A scorecard for the 2012 legislative session

from Dave Van Hattum, Senior Policy Advocate

When the 2012 legislative session opened on January 24, Transit for Livable Communities had four objectives on our agenda (pdf).

1. Maintain Current Operating Funding for Public Transit Statewide
2. Capital Bonding for Transit Investments
3. Enable Financing for Transit Oriented Development
4. Increase Funding for Bicycle and Pedestrian Access

When the gavel marked close of session on May 11, the scorecard was mixed but the big transit story was that Southwest light rail transit was not in the bonding bill. The goal of securing $25 million for the next light rail line in the Twin Cities regional transit system was not achieved.

This is a serious setback. It results from a Republican caucus position that is against light rail and allegedly supportive of expanded bus service. During the session, a wide array of voices marshaled in support of Southwest light rail transit.

• Governor Dayton included the project in his bonding proposal.


• The business community (including Minneapolis Regional, Twin West, Saint Paul, Edina, and Eden Prairie Chambers of Commerce, but notably not the Minnesota Chamber) repeatedly argued that funding for transit in the busy southwest corridor is essential to retain current employers and attract new jobs. For example, read this op-ed in the Pioneer Press.


• All of the communities along the line support the investment. People from across the metro area wrote letters to the editor telling why transit options matter to them. See letters here and here. A statewide poll showed that residents across the state support the line.


• The Met Council, Metro Transit, and the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) helped educate legislators and gain positive media coverage of the project. See this Star Tribune editorial. 


• Transit for Livable Communities and the Transit Partners coalition rallied support from members, launching an online campaign and delivering more than 1,000 petitions to the Governor and legislative leadership.


• Senator Latz and Senator Bonoff and Representative Hornstein gave inspiring floor speeches supporting the Southwest LRT line.

But the line was left out of the bonding bill.

Southwest LRT planners will apply for funding through the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) “Business Development through Capital Projects Grant Program” that was included in the bonding bill. The Southwest line will compete with many other projects for a slice of this $47.5 million fund.

In the short term, political leaders advancing the Southwest LRT line are committed to finding the money (through local sources) to keep the project moving through the preliminary engineering phase. But GO bonding will be needed to keep the Southwest LRT on schedule to start construction in 2014 and open in 2018. The state share of this project is 10%, or $125 million. Each $1 in state funds leverages $9 from local and federal sources. See a virtual tour of the line in this article.

As all the voices arrayed in support of the line made clear, this investment is crucial to future economic growth in the region. It also will create construction jobs and, when open, will give residents across the metro the option of saving money (and polluting less) by using transit. Transit for Livable Communities with our members and allies will keep fighting.

The 2012 legislative scorecard has some wins.

Transit fared better in two other areas—defeating a proposed transit fare increase and securing limited funding for transit in the bonding bill. Transit advocates successfully battled against a proposed 25 cent fare increase, arguing that it makes no sense to increase fares when demand for transit is growing. The measure was pulled from the transportation policy bill.

The capital bonding bill included $2.5 million for the Minneapolis Interchange, an expansion of the transit hub at Target Field which will serve increased ridership expected when the Central Corridor opens in 2014 and when the Southwest LRT opens in 2018. The bonding bill also included $6.4 million for transit facilities in greater Minnesota. These all were in our 2012 legislative agenda.

TOD remains to be seen

No bills were heard to enable financing and accelerate transit-oriented-development (TOD), one of our goals for the session. Given the focus on the bonding bill and Vikings stadium, this was not a surprise. With the Central Corridor LRT coming on soon, and critical station area planning underway for the Southwest LRT, local and regional conversations continue regarding ways to leverage more and better TOD. We anticipate future legislative efforts to advance “value capture” and other innovative financial strategies for transit oriented development. Robust TOD boosts the value of transit investments by making sure housing, jobs, and commerce efficiently connect to the transit line.

A bicycle and pedestrian policy win but no funding

TLC was part of a coalition seeking the creation of a State of Minnesota Safe Routes to School program (to complement the federally-funded program) and funding in the bonding bill. The coalition was successful in the former but not the latter. It was encouraging to see a high level of bipartisan support for the Safe Routes to School initiative, including very persuasive testimony from Apple Valley High School Principal Gary Anger and two Mounds View High School students (Patrick Sullivan and Samantha Kaslow). Hopefully, the foundation was laid for future success in the House and Senate Capital Investment committees, which oversee bonding legislation. It is often the case that projects seeking GO bonding need to build their case and coalition of supporters over multiple legislative sessions.

Building the coalition

TLC is committed to building a broader and more vocal coalition for increased transit options, including the Southwest light rail line. Through our online petition campaign and Facebook page, we will continue to collect signatures and build public support for policy goals through the 2013 legislative session. We urge you to sign on and to inspire your friends, neighbors, family and colleagues to do the same.

The 2012 legislative session clearly showed the importance of legislative support for transit investments. TLC urges transit advocates to talk with candidates for the House and Senate about their stance on transportation issues. Stay tuned for more details on questions for candidates, how and where to get their attention, and how to make transit, bicycling and walking more visible priorities for your community.

Construction season—how projects get the green light

From Barb Thoman, executive director

 

With the warmer weather, road construction signs are popping up around the metro and across the state. Construction of the Central Corridor light rail line also resumed this spring. These signs remind me of the big difference in the way roads and transit are paid for in Minnesota.

Funding for expansion of our region’s transit system pales in comparison to the amount available to expand our region’s highways—and the results are obvious on the ground. Our regional transit system is of modest size (especially when compared with competing regions, such as Denver, Toronto, Boston, and Seattle), while the Twin Cities’ regional highway system is one of the nation’s largest on a per capita basis.

New highway projects generally don’t require legislative vote but many transit projects, such as Southwest light rail, wait for legislative approval

Minnesota’s constitution dedicates gasoline taxes, license tab fees, and 60% of the motor vehicle sales tax to state and local roads and bridges, with 62% of this revenue going to MnDOT. An additional $500 million annually, on average, flows from the federal government to roads and bridges. (Local property taxes add roughly $1 billion each year for roads and bridges.)

MnDOT’s dedicated funding allows for a vast number of road projects: 316 in the 2011 construction season. In the Metro area, the projects include:

• needed pavement repair on I-94
• a welcome new bridge over I-35E at Maryland Avenue and work on replacement of the Layafette and Hastings bridges over the Mississippi River.
• expansion of the TH169/I-494 interchange, new interchanges in Savage and Arden Hills, and early work on a new St. Croix River crossing.

For a full list of 2012 metro area highway projects click here (pdf). Because Minnesota has significant dedicated funding for highway maintenance and expansion, the legislature did not have to vote to approve these projects or the funding for them. 

State funding for transit is more precarious, affecting bus and rail

Funding for transit is much more precarious than funding for roads and bridges because transit relies to a significant degree on state general fund appropriations and General Obligation bonding – funding that needs to be allocated by the legislature each year. Last year, the legislature cut the two-year general fund allocation to metro transit by $51.8 million.

This year, despite the Governor’s support, the final bonding bill did not include $25 million to support construction of the Southwest light rail transit line. The bonding bill did include $2.5 million for “The Interchange,” a downtown Minneapolis transit hub and $6.4 million for transit facilities in greater Minnesota.

Statewide, transit receives 40% of the motor vehicle sales tax. In five metro area counties, a 1/4-cent sales tax generates about $95 million annually toward the cost of new light rail, commuter rail and bus rapid transit lines—such as the Central Corridor, Southwest light rail, and the Gateway and Bottineau corridors. As noted, last year the state legislature cut general fund money for bus service, so some of this regional tax revenue was diverted to fill in the gap, preventing a 30% cut in bus service, but slowing down progress on new transit development.

Making the case for transit

Transit for Livable Communities will continue making the case for expanded transportation options. There is still a lot of work to be done if the region wants to build more than one light rail project each decade and if we want a bus system that serves more of our residents.

Why is this important? Because people spend more on transportation (getting to work, school, and other appointments) than on any other household expense other than housing. Providing transportation options—bus, rail, bicycling, and walking—makes it possible to trim this expense and helps families make ends meet. There also are significant health and environmental benefits when a region has a greater reliance on transit, walking, and bicycling.  

To show your support for Southwest LRT the next light rail line for the region, click here.

For a summary of transit funding in Minnesota, click here (pdf).

 

It's Safer on Transit! Transportation Choices and Public Health

From Betsy Christensen, MPH Candidate, University of Minnesota School of Public Health and TLC intern

Improving public transit and creating more walkable neighborhoods can be one of the most cost effective ways to achieve public health objectives.

Before we get into details, there are a few things you should know about me. I live in Saint Paul yet do venture across the river into Minneapolis quite regularly and I do not have a car. Saint Paul is a great place to live; 95% of my friends, however, haven’t been enlightened, which means I head across the river to enter my social network. Since I have no vehicle and have a streak of stubborn independence (read: I will never ask for a ride, ever.), I have become a regular transit rider and city biking enthusiast.

Marshall Avenue, near Mississippi River bridge

Take a moment to think about all of the places you travel to in a day – go the gym for a morning workout, take your kids and/or yourself to school, work across the city, visit that favorite café for lunch to catch up with friends, stop at the grocery store, etc. Now, think about how you travel to all of your daily destinations – do you have the option of walking, biking, driving, riding the bus, riding the light rail? Do you choose your mode of transportation or does our current transportation system frequently make it seem like a car is your only option?

Transportation is a major part of our lives. Not everyone drives, not everyone bikes, and not everyone rides the bus. A balanced transportation system that accommodates all modes, all users, and all abilities benefits everybody.Forty percent of Minnesotans do not drive for various reasons – age, disability, or financial costs (source:  MN Complete Streets Toolkit). Nationwide, 60% of Americans would rather drive less and walk more, yet 73% reported they feel they currently have no choice but drive to destinations (source:  Surface Transportation Policy Partnership). 

Grand Avenue, Saint Paul

Quality public transit and transit-oriented development reduce traffic crashes, improve air quality, increase daily physical activity, boost social well being, and improve access to healthcare services and healthy food options. These public health benefits are increasingly recognized as central to economically-vibrant metropolitan regions. A shift towards less driving and more transit use improves our health, but in order to make this shift we need to support policies and systems that promote the design and development of healthy, more livable communities.

Quality public transit reduces traffic crashes and improves safety
Much has been done to improve the safety of automobiles and highways, yet the desire for speed continues to have implications for our safety and health care costs. Approximately 2.5 million people are injured on our roads every year (source:  NHTSA).  Communities with high-quality transit experience 75% less per capita traffic fatality rates than those experienced by sprawling, auto-oriented communities (source:  Victoria Transport Policy Institute).

Stillwater Boulevard,  Maplewood

Quality public transit improves air quality
Breathing clean air should be a right and not a privilege based on where on lives. Thirty-five million people live within 300 feet of a major roadway, increasing their risk for respiratory illnesses, lung cancer, heart disease, and death related to air pollution from traffic (source:  APHA). In Minneapolis-Saint Paul, these air pollution health impacts are disproportionately located in low-income neighborhoods.

Cartoon by Andy Singer

Quality public transit increases physical activity
Most transit trips begin with a walk or bike ride. Public transit users walk about 19 minutes per day compared to only 6 minutes per day for non-transit users (source:  Werner & Evans, 2007). Community design is key – walkable, mixed use communities support healthier residents and visitors. People with safe places to walk near home are twice as likely to meet physical activity targets (source:  Victoria Transport Policy Institute). It’s much easier to be active and reach the goal of 22 minutes each day (or 150 minutes each week), when it fits easily into your daily schedule. I look forward to my commute every single day – I love hopping on my bike or walking to the bus stop.

Walking to shop and reach other destinations

Quality public transit improves mental and social well being
More than half of all trips nationwide are less than 3 miles in distance, yet 72% of these trips are made by car (source: Federal Highway Administration). Biking to the café, taking a 15 minute stroll, or riding transit all result in more time in one’s neighborhood, increasing interactions between neighbors and building community cohesion (source:  APHA). Increased walkability is also associated with reduced symptoms of depression (source:  Berke, Gottlieb & Larson, 2007).  A high-quality public transit system increases access to basic needs including healthcare services, employment, educational opportunities, and healthy food options.

Festival of Fathers, North Minneapolis, summer 2011

Conclusion

As a public health student and a regular bicyclist, walker and bus rider, I am aware of both the societal benefits and the personal benefits of not being wedded to a car. As an intern at Transit for Livable Communities, I have learned about the importance of advocating for a transportation system that gets everyone where they need to go in a convenient, sustainable and healthy fashion. I hope you will join the growing movement of Twin Cities residents who feel the same.

 

Metro area cities apply for Transit-Oriented Development funds

from Dave Van Hattum, Senior Policy Advocate

Following Council Chair Sue Haigh’s announcement that economic development, affordable housing, and a vibrant 21^st century transit system are the top goals for the agency, the Metropolitan Council is moving forward with a strong transit-oriented development (TOD) agenda.

Early this year, the Council announced new TOD grant funding (for pre-development and development) within the Livable Communities Account. The Council also created new TOD funding (for site investigation and clean up) through the existing Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA). In February 2012, grant applications were submitted by 12 metro area cities, including Anoka, Apple Valley, Coon Rapids, Eden Prairie, Fridley, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Ramsey Richfield, St. Louis Park and Saint Paul. These cities represent a large percentage of the eligible TOD areas, which were established based on current, or soon-to-come, high-quality transit service (see map).

Map showing areas eligible for TOD funds via the Livable Communities Account
of the Metropolitan Council

A total of nearly $23 million was proposed for projects on twelve different transit lines. Not surprisingly, demand far exceeded the $13 million in grant funding available in 2012. The Council estimates that over $62 million in Transit Oriented Development grants have been allocated through the Livable Communities program prior to 2012.

The Council also recently put out a call for proposals to help the Council create a Strategic Action Plan for TOD. The action plan would include: a review of the current state of TOD in our metro region, a comparison with peer regions, an assessment of the biggest needs of developers and local governments, recommendations for setting a TOD vision, greater clarity of measures of success and a timeline for implementing new programs and policies.

Planning for TOD is about anticipating the new market for housing, retail, and jobs. A number of factors are driving the market for housing in walkable neighborhoods with convenient transit. These factors include:

1)      the consumer preferences of Generation Y (the largest group of homebuyers) for more walkable, bikable, transit-accessible neighborhoods (see Wall Street Journal: No McMansions for Millennials)

2)      an aging and changing population (91% of net household growth will come from households consisting of married couples without children and individuals living alone.  Married couples with children, will actually drop by more than 13,000 households in the region between now and 2030. Source: Minnesota State Demographer)

3)      the desire to provide an affordable combination of housing and transportation as gas prices trend upward at a pace exceeding recent or anticipated growth in household income.

We are encouraged by this new flurry of TOD activity, but the devil remains in the details. To reach the outcome of a substantially larger share of neighborhoods with convenient transit and walkable destinations, at least three key challenges remain:

1)      securing adequate funding to expand the region’s transit system to reach more of the metro area

2)      overcoming local resistance to increased development – housing and jobs

3)      designing our cities and streets to provide greater access by walking and biking to worksites, schools, shops, recreation, and transit.

Update – Transit Bonding this Session

from Dave Van Hattum, Senior Policy Advocate

This week, transit bonding bills began to be heard in Committee – in the Senate Capital Investment Committee on Monday and in the House Transportation Committee on Wednesday.  Governor Dayton’s bonding proposal includes $25 million to the Metropolitan Council to cover a portion of the preliminary engineering costs for the Southwest LRT. 

A strong lineup of testifiers (from local and county governments and the Met Council to  Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce) stressed the economic returns from investing in the Southwest LRT, the financial commitment to the project by county government, and the rigorous process by which light rail transit was chosen for this corridor. A recent blog by Governor Dayton relays similar benefits and highlights the positive impact on jobs and the environment (see link).

As we build out a regional system of transitways, state general obligation bonding is expected to cover 10% of the total capital costs.  The other 90% will come from the federal government (50%) the Counties Transit Improvement Board (30%) and the counties (10%) through which the line travels.  Few, if any, other projects being considered for general obligation bonding will leverage nine additional dollars for every state dollar invested.

Bonding bills for several other transit projects, while not in the Governor’s bonding bill, are also being heard. These include:

• Gateway (I-94 E) Corridor
• The Minneapolis Interchange (a transit station at Twins Stadium, where multiple lines beyond the Hiawatha and Northstar will eventually converge).
• Red Rock Transitway (freight rail improvements that will help move this project forward).
• Lake Street and I-35W Transit Station (creation of a center median transit facility similar to that at 46^th St. and I-35W).
• Maple Grove Transit Station
• Greater Minnesota transit facilities, in Mankato, Duluth and St. Cloud

Additional transit bonding bills have been submitted for Bottineau Corridor, Cedar Avenue BRT, and Robert St. Corridor. Hearings on these bills have not yet been scheduled by the House Transportation Committee

While TLC strongly supports bonding that helps advance the build out of a regional transit system, we recognize the particular urgency of the Southwest bonding request this legislative session. Quite simply, if bonding for Southwest LRT is not passed this session, it could seriously delay and/or jeopardize the prospect of receiving $625 million in federal matching funds.  The Twin Cities competes with metro regions across the country for these competitive FTA funds, and our peer regions would be more than happy to take our place in line for the limited federal funding.

Transit riders threatened with fare hike

from Bill Neuendorf, Director of Policy and Advocacy

Bills recently introduced in the MN House and Senate would raise fares on Twin Cities bus and train riders by at least 25 cents. After substantial cuts to state funding for transit in 2011, some legislators now hope to increase revenues by hiking the rates paid by most riders (seniors & disabled persons are spared).

These proposals are heading in the wrong direction. Fortunately the House Transportation Committee accepted an amendment late Wednesday evening to abandon the across-the-board fare increase. This is a wise decision and we are hopeful that the Senate will act in the same manner.

For most metro families, transportation expenses are the second highest monthly expense, after housing. For lower-income families, transportation expenses are even higher than housing expenses. Considering that 80% of transit riders are going to school or to work, raising the fares places more of a burden on transit users. Convenient transit service is only available to 25% of metro area households; fare hikes discourage people from choosing the transit option when it is available.

Despite the modest size of our transit system, in 2011, transit ridership continued to increase, up to 94 million rides in the metro-area, according to Met. Council. A recent poll by the local Chambers of Commerce indicates that 69% of metro-area residents would like to use transit if it would be available. Meanwhile, MnDOT reports INSERT LINK that Minnesotans are driving less – for six years in a row now!

With transit trending upwards and driving declining, raising fares would further hinder people from having convenient and affordable transit options.

To make a simple point: convenient and affordable transit options are an essential part of a vibrant metropolitan economy. Government investments in transit (bus and rail) provide a high return on investment, measured in both social and economic outcomes.

The Minnesota Legislative Auditor 2011 report found that our transit services are very efficient. . . According to the National Transit Database, Metro Transit has one of the highest fare box recovery rates in the United States, meaning that fares pay a bigger share of operating costs than in peer cities. Operators of the six suburban transit agencies run similarly tight ships.

Let the professionals at the transit agencies determine fare structures that optimize revenue and ridership. It is unnecessary for the state legislature to micro-manage transit fares in opposition to capable professionals who effectively run an award-winning network of buses and trains.

 

Streetcars and the funding picture

From Dave Van Hattum, Senior Policy Advocate

Streetcars could be returning to Minneapolis or Saint Paul in the not too distant future.  Both cities have studies underway to determine the feasibility of streetcars in several different corridors.  In Minneapolis, focus is on Nicollet Ave and Central Ave, with discussion as well about lines along the Midtown Greenway and in North Minneapolis, along Broadway. Specific corridors have not been identified in Saint Paul, but it is likely they would intersect with the Central Corridor LRT and/or be on corridors with very high bus ridership.  

Streetcars are similar to light rail transit vehicles – both are powered by overhead electric – but streetcars are considerably lighter and cheaper to build than light rail vehicles. Today’s new streetcar lines typically are 1 to 4 miles long, travel in the road with other vehicles, make more frequent stops (every few blocks) than LRT trains, but carry fewer people than light rail.

Streetcars are particularly attractive due to their ability to spur economic development.  The 3 mile Portland Streetcar, located in the downtown Pearl District, cost of $57 million to build and led to more than $3.5 billion in new development within two blocks in less than a decade after opening in 2001. Development within a block of the streetcar accounted for 55% of all central business district development since 1997. Combined with a major brownfield redevelopment, excellent pedestrian facilities, and decreased parking, Portland’s first line led to an average density of 131 housing units per acre.

A car of the Portland Streetcar system at the eastbound Portland State University stop.

Interestingly, the FTA New Starts and Small Starts program (which provides matching funds for light rail and streetcars) has funded nine streetcars in the last five years. New Streetcar lines are under construction in Atlanta, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Portland, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, Seattle, and Tucson. Charlotte, Dallas and Tampa have recently received funding from the Federal Transit Administration to pursue streetcar lines.  

Recent proposed changes to the FTA New Starts/Small Starts program will increase the likelihood of federal funding for a local streetcar project.  The challenge for streetcar enthusiasts in the Twin Cities, however, is the lack of a local funding source.  Often new streetcar lines are funded with municipal funding sources like property taxes, parking taxes, or development fees.  Neither the ¼ cent regional sales tax for transitways (administered by CTIB) nor Metro Transit’s revenue sources (e.g. motor vehicle sales tax, general fund) are envisioned as likely funding source for streetcars.

The potential of streetcars to create neighborhoods where reduced (and no) car ownership is practical, and to complement a regional system of bus and rail, should engage the attention of local policymakers.  Streetcars, like the impressive potential of rapid bus, call out the need for expanded investment in public transit.  TLC will continue to advocate for increased transit funding for regional and local transit, including streetcars.

Minnesotans are driving less

From Dave Van Hattum, Senior Policy Advocate

Something fascinating is happening on our roads.  After decades and decades of steady increases, the total amount of car travel in Minnesota has not increased for six consecutive years (see MnDOT 2010 VMT Report- pdf).  Over that period, the state’s population increased by more than 300,000 people, but total driving did not increase.  Minnesotans are increasingly choosing a healthy combination of transit, biking, walking and fewer and, most likely, shorter car trips. 

No doubt the economic recession has dampened the amount of vehicle travel.  If people don’t have jobs to go to, or money to spend, they naturally travel less. But much of the decline in travel preceded the economic downtown and matches international trends. 

A chart, with caption, from MnDOT's 2010 Vehicle Miles of Travel report.

Los Angeles—Not Just for Drivers Anymore

From Barb Thoman, Executive Director

When you think about transportation in the Los Angeles region do you think about cars idling on ten lane highways? While millions still do drive every day, more and more of LA’s 12 million residents are choosing from a growing number of transit options. With an aggressive plan for expansion funded by several voter-approved tax increases, transit options in LA on are track to grow dramatically.  

Los Angeles County is the largest transit operator in the LA region and its transit agency is known as Metro. The CEO of Metro is Art Leahy, former general manager at our Metro Transit.  Metro carried a whopping 360 million riders in 2011, the major portion of the region’s transit ridership.  

 

I was particularly enamored by the Metro Rapid bus service.  Rapid buses operate on 24 different bus routes on many of the region’s busiest arterial streets. It’s a system that our own Metro Transit hopes to mimic on some of our region’s busy bus corridors. See link.

Marrying Bus and Rail on the Central Corridor

From Dave Van Hattum, Senior Policy Advocate

A critical component of the success of the Central Corridor light rail line will be how the bus connects to it, specifically providing some level of continued bus service in the corridor and expanding north/south bus connections to the corridor.  Metro Transit recently began the Central Corridor Transit Service Study, with the goal of improved connections and reliability, and a simplified multi-modal system.  Open houses on the study will take place in March.

Metro Transit estimates that 40% of Central Corridor riders will access the train via a bus trip. At Transit for Livable Communities, we support much more extensive implementation of new connecting bus service than will be possible with available dollars.   

The sector study assumes that any funding of expanded north/south service will come from savings from reductions in current service, including elimination of route #50 (express service along University), and reductions in the frequency of route #16 (local service along University)and route #94 (express bus along I-94).

 
The #65 bus provides a north-south connecting service to the Central Corridor.

The Met Council’s Transportation Policy Plan calls for an expansion of our region’s transitways (LRT, commuter rail and bus rapid transit) and for an expansion of our region’s bus system.  Due to funding constraints, bus expansion has been on hold for nearly a decade.  Better bus connections to the Central Corridor light rail will further leverage this key public investment and expand benefits to residents along the corridor and in the sector area planning geography.