|
|
|
||||||||
John and Laura Reinhart have discovered, through being the proverbial "squeaky wheels" and spending many hundreds of hours at it, that MN DoT is in violation of federal law by the destroying the public comment records dealing with LRT and the Hiawatha corridor. No wonder MN DoT says there is no opposition to it, they destroyed it all.
You should ring up Ron Thaniel of the Mayor's office at 612-613-3537 or Allen Steger and Joel Ettinger of the Federal Transit Administration at 651- 291-6100 or 651-291-6102 and ask for a full investigation into this outrageous act of theft of public property and VOICE.
Below is a letter outlining the improprieties,
fraud and circumvention of the public process that was sent to the Federal Transit
Administration.
(Scroll down and check out the text in yellow)
There is a carbon copy list at the bottom of the letter of officials that I am sure would just love to hear from you about this and answer ALL your questions.
Laura and John Reinhardt
September 28, 1999
CERTIFIED MAIL - Z 101 658 896
Federal Transit Administration
400 Seventh Street SW
Washington, DC 20590
CERTIFIED MAIL - Z 101 658 897
Federal Transit Administration 200
West Adams Street Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60606
Re: Hiawatha Avenue (Highway 55) Corridor
Minneapolis, Minnesota
To Whom It May Concern:
We are Minneapolis residents who have lived close to the Hiawatha Avenue Corridor for almost ten years, and who were deeply involved in the "Lake Street-Hiawatha Avenue Grade Separation Project" in the early 1990s. We are writing to respectfully request that the Federal Transit Administration:
1. Deny federal approval and funding being sought by the State of Minnesota for construction of a Light Rail Transit Line along the Hiawatha Avenue Corridor.
2. Investigate the Minnesota Department of Transportation's fraudulent handling of the 1993 public record concerning the Grade Separation Project, which project was a recipient of federal funds.
* * * * *
I. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED OR FUNDED BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION.
A. Environmental Review and Planning of Proposed LRT Line is Completely Inadequate.
The Environmental Impact Statement on the Hiawatha Corridor was completed in 1985. A review of that document reveals no meaningful discussion of the "social, economic and environmental" impacts of Light Rail Transit in the Corridor, but contains only a general overview of the concept. This EIS was amended and updated in 1993 when an EA was prepared for the "Lake Street-Hiawatha Grade Separation Project." MnDOT's Notice of a Location/Design Public Hearing and Availability of Environmental Assessment [Attachment 1] states:"The hearing will be held to provide information on the location, design features, and social, economic and environmental effects related to the reconstruction of the intersection of Hiawatha Avenue (Trunk Highway 55) and Lake Street to accommodate light rail transit."
(emphasis added)However, the EA does not even attempt to analyze light rail's "social, economic and environmental" impacts at that intersection or anywhere else. At the public hearings in 1993 and continuing to the present time, residents have had many questions about how LRT would work along the Hiawatha Corridor and how it would impact the nearby neighborhoods. Minneapolis City Council Member Sandra Colvin Roy said that, "It's very important for people who live near the line or near the stations to ask the questions." What we still do not know is where the answers may be found.
Some of the "social, economic and environmental" impacts which have not been included in the EIS or the EA are as follows:
1. Traffic Flow Across Hiawatha Avenue. We live near the 35th Street interchange. Currently, there is a traffic light controlling the intersection and directly to the east of the intersection is a railroad yard with numerous tracks. What is the scenario for vehicle/pedestrian traffic across the roadway if two LRT tracks are constructed to the west of the roadway as planned? The Star Tribune's 9/15/99 report, "It's decision time along light rail's line" states that traffic will be a "mess" when light rail trains disrupt east-west vehicles and pedestrians approximately every 3½ minutes.
We live two blocks from Hiawatha Avenue, and we cross the roadway west to east several times a day. Here is our vision:
We travel from our garage down the alley to 35th Street. Traffic is backed up 35th Street from Hiawatha Avenue, forcing us to wait to enter the roadway. When we are able to pull onto 35th Street traveling easterly, the light rail arms come down and we must wait for the crossing. When that is clear, the traffic light is red, so we must now continue to wait (presumably behind the LRT crossing). The traffic light is about to turn green, but then another light rail train approaches from the opposite direction and we are held up again, and now the traffic light is again red (as are our tempers) after the light rail train has passed. When we finally make it through the intersection, we are held up at the railroad yards as a train switches tracks. By now, we're late for work. We call MnDOT and our city council member to complain, only to be told that it's too late to do anything about it.
Does this sound overstated? Who would know, because this issue-which is vitally important to the communities along the Corridor-has not yet been addressed.
2. How Can People Use LRT? The same Star Tribune article states that no park and ride lots are planned near light rail stations in Minneapolis. Residents near the stations do not want light rail riders leaving their cars parked on neighborhood streets for the day. "Residents need the answer now," said City Council Member Dore Mead, adding, "They need more than 'Trust us, we'll take care of it.'" How will city residents use LRT? They won't take a bus east or west to Hiawatha Avenue and transfer to light rail, because it would take more time and effort than simply riding the bus downtown. The only park and ride lots currently planned are a 200 space ground-level park and ride lot near the Mall of America and a 600 car park and ride lot near Highway 62. These lots certainly cannot service very many commuters and further evidences the widespread belief that the Hiawatha Avenue Light Rail Line is not intended to serve Minneapolis residents or downtown commuters, but that it is being built to serve Downtown-Airport-Megamall business interests. Although Minneapolis City Council Member Brian Herron voted to approve the "preliminary design" of LRT, he said he had reservations, stating that, " . . . the question that I always have in my mind is who is it serving." It is certainly notable that no bus line services the Hiawatha Avenue Corridor at the present time. If light rail transit is to be built in this city, the obvious candidates for such a line would be jammed commuter routes such as Interstate 35W, Interstate 394 or Interstate 94-certainly not a route which is presently unserved by any form of mass transit.
3. Pedestrians. It appears that pedestrians (and bicyclists) were not a factor in planning this roadway or LRT. MnDOT's response to a citizen's 6/3/93 letter concerning pedestrian traffic indicates that a pedestrian/bicycle count survey was not undertaken at Lake Street/Hiawatha Avenue and that a 13 foot sidewalk had been designed for bicyclists and pedestrians along Hiawatha Avenue. First, a sidewalk down Hiawatha Avenue does not address the intersection crossing question which was asked, and second, the sidewalk (which was built along Hiawatha Avenue) is now being torn up after a life span of five years! The question remains how pedestrians, bicycles and wheelchairs will cross any of the intersections along the Corridor.
4. Safety. This pedestrian/bicycle/wheelchair question involves the crossing of two separate light rail tracks, a divided highway and the railroad tracks. At our neighborhood interchange (35th Street) we commonly observe pedestrians and bicyclists taking scary chances dashing across the roadway. Safety will only be further compromised if we add two separate light rail tracks directly adjacent to the roadway. We have personally witnessed two near-collisions between vehicles and wheelchairs.
Also, the pedestrian safety under the overpass at Lake Street is a major concern, as it was at the time of the public meetings and hearings in the early 1990s when the grade separation project was being advanced by MnDOT. In the September 1999 issue of our neighborhood newspaper (Corcoran Neighborhood News) the minutes of the CNO Executive Board meeting of 8/9/99 states that, "There are safety concerns about the underpass on Lake at Hiawatha." These issues are vital to a community which includes many, many residents who do not own cars (a concept which seems foreign to our planners at MnDOT) and which must addressed.
It is notable that the 1993 EA states that if the roadway is routed over Hiawatha Avenue, light rail will be built at-grade. However, when the Minneapolis City Council voted to approve the "preliminary design" of the proposed light rail line, they compiled a "list of issues" to discuss with MnDOT, with one of the two most prominent being whether to build a bridge over East Lake Street for light rail! So now our officials (who were responsible for addressing these issues in 1993) are talking about another overpass for light rail at this intersection, which would enlarge the covered space pedestrians would pass under to cross the intersection, further impacting their safety.
Additionally, MnDOT's August 1999 brochure mailed to residents indicates that, "It [light rail train] is capable of speeds up to 55 mph." Is this the speed at which MnDOT envisions light rail trains traveling through our neighborhoods?
5. Cost. Two major issues which have not been addressed in LRT planning are costs of building and costs of operating the line. We have a total cost estimate for the project, but we don't yet know where the money will come from. The state is looking to the FTA for about half the project cost, but there are currently no commitments from the state Legislature or anyone else to fund the balance of the project. Additionally, it has recently been revealed that the downtown segment of the line will require electric and telecommunications utilities to move their underground operations at a cost approaching $50-80 million! Who will pay these costs? The Legislative Director of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, David Strom, states in a June 15 news release that, "Light rail is a bad deal and it is getting worse every day." Additionally, non-urban taxpayers do not support this expensive project in any way. The truth is, no one yet knows what it will really cost to build the proposed LRT.
The costs of operating the light rail line also remain unaddressed. How much public subsidy will the line require? Will it be self-sustaining? What if the projected number of riders do not materialize? (Remember, the Hiawatha Corridor does not even support a bus line at the present time.) Opponents of the project have stated that LRT systems in other cities are struggling. Where is a cost/benefit analysis? Wouldn't a bus system be more affordable and a better deal for taxpayers?
6. The Minnesota Department of Transportation is Out of Control.
Besides considering costs and scheduling, elected officials belonging to the light-rail policy board complained Monday about being left out of key decisions.
With representatives from Minneapolis, Bloomington, Hennepin and Dakota counties, the Metropolitan Council and the University of Minnesota, the committee is supposed to provide political leadership for the project.
But committee members said the staff of the state Department of Transportation is not giving them enough information to stay on top of last-minute decisions. They said engineers are acting without consulting policy makers."Entire light-rail line wouldn't open until late 2004," Star Tribune 9/14/99 (emphasis added).
The Minnesota Department of Transportation is a renegade state agency which operates exactly as it pleases. It answers to no one. It is straying so far out of the bounds of reality on the Hiawatha Corridor Project that it sued the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for placing restrictions on a roadway construction permit, which restrictions the Watershed District Chairwoman said she thought MnDOT had agreed to. These conditions "involve preserving Minnehaha Creek and its falls," which are near the road construction area, requiring the Department to monitor construction to ensure that the environment and wildlife aren't harmed, and requiring ground-water monitoring. MnDOT subsequently dismissed its baseless suit.
II. WHAT IS GOING ON IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
In the early 1990s we were neighborhood activists and volunteers. We served jointly as Housing Chair for the Corcoran Neighborhood Organization, we served on the Hiawatha Avenue Housing Design Review Committee, and we worked to defeat the proposal to build a freeway-style bridge over Lake Street at Hiawatha Avenue. We attended many public meetings and hearings concerning the proposal held by neighborhood organizations, the city and the state, as well as taking time off work to testify before the Minneapolis City Council at the daytime public hearing on the project.
Losing the overpass issue was a bitter defeat for us. We spent countless hours working for an at-grade solution. Since our involvement did not yield the result we had hoped, we backed away from neighborhood activities, feeling that we had wasted a great deal of time and effort on a matter which was decided prior to any input from the public. Until recently, however, we had no idea how such public input had been manipulated and ignored.
As you may know, for numerous reasons a group of protesters has occupied a segment of the Hiawatha Corridor in an effort to stop the reroute of the roadway into undeveloped parkland alongside the Mississippi Riverway. We have followed the progress of this protest movement by studying, clipping and filing the avalanche of newspaper articles and editorials, but we have not become personally involved with the movement.
On December 20, 1998, a squadron of 802 law enforcement personnel raided the protesters' encampment, arresting a mere 38 people (only seven of whom were ever charged with a crime). The protesters alleged police brutality. Of the seven charged, three people reached plea agreements and two cases were dismissed. The remaining two cases went before Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich, who dismissed them, calling some police conduct in the December raid "outrageous." Judge Aldrich wrote: "For the Court to turn a blind eye at the point of prosecution to the defendants' pain would render our system no better than that of countries we criticize for state-sanctioned torture." "It would be unconscionable to add a criminal trial to the pain these defendants have suffered on the street," the judge wrote.
One of those arrested was 72-year old Richard Bancroft, a journalist who was wearing a press pass. The police confiscated his camera equipment and later returned it without the film which he had shot of the raid. Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner Charles Weaver said authorities should not have destroyed the film in Bancroft's camera.
This was the largest law enforcement raid in our state's history, costing almost $400,000. The Minnesota Legislature has refused to fund the raid's exorbitant cost because "they viewed the raid as overkill." The continuing cost of police presence is $50,000 a day. Meanwhile, law enforcement personnel were issued awards of merit for their part in the raid!
We personally are weary of living in a police state, and so are our neighbors. Hiawatha Avenue is under armed guard at all times; when we buy cat food at our local pet store, we are watched by law enforcement personnel. We have now completely discontinued driving on Hiawatha, as we cannot stand the sight of the parkland's destruction and the armed guards posted to enforce it.
The final straw that drew us back into the Hiawatha Avenue fray was a January 9, 1999 Star Tribune editorial authored by Bob McFarlin (MnDOT's then-director of public affairs) in which he states:
The very best the community can do is study all the potential impacts thoroughly, factually and within the law, and then exercise informed leadership for the good of all. The Hiawatha Corridor Project is a shining, successful example of this type of community consensus.
Following this editorial, MnDOT's public relations machine stepped up its campaign to convince the public that the Highway 55 Reroute was a "community project." Laura actually heard a MnDOT spokesperson state on Minnesota Public Radio that "this is not a MnDOT project; it's a community project." We started thinking back to the early 1990s and the overwhelming public opposition to the Lake Street/Hiawatha Avenue Grade Separation Project, and we wondered what MnDOT based these remarks on. So we began to review the public record on the Hiawatha Project.
III. THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRAUDULENTLY MISREPRESENTED THE RECORD OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE LAKE STREET/HIAWATHA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT.
On August 25, 1993, the Minnesota Department of Transportation requested a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the Federal Highway Administration pertaining to the Hiawatha Avenue Corridor Project, indicating that the Grade Separation Project change would not require an EIS. On September 10, 1993, the FHA issued an Administrative Action: Finding of No Significant Impact. This document states:
The FHWA has determined that the project change will not have any significant impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the attached Environmental Assessment, Public Hearing Record, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions document all of which have been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project change and appropriate mitigation measures. They provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that a supplemental environmental impact statement is not required through this reevaluation process. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the attached environmental assessment and the other aforementioned documents.
Unfortunately, the Federal Highway Administration did not know it had been deceived by the documents MnDOT filed in support of its request for FONSI.
A. Oral Comments. MnDOT's Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Proposed Reconstruction of Hiawatha Avenue at Lake Street (Section B, No. 3, page 2) states that:
An informal Location/Design Public Hearing and Open House was held on Thursday, May 27, 1993 in South High School from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. The opportunity to submit written or recorded oral comments was made available to each person that attended the open house/public hearing. MnDOT accepted written comments through June 9, 1993.
(emphasis added)The Findings go on to state that only eight written comments were received into the record: six from state and regional agencies and two from citizens. Reading these Findings was a big surprise to us! We attended the May 27, 1993 public hearing. Although we arrived on time, the auditorium was packed and we had to sit way up in the back. The public had plenty to say about the proposed bridge over Lake Street (including the LRT proposal), and a great many speakers were opposed. The overriding nature of the public's comments can be summarized by the remarks of a fellow who sat near us: "If it looks like a freeway and acts like a freeway, it is a freeway!"
The public participants felt that MnDOT was trying to push a freeway-style roadway through our neighborhoods and they did not want it! The public spoke and asked substantive questions about the proposal for hours (including the impacts of light rail transit, as discussed previously). Where is MnDOT's record of the oral comments and questions from this hearing? Where are MnDOT's responses to the substantive issues raised? A court reporter was assigned to this hearing. Her transcript indicates that the hearing commenced at 6:00 p.m. and ended at 9:00 p.m. However, the transcript only includes closed room statements taken from two people. MnDOT's Project Manager, Evan Green, claims that there is no transcript of the oral portion of that hearing, except for the closed room statements. Why would MnDOT not have all of the public's statements recorded? Didn't MnDOT plan to respond to the public participants' remarks and questions which MnDOT held a public hearing to receive? Why not?
This is just one problem with the May 27, 1993 public hearing record.
B. Written Comments. Most citizens at the public hearing did not use a "closed room session" to submit their comments into the record. Why? Because MnDOT conveniently provided a "Written Statement" form which it invited the public to use to submit a comment into the official record. [Attachment 2] We observed many citizens writing out comment cards and placing them into the "marked comment boxes located in the auditorium." In addition, we ourselves both placed a written comment into the comment box. Yet, when we obtained and reviewed MnDOT's official record of this public hearing, it did not include any of these comment cards or MnDOT's responses to the issues raised. John has exhaustively questioned MnDOT concerning the whereabouts of the written comments received from the public and MnDOT's responses thereto. Evan Green, Project Manager, claims that MnDOT has no record of the comments received. And yet, MnDOT's 8/12/93 Office Memorandum - Request for FONSI - declares that Written Comments/Letters and Responses are included in the public hearing transcript document. [Attachment 3] Also, the Notice of Public Hearing published in the Star Tribune on 4/26/93 and 5/18/93 indicates that "All oral and written statements will be made part of the official hearing record." This simply was not done!
John asked MnDOT to produce the comment record on many occasions, and he got the runaround every time. Finally, he sent a formal information request by certified mail. [Attachment 4] To date, MnDOT has not provided the requested information, nor has it provided an explanation for its failure to include written comments in the official record or respond to the issues raised in those comments.
MnDOT now asserts that it considered all comments when evaluating this project. It is obvious that MnDOT did consider the public comments: the comments were apparently considered fatal to the project, so they were discarded!
C. Public Attendance List. Attached to the public hearing transcript document is a Public Hearing Attendance List, which contains 20 names. [Attachment 5] However, there were hundreds of citizens in attendance at the May 27th hearing. Where is the rest of the attendance record?
D. Comments Which Were Included in Record But Not Addressed. One of the public comments that is acknowledged in the record is a May 6, 1992 letter from Anthony Vavoulis [Attachment 6]. In the letter, he brings up four important issues:
1. Why build a bridge when an at-grade alternative "according to the experts moves traffic just as well?"
2. Why build a bridge when an at-grade alternative costs $7-9 million less?
3. Why build a bridge when an at-grade alternative "provides for the possibilities of commercial development near the intersection strengthening the Lake Street Corridor . . .?"
4. Why build a bridge when an at-grade alternative "does not create a visual or psychological barrier along Lake Street?"
These and other substantive issues were raised repeatedly in the process by other citizen participants, yet none were discussed or responded to in the record of this matter.
E. Cost. The handout for the public hearing declares that "The grade-separated alternative would cost approximately $1.5 million less than the at-grade alternative." [Attachment 7] We believe this statement is false and was included to induce the public to support the project.
F. Resident Survey is False. The City of Minneapolis conducted a public meeting on April 13, 1992-more than one year prior to MnDOT's public hearing. At and prior to this meeting, a survey form was distributed to the public to solicit the citizens' preference for construction of the Lake Street/Hiawatha intersection. The public was encouraged to vote for the grade separated alternative. We were told that the at-grade alternative would be more costly, would take more time to construct, and would be unable to handle future traffic volumes.
A careful review of the survey documents reveals that the results were manipulated.
The survey ballot [Attachment 8] includes three preference choices: "Lake and Hiawatha at grade," "Hiawatha over Lake," and "Hiawatha under Lake," but the survey results show only two choices. Exhibit E is a vote-by-vote listing compiled as follows:
[Public Meeting Votes]
[Public Meeting Votes]
[ Mail in Vote]
[ Mail in Vote]Meeting Vote for
OVER LAKEThe only clue in the survey list that anyone voted for Hiawatha Over Lake is contained in the headers and footers of the pages, not in the document headings. Oddly, the mapped results do not even mention the Lake Over Hiawatha alternative.
Even if we assume the headings for "Lake Over Hiawatha" were incorrectly typed, we are still left with the question of the missing results for that option. Remember, three options are included on the ballot [Attachment 8], but only two show up in the results. What happened to the votes for the third alternative?
The other problem we find is that Laura's vote (cast for the at-grade alternative) is not shown anywhere in the survey lists. Why is this vote excluded? How many other votes for the at-grade alternative were discarded? A study of the mapped results reveals an extremely heavy ballot response in neighborhoods far south of the intersection in question, yet sparse ballot response in the neighborhoods close to the intersection (and most affected by its design). How can this be explained? Were ballots personally solicited door-to-door in neighborhoods far from the intersection but only sent by mail in neighborhoods close to the intersection? Can we be confident that ballots were, indeed, furnished to all blocks in all neighborhoods shown on the mapped survey results? We hereby challenge the survey methodology and its results.
One manipulative tactic used to encourage the public to support the project was a promise that the roadway would finally be constructed in the shortest possible time if the separated grade alternative were selected. Many citizens at the various public meetings and hearings stated that they just wanted the roadway completed, and if the overpass would make it happen sooner, then "just get it done." The irony is that the Lake Street intersection is still not done, even though MnDOT's Notice of Public Hearing [Attachment 1] indicates a completion date of 1997.
* * * * *
When John complained to our City Council Member Kathy Thurber that our written comments and Laura's survey ballot were missing from the official public record, she retorted that John just wanted to see his name in print. She is absolutely correct in this assumption! When two neighborhood residents spend countless hours attending meetings and hearings, reviewing documents, signing attendance sheets, writing comments and testifying orally in an attempt to participate in a public process (as citizens are continually encouraged to do by our public officials), yes, we DO want to see our names in print to know that our participation was counted. In this case, our participation (as well as that of a great number of other citizens) was discarded and ignored.
The final insult in this matter was Council Member Kathy Thurber, State Senator Carol Flynn's assistant, Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton's assistant, and MnDOT's Kent Banard and Judy Melander now saying that an at-grade intersection at Lake Street/Hiawatha Avenue never would have worked. Really?!? If this is true, why were there public hearings, citizen surveys and neighborhood meetings conducted with the pretense of a choice?
None of our representatives has been able to answer this question or tell us why our written comments and Laura's ballot do not appear in the official public record.
IV. CONCLUSION
Two of the Federal Transit Administration's documents: "Grants Management Workbook" and "Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-making" state very clearly that public participation is essential for project compliance. These documents do not instruct officials to circumvent and falsify the results of federal public participation requirements!
Based on the many improprieties contained in the public hearing process as outlined above, we hereby request that the FTA not grant any federal funds for light rail transit or any other roadway construction along the Hiawatha Avenue Corridor. We are certain that other projects competing for federal dollars are more worthy of funding. We also request a formal investigation into the allegations we have outlined in this letter.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter and of the critical issues we have raised.
Sincerely,
Laura A. Reinhardt
John C. Reinhardt
cc:Governor Jesse Ventura
U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone
U.S. Senator Rod Grams
U.S. Representative Martin Sabo
State Senator Carol Flynn
State Representative Lee Greenfield
William R. Sierks, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Compliance Division
Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin
Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton
Minneapolis City Council Member Kathy Thurber