Met Council prevails in Southwest light rail lawsuit

Judge rules against Lakes and Parks Alliance in ‘close case’

A METRO Green Line light rail train at Target Field Station. The nearly $1.9 billion Southwest Light Rail Transit project would extend the line another 14.5 miles to Eden Prairie. File photo

A federal judge said the Metropolitan Council was walking a legal “tightrope” as it sought local approvals for the Southwest Light Rail Transit project in 2013 and 2014, but it did not violate federal environmental regulations.

In an order filed Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim ruled in favor of the regional planning agency in a lawsuit filed in 2014 by the Lakes and Parks Alliance, a citizens group. The alliance alleged that Met Council short-circuited the federal environmental review process as it sought municipal consent for the nearly $1.9 billion transit project.

Describing it as a “close case,” Tunheim granted Met Council’s request for summary judgment, finding that the regional planning agency did not “irreversibly commit itself to a single alternative” even as it zeroed in on a plan to run light rail trains in tunnels through Minneapolis’ Kenilworth Corridor.

“We are pleased the Court ruled with the Council, putting to an end this drawn-out challenge to the Southwest LRT project, and acknowledging the Council’s efforts to balance federal and state laws,” Met Council Chair Alene Tchourumoff said in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon. “The Council continues to engage residents and businesses as we plan for this project, which will improve mobility and connect people with jobs all across the region.”

Mary Pattock of Lakes and Parks Alliance wrote in an email that she was “extremely disappointed” with the ruling, adding that the group would be considering its options going forward.

In his ruling, Tunheim affirmed that “the proper procedures were followed in the approval of the South Tunnel Plan,” referring to the shallow cut-and-cover tunnel light rail trains will run through where the SWLRT route passes between Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles. The tunnel was a late addition to the project, an alternative chosen to satisfy three parties with a stake in the nearly $1.9-billion transit project: Minneapolis, St. Louis Park and Twin Cities and Western Railroad.

Met Council at one point planned to run light rail trains through the Kenilworth Corridor at-grade. But they faced objections from both Twin Cities and Western Railroad, which operates freight trains in the corridor and wouldn’t agree to a detour, and St. Louis Park, where local elected stood firm against a proposal to reroute TC&W freight traffic through their suburb.

Meanwhile, Minneapolis officials said they would not accept any plan that kept both freight and light-rail trains at-grade in the Kenilworth Corridor. Minneapolis ultimately agreed to the tunnel plan after negotiating a memorandum of understanding with Met Council that secured the city a station at 21st Street in Kenwood and funds for Kenilworth Corridor design upgrades.

In a separate memorandum negotiated with St. Louis Park, Met Council agreed to end the study of any plan to reroute freight trains, except as required for environmental review.

Hennepin County and all five cities along the 14.5-mile SWLRT route — Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie — voted in 2014 to grant the project municipal consent, a step required under state statute. Met Council had already completed a draft environmental impact statement on the project in 2012, so in 2015 the agency completed a supplemental statement that included analysis of the tunnels. After making other cost-saving changes to the project, Met Council then went back to the cities along the route and won another round of municipal consent approvals.

Lakes and Parks Alliance alleged that Met Council acted improperly by completing the state municipal consent process while the federal environmental review was ongoing. In its lawsuit, the group argued that Met Council essentially cut off alternative routing options before getting the full picture of the project’s environmental impact.

Tunheim, however, found Met Council had not “irreversibly and irretrievably” settled on one route.

“The municipal-consent process was, and remains, nonbinding,” Tunheim wrote in his order, citing as evidence the fact that Met Council initiated a second round of municipal consent for SWLRT after changing its plans for Kenilworth Corridor.

Tunheim said the memoranda of understanding negotiated with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Louis Park were also nonbinding — whether or not local elected officials view them as such. In the order, he described them as “promises that can be broken.” He also found the Federal Transit Administration was not bound by the state-governed municipal-consent process when it issued its record of decision on SWLRT, indicating that Met Council had met the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

“All told, these facts show that the Council did not engage in premeditation. Rather, the Council focused, albeit rather intently, on its preferred alternative, the South Tunnel Plan, which it is permitted to do,” Tunheim wrote.

In Tunheim’s view, Met Council was more focused on securing funding for the project and winning municipal consent than advocating for one route option to the exclusion of any other. The agency was more concerned about getting tracks laid than where they would go, and Met Council’s willingness to alter the plan, add a tunnel and go back for a second round of municipal consent showed that was the case, he added.

“To be sure, route predetermination would have helped secure funding and obtain municipal consent,” he wrote. “But the facts indisputably show that the Council prioritized funding and municipal consent over specific routes or alternatives. When faced with financial pressures and the prospect of not obtaining municipal consent, the Council was willing to change the proposed route to advance their funding and municipal-consent goals.”

In her email, Pattock described Tunheim’s contention that Met Council could back out of its memoranda of agreement as “shocking.”

“The council has a sweet legal status — it’s unregulated with a get-out-of-jail card,” she added. “How did that happen?”

Click here to read the judge’s order.

Browse , ,
  • BMWfan

    This billion dollar fiasco will benefit only a small percentage in the metro area.
    Busses are a much better plan for mass transit in a low-density area like the Twin Cities.

  • peacekimi

    Very disappointed. There is no hope of the current CC stopping this environmental armageddon because they do not encompass the knowledge needed to realize the negative implications of the project, with an exception of a few.
    Appeal hopefully coming up next.

  • Nathan Bakken

    A great decision for the expansion of transit in the Twin Cities, we aren’t this sad little place in flyover country anymore. We need rail transit to lure millennials and future generations to our great metro.

  • peacekimi

    The needs to be people where the trains go to be mass transit. Not many riders in an urban forest.
    You are so misinformed on this issue your statement is deafening. Read EIS and get back to us.


    Good riddance to these rich NIMBYs of the Lakes and Parks Alliance. Being against transit investment right now is so backward. The earlier and the more we build the more it will benefit the cities.


    How about you inform yourself on the mechanics of density, sprawl, and urban development?

  • JDO1947

    “Close case!” It’s either against the law or it’s within the law. Must have been a baseball umpire in his earlier life.

  • JDO1947

    I, for one, especially like the bus in the winter. Its sliding and weaving in attempts to navigate. Let’s not forget our joyous feeling when the bus pulls out in front of us in the summer. Ah, the fumes of its exhaust.

  • Timothy Johnson

    Yes! Lets lure all of the millennials to the mcmansions and big box chains of Eden Prarie!
    I am so glad that the Met Council realized that the next generation of workers wants nothing to do with dense, livable, existing communities with vitality and interesting, unique destinations like Eat Street and Uptown! Who needs pho or a night out in Uptown or a walkable dense neighboorhood when I can drive a couple miles to Panera or Applebees and live in my 4500 square foot, carbon belching house and when I have to go to work I can drive to my suburban express train that rewards my poor decision to live 14.5 miles from the city center!
    And, I sure am looking forward to taking the SW LRT thru open areas with no density and rich suburbs while bypassing some of the most transit dependent and well populated areas of the metro!
    New York and Chicago will be so proud! Maybe the tourists will take our new train down to Golden Triangle station and look in awe at the gorgeous Wal-Mart SuperCenter we got down there right next to the tracks!!

  • Brandon Armstrong

    The greater twin cities area is approaching 4 million people, i wouldn’t exactly call that a “low-density area”… that’s more populated than Denver or Seattle

  • BMWfan

    Compared to cities with subways and rail transit that actually makes sense……we are no where near high enough density to make this type of transportation sensible.
    You need to look at actual population density, not total population.
    The Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area population density is just 515 people per square mile. This is the number you have to use if you’re considering mass transportation going to the suburbs.
    Minneapolis by itself is 7600 per sq mi. St. Paul by itself is 5800 people per square mile. New York City is anywhere from 24,000 to 57,000 people per square mile, depending on the part of the city. LA is 23,000 people per square mile. Boston is 13,000. Chicago is almost 12,000 people per square mile.
    Paris is 54,000 people per sq. mile.
    We don’t have the metro wide population density to warrant a train or subway system. We’re too spread out.

  • BMWfan

    The sprawl is already done. How are you going to move everyone from the suburbs to the inner city? Who wants to live in the inner city?
    Most people don’t want to live in a 50 story high-rise. They want some green under their feet.
    You can’t un-do the sprawl. If the city planners wanted subway/light rail, this should have been done in the early 1900s, not 2020.
    The only common sense way of public transportation now is buses. Increase the number of bus routes between where the people want to get on vs. get off and that solves mass transit right there. The bus routes can be moved with population shifts, shopping or working patterns, venues/stadiums added later or torn down. Flexible routes have always made sense after the sprawl has already happened.

  • BMWfan

    Unless you live on a train line, you’re still going to have to drive TO the train station. Why not just get on the bus close to your house and not drive at all?
    With the low population density, most people will have to drive to get close enough to get on a train. You’ve only shifted the traffic patterns, increased your commute time and still have to drive in snow and ice.
    Trains at ground level do not make sense, as they just increase congestion along the route. They don’t go where most people need them to go. Do not make sense in our area.

More in News Transportation