A Midtown Greenway Light Rail Is Still a Good Idea

By most metrics, the Midtown Greenway bike trail has been a huge success. It is used for over a million rides every year, and has generated more than $750 million in both private and public investment along the Greenway. This investment can be seen in all of the housing that has been added along the Greenway, especially in the Uptown area, with several new apartment buildings completed in recent years. 

Even with its great success, a question remains: The Greenway was a train line. Could it be used for rail transportation once again? This prospect has sparked periodic discussion of a Midtown Greenway streetcar. Metro Transit released a report in 2014, Streets.mn came back to the idea in 2021, and the Midtown Greenway Coalition still has a page up on its website. 

The Midtown Greenway Streetcar concept is even slated for future study in the Metropolitan Council’s 2050 Transportation Plan, though no plans are currently in the works. Despite this, the potential is clearly there. The Midtown Greenway corridor already has a great bike network, borders one of the busiest streets in Minneapolis, and has the potential to attract a lot of ridership if rail-based transit ever gets implemented. 

Why Rail Makes Sense for the Midtown Greenway

A Midtown Greenway light rail has tremendous potential if it were ever implemented. Given proper right of way and two tracks along the entire corridor, light rail would enhance both transportation and development opportunities. Streetcars have less capacity than light rail trains, are often run on shorter routes and include more stops. These factors slow down trips. Along the Midtown Greenway, it should be a three-car light rail, similar to both the Green and Blue lines.

Light rail creates more investment and has higher general ridership when compared with bus rapid transit. Light rail line is a more permanent investment by the city; it is expensive, and rail lines are hard to move. This helps users to trust that the line will be there and won’t be rerouted anytime soon. Developers, likewise, become more willing to invest in areas with rail lines as opposed to buses, as they are more confident their investments will pay off. 

Perhaps most importantly, people are generally more willing to ride a train than a bus. There’s a stigma in the United States that buses are only for people who can’t afford a car, but this stereotype seems to pertain less to the light rail. People of all income levels are more willing to ride a light rail system than they are a bus. A University of North Carolina-Charlotte study found that “bus riders are more likely to be low-income (34%) and minority (68%) than light rail riders (15% and 49%, respectively), according to CATS statistics from a 2017 study.” 

A future light rail does not mean that the forthcoming B Line BRT should be decommissioned in the future. Instead both the B Line and the Greenway light rail will be to handle the enhanced traffic requirements of the corridor. The B Line would be able to serve its planned route, and the new light rail line would serve a new route, meeting at the Greenway/Lake Street corridor to provide additional service, as well as to foster transfer points and more route options for people who travel along Lake Street. Rather than competing with each other, they will complement each other and boost overall ridership in the system. 

An additional reason to have light rail in the Midtown Greenway is the opportunity to have a light rail line that does not go through Downtown Minneapolis. Currently, both of our light rail lines have their end points in Downtown Minneapolis, though those stations will serve as waypoints after the respective Green and Blue Line extensions open. Downtown-running lines work well, but transit users make a significant number of trips that go to destinations other than downtown; the Lake Street corridor is one of the best examples of this. By having a non-downtown line, our light rail system can serve more trips. 

Having a non-downtown light rail line also increases the resiliency of the system. Transit systems with all routes terminating in downtown rely on the performance of said downtown, and if the downtown has troubles the system can suffer. This is shown in the success of the 2 line in Toronto, a subway that does not traverse the downtown but still has the second highest level of ridership on the entire system. The Midtown Greenway would likely have similar success as the appetite for transit has already been proven with Route 21, one of Metro Transit’s busiest, and the 21’s coming upgrade to bus rapid transit standards. 

Some proposals call for the light rail line to operate only on the greenway itself, but this misses the opportunity to integrate the line within a larger network. Yes, running the line only along the 5.5-mile Midtown Greenway would make for a cheaper and quicker installation, but it misses the potential to connect areas to rail that are currently not connected. 

As currently planned, the B Line bus will run from France Ave to Downtown St. Paul. The Midtown Greenway line has the opportunity to cover different areas, allowing riders to use the light rail line and transfer to the BRT line or vice versa. Similar to how the Blue and Green line have duplicate service in Downtown Minneapolis but serve different areas once they branch off, a Midtown Greenway Light Rail and the B Line have the chance to do the same thing.  

Additionally, the Lake Street corridor is already one of the busiest in Minneapolis, and the 21 increased ridership by 27% from 2022 to 2023. Ridership is likely to continue to increase, and having two high-capacity lines will be able to handle an increased number of riders. 

Let’s examine the Midtown Greenway itself and the benefits of a light rail along it. The Midtown Greenway Corridor Report, done in 2014 but still relevant today, roughly aligns with how I would optimally design the light rail.

The majority of the light rail proposal shown in the graphic above is done well. I would remove the I-35W station due to its proximity to Nicollet Avenue as well as potentially the Bde Maka Ska station, named as Calhoun Beach in the picture. These removals would speed up the light rail through this section. Additionally, this entire section should be double-track, to ensure that the trains can move at adequate speed and don’t get stuck waiting for each other to cross a single-track segment.  A three-car light rail ensures that it can provide adequate service throughout the route.

Stations should be designed to enter and pay at the street level with turnstile entry and stairs that lead to the platforms. This ensures that fares will be paid before entering, as well as ensuring safety of the paid fare zone. This contrasts with the image above, which also could be improved by moving the road entry to align with the station platform. There should also be fencing and splitting of the track and the bikeway for both bike safety measures and to allow entry only at the road level, once again ensuring the safety of the paid fare zone. These specific station placements will be widely used and stir up continued investment in the surrounding area, which would benefit from increased access to fast transit. 

Going Beyond the Greenway

A light rail has the chance to serve the most people and provide the greatest access to transit if it is expanded beyond the Greenway. This also decreases duplication with the B Line and instead makes them transfer zones for two well-used lines that serve different areas and come together at Lake Street. 

On the west end:

Several route options could be feasible, with some better than others. The first would continue on Lake Street and travel down Highway 7.

This would place the route in a highway median, meaning Metro Transit would only have to acquire the right of way from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), as opposed to having to acquire it from property owners. This will be easier and cheaper as Metro Transit and MnDOT already work together on many roads with transit projects, and property owners are reluctant to sell their property (often understandably). This could also potentially garner influence to convert it from a highway to a boulevard. Several of the stations would hit shopping points, but others are mainly residential. It would also travel near where the Green Line extension will travel. There is enough distance to where it isn’t overlapping, but I doubt it would be politically feasible to run a second line this close. Overall this is a workable option, but not an optimal one. 

These next two options have been inspired by a post from Alex Schieferdecker, with the first meeting with the Green Line extension at the Lake Street station and continuing on to the Beltline Boulevard station; from there it will travel up Highway 100 before breaking off and traveling by the Shops at West End in St. Louis Park.

This route intersects with the Green Line, providing transfer opportunities and increasing frequencies at both stations. It has right-of-way like the first option, and also travels through several neighborhoods that have lots of amenities. Specifically near Highway 100 and I-394, there is Costco, the Shops at West End, Cub Foods, as well as several hotels and apartments. Additionally, a host of surface parking lots could be redeveloped into transit-oriented developments, helping to add density to a neighborhood that already has a lot of tall apartment buildings but requires a car to get around conveniently. 

My favorite option would run along both the Lake Street station and Beltline station alongside the Green Line, before turning off and traveling down Highway 100. Eventually, it would turn onto Highway 62 and leave on France Avenue with a station by the Southdale Medical Center as well as a connection to Southdale itself. 

This is the extension that would connect to the most points of interest out of the three options I have laid out here. The 36th Street station is next to a Target, Lunds & Byerlys and several apartment buildings. Excelsior Boulevard has several businesses to attract ridership, as does Vernon Avenue. But the main attraction is connecting the system to the Southdale Medical Center and the Southdale mall. These are both popular destinations, and connecting them to the transit system will give people an easier way to get to and from both. 

This route option would better connect a hospital system for patients and workers, relieving the latter from needing a car to get to work. It would also connect a second mall to the transit system, a model that has already been proven successful with the Mall of America. Southdale Center — the first shopping mall in the nation — continues to reinvent itself and could do so again by giving its customers an option to leave their cars at home, freeing up an immense amount of parking for other uses. This route also has spaced out stations, allowing the trip to be relatively quick. 

On the east end:

The east end’s routing is trickier than the west ends, and as I am not an engineer I am perhaps a little naive on the workings of some of these options. Despite this, with a little creativity and political will I could see all of them working relatively well.

There have been several calls, as well as an extensive impact study, to extend the Midtown Greenway Bike trail across the river in order to connect it with St. Paul. This would use the abandoned Canadian Pacific Railway bridge (also known as the Short Line Bridge) in order to make the cross. As we’ve reported in Streets.mn, this option would provide access to the Greenway to many more people and neighborhoods. I believe that this retooling of the bridge could potentially include a light rail component as well as a bike and pedestrian trail. 

This route would follow the “Short Line” train line that is currently being used by both Amtrak and Canadian Pacific. Using train trails usually serves to make light rail construction easier and cheaper as right of way does not need to be purchased. The operating route also has fewer interruptions as running a train near train tracks gives it a greater degree of grade separation. Lastly, it has been done before: The current Blue Line runs along a large portion of a previous rail line and the Green Line extension will run along a commercial rail line as well. 

Prior to getting to the trail line, the light rail will have to go underground before the Lake Street Station. This is due to the alignment of the Greenway, which does not allow the Midtown line to connect with the Lake Street station at grade and still be able to turn north. While this will increase the costs at the Lake Street station it will decrease costs over the rest of the line. After the Lake Street station, the line will raise back up to at grade to hit the 26th Street station and begin to travel along the Short Line railroad again. 

Outside of engineering challenges, the route has several advantages:

• It would increase transit access in several dense neighborhoods already prone to using transit, such as Seward, Prospect Park, Merriam Park and along Downtown St. Paul.
• It would provide for increased transit-oriented development near the Snelling Station and bring light rail toward the western part of St. Paul.
• I have the line ending in Union Station, and that would give increased use and opportunity for Union Station to develop as a retail space while adding a second light rail line to serve — and incentivize development — in Downtown St. Paul. 

I see this as the most likely option of the three. It is relatively simple and serves dense areas of the city. True, the Green Line runs close to part of this alignment but only in a few areas, and this offers the chance to develop truly transit-oriented neighborhoods where both stations are within close proximity. 

This second alignment is a response to the Riverview Corridor streetcar no longer being built. Despite that decision, this area still deserves quality transit. This alternative would use the Midtown Greenway light rail and veer off after the VA Medical Center station; from there it would pass Fort Snelling, before aligning with Shepard Road and finally using the right of way that the Canadian Pacific Rail has. 

In addition to the advantages of using railroad rights-of-way for light rail projects, this alignment could spur back interest in building a Riverview Corridor light rail that goes from Union Depot to the Airport, as part of the route would already be built. These two transit lines, the Midtown Greenway and the new hypothetical Riverview corridor line, would provide excellent frequency along the routes where they run together, and bring lots of investment in the area. St. Paul needs this investment sorely, and it would help to boost the city’s finances and tax base. 

This option wouldn’t require construction along the Blue Line, greatly reducing the cost of the entire Midtown Greenway light rail project. More importantly, it would serve to increase frequencies along the portion of the Blue Line and Riverview line that it runs along. High frequencies are essential in increasing transit ridership and trust in transit in general. Assuming all lines run on the same frequency, this doubles the frequency at which someone can get from Highland Park to Downtown St. Paul, which will make them more likely to use transit to take the trip; the same would go for someone traveling from Lake Street to Minnehaha Park, for example. 

This option has challenges, too. The design is inherently U-shaped and indirect, meaning someone traveling from the West Lake Street station to Downtown St. Paul would be better off getting off at the East Lake Street station and using the B Line instead. Additionally, the areas that receive double the frequency need to be able to handle double the frequency, which could result in some engineering challenges. Given the controversy around the Riverview Corridor streetcar, attempting to bring light rail to that route could halt any development of the Midtown Greenway at all. Lastly, this alignment would be relatively long, offering more opportunities to get delayed. 

This final alignment I have included is likely unrealistic, but has potential nonetheless. Similar to the first, it would begin to run underground to connect at Lake Street. From there it would make stops at 26th Street and Franklin Avenue, making two stops in Stadium Village before terminating in Dinkytown. All of these stations would be best as underground stations and would be the biggest underground transit project in Minneapolis. 

This alignment would connect several densely populated areas and give University of Minnesota students greater transit access to south Minneapolis and vice versa. Gopher fans would get more options for games. U of M students would benefit the most from increased access to the rest of the city and an easy train ride from Dinkytown back to the Stadium Village apartments. The Stadium Village station would also serve as a connection point between the Midtown Greenway line and the Green Line. 

This would be the costliest option despite it including the fewest number of stations due to the line being underground. It would serve dense areas, which is its redeeming factor, but these areas are already reasonably well served by transit. I included this option primarily to demonstrate that we can be imaginative with this line.

Using the Greenway While We Wait

The southern half of the Greenway is currently sitting empty, waiting on the streetcar/light rail project that is listed in future investments of the Metropolitan Council’s 2050 Transportation Policy Plan. Cole Hiniker, a senior manager of multimodal transportation planning at the Met Council, says that the Met Council, the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County and Metro Transit are still interested in the project and would like to formalize a plan in the future.

In the meantime, the south side of the city’s best bike corridor remains unused and unusable. But it doesn’t take much effort to imagine inexpensive, near-term alternatives. Soren Jensen, director of the Midtown Greenway Coalition, asks: “If you look at the SWLRT extension, which hasn’t been shut down with its multiple issues, why can’t we use the south side of the Greenway for ramps, chairs, community gardens or other uses? Surely those wouldn’t stop a streetcar construction if it were to come 20 years down the road.”

The Metropolitan Council has released little information about its Midtown Greenway corridor plans. As long as we undertake near- and medium-term projects on the site that are cost effective and don’t undermine future transit plans, there’s no reason not to embrace any (or all) of Jensen’s ideas.

Ultimately, if the Met Council picks up this project, it will have design challenges. But those shouldn’t deter them! Of the options I have listed, I believe options 2 and 3 on the West End would be best, and option 1 on the East end would be optimal. Please share your own ideas for route options, particularly for more reasonable ones going east. Respond to this post on the Streets.mn Facebook page with your ideas for the Midtown Greenway.