Light Rail Options Deserve a Full Study
Golden Valley is the only city along the Bottineau Transitway to not endorse the proposed alignment that comes through Golden Valley as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The identification of an LPA is a critical step in pursuing federal funding. Selecting an LPA does not mean that other alternatives will not be examined under the federal and state environmental process.
Golden Valley needs to plan for the future of transportation and not remain entrenched in old, isolationist ways of thinking. Congestion will get worse. There will be more people commuting to and from work through Golden Valley. Do we want to position ourselves for more economic opportunity by embracing this opportunity or do we want to stagnate in isolation?
Golden Valley needs to support this proposal and be a part of the planning process. The current plan is not perfect, but we need to remain engaged to help determine what the best solutions are. Let’s endorse this Locally Preferred Alternative and allow the study to be done and to be a part of the solution and design the future of transportation which includes Golden Valley as a partner in the process.
How do we know if this light rail proposal is bad for Golden Valley if we don’t fully study the issue? We need to have all the facts in order to make an informed, logical decision on what is right for our community. There are a lot of areas to be concerned with, but let’s not destroy the whole project from advancing before we know the answers to our questions and have all the factual evidence to base our decision on. We don’t know the impacts until they are studied.
Urge City Council members to endorse this Locally Preferred Alternative and let the study advance. What do you think about letting the light rail study advance?
Valerie Engler
9:35 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
To provide some background information, there are a number of articles on Patch about the transitway. Here's the article about the city council's decision, which was written earlier this summer: http://goldenvalley.patch.com/articles/golden-valley-city-council-votes-against-transitway
Bob Mattison
8:16 am on Thursday, September 27, 2012
It is simply wrong to characterize the resolution that was voted down by the GV City Council as allowing further study of alternatives. There is nothing about more studies in the body of the resolution, and its titile is "Resolution in Support of the . . . Locally Preferred Alternative." Passing it would be "game over" for Golden Valley. And there is no economic opportunity in the route for Golden Valley, unless destroying a nature area and despoiling a regional park qualifies as economic progress. Far from being entrenched or isolationist, the City Council's vote may force a routing decision that will have a much more positive long-term impact on the region. Kudos to the City Council members who voted no - please look at the facts and give them your support.
Andrea Wiley
10:09 am on Friday, September 28, 2012
Here is text from the Golden Valley "Resolution in Support of the... Locally Preferred Alternative" for the Bottineau Transitway:
"…WHEREAS, the HCRRA in partnership with the Metropolitan Council and other
project stakeholders recently completed the Bottineau Transitway Alternatives Analysis Study that in addition to the No Build and Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives; recommended four Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternatives and one Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative be advanced for further study in the federal and state environmental review processes, and;
…WHEREAS, through the Scoping process, the PAC recommended further study of
the No Build and TSM alternatives along with further study of four LRT alternatives (A-CD1,A-C- D2, B- C- D1, B- C- D2) in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), and;…
These two paragraphs do state that these plans will move on to the environmental impact phase. There are a lot of steps in this process and the Golden Valley City Council should support this proposal to continue the discussion and be a part of the planning process.
Bob Mattison
12:31 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
Ms. Wiley has quoted the premises, or "Whereas" clauses of the resolution, which do indeed talk about more environmental studies, simply stating they need to be done. But the operative language is very clear: "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Golden Valley supports . . . Alternative B-C-D1 as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Bottineau Transitway project." So she is really advocating that Golden Valley get out of the way and let the project proceed though Mary Hills Nature Area and Wirth Park.
Andy Snope
7:09 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
It doesn't seem to me that Andrea Wiley is advocating that Golden Valley "get out of the way" I think she brings up some very good points that speak to Golden Valley get re-engaged. The actions of the Golden Valley Council have effectively brought the project to a halt and has put Golden Valley on the outside of the discussions. I would support a reconsideration of the previous vote and I think the Council could craft a resolution that would support further study and also bring forth the concerns of the citizens they represent.
Valerie Engler
10:34 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
We now have a letter to the editor urging the City of Golden Valley to get on board: http://goldenvalley.patch.com/articles/letter-time-to-move-forward-on-bottineau-transitway
Thoughts?
Andrea Wiley
11:19 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Senator Rest, Representatives Winkler, and Carlson add their support for the Golden Valley City Council to support the Bottineau Transitway Locally Preferred Alternative:
" It’s important to note however, that voting to support the plan doesn’t set it in stone; it merely allows us to move the process forward to the environmental impact study phase, where this plan and many others will be thoroughly examined. "
Golden Valley needs to reexamine their resolution of support for the transitway and vote to support examining all the options!!