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
I believe the Civic Caucus will find this event of interest:
Monday, July 28, 7:30pm - Magers And Quinn Booksellers, 3038 Hennepin Avenue South in Uptown.
Harry Boyte discusses his new book The Citizen Solution: How You Can Make a Difference
Nationally known community organizer and activist Harry C. Boyte incites readers to join today’s “citizen movement,” offering practical tools for how we can change the face of America by focusing on issues close to home.
Targeting useful techniques for individuals to raise public consciousness and effectively motivate community-based groups, Boyte grounds his arguments in the country’s tradition of “populism,” demonstrating how mobilized citizens can be far more powerful than our frequently paralyzed politicians. He offers practical tips on identifying potential citizen leaders and working through cultural differences without sacrificing identities.
Each point is illustrated by inspiring real-life examples of Minnesotans who have prompted change: An immigrant community that created a cultural wellness center. An organization of multiracial, multifaith congregations that is tackling tough social problems. A cluster of suburban neighborhoods that came together to take back Sundays from overzealous youth-sports organizations. For readers doubting their ability to make a significant difference in our world, this how-to book will show the way.
Harry Boyte is founder and co-director of the Institute's Center for Democracy and Citizenship, and founder of Public Achievement, a theory-based practice of citizen organizing to do public work for the common good which is being used in schools, universities and communities across the United States and in more than a dozen countries. Boyte is author or co-author of a number of books including Closing the Citizenship Gap: The Civic Populist Movement in Minnesota (Minnesota Historical Society Press, forthcoming); Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); Building America: The Democratic Promise of Public Work, with Nan Kari (Temple University Press, 1996); Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America, with Sara M. Evans (Harper & Row, 1986; University of Chicago, 1992). His writings have appeared in over seventy publications, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times,Wall Street Journal, Chronicle of Higher Education, Christian Science Monitor, Democracy, Policy Review, Dissent, and PS: Political Science and Politics. His political commentary has appeared on CBS Morning and Evening News, and National Public Radio. Boyte earned a doctorate degree in political and social thought from the Union Institute.
Posted by: Ashland | July 15, 2008 at 09:01 AM