Frequently Asked Questions

Despite years of public engagement and feedback, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ruled out every form of rail transportation from the project. The reasons given were that:

a.) The Green Line runs parallel to the I-94 corridor, and thus new ridership would not be generated; and

b.) The corridor is ill-suited to "commuter rail" owing to the fact that commuter stations are typically "more than ten miles apart".

These are the only two types of rail transit acknowledged by MnDOT outside of Amtrak-operated intercity service.

Though the Green Line already connects the downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul, it is only light rail; it runs at-grade, often slowly, and with very little signal priority such that the full trip can take up to an hour. The Green Line is not adequate on its own; consistent demand for the 94 express bus demonstrates this. LRT is a low-speed, low-capacity transit mode by design, meaning it works best for shorter trips, either to nearby destinations or feeding into other forms of rapid transit. That's where heavy rail comes in.

Aside from reducing the downtown-to-downtown trip time, a corridor such as this would properly link the platforms of Target Field and Union Depot, allowing regional and intercity trains to through-run along I-94 and access both stations.

MnDOT was quick to apply a blanket definition of "commuter rail" when vetoing all possible rail options. It is true that, with conventional commuter rail, suburban stations are often far apart, and those distances are not attainable in this segment of I-94. Yet this rationale ignores the many types of regional rail, a far more flexible model that predates commuter rail and exists all over the world.

Traditionally, North American cities have built commuter rail systems emphasizing demand for suburban residents who work in large population centers. However, commutes make up only a small percentage of total trips, so regional rail is better suited to the needs of urban and suburban travellers. Whereas commuter rail lines typically converge on one point (that being the downtown of a large city), regional rail networks are polycentric, and as such, more versatile and robust.

Contrary to typical commuter rail lines, like the Northstar here in Minnesota, it is not uncommon for regional networks to contain several stations in close proximity, usually near a city center. This allows suburban trains to pass through one or more nearby downtowns rather than terminate at a central station.

Buses are incredibly useful; they define the bones of every city's transit network. Local buses account for almost all short trips, and bus rapid transit can provide a competitive alternative at longer distances. Buses are attractive because they're cheap, or more accurately, cost-effective. But they are not a silver bullet.

Generally speaking, major corridors are best served by rail. At greater distances, and when considering regional and intercity integration, trains offer a number of advantages over buses.

They represent a higher level of service — not unlike an upgraded, high-capacity roadway — which translates into speed, comfort, and convenience. This ultimately induces more modal shifts than an equivalent bus service could hope to achieve.

While rail infrastructure presents a heftier upfront cost, its economic return far outweighs that of a busway. Trains can carry significantly more people, and they are more attractive to those looking to replace a car trip or two. Substantiative data shows that the benefits gleaned from transit-oriented development are far more pronounced when rail is built into a major corridor.

Buses are less efficient. Even electric models. Modern trains benefit from offboard power generation which, coupled with a lack of rolling resistance in the wheels, results in less energy waste and reduced emissions. Buses also require more frequent and complex maintenance, leading to higher operating costs in the long term.

And, speaking to the psychological aspects, rail appears more "fixed" than an ex post facto bus service, giving an impression of dependability and permanence. This may seem subjective or speculative, but research has shown simple psychology to impact the number of choice riders on a given transit system.

On top of all other externalities, a rail corridor offers Twin Cities residents something an express bus never could: A one-seat ride from city to city; from suburb to suburb; from region to region. Commuters from any part of the metro served by a rail line could board a train and get off in either downtown (or somewhere in between) without having to transfer to a bus. This is especially valuable to passengers with bikes, visitors with luggage, or families travelling with small children and strollers.

Simplicity. Convenience. Comfort. Reliability. That's how you get people out of their cars and onto your transit.

As the name suggests, the S-bahn first came about in Germany; specifically, in Berlin. It functions as a hybrid rail system serving suburban and urban communities alike. The stations are decentralized, allowing regional trains to interline along a major spine. The central station, or Hauptbahnhof, is complemented by nearby stations which form the trunk of a larger network. The S-bahn has proven to be a flexible solution with near-universal applications, and cities around the world have adapted it to their metro areas. This is evident in Copenhagen's S-tog, Sydney's S-trains, and even some examples closer to home, like the Bay Area's Caltrain modernization and the Metrolinx GO Expansion in the Greater Toronto Area. Given that our metro area is centered around two downtowns, Rethinking I-94 is the perfect opportunity to build a Twin Cities S-Bahn.

Our organization believes it is crucial to learn from these international case studies, because only by doing so can we build a truly world-class and future-proof network. Check out our retured S-Bahn Sunday Twitter threads where we shared examples of how regional rail projects have impacted cities all over the world.

MnDOT has released a list of project alternatives for Rethinking I-94. This includes a complete removal of the freeway, a lane reconfiguration, and two at-grade roadway options above the freeway trench. While a rail corridor does not depend on a complete removal of the freeway, it is contingent upon a lane reduction to create space in the median. Outside of this, any number of proposals, from the Rondo land bridge to the Twin Cities Boulevard, could exist in tandem with a sunken rail corridor.