By Matthew Bruns
As Hennepin County continues to grow and evolve, so must our approach to public transportation. The ongoing debate between Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) deserves a fresh look in our post-COVID world. The time has come to re-evaluate our priorities and recognize that modern BRT is the more adaptable and cost-effective solution that better meets our city’s transit needs.
The last comparison between BRT and LRT in Minnesota was completed over twelve years ago (in 2013) for the initial planning in the Bottineau corridor. At that time, BRT was a new concept for our region. In fact, the first BRT line had yet to be implemented. Consequently, that 2013 analysis was based wholly on projections and assumptions rather than real-world experience.
Fast forward to 2016, the Twin Cities welcomes their first BRT line, the A Line. Since then, we have witnessed firsthand the numerous advantages that BRT offers. Not only has it proven to be a reliable and efficient mode of transportation, but it has also demonstrated its flexibility in serving a wide range of routes and changes in demand at a reasonable cost. Unlike LRT, which requires extensive infrastructure and long-term commitments, BRT can be adapted and expanded with relative ease. This adaptability is crucial in our post-Covid cities where changes in population and shifting demographics necessitate a modern, flexible, and adaptable transit system. LRT is most certainly not any of these.
The Blue Line Extension (BLE) project has undergone several iterations since its inception. Despite being proposed nearly fifteen years ago and the allocation of over $300 million dollars from Hennepin County, the design phase remains incomplete, and any tangible benefits have yet to be realized.
Failure of Blue Line Extension 1.0
The initial plan for the Blue Line Extension, commonly referred to as BLE 1.0, utilized the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Rail corridor. BLE 1.0 proceeded through full municipal consent and over 90% engineering and design, but in 2015 Hennepin County proceeded to purchase land with the sole intention of preventing BNSF and Canadian Pacific Railways from connecting their rail lines. Shortly after this, negotiations with BNSF began to break down and in 2018 it became clear that sharing the BNSF rail corridor was no longer an option.
In 2020, project planners scrapped the previous ten years of BLE planning resulting in a loss of nearly $129 million of Hennepin County taxpayer dollars.
Turn to 2021; in the midst of the Covid pandemic while we were all quarantined at home, the BLE project team began reviewing alternate routes for over eight miles of LRT track. Social distancing and limited in-person events enabled the project team to make decisions and proceed in choosing their preferred project alignment with little community input. Fortunately for us, the pandemic eventually came to an end, but the decisions made during the vacuum of public engagement had been enshrined in the project plan.
Addressing Investment Concerns and Justification
Today, fifteen years since the inception of the initial BLE study, we are still waiting for a final design, and continually see construction delayed – currently until 2027. Plan A (BLE 1.0) failed, plan B (Lyn-Park) failed, and now plan C appears as a desperate attempt to salvage millions of taxpayer dollars and decades of planning LRT instead of BRT; all because of that 2013 LRT vs. BRT study.
Meanwhile, by the end of 2025, Metro Transit will have placed six BRT routes into service with an additional six in the stages of planning. With the projected opening of the Blue Line Extension LRT – anticipated to be 2030 at the earliest – one must wonder if the assumptions in the 2013 LRT vs BRT study and subsequent decisions meet the needs of our communities in today’s world. By the time the Blue Line Extension opens in 2030, we will have invested nearly twenty years and $3.2 billion dollars on an antiquated rigid system of transit. In that time, and for that expense, we could easily have implemented multiple additional flexible BRT routes and already be enjoying the environmental and social benefits. Instead, we continue to wait for transit that eludes us.
Cost-Effectiveness and Financial Prudence
While the controversies surrounding the Metropolitan Council are well known, we must also question Hennepin County’s justification for spending over $300 million taxpayer dollars simply planning a fifteen-year-old project that has yet to complete the design phase nor provide a single benefit. Furthermore, city and state government agencies continue to raise questions about the project’s long-term feasibility and cost-effectiveness. It is essential to carefully evaluate whether continued investment in LRT is the best use of public funds, especially given the proven success and affordability of BRT.
Nationally, BRT costs average between $10 million to $30 million per mile to construct, while LRT can cost upwards of $50 million to $150 million per mile. In the post-COVID world, public transportation systems must be resilient and adaptable to changing patterns of work and travel. With more people working from home and seeking flexible commuting options, BRT’s ability to adjust routes and schedules quickly is an absolute necessity.
The Path Forward
Critics of BRT often argue that it lacks the prestige and permanence of LRT. However, what is best for our state may be quite the opposite, and the prioritization of functionality and practicality over perception should lead to transit decisions that fit our communities. BRT has proven its worth through its performance, adaptability, and its continued investment in Minnesota; its success should not be overshadowed by outdated biases.
Minnesotans and Hennepin County residents simply deserve the best transit, not a desperate attempt to build a transit system based on decades old assumptions. As Hennepin County looks to the future, we must re-evaluate the decisions made in the vacuum of the past. And with the overwhelming success of BRT since that 2013 study, we must re-evaluate the merits of BRT over LRT for the Bottineau corridor.
To Metro Transit, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council, and Governor Tim Walz: We are done waiting. We deserve better. We need better. It is beyond time to stop the madness. We demand that you take pause and re-evaluate the justification of LRT over BRT for this corridor. Give us transit that serves today’s needs and will be able to adapt to the future, not this antiquated pipedream from yesteryear.
Submitted by Minneapolis resident Matthew Bruns
I remember someone who worked for the city telling me years ago that buses were a much better option (for reasons stated in this article) but planners didn’t want to consider them because there’s more caché in light rail.
I wasn’t aware of all of this background, or the situation with the Bottineau corridor, but watching the SWLRT plow through the Cedar Lake corridor has been heartbreaking and infuriating as one error compounds another, and excuses can’t keep up with the billowing costs. Great article, thanks.
I nominate Andrew Luger to fix this. Let’s face it, he can do anything!
Thank you for this thoughtful and detailed piece, and for highlighting the outsized role Hennepin County has played in pushing forward these excessive, and unwanted, lightrail projects. The Coutny made the same mistake twice in assuming private rail cooperation in routes (specifically with BNSF Railroad), and then failing that, selecting illogical and destructive route alignments (in both the Southwest Light Rail and the Blue Line Extension). Various elected and non-elected officials throughout Hennepin County, including transit-friendly allies, have publicly written about Hennepin County’s incompetence (at best), and outright malfeasance (at worst) in both cases. While the Met Council has shown itself to not be trustworthy, Hennepin County is the root cause of the problems as they choose the route alignments and heavily influenced the transit modes.
Bus Rapid Transit is a success, but “urbanist” policy wonks and planners with too much influence (and no accountability) have wasted billions of public dollars, destroyed natural habitats, and even led to the displacement of homes, businesses and religious institutions. It’s baffling to me that in 2025, we have to set up “displacement” funds for actual people whose lives and neighborhoods are upended by ill-planned and unwanted heavy rail projects (the Blue Line Extension is the most recent example). It’s urban renewal all over, with no lessons learned.
The lost planning dollars are such a massive waste. I’ve used the Orange Line to get downtown. Extremely convenient.
Well, some one must spend tax dollars on done deal projects for earnings, lubricate the system.