Growth & Justice Blog

How Transit Reduces Road Congestion

Here is an important question for metropolitan areas in Minnesota:  Does public transit reduce traffic congestion? Often the answer is “yes,” but sometimes it is “no.”

On the “yes” side, the link between public transportation and easing our collective commuting headache is a notably simple one: Buses and light rail trains can carry more people per vehicle and per foot of roadway than do private automobiles, meaning that as more people travel by transit instead of by car, there should be fewer total vehicles taking up less square footage and clogging up our roads.

However, the actual impacts of transit on gridlock in Minnesota are a bit more complicated for several reasons. 

First, transit can only reduce congestion on a roadway that is already being used by as many vehicles as it can hold. Transit service along an uncongested corridor or during off-peak hours won’t make anybody’s trip much faster.

Second, a particular bus route or rail line is likely to have a much greater impact on people’s commute times when running on or parallel to a major roadway. Twin Cities examples include I-94, I-35W, Lake Street and University Avenue. Traffic congestion on a major roadway is likely to overflow onto other roadways that connect to it, so if a transit route eases gridlock on a major thoroughfare, the benefits will be felt on adjacent and intersecting streets, as well.

Third, public transportation’s positive impacts on traffic flow are wholly dependent upon riders-by-choice – that is, people who could get around in private automobiles if they wanted to but hop on buses or trains instead. All other non-drivers are presumed to walk, bicycle, carpool, or use transit because they don’t have any other option.  Consequently, only a rider-by-choice on transit represents another car, van, truck, or motorcycle removed from traffic.

To reduce traffic congestion, Minnesota’s transit agencies need to fill their buses and trains with as many riders-by-choice as possible.

Most of the time and in most places, traveling by car is faster than transit. Therefore, in most cases, travelers must be convinced to become transit-riders-by-choice for reasons other than speed. These riders-by-choice might be drawn to transit to save money on parking and gasoline, or to relax in comfort on transit vehicles during the rush hour chaos, or to take advantage of convenient transit schedules and transit stop locations.

Unfortunately, riders-by-choice are much fewer in number now then they were a few decades ago, thanks to an automobile culture that encourages urban sprawl. But a transit system often needs to attract only a relatively small number of riders-by-choice in order to have a major impact on traffic congestion because the difference between a congested roadway and an uncongested roadway is often just a very small number of vehicles.

Mitigating traffic congestion is not the only reason for public transit, of course. Personal mobility, improved livability and reduced environmental impacts are other standout benefits. But transit definitely holds promise for easing those morning and evening commutes.

— Nick Flanders

A shift ahead for highways in the Twin Cities

Transportation investment in the Twin Cities will shift gears in smart ways if the Met Council and Minnesota’s Department of Transportation stick with draft plans they have begun to unveil at a series of outreach sessions.

The shift: Moving away from hugely expensive highway expansion projects — with their limited and localized impacts — and adopting instead new, cost-effective approaches to improve mobility and manage congestion... not end it.

The goal: “Wring every bit of capacity possible out of our metropolitan highway system.”

The reason: “The era of expanding highways to address additional capacity needs is over.”

The outlines for the Metropolitan Highway System Investment Study call for approaches that are realistic, innovative, and focus available funds on opportunities that offer the greatest benefits for the Twin Cities highway system as a whole.

Sounds right on target, but this new emphasis breaks tradition with highway investment plans that have identified big-ticket construction projects as the main way to improve travel and reduce congestion.

The change in tune is impressive, important and pragmatic. An earlier study estimated that building our way out of Twin Cities’ congestion by 2030 would cost $40 billion. That's more than two and a half times the total funding that MnDOT says will be available for statewide highway investments from 2009 to 2028.

To raise $40 billion, Minnesota would need to increase the gas tax by $2 a gallon.

So smart highway spending in the metro area will focus on preserving the roadways we have already; repairing and replacing our bridges; engaging in low-cost, strategic construction projects that will best expand the system’s capacity; and using transit and technology to increase the number of people the roadways can move.

The highway plan will bank on benefits from traffic management techniques, including metered entrances to Twin Cities freeways; better information about traffic tie-ups so drivers can shift to alternate routes; and priced MnPASS freeway lanes than can serve as congestion relief valves and fast transit routes.

Transit is called out as an important component of the plan, and so are land use changes that can reduce the need for roadway travel and foster transit use.

The planners have even shifted their language to reflect an emphasis on moving people and not on moving cars. The new phrase of choice is telling — “people throughput” instead of “vehicle throughput.”

While the new investment study recognizes many of the major challenges and constraints for the Twin Cities highway system, it does not wipe them away, of course. The yawning gap between expected revenues and infrastructure needs means more funding must be considered. Transit remains underfunded, as do fix-it-first investments in our existing system.

But the metro highway investment study reflects many of the smart themes and priorities found in MnDOT’s statewide transportation policy plan, thankfully.

Once the draft Metropolitan Highway System Investment Study is amended and adopted, it will update the Metropolitan Council’s transportation policy plan and in this way set the stage for how that regional government and MnDOT go about investing in the Twin Cities area transportation infrastructure.

It’s progress.

— Matt Kane

New Orfield book "Region," and new OPEN Society leadership, make the case for smarter growth and racial integration

"Region: Planning the Future of the Twin Cities,'' is an impressive new policy textbook, hot off the University of Minnesota Press,  that surveys the state of the metropolitan area and offers prescriptions for smarter growth and reducing racial and economic segregation. The book, co-authored by metropolitan governance experts Myron Orfield and Thomas F. Luce, Jr., belongs on the desks of Minnesota policy enthusiasts everywhere.   With its colorful maps showing racial and income disparities, and intriguing overlays featuring such factors as travel times and environmentally sensitive areas,  the book also works as a coffee-table conversation starter.   Orfield is a law school professor and he and Luce are directors of the Institute on Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota. An unveiling and book-signing event Thursday evening, featuring a panel discussion on the issues raised, is set at Magers & Quinn. Orfield is among our  advisers at Growth & Justice and has been a leading force in the state for stronger efforts at regional planning and containing sprawl, with special focus  on the damaging effects of de facto economic and racial segregation, since his days as a state legislator in the 1990s.    Joining the authors for the forum will be Meg Tuthill, the new council member for Ward 10 in Minneapolis; Dave VanHattum of the nonprofit organization Transit for Livable Communities; and Jesse Mortenson of the nonprofit MetroIBA, which supports independent businesses in the Twin Cities. 

On another front in the fight for justice and integration, a 30-year-old civil rights organization, Fund for an OPEN Society, is moving it's leadership and headquarters to Minnesota. The new executive director of the group is Caty Royce, an experienced progressive leader from Minneapolis who headed the Community Stablization Project, was a leader for Catholic Charities and served in the Peace Corps. Royce says "she is convinced that we must attack residential segregation at the same time we address school segregation,'' and that the much deplored "achievement gap in education is just part of a much broader and more complex racialized opportunity gap.'' The website for Fund for an OPEN Society  is in the process of being updated  but Royce can be reached at [email protected].  Royce cites john powell (lower-case for the name is his preference), founder of the U of M's Institute on Race and Poverty, and his call for equalizing access to "structures of opportunity,'' as an inspiration for her group's work.

Dane Smith

Jason Lewis thinks nobody noticed budget cuts. And taxes are "plunder."

We can't compete with Jason Lewis when it comes to  pushing hot buttons and provoking ideological flamers, left and right.  

Our Feb. 21 front-page Sunday Star Tribune Op-Ex commentary, making a reasoned,  pro-business case for raising taxes, to address our historic budget crisis and to continue investing in human capital and infrastructure,  elicited 36 comments.   Maybe we just weren't wild and crazy and intemperate enough to generate real excitement and panic.  In the piece, Charlie Quimby and I  allowed as how some business tax cuts also might make sense and that government needs to get serious about accountability and redesign. 

 Right-wing talk-show provocateur Lewis's response on Feb. 26, five days later and inside the paper at the bottom of the regular op-ed page,  drew 113 comments as of this morning.   We've gotten some requests to respond and I shared these rebuttal points with George Sundquist, a retired sheet-metal workers union representative  from Duluth, and George said he intended to write a letter to the editor.  So watch for that.  In the meantime, here are our main points in response to Lewis, which we also will post as comments appended to both our our op-ed and the Lewis article.

Lewis throws together a mishmash of selective statistics, including a relatively small gas tax increase two years ago, trying to make the case that government has grown.   But he failed to effectively refute the most important bottom-line fact we revealed: our state and local  governments are smaller,  and spending and taxes as a percent of our total personal income are considerably smaller,  than they were a decade ago.   

Among Lewis'  three most problematic assertions: One, Lewis cites a $6.6 billion gas tax hike in 2008 and forgets to note that this sum is a 10-year cumulative total, and that the state's business lobby led the effort to override Gov. Tim Palenty's veto, to make up for a 20-year lag  in transportation investment, a disinvestment crisis that  Pawlenty had acknowledged.  Two, Lewis says the Legislature “decided to spend’’ $2.2 billion in 2007, a brief surplus during a decade of chronic shortfall,  and overlooks the fact that much of that funding went to replenish reserves and pay back accounting shifts from the previous budget crisis. Three, Lewis stubbornly clings to state income tax statistics alone, not the actual bottom line for all taxes,  to dispute the real and unfair advantage that wealthy citizens enjoy in total state-local tax incidence.

But beyond these facts and perhaps worst of all, Lewis quotes a fellow libertarian who describes the lawful and necessary tax obligations of our own democratic governments as an “instrument of plunder.’’   This notion, of our own local, state and federal governments as illegitimate thieves, is simply unacceptable.  This dangerous canard  increasingly is expressed in  Tea Party messaging.  

Finally, Lewis makes a decidedly out-of-touch assertion  that “no one’s noticed’’ the huge and unprecedented budget cuts and unallotments imposed unilaterally by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.  Lewis by all accounts is paid very well for his inflammatory anti-government  radio talk and it might be that he probably hasn’t noticed any personal impact from state and local goverment budget cuts.   But he really needs to talk to families who have lost their MinnesotaCare coverage, or who can’t afford skyrocketing college tuition, because of cuts to our vital public services.  They, and most of the rest of us, are noticing.

Dane Smith

 p.s.  We do appreciate the headline on the Lewis piece, "Higher taxes?  Oh, they make it sound so swell!'' 

 

 

Less Government? We Tried That. It's Not Working.

The Star Tribune's front-page story today finds that "less government'' is the overwhelming consensus "vision'' for Republican gubernatorial candidates. Peggy Lee and most Minnesotans want to know: Is that all there is?   

Leaving aside that this mantra sounds more like hard-right, activist-energizing radio talk than inclusive vision casting — and has to be extremely disappointing to hundreds of thousands of moderate and progressive Republican voters — we need some context here.   

The Price of Government, an official state Minnesota Management and Budget measure, shows that we DO have less government over the last decade, ever since the no-new-taxes religion, like some southern invasive species, got a hold on the North Star State. (See page 13 of the PowerPoint presented at the capitol last week by State Economist Tom Stinson and State Demographer Tom Gillaspy).

The bar graphs clearly show that our governments are using about two percentage points less (15.5 percent in 2008 compared to about 17.5 percent through the 1990s) of our personal income share than those governments were spending when the economy was actually doing better. Huge income tax cuts in 1999 and 2000 left us with chronic  budget crises, and the promised payoff in sustained, tide-rising economic growth didn't materialize, either.  

Wealth concentration at the top got worse, bridge and road conditions deteriorated, public school course offerings were cut, and thousands of working low-income folks lost their health care. And our economy is slumping and beginning to underperform the national average on some key indicators.  

We surely could use some more judicious restructuring and redesign of how we do our government work. But the basic things government provides are essential for our shared prosperity and quality of life.  

NOTE: The Price of Government measure is one of the most comprehensive of all the measures we have to describe the size and role of government. It counts state and local government revenues as a percentage of total income and therefore accounts for inflation, population growth and economic growth. It was instituted at the behest and with the approval of business groups in the late 1980s.

— Dane Smith

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

When Stimulus Worked for All.

From our Golden Valley yard, we can hear the thrum of traffic from Hwy. 100, once known as the Belt Line and Lilac Way.

Today, there's little evidence in this sound-wall-to-sound-wall carscape of a connection to the Great Depression and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). But a restored Lilac Park, dedicated this week near Highways 7 and 100, offers a modest reminder of what public investment can accomplish — and what may be lacking in today's attempts to stimulate an ailing economy.

This appeared in MinnPost today.

— Charlie Quimby

Funding transportation through "value capture"

After the bruising battle over the 2008 transportation bill, the Legislature requested a study of "value capture" as a potential way to raise revenue for future infrastructure investments in Minnesota. The University of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies has released its analysis of eight potential strategies for funding transportation based on the concept.

Currently, transportation improvements are funded by general revenue (based on the assumption that all benefit indirectly from the transportation network) and user fees, such as gas taxes and transit fares. The rationale for value capture is based on the relationship between transportation networks and urban land value. [See diagram.]

Investment in transportation infrastructure — ranging from new roads and freeway interchanges to light rail lines and transit stops — improves accessibility to desirable locations such as jobs, shopping and entertainment. Property thus made more accessible tends to become more valuable. Developers and landowners benefit from this higher land value.

Value capture mechanisms seek to harvest a payback from the value created by the public investment. The revenue is then directed to pay off the improvements or finance new ones.

The study is quite lucid in spelling out the pros and cons of eight potential value capture approaches based on four criteria — economic efficiency, equity, sustainability, and perhaps most important for the Legislature, feasibility.

It will come as no surprise to students of tax policy that the most feasible measures have relatively low visibility to general taxpayers.

Perhaps the most intriguing of the eight approaches is Transportation Utility Fees (TUFs). TUFs treat transportation networks like other utilities and can be based on factors related to transportation demand, such as parking, square footage or type of facility. They are simple to administer and generate a stable revenue stream. But, as with any new "fee," there are drawbacks to getting them authorized in the first place.

The 12-page policy summary, "Harnessing Value for Transportation Investment," is worth a look by anyone interested in finding new ways to raise money for transportation. [Download Policy Summary]

— Charlie Quimby

Hollowing out the public sector affects public safety

Our continuing and increasingly dubious experiment with starving the public sector in Minnesota is producing almost daily reports of questionable budget cuts.   A Star Tribune front-page story on disappearing lifeguards at public beaches is the latest manifestation of our increasingly penurious fiscal policy.    Anti-government conservatives like to claim that much or most of government investment is unnecesssary or superfluous, and that all we really need are military forces, courts and police to protect property.   But it turns out that a relentless ratcheting down of public investment affects public safety in myriad ways:  crumbling bridges, less attention to mesothelioma incidence in northern Minnesota miners, Local Government Aid cuts that force police and emergency service layoffs, hospital reimbursement cuts that hamper emergency rooms in the midst of an ongoing swine flu pandemic, and on and on.    Public safety is a primary responsibility of our entirely legitimate and mostly effective state-and-local government systems.    Most of the things those governments do eventually have something to do with public safety and providing for the "General Welfare," an often overlooked primary goal that is spelled out in the United States Constitution.    And these systems can't be funded without fair and ample tax revenues.

Dane Smith

Safe bike travel offers lessons in infrastructure

The Star Tribune editorial, "Don't let thugs derail bike trail use," is right in spirit. But in response to a rash of muggings along the popular central bikeway, it makes an array of suggestions — better lighting, increased police presence, night-vision security cameras, citizen bike patrols and avoiding riding alone — that miss a larger point about safe infrastructure and its use by the public.

Safety strategies that rely on counter-measures and modified user behavior represent a design failure. And a purely engineering- or cost-driven approach to infrastructure almost guarantees we will end up with issues later.

The editorial notes that "portions of the greenway and Hiawatha trails are more dangerous because of the surrounding geography and inadequate lighting."

Another way of putting it would be: The danger comes from treating commuting purely as a problem of moving most efficiently from point-to-point. The trail fails to recognize its true connections to the surrounding city.

The trails are more dangerous because they were built like roadways and rail lines — for specialized vehicle use through a featureless trench or concrete wasteland — rather than as human-scaled outdoor passageways that naturally connect people and destinations. This problem "geography" along Hiawatha was created decades ago by scrubbing the landscape of trees, residences and commercial buildings so it could be remade as a transportation corridor. Then the entire area was neglected until recently.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Midtown Greenway and use it at all times and seasons. The designers and community advocates who championed the trail were well aware of its challenges, and they incorporated features to mitigate problems with the location. It will only get better as more community connections are made and more people discover it.

But here's what real safety looks like along a bike trail or city street.

We can design our infrastructure like parking ramps and equip them with cameras, emergency phones and occasional patrols. Or we can emulate our parks and most beloved commercial streets — places that encourage a mix of activities and promote gathering, visibility and access year-round.

Reaching our destination safely and efficiently is indeed important, but we ignore the quality of the journey at our peril.

— Charlie Quimby