Hopefully UP will come down from their $3.9 million asking price for the ex-Minneapolis & St Louis mainline to Merriam Junction. I have contacted UPs Minnesota representative several times asking UP to reconsider the offer by Scott and Carver counties for $1.9 million for the corridor. The entire line could be re-developed as part of the SW LRT trail that ends at the Chan/Chaska border at old 212 and extended from that point to downtown Chaska and downtown Carver by building a new bridge over old 212 and then following the former Right-Of-Way past Gedney, Super America and hooking up with the corridor at Zemble Street. The East Creek bridge on Chaska Blvd even has a pedestrian crossing on the south side which could serve as a trail crossing over East Creek. There are hundreds of trail users each weekend in the summer who turn around at Bluff Creek rather than continue on to Chaska and Carver. If the county can get the line from UP, the corridor could be used as a significant re-development tool for both downtowns allowing trail users direct access to both towns. As for the line itself, the only salvagable physical plant for the railroad is the 55 year old rail that is in place along the line and the crossing lights at Chestnut and Walnut. Perhaps UP could salvage the ballast, too, but the ties are worthless and worn well beyond their usefulness. The rest of the line is rugged and remote land that has almost no tangible value to UP which is why UP should reconsider the gift price of $1.9 million from the counties.

I agree the line would make a great trail corridor or future Light/Commuter Rail option, but then on the flipside are many questions.

My concerns though are what are all of the financial (Tax) implications of purchasing and ownership of this rail corridor?

1) The initial purchase would just be the beginning of the financial need/requirements for owning this corridor.

2) Start by adding the cost to design and construct the necessities to change it to a Trail.

3) Next, begin adding the annual costs of property & liability insurance. Consider in this the Logjams every few years when the Minnesota River rises and/or Floods. The potential of this old structure in the shifting river bed and potential of a collapse due to Mother Nature.

4) As we keep going, we start adding maintenance costs of whatever improvements we do to the trail and to maintain the bridge. Otherwise the costs to remove and potentially replacing the old Bridge and Piers thus were eliminating the risk and liability of owning an old bridge. The replacement could be designed to greatly reduce the severity and frequency of logjams and flood damage.

I would like to see some of these thoughts considered and a report to the Public/Taxpayers with these costs estimated covering all options and liabilities. Secondly with a report in hand, we could then have a Public hearing to discuss potential options prior to any purchase commitments and let the Taxpayers decide if we want to take on the potential Liability and Tax Burden of these costs.