the easy route behind peoples’ houses. And this is why the line doesn’t run down Mainstreet (seen running along the very top of the image): If they would have chosen to go west, they would have been unsure of how to connect the rail line from Mainstreet to the route west. So, just in case they would have made such a bad move, it was decided that the light rail would not go down Mainstreet. Ever. Just in case.

So, the problem we have here is that there is this major investment going on that will bring more pedestrian traffic to Hopkins, but it drops them off at an inconvenient distance from where the businesses are instead of right on the doorsteps of said businesses. What is the answer that the city came up with? A circulator. A streetcar, even. If you take a look at the city’s study, you’ll find this map of a proposed streetcar line. They’re thinking of spending up to $30 million (the report figures $20 million per mile at the high end of streetcar construction, and this is a 1.6 mile route) to put a rail line where the Met Council refused to. It sounds like a familiar theme. (For the record, there are also circulator buses being considered as well. But they’re hoping to buy ones that look like streetcars if it comes to that.)

Okay, Matthew, what do you think they should do then? (I’m glad you asked!) How about we put that $30 million toward a redesign of the route through Hopkins? Instead of spending the money to build duplicate services, why not spend the money to put the rail line where it will better serve the people? It would be simple:

1. At the Blake Road station (on the eastern end of Hopkins), instead of continuing the route along the trail as planned, move the station to the east side of Blake Road (where the county already owns land anyway) and reroute the train to 2nd Street North. This also allows for placing a station directly behind Excelsior Crossings, the collection of Cargill offices that the city seems keen upon serving (every option except the streetcar in their proposed circulators stress having a stop there).

2. After the rails pass under the existing US 169 overpass, turn them south onto Washington Avenue. Or even next to it, where there’s a wide buffer between the road and 169 anyway. This road gently curves and becomes Mainstreet, so the rail line can naturally follow this.

3. The new Downtown Hopkins station can now be in downtown Hopkins. Right in the middle of it. No need to have customers hop a circulator streetcar to get to businesses. They’re right there. On their doorsteps.

4. The rail line can turn south at 17th Avenue and connect with the Shady Oak station, which doesn’t need to move anywhere, just get reoriented for the new north-south segment of the line.

It would look something like the green line (the current plan is in red):

We’re potentially spending $30 million to put a rail line down Mainstreet anyway. Why not spend it to put the main line there instead of building a smaller line to connect with the main line? Of course, the likelihood of such a plan happening is zero to nil. Political physics are in play here, and now that the plan to build the light rail line has been drawn up, there is a large amount of political inertia keeping it going down its current path. Just like the Minneapolis end, where there is no chance of the Met Council switching to the Uptown route despite the fact that the restrictive funding rules that pushed them to route the train through a vast expanse of nothingness no longer exist, the decision to put the “Downtown Hopkins” station a half a mile from the actual downtown shopping district is unlikely to change.

I suppose that I could just keep my mouth shut and make the most of the free circulator streetcar (or bus, I suppose) that will be ambling up and down Mainstreet.

His sister, my older child, seems to not quite be over her jealously of the baby. The baby gets attention, the baby doesn’t get in trouble, the baby doesn’t have to clean his room or fold his laundry or help set the table. Taking care of the baby cuts into her time with mom and dad. And now he’s got all these great, fun toys that seem to be so much more interesting than all the great, fun toys she got.

Yes, it’s a battle. She’s in the habit now of just taking toys or plopping herself down next to the baby and slowly sneaking them away from him. “Oh, I’m just playing with him, Daddy.” “He wants to share with me, Daddy.” “He gave it to me, Daddy.” Bullshit. All of it. He has something that I have said she can’t have, and now she’s trying every angle to get it. It’s the same thing as when she tries to wiggle herself in between her brother and mother while he’s being nursed.

The hardest part is that the baby doesn’t care. His truck was taken away? Well, all right then. The Little People pirates are hidden out of his reach? That’s okay, too. Big sister “needs” the hammer he was playing with? Sure! The baby is just such an easy, go-with-the-flow kind of guy. This is great when we need to head out places, but is it too much to ask for a few tears when his sister takes his toys? Just a whimper would suffice. I don’t need full-out bawling, but it would help. She does get frightened the few times that he all-out screams.

The only thing that has worked is when I retaliated by giving him one of her dolls. Wow, did that ever set her off. “Daddy, my toys are for big kids, only!” Plus, it kept her from taking his toys… For a couple of days. That and putting up a gate to bar her from his room entirely, which turns out to be too much of a hassle for me. Unless somebody chimes in with a magic solution, I guess I just have to wait for her to get bored with his baby toys. That, or just keep up the battle.

Hooray to the Federal Transit Authority for giving the green light to the Southwest Light Rail Line! Yeah, the Feds put their stamp of approval on the project and gave it the meager funding for the engineering phase, essentially to draw up the workable blueprints. Once those are finalized, it’s assumed that the funding for the project will be granted and ground will be broken… I hear it’s very rare that the FTA says to go ahead with the blueprints and then turns around later to ditch the project.

But there is still one major flaw that the Feds were not blind to, one which I opined about here and here. To spare you some reading, on the Minneapolis end of the line the Metro Council has decided to prefer the lesser of two routes (the one through the big, open fields of nothingness versus the one past the thousands of potential riders in Uptown), amongst their reasons being:

1. It’s cheaper. (A bit of a lie, which I’ll elaborate upon.)

2. The dip in ridership was negligible considering the much lesser price. (That ridership being only the “new” transit riders that could potentially be lured out of their cars, as defined by an old funding formula that is no longer used to approve projects. Remember that the thousands of people that already use transit in Uptown weren’t counted as “riders” when figuring for this project because they already ride buses.)

3. The Midtown Greenway is a popular bike trail and they felt that the City of Minneapolis wouldn’t want the riders to be disturbed by trains running by. (Never mind that it’s an old freight rail trench that was purchased by Hennepin County for the purpose of… Light Rail Transit!)

Pictured to the left is the little discrepancy in funding. On the bottom is a freight rail line that goes into Minneapolis, via the route chosen for the SW Light Rail.  On the top is another rail line, also bound for Minneapolis, that cuts through a few neighborhoods and rumbles past St. Louis Park High School.

What wasn’t figured into the original price tag of the “cheaper” route was that the under-bridge freight line pictured would have to be rerouted to make way for commuters. That’s an expensive proposition because it involves building a big freakin’ ramp to get the trains that currently go under the bridge in the photo up to the tracks on top of the bridge. Yeah, that mile-long ramp won’t come cheap, and neither will all the additional safety measures demanded by the City of St. Louis Park for those additional freight trains that will be plowed through the city.

The original funding equation labeled that whole moving of the freight line as a completely separate project because it was something that was supposedly promised to the freight rail company years before Southwest LRT had the green light. These trains had their original route into downtown Minneapolis severed by the reconstruction of Highway 55, and their rerouting down the same path that as the planned light rail line was supposedly a quick, “temporary” fix until they could muster up the funds to build the ramp. That project was put off time and time again, and now it’s seen as “necessary” to put a high-capacity mass transit line through that very same empty field that the freight trains go through now.

The Met says the ramp was happening someday anyway, so it’s not technically part of the SW LRT project and, therefore, not part of the funding equation. The FTA says no, if the ramp was really going to be built it would have been done years ago as promised. And now that it’s being built to get the freight trains out of the way so the light rail goes through, well, then the Met Council is going to have to figure in the money for the ramp.

The short of it is, with the cost of rerouting the freight rail tabulated with the cost of running the line down the Kennilworth corridor, the whole project costs about the same as the “more expensive” route through the heart of Uptown.

Were it not for the additional years of delay (Keep in mind that this was one of the proposed “starter lines” of a much grander light rail system laid out in 1985… I blogged on it here.) I would be screaming for the brakes to be put on. Let’s just take that money and not build a big, expensive ramp to reroute freight rail out of a corridor that seems pretty appropriate for freight rail and use that money to put the light rail where the riders will be… Uptown. As it stands, the City of Minneapolis is stepping up to provide the higher-capacity rail transit needed in Uptown with their streetcar plan, and I suppose that in future years I’ll just hop off at the West Calhoun station and onto a waiting streetcar.

Yeah, the City is planning to build an electric train in the Midtown Greenway trench that the Met Council said they wouldn’t build in because they felt the City didn’t want trains running next to the bike trail. Facepalm. Whatever. Let’s just build it already. Reliable, frequent rail service in the near future was one reason why we bought a house near this proposed light rail line, so I’m pretty anxious to see some track get laid, even if there’s a few flaws in the plan.

Bonus points if the people working on it can sing “I Get a Kick Out of You”…