Frequently Asked Questions

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

a.) The Green Line runs parallel to I-94, and thus a new light rail line would be redundant; and

b.) The project corridor is too short to support a commuter rail line.

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

The Green Line already connects the downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul, but it is only light rail; it runs almost entirely at-grade, makes lots of stops, and has very little signal priority causing long dwell times at intersections. Getting from one downtown to the other can take up to an hour. The same trip by car can be done in under twenty minutes.

The Green Line is not adequate for end-to-end trips; consistent demand for the 94 express bus demonstrates this. Light rail works best for shorter trips, either to nearby destinations or feeding into faster, higher capacity transit modes. 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 "through-running" service at both stations. When more regional and intercity rail lines are opened in the future, it will be vital to maximize the capacity and passenger throughput of our downtown stations without forcing trains to stub-end and reverse.

Buses are incredibly useful; they are the backbone 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. Bus infrastructure is attractive because it's cheap to build and cost-effective. Because of this, it's often sold as a solution that's "basically as good" as rail. But it's not a silver bullet.

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

Trains represent a higher level of service — not unlike an upgraded, high-capacity roadway — which translates into speed, comfort, and convenience. This ultimately induces more mode 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 considerably more people, and they are a more attractive alternative to those who have the option to drive. Simply put, vehicle owners are more likely to ride a train than a bus. Substantiative data shows that transit-oriented development is much more effective when rail is built into a corridor. This is evident in the Twin Cities; our light rail corridors see far greater degree of development and economic growth than our rapid bus corridors.

Buses are also 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. Not to mention, buses need more operators and vehicles to move the same number of people as a train.

And, speaking to the intangible 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 that this simple psychology impacts the number of choice riders on a given transit system.

All other externalities aside, a rail corridor offers Minnesotas 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 make cumbersome transfers. This is especially valuable for 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.

Traditionally, North American cities have built commuter rail systems catered to suburban residents who work in large population centers. This has resulted in "hub-and-spoke" planning that forces suburban rail lines to terminate in a city's downtown, usually at a stub-end station. The expectation is that most, if not all, trips are either "into the city" or "out of the city".

Per the Minnesota Department of Transportation:
"Commuter rail is a passenger train service that connects an urban region together over moderate distances; which typically operates on existing freight tracks; and whose primary clientele travels between home and work. These trip-to-work services usually offer concentrated frequencies primarily during rush hour, with suburban station spacing typically every five miles. Commuter rail service may be either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled, and is characterized by reduced fair multitrip tickets, specific station-to-station fares, and usually only one or two stations in the central business district. Average speeds are 18 to 55 mph. The Northstar rail line from Big Lake to Minneapolis is the first example of commuter rail in Minnesota."

However, commutes make up only a small percentage of all trips, and following a transportation paradigm that focuses exclusively on this use case is not prudent — especially in light of the pandemic and how it affected where people live and work. Regional rail is better suited to the needs of urban and suburban travellers. True regional networks are polycentric, and as such, more versatile and robust. They accommodate the needs of everyone — people making trips within a city, outside of it, and everything in between — at all times of day.

Regional rail goes by many names depending on where you live. In the French-speaking world, you'll hear of the RER — or Réseau Express Régional. In most Germanic countries, the equivalent is the Stadtschnellbahn, or S-bahn ("city rapid railway"). It functions as a hybrid rail system serving suburban and urban communities alike.

In cities like Berlin or Frankfurt, the largest 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. Just look to Copenhagen's S-tog, Sydney's S-trains, and even some examples closer to home, like the Bay Area's Caltrain modernization; the GO expansion in the Greater Toronto Area; and Philadelphia's transformative Center City tunnel which allowed the first through-running commuter rail service in North America. 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 case studies, because only by doing so can we build a truly world-class and future-proof network. Check out our retired S-Bahn Sunday series on Twitter where we shared examples of how regional rail projects have impacted cities all over the world.

By now, it should be no surprise that we love to talk about S-bahns. So let's compare our region to equivalent cities in Germany that have multimodal transit networks.

In 2020, Minneapolis had a population density of 3074 people per square kilometer. St. Paul recorded 2313 people per square kilometer. If the two cities were in Germany, Minneapolis would be the 3rd-densest in the country, and St. Paul 17th.

But that's just urban population. Let's compare the density of full metropolitan areas.

Minneapolis-St. Paul
- Metropolitan Density: 176 / km²
- Regional rail lines: 1 (64 km)

Nuremberg
- Metropolitan Density: 170 / km²
- Regional rail lines: 6 (320 km)

Hamburg
- Metropolitan Density: 192 / km²
- Regional rail lines: 4 (147 km)

Hanover
- Metropolitan Density: 210 / km²
- Regional rail lines: 8 (385 km)

If a region less dense than the Twin Cities metro area can have a transit network like this, then so can we.

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.