Growth & Justice Blog

Funders Collaborative seeks benefits "beyond the rail"

Today I took a ride along the future Central Corridor Light Rail Line. (Can we get a new, Hiawatha-like and less colonic-sounding name, stat?)

The guided bus tour was sponsored by the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative to highlight some of the big picture issues associated with the new line, scheduled for completion in 2014. Fittingly, it began in St. Paul's Frogtown and ended at Prospect Park in Minneapolis, the neglected middle of the route linking the two downtowns.

In many ways, it's the stretch with the most to gain or lose — where small businesses will thrive by reaching more customers or go under because their current customers get diverted by the construction; where residents will find it easier to get to jobs and other opportunities in the metro area or be driven out of their homes by higher rents; where the ethnic character of the area gets enhanced or scattered, just as happened when I-94 was built.

The Funders Collaborative is a group of local and national funders exploring ways to promote planning and collaboration to ensure that adjoining neighborhoods, residents and businesses broadly share in the benefits of public and private investment along the Central Corridor Light Rail Line.

The Collaborative supports the building of the light rail line, but it recognizes these big public infrastructure projects get planned, funded and built with a focus on ridership and construction and operating costs. How the investment benefits the local businesses, surrounding neighborhoods, and the people who live, work and access opportunity along the line is a secondary consideration.

It's not that small business success, affordable housing, and the quality of the places that grow up around transit lines are overlooked entirely. But the federal funding formulas that decide where transportation dollars go don't weigh these issues with the same gravity — even though they are arguably far more important for the community over the long run. It also means the parties responsible for getting the line built — in this case, the Met Council — can't get sidetracked by niceties or they risk losing the funding because a competing and more spartan project shows better numbers.

What happens next is predictable. Big institutions (MPR and U of M) get comparatively more attention to their needs, while poor neighborhoods are told to wait. Less powerful groups file lawsuits. Various advocates feel shut out of the process and compete with each other for scarce resources. And public officials who have tried to enlist broad participation tear their hair out.

Turning the Central Corridor into a place of opportunity — especially for the people who already live and work there — is a far more noble goal than getting more people to use transit. And most of the businesses, neighborhoods and public officials connected to the line would agree that's the goal most worth pursuing.

But no single government entity is in charge of the big picture for the whole line. Coalition-building is not the way most residents want to spend their spare time. Community-led planning doesn't rate many news stories. And nascent efforts by barely established groups don't fit the way foundations traditionally give out grants.

Until the Funders Collaborative came along, no one had accepted the role of helping the promise of transit-oriented development happen on a comprehensive, corridor-wide scale. 

The rail line has yet to be built, and the efforts of the Funders Collaborative and its community partners have yet to spread the benefits "beyond the rail." We won't see the results for a decade or more, so today's tour was hardly stop-the-presses news. But it's a good start.

— Charlie Quimby has done some consulting with the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative

Who's hurt by transit funding cuts? The poor and smaller communities.

Transit for Livable Communities blog links to a report by Transportation for America that surveys the nationwide "Impact of the Financial Crisis on Public Transportation." 

The report notes that the price of a monthly bus pass for the public transit system serving the city of Marshall and Lyon, Redwood and Jackson counties has jumped from $25 to $80 per month. The price bump is just one consequence of the cascade of spending shifts as state funding for local services diminishes — through unallotment and budget cuts and, in the case of transit, through a decline in dedicated funding streams such as state sales taxes on motor vehicles.

Especially in urban areas, there are two types of transit riders — those who ride by choice and those who are transit-dependent. Bus service cuts and fare increases may drive the "choice" users back to their cars, but for the households without a vehicle (see chart) their options shrink. In rural areas, where transit may be their only link to employment, medical care or other services, the impact of underfunding goes far beyond "transportation."

 

The post by TLC's Katie Eukel underlines some of this local impact, quoting the director of the non-profit that runs the Marshall system.

“Transportation services are not a luxury for people living in rural areas — they are a necessity," says Jeanette Porter, Transit Director with Western Community Action. "When transit providers are forced to shift so much of the financial burden onto our passengers, or agencies helping their clients, it creates a devastating cycle that is already beginning to take effect... Often people must move to a larger area where more options are available. This not only affects those who depend on public transportation, but the economic and social vitality of their communities, as well.” 

It's a point we made in a recent editorial, but it bears repeating again and again as the state tries to set budget priorities. Transit service cuts and fare increases may make sense if you’re looking for ways to affect a budget line item. But they're a poor bargain if you’re looking at the actual people and communities affected.  

— Charlie Quimby

Highways investment gap highlights need for alternatives

The Minnesota Department of Transportation’s just-released statewide transportation plan on policies and highway investments flags a startlingly large $50 billion gap between dollars available for roads and bridges and the $65 billion required to meet state needs in those areas over the next 20 years.

Ouch.

No surprise that under our current policies and approaches, Minnesota’s transportation needs are rising.  Over the last 20 years, travel by car and truck in the state shot up at a rate nearly three times faster than population growth. 

It doesn’t help that we drive more in Minnesota than they do elsewhere — fully 10 percent more on a per capita basis when compared to national rates. 

And, like other states, Minnesota has an aging transportation infrastructure in need of significant renovation and rehabilitation. We face significant costs just to keep what we have.

Mn/DOT wisely plans to spend three-fourths of the projected $15 billion in highway dollars available over the next 20 years on a fix-it-first strategy, looking to preserve or replace existing roads and bridges. But the $50 billion gap is a wake up call for us to look beyond our present focus on more roads and more driving and pursue other strategies to address overall transportation challenges. 

To its credit, Mn/DOT’s transportation policy plan, released at the same time, acknowledges that “a more multimodal and multi-jurisdictional approach to transportation is needed to achieve major goals, including maintaining Minnesota's economic competitiveness, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing modal choices for consumers.” Other plans addressing transit, freight, metro highways and “complete streets” will be forthcoming.

As noted by Mn/DOT, region-wide transit stands out as part of the solution for urban areas in the state, with its potential for improving transportation access and mobility, as well as the quality of life for many Minnesotans.  Significant increases in transit use can reduce the need for more lane miles in the metropolitan area and yield the added benefits of reducing fuel consumption and air pollution.   

Traffic management strategies also have an impact on Minnesota’s roadways. The Texas Transportation Institute in Austin estimates that traffic delays for Twin Cities metro rush hour travelers is lower by 5.5 million hours than it would be if not for traffic management approaches, such as metered ramps on freeways, rapid response to accidents and incidents, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes.

But to slow the high demand for travel, state, regional and local governments also must consider land-use policies. As noted in the Mn/DOT plan, “Local governments can use their planning and zoning powers to guide land uses that make efficient use of the transportation system.”

We should discourage sprawl and encourage the concentration of jobs in downtowns and centralized employment centers.  We should link affordable housing to transit lines and stops.  And we should design complete streets that work well not only for cars but for all users, including transit vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.

Even with improvements and changes in these other areas, Minnesota will still need to spend billions to address bottlenecks and fund maintenance and overhauls on roads and bridges that need attention.  Billions of dollars, yes, but billions less, perhaps, than the $65 billion in needs identified.

Minnesota’s transportation system affects the economic outlook for the state and both the economic well-being and quality of life for Minnesota residents. Given the daunting needs we face for state spending on transportation, it’s past time for Minnesota to consider not just how much to build and repair highways but how best to both address and alter those needs with new investments, policies and choices.

— Matt Kane

Met Council looks beyond roads to cope with congestion

Good news: The Metropolitan Council and its transportation planning staff take a realistic view that the Twin Cities area cannot just build its way out of traffic congestion.

The draft version of the Met Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan Update recognizes that many metro area drivers see congestion as a serious problem. However building our way out of congestion by expanding our highways is arguably not the solution but a part of the problem. Says the draft summary, “Instead of providing reserve capacity for decades, new highway lanes can fill up in a matter of months.”

And it’s worth keeping in mind, as we battle with congestion, that the Met Council’s 2005 transportation planning documents found the Twin Cities region to have the second shortest travel time to work among the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the country, based on Census 2000 data.

Given limited resources and the high costs of congestion, the draft TPP says, the metro area needs to pursue alternatives to congested travel, including better use of existing lanes and right-of-ways and better transit. But transit — as well as walking and biking — is more than just a solution to congestion for rush-hour travelers. Alternative modes of travel are important in their own right for providing affordable transportation and access to destinations for all citizens of the Twin Cities region.

Various organizations, including the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce, have raised concerns about the limited East Metro transit corridors and options included in the plan and how that might affect future development in the area. The Met Council’s analysis of congestion and construction comes in a broad-reaching, draft TPP that focuses on mobility in the region and lays out actions the Met Council might take to preserve, improve and expand the region’s transportation system in the context of land use.

The draft TPP recognizes the importance of more compact land use but, unfortunately, only goes as far as offering encouragement in that direction. Using less land for development and transportation could help solve congestion problems because that would reduce the vehicle miles traveled.

A coalition of four transportation and environmental groups recently issued a response to the Met Council’s draft TPP, calling for bolder visions and action and saying, more specifically, that the transportation plan lacks measurable outcomes, fails to identify adequate funding to support its goal of doubling transit ridership by 2030, gives too little attention to bicycling and walking, lacks clarity regarding highway prioritization, and lacks commitment to strategies that will advance more transit-supportive land use.

The Met Council’s draft TPP deserves praise for its suggestion that we can’t build our way out of congestion. However, if we are to reduce traffic congestion and develop a truly integrated, metro-wide transportation system, bolder visions and actions are needed. The Met Council will accept comments on the draft TPP until 5 p.m. on November 6 via its website.

— Skye Stauffer, Growth & Justice intern, and Matt Kane

Congestion is only the symptom: More conversation with the Civic Caucus

This is the second part of my conversation with members of the non-partisan Civic Caucus about transportation issues facing Minnesota [here's part one]. I don't normally refer to myself in the third person, but the Caucus's report was so clear and concise, I've simply used their words, adding my own headings.

Reducing congestion involves a wide range of issues and potential approaches.

A Civic Caucus member said that large numbers of people in the metro area remain deeply concerned over sitting in traffic. Kane acknowledged that congestion is an important issue, politically and in terms of quality of life. He said that the metro area needs a wider range of options for getting to where they need to go and that land use matters, too, in terms of where people live vis-a-vis where they work. 

Kane said that the use of pricing mechanisms to encourage drivers to seek lower cost alternatives has appeal. He noted that the forthcoming changes to the 35W corridor under the federal-state-local Urban Partnership Agreement will provide valuable insights into a variety of transportation options, including congestion pricing, traffic management strategies, and transit structured to offer riders clear advantages over driving.

It will become more important in coming years, he said, to move to a different approach —other than the gasoline tax and vehicle license fees — to paying for the cost of roads. Growth & Justice favors tapping into income tax revenues. Another approach, he said, would be to charge motorists based on vehicles miles traveled, perhaps varying the rate based on when, where, and how far a trip occurs. In response to a question, Kane said he is not opposed to considering a parking tax, too.

But congestion is a reflection of a strong economy, so reducing it might not be the right goal.

Having a vibrant economy such as in the Twin Cities area inevitably produces congestion, Kane said. We'd not want to reduce economic activity as a way to ease congestion. Getting rid of congestion isn't the right goal, he said. A better definition of the goal would be providing access to destinations for people.

The upcoming Central Corridor LRT line connecting the downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul isn't so much designed to ease congestion as it is to assure access for people, he said.  Projections indicate that buses won't be able to accommodate all demand in the corridor in future years, he said. As part of a more complete transit system and an expanded LRT network, the line will allow more people to move in less congestion.

Light rail is but one element of that comprehensive system, he said. The flexibility of buses and their lower upfront costs make them a critical part of the plan. We need to keep in mind both costs and who is served when exploring transit modes.

He noted that major rapid bus service will shortly be added to I-35 and to Cedar Avenue south from Minneapolis well into Dakota County.   

Suburban destinations are difficult to serve because transit requires density — of either jobs or residents.

A Civic Caucus member noted that much more attention is given to transit service for the downtowns, where not more than 15 percent of the region's jobs are located, rather than to suburban destinations. Kane replied that mass transit requires a high density of jobs at the destination end in order to be fiscally viable. The downtowns have vastly higher densities of jobs than does any suburban destination.   

A member commented that perhaps more innovative approaches — than a corridor approach — are needed in designing suburban transit service.  Kane responded that it is difficult to design a system to well serve potential transit users in locations with low densities for housing and low concentrations of jobs, but innovative approaches would be welcome.

Expenses, subsidy levels and decision-making authority vary between transportation modes.

LRT has larger up-front capital expense, but lower operating expense than buses, Kane said.  LRT has fewer drivers, fewer vehicles, and uses electricity, not petroleum, for fuel. In terms of dollar amounts, although not percentages, express buses that operate non-stop from suburbs to the downtowns require a more subsidy than local buses that pick up and discharge passengers every block, he said. 

Kane acknowledged that tensions will exist between the Metropolitan Council and the metro counties over use of the new county-based transit tax.  The counties are not as anxious to use those funds for operating subsidies as is the Metropolitan Council.

Asked whether rail and highway decision-making will occur in the same governmental body, Kane replied that decisions need to be very well coordinated, but one has to recognize the practical difficulties, in light of legislative action. 

More and different transportation funding is needed.

Kane characterized the work of the 2008 Legislature as a down payment on catching up on a transportation backlog. To the extent that gas taxes fade in the future as an effective source of transportation revenues, we likely will need to look at variety of sources to produce the adequate income stream, he said. 

Growth & Justice believes that to secure additional public funds for investments in transportation and education, Minnesota should look to income tax increases targeted toward higher income earners. Kane cited the Minnesota Department of Revenue’s 2007 Minnesota Tax Incidence Study, which shows that for combined state and local taxes, state residents earning the most pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than those in the middle-income range.

Specifically, earners in the top income category pay 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes, while those in the fourth through ninth categories pay 11.5 to 12.3 percent. [Note: The gap is even more pronounced at the top 5 and first percentiles, at 10.5 and 9.6 percent, respectively.] Kane said that state and local taxes as a percentage of total income in Minnesota have declined since the 1990s.

— Matt Kane

Managing transit: A conversation with the Civic Caucus

In June I met with members of the Civic Caucus to discuss ongoing, major transportation issues in Minnesota. The non-partisan Civic Caucus, described as “a Minnesota e-group of senior policy wonks,” convenes once a week to engage in dialog on public issues and surface creative proposals for change.

This post is based on their report of our discussion. A second post will address congestion, suburbs vs.cities and other issues they raised.

The divided metro transit structure is a practical accommodation to reality.

Commenting on divided transit authority between the Metropolitan Council and county governments in the metro area, Kane said the arrangement is a practical accommodation to reality. A new quarter-cent sales tax for transit is, by law, being imposed by county governments, not the Metropolitan Council.  It is somewhat unrealistic to put the county commissioners on the hook for raising the funds and expect them to hand off decision-making authority to another government entity. 

Thus, the counties are empowered to decide how the new tax money will be distributed, consistent with the Metropolitan Council's policy plan. In the best of all worlds, you'd probably place more authority in the Council, but we have to be practical, he said. Moreover, many legislators consider the Council to be too closely tied to the Governor, because all Council members are appointed by the Governor to terms that are co-terminus with the Governor.

Growth & Justice is not a fan of the sales tax, Kane said, because it hits lower income persons disproportionately.   

Minnesota transportation funds have been distributed as “entitlements,” rather than according to need. Fairness and accountability are likely to improve.

It was noted that several weeks ago, Ken Orski, a national transportation consultant, was critical of the way transportation funds are distributed in Minnesota. Orski's concern was that the funds are largely distributed to different levels of government according to statutory or constitutional formulas that bear little relationship to need.  In effect, Orski said, the funds are "entitlements" for various levels of government.

Kane noted that the 2008 Legislature changed a formula for distribution of funds among counties to give greater account to transportation needs, not just an automatic distribution among counties, irrespective of needs. He also said that the Legislature has an interest in assuring that all parts of the state are treated equitably in distribution of revenue.

There are good reasons to place authority for transportation at the metro level as well as the state level.

A Civic Caucus member inquired whether more leadership and planning responsibility ought to exist at the state level, because of the critical role that transportation plays in the overall economy of the state.

Kane agreed that a statewide transportation system allows the safe and easy movement of people and goods.  It makes places accessible to people. And it lays the base for business activity that fosters economic prosperity. Commerce needs roads, and businesses incur costs from congestion delays and poor road conditions.  Wise investments in transportation infrastructure help put Minnesota’s households in a better position to benefit from economic growth. And a high-quality transportation system makes for faster commutes, reduced delays, fewer accidents, less fuel consumption and better air quality.

He noted, however, that it is useful to place some authority at the metro level, instead of with the state, because experience nationally has shown that metro-level decision makers are more likely to explore a variety of options for dealing with the much more complex transportation problem in the metro area, and more likely, too, to consider transit as a viable option. Because of the much larger number of trips and the accompanying congestion in the metro, investments in transit are important.

— Matt Kane

Will suburbs pay for urban development?

Debate over the transportation bill — and the funding of transit as well as roads and bridges — typically  fell along party lines. But it might also be characterized as a disagreement between the short-termers and the long-termers.

One side tends to look at today and go year-by-year and pothole-by-pothole. The other side looks farther into the future and recognizes that the world we face tomorrow might not simply be an extended version of today.

An article in The Atlantic [via Twin City Sidewalks] looks at market forces underlying signs of housing decline in certain suburban communities. The march to exurbia is unlikely to continue:

A structural change is under way in the housing market — a major shift in the way many Americans want to live and work. It has shaped the current downturn, steering some of the worst problems away from the cities and toward the suburban fringes. And its effects will be felt more strongly, and more broadly, as the years pass. Its ultimate impact on the suburbs, and the cities, will be profound.

The article chronicles research that forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes by 2025 and discusses implications for that housing stock as more Americans choose to live in places that are less segregated from work, shopping and entertainment. At the suburban fringes, for example, developers have forsaken regional malls to build "lifestyle centers" similar to Maple Grove's Arbor Lakes and infill developments like St. Louis Park's Excelsior and Grand.

In their most advanced incarnation, these places combine walkable streets with access to diverse retail, more dense housing and  transit.

[R]ecent consumer research by Jonathan Levine of the University of Michigan and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine and his colleagues asked more than 1,600 mostly suburban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas to hypothetically trade off typical suburban amenities (such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones (like living within walking distance of retail districts). All in all, they found that only about a third of the people surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles, featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third, roughly, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live in mixed-use, walkable urban areas—but most had no way to do so at an affordable price.

If some McMansion developments lose favor in the coming years, their fate may first resemble what happened to urban housing as populations began to shift to suburbia in the 1960s — declining values, influxes of low-income families and even conversion to apartments.

But the article notes that "the infrastructure supporting large-lot suburban residential areas — roads, sewer and water lines — cannot support the dense development that urbanization would require, and is not easy to upgrade. Once large-lot, suburban residential landscapes are built, they are hard to unbuild."

Further, most suburban houses were not built to last — with materials and construction methods that easily withstand conversion.

If a significant population does swing back to a less car-oriented lifestyle, the suburbs will pay — and it won't be just for transit lines.

— Charlie Quimby

The liberal plot to fix our roads

Blogger Drew Emmer is not happy with the transportation bill (he calls it the "transit bill"), media coverage of the legislation or the coalition that supported its passage.

In support of his contention that "special interests" put one over on the taxpayers, he cites a long list of organizations and local government entities that supported the bill. Growth & Justice is one of the baddies.

One clear takeaway from his list: His readers are supposed to think a cabal of labor, environmentalists and the construction industry slipped this one past the guardians of the public purse.

Of course, one might expect the highway industry to support road construction legislation. Nor is it surprising that organizations concerned about employment would look on favorably. Farmers who must get their products to market over rural roads? Another special interest at work.

But calling this bill the work of "special interests" and attributing its passage to an orchestrated effort by groups as diverse as the League of Women Voters, the City of Hutchinson, the Isaak Walton League, the Teamsters and Potato Growers is a bit silly.

The compilation becomes even less credible because it also omits two of the most influential groups who favored passage — the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Itasca Project, which convenes the CEOs of the state's largest companies.

These broad-based business groups are rightly concerned about the region's economic health and competitiveness. They, and many of the other businesses represented on Demmer's special interests list, are widely considered the most important allies of Republicans on economic and tax-and-budget issues.

Any claim of liberal "special" interests starts to lose meaning when the interests represent such a broad expanse of the state's businesses, counties and municipalities, labor groups and nonprofits.

Isn't it just possible we all agreed — beyond our parochial concerns and differing political perspectives — that it was time to invest in the state's transportation infrastructure?

— Charlie Quimby

Federal transportation rules favor roads over light rail

Public officials and transportation planners are trimming the proposed Central Corridor light rail project in order to bring the price down and meet federal requirements for cost-effectiveness. 

Might be a short-sighted approach that limits the potential of the rail line in the future. Might be a good exercise in fiscal discipline. One way or the other, the federal requirements and budget constraints facing the Central Corridor project stand out as issues for transit, not for roads. 

The federal government tips the table in favor of roads over transit. The U.S. Department of Transportation gives states relatively free rein to make decisions about road construction projects even while it puts tight parameters and requirements on the construction of major transit projects. 

While the feds cover 80 percent or more of the costs for new roads, both Congress and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have taken steps to effectively limit the federal share for capital funding of new rail lines and busways to less than 60 percent. State and local governments come up with the rest — 40 or 50 percent for a light rail line, 20 percent for a new freeway. 

What’s more, major transit projects are subject to strict project criteria, including an assessment of estimated costs versus benefits. When considering plans for new rail or busway routes, the FTA assesses the mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost effectiveness and land-use impacts. And proposals for rail lines and busways from one community must compete against proposals from elsewhere in the fight for tight transit funding. 

All good ideas? Perhaps.  But those federal requirements don’t extend to roads.

Consider the recently completed sections of Highway 212 through Chaska and over to Eden Prairie. The Minnesota Department of Transportation certainly engaged in careful studies of that 11-mile stretch of road before it became a freeway-style, four-lane thoroughfare. 

But no one worried the state would lose federal funding for the project if the benefits were too low. No one nixed a freeway interchange because of cost considerations. And no one worried that the Federal Highway Administration would yank Minnesota’s funding for the project in order to finance a more cost-effective stretch of road in, say, Atlanta. 

For the 11-mile Central Corridor, federal requirements and funding restrictions have limited the options for additional stops along University Avenue in St. Paul, altered plans for the route through the University of Minnesota campus, and led the Ramsey County Commissioners to drop calls for an intermodal transit platform at St. Paul’s old Union Depot — at least for now. 

Necessary? Yes. Wise? Maybe. Fair? No.

— Matt Kane