Copyright © 1999 NLThomas
All Rights Reserved

January 4, 1999

Editorial Department
Star Tribune
425 Portland Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488

Dear Editor:

The courts have ruled that the time period has expired for a legal challenge to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the re-routing of Highway 55 through Minnehaha Park. It seems to me that the courts have gotten it exactly backwards--or if the court decision is legally correct then the law is backwards.

What I mean is this. Scientific information concerning the environment has developed rapidly over the last couple of decades. We know much today that we did not know when the EIS was written. So, if a long period of time has elapsed since the EIS was written, then it is probable that the EIS is out of date. The statute of limitations should apply to the validity of the EIS itself, not to legal challenges to its validity.

An example will illustrate the point. At the time the EIS was written very little scientific data were available concerning the amounts of toxic air pollutants in our air. In the last few years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have been monitoring and modeling toxic air pollutants in the metro area. They have found that levels of benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, diesel particles, and several other toxic and carcinogenic compounds are well above health risk benchmark values. In fact, the cancer risk from these toxic air pollutants is shockingly high, even to air quality professionals. The main sources of many of the pollutants with elevated concentrations are cars and trucks. For documentation of these pollutant levels see:

1) Woodruff et al., Public Health Implications of 1990 Air Toxics Concentrations Across the United States, Environmental Health Perspectives 106:245-251, May, 1998.
2) McCourtney et al., Model-Predicted Concentrations of Toxic Air Pollutants in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area, Air and Waste Management Association Paper No. 98-TPB.12P, May, 1998.
3) Unpublished monitoring data collected by the MPCA.
   a) http://www.epa.gov/CumulativeExposure/
   b) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/at-cep.html

The Highway 55 EIS is seriously out of date because it does not consider the cumulative effects of pollution from the traffic expected in the new corridor in addition to the excessive pre-existing toxic pollutant levels. The courts have recently chided the MPCA for not considering cumulative and background pollution levels in the Kondirator and Hancock Pro Pork cases. It is ironic that in the Highway 55 case, the court should prevent such concerns from being heard.

The Department of Transportation has tried to scare local officials and the public with the myth that light rail will be endangered if the Highway 55 project doesn't go forward as they want. It seems that local officials and now the Star Tribune (10/30/98 and 11/22/98 editorials) have swallowed this line. But it is a myth and the product of a "traffic planner" mentality that puts the automobile above every other consideration. Before the streetcar lines were demolished to make way for the automobile, most lines were in city streets. Many other cities (e.g., Portland, Dallas, Baltimore and others) run light rail lines on the same roadways with cars.

Too long have we given lip service to stopping urban sprawl and reducing reliance on the automobile. We cannot simultaneously built more new big highways and at the same time halt sprawl and reduce automobile use. It is time to take a stand, and I applaud the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota and Earth First! for courageously putting their lives on the line.

Our city needs to preserve its green space, not convert it to pollution-generating highways. It will be a travesty not easily forgiven by our children if decisionmakers allow the Highway 55 project to go ah> ead in its present anti-environmental format. As Aldo Leopold noted: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends other> wise." Clearly, the Highway 55 reroute is wrong. Let us put light rail in place (comingled with Highway 55 traffic for a short portion of the route if necessary), and find a better way to accommodate automobiles than building a major highway through a pearl in our park system.

Sincerely,

Gregory C. Pratt, Ph.D.
Minneapolis, MN 55406