Growth & Justice Blog

Top priority for transitway development should be employers and jobs

You are a policymaker and you have a tough choice between two big development proposals for the same site on a key light rail line or transitway. All other things being equal, which do you choose: a major employer or a large housing complex?

If overall accessibility improvement and employer access to labor is the goal, take the employer, says new research presented this week at the 23rd Annual Transportation Research Conference in St. Paul this week.

The research report by University of Minnesota Humphrey School Assistant Professor Yingling Fan was complex and aimed at planning professionals. But the bottom-line key finding was straightforward: "Locating new jobs near transitways produces larger increases in accessibility than locating new housing near transitways.'' Getting these fundamentals right are important because by 2030 we likely will have an integrated network of 14 transitways up and running in the Twin Cities, ranging from light rail to commuter rail to express bus lines. Few public investments are more important for business growth than transporation infractructure.

Fan's research was sponsored by the McKnight Foundation, the Jay & Rose Phillips Family Foundation and the Surdna Foundation. Abstracts from the conference provide rich state-of-the-art thinking on a wide array of transportation investment issues.

Dane Smith 

St. Paul resident and son inspecting Central Corridor construction in downtown St. Paul (Metropolitan Council photo)

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

Transit's cost-effectiveness index fell short

The U.S. Department of Transportation announced last week that it would pull back from its cost-effectiveness index when picking major transit projects.

So how smart is that?  

Well, pretty smart, as it turns out.  The move makes sense, even for those of us at Growth & Justice, where we emphasize cost-effectiveness and smart investments.

U.S. DOT in 2005 made the cost-effectiveness index (CEI) the linch pin for decisions on the Small Starts and New Starts transit programs. Those programs provide federal funding for such initiatives as the planned Central Corridor light rail line that will link St. Paul and Minneapolis. 

With the CEI, a narrowly defined set of benefits had to exceed project costs by a given threshold in order for transit plans to move forward.

Trouble is the CEI focused primarily on faster travel on long trips by commuters — a legitimate consideration but not the only one. This over-emphasis on commuter trips often came at the expense of quality transit service for low-income city residents.

Case in point:  The Central Corridor line. The planned light rail service was slated to reduce the transit service now available along the region's busiest transit run, down University Ave. in St. Paul through several ethnically diverse and lower-income communities. 

Metro Transit argued that adding stops to better serve the residents of those areas would increase construction costs and reduce the speed of the trip for for commuters in ways that would put the Central Corridor line over the mark for the all-important CEI. Correct.

But U.S. DOT's Federal Transit Administration states as policy that the the most fundamental reason for offering transit service is to provide affordable mobility, a critical issue for low- and moderate-income people who depend more on public transit and constitute its core ridership.

Federal statute lays out six statutory criteria for major transit projects, just one of which is the cost-effectiveness index. The Bush Administration's decision to elevate the CEI to the overwhelming focus led to decisions that undermined other key goals for transit.

The Federal Transit Administration will soon initiative a rule making process for measuring a broader range of benefits from New Starts and Small Starts, including economic development opportunities and environmental gains.

With this new approach, the CEI will continue to be evaluated, but as one of the six criteria.  And this new approach may allow for sensible changes to Central Corridor plans, including additional stops in what otherwise will be under-served, transit-dependent neighborhoods.

— Matt Kane

 

 

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