MN: Transit plan could upend Twin Cities’ decades-old suburban system

A group of suburbs that have operated their own transit networks for decades stand to lose that independence as Minnesota lawmakers look at handing that responsibility over to regional heavyweight Metro Transit.

The measure, which has bipartisan backing, would abolish four suburban transit providers — the Plymouth Metrolink, Maple Grove Transit, SouthWest Transit and the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority — and have Metro Transit take over almost all public transit service in the Twin Cities. One carveout would be left for the University of Minnesota.

Advocates for the suburban providers say riders would inevitably suffer inferior service under Metro Transit and are vowing to fight the bill. But their relatively boutique service also comes at a higher cost, and lawmakers are looking to squeeze more efficiency from a regional public transit system that is still struggling to rebuild ridership decimated by the pandemic.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Jon Koznick, R- Lakeville, would result in nearly $50 million in savings the first year and an additional $25 million every year after that, according to a new analysis.

“Taxpayers are watching, and they expect better from us,” Koznick told the House Transportation, Finance and Policy Committee on March 11. The panel approved the measure on a bipartisan vote.

The four suburban transit providers date to the 1980s, when the Legislature allowed suburbs unhappy with the service they were receiving at the time to form their own agencies. They still receive regional transit dollars through the Metropolitan Council and mostly provide express bus service to downtowns and a select few other destinations, in addition to Uberlike “microtransit” services in the suburbs themselves.

Those services have a dedicated following. More than a dozen people testified against Koznick’s bill, including seniors, students and downtown commuters who described friendly drivers, comfortable vehicles and routes tailored specifically to their needs.

But buses are expensive to operate in the suburbs, where sprawling housing developments, office parks and strip malls mean destinations are far apart and most people are in cars. Microtransit services, like the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority’s “Connect” service that one testifier called a “lifeline,” are growing in popularity but are also expensive to run.

Several local officials who sit on the suburban agencies’ boards also spoke in opposition to the bill, arguing the agencies are more responsive to their needs than they expect the Metropolitan Council would be.

There’s no uniform model for how transit service is organized in U.S. metro areas. The Bay Area in California, for example, has more than two dozen transit agencies that critics say makes for a difficult-to-use system and inefficient planning.

But a single, mega operator is not a silver bullet, either. The Regional Transportation District in the Denver area is the sole transit provider there, and suburban communities regularly complain about the level of service it provides.

“That’s exactly what would happen here,” Erik Hansen, a former local official in the Denver area and current CEO of SouthWest Transit, told the Minnesota Star Tribune.

SouthWest Transit and other suburban providers have been imploring their riders to advocate for them. John Clarke, a SouthWest Transit rider from Eden Prairie, said the agency’s routes were important to him when deciding where he wanted to live in his retirement. He’s not convinced Metro Transit would offer the same service.

“I’ve used Uber, asked family for rides or used my car. Going back to that would mean higher cost for me and another car on the highway,” Clarke said. “SouthWest Transit is so important to the community. I believe the community doesn’t know all it has to offer and how convenient it is.”

Ridership at SouthWest Transit rose 14% last year and Maple Grove was up 12%, according to new figures. Plymouth MetroLink was up 1% while the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority reported a 1% drop. Metro Transit ridership was off by 3%, mostly due to a decline in light-rail riders.

The new analysis, done by Metropolitan Council staff, estimates that $8 million could be saved annually by eliminating duplicative executives, marketing departments and other administrative costs and because Metro Transit can operate services more cheaply than their suburban counterparts.

Another $15 million would be saved every year by eliminating and restructuring low-ridership bus routes that require large subsidies and by outsourcing more Metro Transit bus lines to contractors.

And $25 million could be saved up front because replacement buses wouldn’t be needed for eliminated routes. All those savings could be reinvested back into Metro Transit, said Rep. Brad Tabke, DFL-Shakopee.

“I don’t know how we move forward without doing this,” he said.

The bill will move next to another House committee. A companion bill in the Senate already has bipartisan sponsorship.

Tim Harlow of the Minnesota Star Tribune contributed to this story.

©2026 The Minnesota Star Tribune.
Visit startribune.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC