As part of my North American Tour, I will be at the AASHTO Annual Meeting in Charlotte and presenting on my CityLab article: How to make mass transit financially sustainable once and for all.
As part of my North American Tour, I will be at the AASHTO Annual Meeting in Charlotte and presenting on my CityLab article: How to make mass transit financially sustainable once and for all.
While at this point, we are almost assuredly beating a dead horse, until the Green Line Extension (Southwest LRT) is actually under construction, there remains the possibility it can be improved. While the best improvement (given the existence of an LRT to fourth ring Southwest suburbs) would be to route it along a path where people actually live, if we cannot maximize benefits, surely we should minimize costs.
I speak of course of the tunnel under the park.
The stated reason is the right-of-way is insufficiently wide to accommodate two tracks of LRT, one track of freight rail serving about 3 trains a day, a bike path, and the buildings that were built where it would have been convenient to run some more track.
There are two obvious solutions to this problem which have not been given serious consideration as far as I can tell.
First, the freight and LRT can share the track at different times. The experience with Northstar certain demonstrates why having a few passenger trains on a freight railroad can create lots of passenger delay, but this is different, it would be a freight train on a passenger track owned by the public.
Everyone says “But, FRA”. I realize there are institutional barriers which need to be overcome. Perhaps those are more expensive to overcome than $130 million, or whatever the difference in the surface solution and what the tunnel will cost.
Second, if one-track is good enough for freight, why is it not good enough for LRT for a short section? (This is an idea previously considered by Matt Steele at streets.mn.) This of course is a tight fit, and may require waivers from appropriate regulatory authorities, but is physically possible from the drawing I have seen.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume we want to single track 1.5 miles, with trains going up 45 miles per hour (say an average speed of 30 mph to make the math easy). This would take 3 minutes. The trains are on 10 minute headways in each direction, or one train every 5 minutes through the bottleneck. (Note, Matt assumed 2 minutes, and higher speeds. I am using conservative assumptions).
If timing were perfect, there could be zero delay from this scenario. This is a deterministic case. That is the assumption underlying Matt’s post.
However, as we know, timing is rarely perfect, so we need to look at stochastic delay. Stochastic is engineering jargon for random. Random is engineering jargon for a case where multiple outcomes have an equal likelihood of being chosen (or some are more likely than others, but we cannot be sure that would be the case).
Even when things are random, that doesn’t mean we cannot ascertain the average of the distribution.
Let’s suppose we have an arrival rate of 1 train every 5 minutes (our arrival rate lambda=0.2 trains per minute), and a server rate of 1 train every 3 minutes (mu=0.33 trains per minute). If the systems is completely random (and we certainly hope it is better than that), we can use stochastic queueing theory to estimate the delay.
Worst case (aside from someone actively and maliciously controlling the trains so they do arrive at the same time (which implies that deterministic solutions with zero delay are possible)), we can model this as an M/M/1 queue (meaning, as wikipedia says: arrivals follow a Poisson process and job service times have an exponential distribution) . This assumes Markovian (random) arrival and departure processes and a single channel.
The utilization rate (rho = lambda/mu) is 0.6, meaning the server is busy 60% of the time.
Math gives us a formula for the average queue size:
Average queue size = rho/(1 – rho) = 1.5
Math gives us a formula for the average wait time :
E(w) = lambda / mu*(mu-lambda) = 0.2/(0.333*(0.333-0.2))=4.5 minutes
At 1 million passengers per month (12 million per year) for 30 years, this is 360 million people delayed 4.5 minutes=1.6 billion minutes of delay. At $20/hour, this is $533 million.
Clearly this value is larger than the cost of the tunnel.
On the other hand, perhaps we only need to single track for 0.5 miles.
In that case, the server time is 1 minute, so mu=1. Capacity utilization is 20% (i.e. rho is 0.2). Average queue size is 0.25 trains. The average wait time is 0.25 minutes.
Our 360 million people are delayed 0.25 minutes at $20/hour is $30 million. This is considerably less than the cost of the tunnel.
The train speeds could be adjusted so no-one would know they were delayed (i.e. trains would slow down approaching the switch, or be held at the previous station, as needed. And remember this is worst case, delay should be less than this with any competent schedule adherence. With perfect schedule adherence, they are indeed zero (our deterministic solution).
Single-tracking is a solution to high capital costs. It is not optimal, it has delay costs that depend on the length of the stretch, headways, how much control Metro Transit has over running times, and so on.
Everything involves trade-offs.
There is of course a concern about running LRT next to (near) freight trains, carrying lots of explosive ethanol. I say, don’t do it. Run them at different times, even if on different tracks. If freight trains are only permitted at night, or in a mid-day window when an LRT is held upstream of the pinch-point for a few minutes, or ideally in a scheduled break, there should be zero chance of collision. There is always a chance of derailment – that doesn’t change, but derailment is less hazardous than collision for what I hope are obvious reasons.
In the long run, maybe freight will go away (e.g. once people stop using ethanol), go somewhere else, or another solution will be found. At that time, the line can be double-tracked if needed.
In the short term, the money saved could be used to temporarily relocate the trail to quiet residential streets nearby, compensate the neighborhood, give money to the Park Board, or any number other socially worthwhile goals.
Crossposted at streets.mn.
The NCITE October Section Meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 22nd at the University of Minnesota – Coffman Memorial Union in the Mississippi Room (3rd Floor). It will be a joint luncheon with the U of M Interdisciplinary Transportation Student Organization (ITSO).
Katie Roth and Christina Morrison from Metro Transit will be speaking on upcoming Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects and studies. This meeting is a great opportunity for members and students to meet and build networks, and learn how an emerging network of BRT lines will improve connectivity and mobility throughout the Twin Cities region. Coffman Union is well served by the Green Line and multiple bus routes. Parking garages are also available nearby.
Place: University of Minnesota – Coffman Memorial Union
Mississippi Room (3rd Floor)
300 Washington Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Phone (612) 624-INFO (4636)
11:30 a.m. – Noon Registration
Noon – 12:30 p.m. Lunch
12:30 – 1:30 p.m. Business Meeting and Presentation
Registration: Please click the following link to register or RSVP for the event before 10/20:
Cost: $20 members and guests ($5 students). Webinar access is available at no charge.
There are no more common words to hear shortly after the opening of a new rail project in the United States than “It’s a success”. The forecast of the declaration of success is far more accurate the forecast of ridership or costs.
For instance, Metrorail (WMATA) claims:
Metro: Silver Line ridership remains strong
Metro today provided updated Silver Line ridership information showing that, less than two months after opening, the new line is already performing at 60 percent of its projected ridership for the end of the first full year of service. As of last week, an average of 15,000 riders are entering the system at the five new Silver Line stations on weekdays for a combined 30,000 trips to or from the new stations.
In the planning process, Silver Line ridership was projected to reach 25,000 boardings at the five new stations after one full year of service.
Metro estimates that the Silver Line is currently adding approximately 6,000 new riders — making roughly 12,000 trips — to the Metrorail system each weekday. The balance, approximately 9,000 riders, are primarily former Orange Line riders who have switched to the Silver Line.
Some outlets have used the word “success” to describe the line, as has Secretary Foxx. Certainly it is still early, and maybe the Silver Line will exceed first year forecasts, or final year forecasts, or even have benefits in excess of costs, or somehow reduce inequity in the Washington region, or lead to economic development, or any number of other objectives hoisted on transit lines. It is arguably successful from a project delivery perspective, in that it was delivered, and opened for service, but that seems a narrow way to think about success.
In contrast, another new start, Metro Transit’s Green Line, has done a bit better, even with all sorts of traffic signal timing issues. It too is heralded as a success, with ridership exceeding forecast year ridership about 3 months in. While many of its riders were transfers from existing bus services, it clearly is serving more new people for less money than the Silver Line.
Which is more successful? Which is a better investment? Time will tell, and I will leave that to the reader’s judgment.
I have two hypotheses as to why these words are so common.
First, it may be that all projects are successful. For this hypothesis to hold, we would need to see enormous transit market share across the country after several decades of more than 20% of all transportation funding going to transit (figure 2, but also this). Sadly the evidence suggests otherwise.
Alternatively, it may be that the appearance of success is important, independent of the actual facts on the ground. Calling “success” aligns you with “Team Rail” and rewards your supporters. The illusion of success is critical to obtain future funds. No one wants to give money to an agency that actively (if honestly) claims “It’s a failure” or “It’s a disappointment”, or “We’re still perfecting it,” or even “It’s a hobby“.
I hold this latter explanation as more likely. This is not to say there are no successes in urban rail transit. There are many. Starting in 1863 with the London Underground, rail transit globally had an extraordinarily good run for 60 years. In the US, it sort of petered out after that for the next 50 years or so, though in other countries, rail transit has continued at various levels of strengths.
Some of the lines in the past 40 years have been more successful than others, all depending on your definition of success. (For instance, a list of LRT systems by ridership per mile is here.) The best systems remain the ones built in the early 20th century, with only LA’s Metro Rail breaking the top 5 in riders per mile (and DC’s MetroRail coming 6th). Yet as far as I can tell, all new systems have been declared successful by somebody (even the relatively low ridership per mile lines like Tampa’s TECO line, or Charlotte’s Lynx). Some are even pre-declared, like The Tide in Hampton Roads.
I find it hard to see billions being spent on the Silver Line so far to add 6000 riders (12000 trips) as an unqualified success, (I would find it hard to see meeting these low forecasts as a success either). This is more $ per passenger than many commuter rail lines spend, which few outside the agencies themselves are calling successes (the advocates of course do use that exact word).
If spending $2B added zero or negative riders, that would be truly surprising, indicative of active destruction of money. I will just state there were plausible alternative uses of the funds that would have improved society in other ways. Every expenditure has an opportunity cost.
Do not believe or repeat the press releases of agencies and advocates uncritically.
I got invited back.
I will be having a live in-studio conversation with Kerri Miller on MPR’s Daily Circuit Today (Tuesday October 14 at 10 am Central Time). The other guest is Adie Tomer of the Brookings Institute/Metropolitan Policy.
Topics are likely to include transportation issues in the midterm elections, big ideas for transportation’s future, how those ideas get paid for, and who the constituents are in that conversation.
In the Oct. 9 gubernatorial debate, Gov. Mark Dayton and his two opponents named transportation on their list of priorities for the next four years.
Dayton proposed a gas tax increase to pay for his transportation plan, but how to pay for all that’s needed for roads and bridges is a problem that vexes politicians nationwide.
On The Daily Circuit, we talk with two transportation experts about the economics of transportation planning.
Metro Transit’s Green Line opened in June, 2014. While ridership almost immediate beat “expectations“1, and the line was quickly declared “a success“, at first there were still bugs in the works related to traffic signal timings and thus overall run-time and reliability, and safety.
Though the planners felt this line on the map was permanently drawn, a review of history reveals that first lines often change over time. Investments continued to be made, and technology advanced.0
What’s happened next? This brief article summarizes the history of how the Green Line evolved from 2014 to the present.
1. Transit Priority
History records that St. Paul Public Works worked very hard to ensure a safe and convenient trip for all users of University Avenue. After five years of tweaking traffic signal timings (a set of light-bulbs that instructed human drivers when it was safe to proceed), there was effective transit signal priority on the Green Line, so the line hardly ever needed to stop at traffic signals, and only stops at stations. This shaved a couple of minutes off end-to-end run times.
2. Green waves
Transit priority added delay to cross traffic, but better informing traffic (trains, cars on University, cars on cross-streets) the speed they needed to travel to achieve the Green Wave improved overall signal efficiency and throughput and minimize stopped delays and lost time. This made travelers happier and once implemented system-wide reduced total delay by 10 percent. (History records every traffic engineering improvement reduced delay by 10 percent. This is puzzling.)
3. Shared space
At first, the traffic control infrastructure on the segment of the Green Line on Washington Avenue through the University of Minnesota was incredibly over-built (or counter-productively safe as one article of the era put it). Eventually, after the great traffic signal outage of 2024 (due to a widespread worm infecting centralized traffic control centers) resulted in reduced crashes, engineers had the bright idea to un-build infrastructure in many places. This gave sufficient cover for local officials to operate the Green Line through campus as a streetcar on a pedestrian mall. De-signalizing Washington Avenue turned the corridor into a shared space. Some de-busing also place, as the Campus Connector (a bus) was fully replaced by the Green Line (and the buses were rerouted to other corridors).
In a shared space, engineers finally came to realize that attention is redirected away from the hypnotic light bulbs and towards the actual other travelers. As children we are advised “Look before you leap”. It took a few months to re-educate adults they no longer need pay attention to the (now removed) light bulb across the street, and instead use those same eyes looking for approaching bikes, buses, and trains. The general message was “Look before you cross”, meaning “Look. When there is nothing going to run you over – Cross. When something is going to run you over – Don’t Cross.”
The icon was a pancake on the road, with a sad face, representing the food item a pedestrian would be as flat as, if he didn’t use his eyes and brain. The use of this icon was controversial, as being insensitive, and became a symbol in the culture wars about how we treat death, but the general view was the humor and controversy made people more careful.
4. Minimizing Conflicts – No left turns
One of the most dangerous places on the LRT line was vehicles making left turns on University Avenue across the LRT path (this was sadly a universal problem with LRT in the median, not just the Green Line). Drivers were paying attention ahead to the signal and opposing-traffic, and to their right for cross-traffic, not to their left for a train emerging from behind. In one sense, this was of course the car driver’s fault, assuming they violated the traffic control devices instructions. In another sense, engineers need to better understand human factors and design for people not machines. As the saying of the time went “Safety is a shared responsibility” – though the intent of that was to guilt travelers into behaving well, rather than the system administrators into designing for humans.)
Further, left-turns, when protected, added an additional phase to the traffic cycle, with the concomitant lost time (all-red plus extra green start-up time), wasting capacity. There were many relatively low-volume left-turns on University that could be eliminated2. This would of course have increased travel times for those who wanted to make a left (or U-) turn. Alternative solutions of the era included making 3 right turns, or a right and 2 lefts, and the space-wasting jughandle. One cannot imagine the residents on Aurora or Sherburne (the streets immediately south and north of University in the residential areas of St. Paul) would have been pleased with this option, though for streets in industrial areas in the western part of St. Paul, such Myrtle and Charles, implementation would have been easier.
The streets below crossed University between Prospect Park and Rice Street stations. The + indicates a station, the * indicates an off-90 degree angle. The (F) indicates associated freeway entrance/exit ramps to I-94.
Traffic engineers looked at the post-Green Line traffic counts and identified Left Turns that could be eliminated. The challenge was that eliminating cross streets and left-turns diminishes access, and created more of a wall-effect than the Green Line already produces. It is unlikely this could have been done everywhere, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been done anywhere. In the event, only Berry Street saw Left Turns and Through Movements eliminated in 2028. Soon after, the widespread deployment of automated vehicles mooted most of the vehicle-train interaction safety issues.
Other controls upon drivers, such as rail gates, were also proposed in the late 2010s and early 2020s as the number of vehicle-train crashes and fatalities remained persistently high, but they were not implemented before drivers were made obsolete.
5. Grade separations/transfer stations with arterial BRT and/or streetcars
As longer distance through roads with freeway interchanges, Rice, Dale, Lexington, and Snelling all had very significant levels of cross-traffic for several decades. This cross-traffic was delayed by the Green Line. The Green Line was delayed by the additional green time given to the cross-traffic (or slowed in the case of Always Green Traffic Control).
Urban diamond interchanges, with the cross streets running under University and the Green Line, allowed the following connections University WB with Cross Street NB, Cross Street SB with University WB, University EB with Cross Street SB and Cross Street NB with University EB. Upstream or downstream U-turns / roundabouts (such as at Snelling at Spruce Tree or Snelling and Sherburne) would replace the left turns. The 1 block distance was sufficient for an acceptable grade for an underpass as described.
On the outside lanes of the underpasses officials constructed transit stations, where there would be staircase and elevator connections to the median of University Avenue and the associated Green Line Station, so transfer passengers from the Snelling Avenue A-Line BRT, Lexington Avenue P-Line, Dale Street Zed-Line, and Rice Street Streetcar wouldn’t need to cross streets. These were planned starting in 2017 after the unexpected success of BRT, but not completed until 2034.
6. Higher frequencies
While the trains were not usually full for the first several decades (At 6 trains an hour, each with a capacity of 600 persons, in each direction, the capacity was some 3600 persons per hour in each direction, the demand was typically half that in the daily peak hour, though reached that levels for particular trains, especially if the headways got long do to bunching, and also around events).
The constraint on higher frequencies was limited capacity in downtown Minneapolis where the Green and Blue lines share track. At 10 minute headways on each line, there was a train crossing in one direction or the other every 2.5 minutes. At 5 minutes, there would have been a train every 1.25 minutes, which would not allow much time (if any) for north-south cross traffic. The two solutions proposed for this were splitting the Green and Blue lines in downtown, so they follow different streets, or grade separation. This was expensive (which is why it took so long to build ), but once Minneapolis decided to become an actual big city, it was constructed in 2039, the year the Minnesota Multi-Purpose Stadium was demolished (about five years after the National Football League went bankrupt from lawsuits and cancelled television contracts). A set of public playing fields replaced the site for another 30 years. Most recently, a Cyborgian Battle-Bots arena is being constructed on the site for the Minnesota Bot-Kings. Critics suggest that it is inhumane to breed and build cyborgs simply as fighting machines, and that they should be given full liberties. That has yet to happen, though a referendum is on the weekly demo-ballot later in the year.
7. A/B Service
In 2044 A/B service was established in peak hours. In A/B service, trains skipped every other station (skip-stop service), so the A train would stop at Prospect Park, Raymond, Snelling, Lexington, Dale, and Rice, and the B-train would stop at Westgate, Fairview, Hamline, Victoria, and Western. (While at first people were skeptical because of load imbalances, the additional capacities helped increase development on the “B-train” stops.
This could not have been implemented until higher frequencies are achieved (thanks to the improvements in downtown Minneapolis) without defeating the entire purpose of the added infill stations in St. Paul. With higher frequencies, A/B service ensured 10 minute headways on all stations, and 5 minutes at selected stations. Express trains, which were also discussed on the Green Line could not work without passing tracks, or the trains would bunch up as express trains approached locals. Once trains were automated (in 2064, long after cars were automated, because, well because this is transit), then the two tracks could be more efficiently utilized to allow passing.
8. Service Extensions
The Southwest Green Line extension was opened in 2023, several years behind schedule due to lawsuits and tunnel cave-ins. Demand was less than expected at most suburban stations for many years. The 2047 rezoning in Minneapolis allowed the area around the Chain of Lakes to explode with new high rise development, and the Kenilworth station became the busiest on the Line.
The Blue Line extension to the Northwest suburbs opened in 2022. The nature of the routes allowed interlining, so eventually half the Green Line trains went to Edina Prairie (the merged cities of Eden Prairie and Edina) and half to Brooklyn (the merged cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park). City mergers were encouraged by state government as part of the municipal consolidation movement to reduce the number of mayors the Governor had to meet with every year. Similarly every other Blue Line train went to each city. The routes were informally dubbed Green Prairie and Green Lyn, and Blue Prairie and Blue Lyn.
A service extension to the East, across the Kellogg Bridge (rebuilt in 2031 for a second time), extended the Green Line to the Metropolitan State University campus, and then down East 7th street for a few miles.
In 2030, a spur, from Stadium Village stations, along the Campus Transitway, connected the Falcon Heights campus of the University of Minnesota (UM-FH) and the State Fair Grounds through Energy Park, to the Green Line, and on to Downtown Minneapolis, running every 10 minutes. This was dubbed the Maroon Line (the name Gold Line having already been used up on a Freeway BRT in the east Metro.) The University secretly acquired the St. Paul Ports Authority (which had been privatized in 2023), and redeveloped many sites, especially at the Raymond Avenue station of the Maroon Line.
9. Express trains
In 2049, the new Minnesota Magnetic Levitation Commission began running fast, high-frequency express trains between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul, on a right-of-way other than the Green Line. This created point-to-point travel times on the order of 15 minutes between the downtowns, instead of 40-50 minutes that the Green Line afforded.
This intersected the Green Line at the railroad tracks between Transfer and Prior (the once (and future) Amtrak station), behind a the ruins of a chain store called Menard’s. This site created a natural transfer station, especially as that area was redeveloped from industrial to the new development dubbed “Transfer Town” was built simultaneously (in fact, the value capture from Transfer Town helped fund the short MagLev line. (There were other stations at the University of Minnesota-Dinkytown Campus (UM-DT) and at Snelling Avenue, as well as termini adjacent to existing stations in downtown Minneapolis (The Grand Central Interchange by Target) and St. Paul (The Union Depot by Dunkin’).
While there was probably little significant time advantage of the MagLev over high-frequency Bus-on-Shoulder or Bus on MnPass lanes on the I-94 corridor, there was so much extra rail right-of-way capacity in the region that this was proposed along with radial lines, as part of a Minnesota MagLev passenger network. MagLev was selected as the need for new right-of-way and infrastructure was made apparent after the rail passenger hostage crisis of 2029, when Burlington Northern Railway held up 200 passengers on three different trains of the Northstar line so a line of high-fructose corn syrup tank cars could pass, which sadly led to a derailment and toxic waste emergency, also known as the Great Corn Sugar Flood. Ultimately it made sense to build the line with the highest demand (between Minneapolis and St. Paul) first, before the spokes.
10. The Green Line is disbanded.
In 2074, sixty years after it first opened, the tracks of the Green Line were ripped up, and the last train cars sent to the Hennepin County Nano-bot Materials Recovery Center for smelting and recycling into a nutritional supplement for Cyborgian Battle-Bots dubbed Soylent Green. Remember Soylent Green is trains.
Plans now call for the abandoned right of way itself to be turned into a high-speed bike way (the University Greenway and downtown VeloTunnel). Bicycling has soared in popularity since climate control was implemented globally a few years back, ensuring urban winter days would be above freezing, and summer days well below human body temperature.
The parallel road, University Avenue, has been replaced with grass, and is used for low elevation robotic hover-jitneys (Ro-Ho-Ji), which have proved much more popular than the Green Line in recent years. These can be summoned simply by yelling the phrase (Ro-Ho-Ji) into the air, the network of microphones deployed across the metropolitan area will quickly identify your location via triangulation and recognize your voice, allowing for quick dispatch of the Ro-Ho-Ji and automatic billing. Drunkards continually yelling Ro-Ho-Ji late on Thursday nights to celebrate the weekend remains a problem, but voice recognition identifies them and special vehicles (Ro-Ho-Ji-Al) for the inebriated scoop them up for insta-sobering.
The “Please Check Schedules” electronic message signs at stations, that never worked properly, and became iconic on tee-shirts and coffee mugs, just like the London slogan “Mind the Gap”, finally showed the correct schedule on the final day of operation. Internal documents posted on WikiLeaks after the closure, revealed that Metro Transit, and later the Green Line Corporation (which operated the line its last 30 years), were able to make the signs work after the first year, but kept them broken to appeal to tourists.
At the closing of the Green Line, a ribbon was symbolically sown back together.
Nothing was ever finished except to the politicians. Politicians were elected officials in the representative governments of the era who ran for re-election every 4 years. Recall these were eliminated with the Sester-centennial Direct Democracy Constitution Convention of 2026. Politicians interacted with public works when they had their photo (a static two-dimensional image, often black and white) snapped at the ribbon cutting for a new line every 10 years. The photo was important the “above the fold” headline in the newspaper (a pile of printed paper left outside the home of older residents, mostly filled with advertisements for stores (places where people would purchase goods) as well as a record of the events of the previous day).
“Expectations” are technically “calculations”. I hesitate to say “forecasts”, since people in the field didn’t actually believe them. These calculations for the Green Line complied with then relatively conservative FTA standards, which tightened in response to studies in the 1990s and that found forecasts were severely optimistic. Compare 1980s forecasts for Hiawatha LRT with later forecasts. The Alternatives Analysis predicted ridership of 37,000, the Final EIS lowered this number to 24,800. See Table 7 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/NSPA2007_Final(1).pdf . These new methods led to somewhat more accurate forecasts … the incentive then became to have the lowest forecast that would still have gotten your project funded. Since the controls on forecasting methods reduced the incentive to lie in order to get funding, if you could beat forecasts after opening, and you could immediately declare success, that helped with the next project. Higher forecasts arewerestill useful for justifying additional spending of course, but spending limits were constrained politically.
Berry Street, I am looking at you.
Cross-posted at streets.mn.
As keen readers of this blog or my twitter feed know, the Accessibility Observatory released Access Across America: Transit 2014 this week, with an official University of Minnesota Press Release and Maps. This post links to third party coverage and interpretation of the report.
Minneapolis – St. Paul