Back 25 years ago when I was doing engineering for the phone company that
is now named Qwest, there were electric and telephone cables in each street
in downtown Minneapolis (and St. Paul and Duluth). With the expansion of
downtown and the multiple telecommunications providers now in the market,
the free spaces in most streets are likely all taken.
A different route may have decreased the cost of utility moves (or could
have increased them) but would not have eliminated the need for utility
moves.
There was no plan to put all the utilities under 5th. In fact, I think back
when I was doing engineering, there were at least as many utilities under
Third Avenue and under 4th Street as under 5th Street.
><sinip>.......
>Again, why was it so necessary to even incur the expenses to move the
>utilities from 5th St.? I agree that utilities do get a benefit from
>locating lines under city streets and also agree that they should pay for
>most moves. However, since there apparently was a plan MANY years ago to
>put all utilities under 5th St., it seems to me that the city long ago
>abdicated their right to change the rules on the surface of that street
>without an extremely good reason. With so many choices of streets in
>downtown, I still can't see why 5th St. had to be chosen.
>
>Nancy Alcorn
>Prospect Park
>
>
>
>_______________________________________
>Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
>Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
>http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
