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.

 

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.

 

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. 

Update from Washington: Advocates for transit, bicycling, and walking on red alert

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Congress has written multi-year transportation laws to guide public investments in roadway construction, congestion relief, and public transportation. The last law (SAFETEA-LU) dates from 2005. It expired in 2009, but has been granted several extensions. The latest extension expires on March 31, 2012.

Much-anticipated new bills from the House and Senate moved through committees last week. While these bills have some desirable provisions, two measures recently introduced in the House have advocates of transit, bicycling and walking on red alert.

HR 7, the House transportation bill, consolidates several related programs and reduces some steps in the permitting process to bring projects to completion sooner and with less red tape. Alarmingly, this bill also includes language to strip all dedicated funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including the Safe Routes to School program.While bike/ped improvements are still allowed, the decision to fund these improvements would rest solely with the each state’s department of transportation (DOT).

The bill would eliminate the Transportation Enhancement program, which amounts to about 2-3% of each state’s federal transportation funding. In Minnesota, these funds have helped build pedestrian crossings and bike trails across the state including the well-traveled Midtown Greenway. Transportation Enhancements have been the only stable source of bike/ped funding at the federal level.

A companion bill (HR 3864), proposes to eliminate the dedicated revenue source that supports public transit throughout the country. Since 1982-- the Reagan Administration-- public transit has received a small portion of the federal gas tax to maintain convenient and affordable travel options that reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. The proposed bill would instead fund public transit through Congress’s annual appropriation process. This subjects transit agencies to a great deal of uncertainty and is a step backward for bus and train users in Minnesota and throughout the U.S.

Opposition has been swift and widespread. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has called the House bill the “worst transportation bill ever." More than 600 organizations and leaders-- including the US Chamber of Commerce, governors, and mayors-- signed a letter opposing the House financing bill, saying “it will make it impossible for public transit systems across the country to plan for the future.”

TLC works with a national coalition, Transportation for America, to raise the voice of transit supporters and bicycling/pedestrian advocates in Minnesota. Thanks to each of you who contacted your U.S. Representatives last week to urge them to continue dedicated funding for modes other than private cars!

We are very grateful for Minnesota representatives-- U.S. Representatives Tim Walz (1^st District) and Erik Paulsen (3^rd District)-- for supporting amendments that would continue dedicated funding for public transit, bicycling and walking. These amendments failed and the House bills are moving forward to a full floor vote later this month. We hope that our Minnesota Congressional Representatives and Senators will continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to shape a new transportation law that includes transit, bicycling, and walking among our nation’s transportation choices!

# # #

Not Obsessed with LRT, but with a Healthy and Competitive Future

The Star Tribune recently featured an Op-Ed by Mr. David Osmek of Mound (Stop the light-rail obsession; February 1, 2012). Transit for Livable Communities responds to some of the questionable statements in the piece, which sought to undermine the expansion of the public transit system in the Twin Cities. 

 

Osmek: Stop the light-rail obsession.

TLC:  And be prepared to fall behind our peer cities in attracting jobs and talent. Denver, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and San Jose, to name a few, have transit systems 2-4 times the size of ours, judging by the number of LRT cars they have in service. And some are moving faster than we are to build new lines. Some of these cities are ambitiously building more than one line at the same time to better serve more residents.

 

 

Osmek: Riders pay only 99 cents.

TLC:  The base fare for Metro Transit light rail is $1.75, rising to $2.25 in rush hour. The Twin Cities' Metro Transit system ranks high among peers in fare-box recovery, according to the National Transit Database, the federal reporting data for required of all public transit systems.

 

Osmek: The true cost of a ride “does not include the amortized cost of bonding for the build-out of the line.” 

TLC:  The cost of Southwest LRT and light rail in general is substantial, but pales in comparision to the cost of roads and driving.  While some road costs are covered by user fees, billions of other costs for local roads, vehicle parking, and traffic safety are subsidized by non-transportation sources.  There also are costs involved with owning and operating private vehicles – an annual expense of up to $8,000 per vehicle that can’t be avoided or reduced when there are not options like bus and rail.

 

Osmek:  Rail, “in my opinion, has a negligible effect on traffic congestion.”  

TLC:  Really?  50% of the 30,000 daily Hiawatha LRT riders previously travelled by car. Imagine all those people back in a car on crowded Hiawatha Ave or I-35W. And a rail car uses a tiny fraction of the transportation right of way that cars do to move a comparable number of people. In a corridor with many destinations and a high number of jobs and residents (all of which the SWLRT corridor has), light rail is a very efficient way for people to get around. A 3-car LRT train easily carries 400 people and it runs every 7.5-10 minutes at peak times. A typical bus carries about 40 passengers. The average occupancy of cars during the work commute is 1.05 people.  

 

Osmek:  MnDOT studies have proven that roads have a benefit/cost ratio greater than one. “

TLC:  MnDOT studies have also reported “for every $1 invested in public transportation, $4 is generated in economic returns” (2009 MnDOT Transit Report, p 3). The Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) reports that each dollar invested in the nation’s public transit system provides $6 in benefits, in the form of time savings, parking and travel time savings, avoided job loss, avoided welfare payments, avoided vehicle crashes, avoided congestion and pollution, increased central city labor opportunities, increased mobility for young people without access to private vehicles, and improved educational opportunities (AASHTO Press Release, Washington, DC, January 14, 2009).

 

Osmek:  The Hiawatha Line was projected at 0.42 (benefit/cost) in 1999, meaning that for every dollar spent, we receive 42 cents in value.”  

TLC:  Osmek doesn’t provide a citation for this projection because none exists.This is just a repeat of his earlier mis-statement regarding Hiawatha LRT farebox recovery.*  A comprehensive investment framework (pdf) for the Central Corridor projects $6 billon in future development along the line, on par with results in Dallas and Portland. There is every reason to believe that the SW LRT will have a comparable economic benefit to the cities along the line. 

Update: Thanks to www.streets.mn for finding the the benefit/cost assessment Osmek refers to, "Final Hiawatha Corridor LRT benefit-cost analysis," Mn/DOT, 1999. The report states (p.3), “Hiawatha LRT is the most cost-effective means of achieving the goals and objectives of the stakeholders.” Many of the key data inputs used to project the benefit-cost assessment turned out to be off the mark. For instance, the report said ridership in 2020 would be 24,558/day when in 2011 it already was 30,500/weekday. The value of avoided auto trips was estimated using $25.9 cents per mile, when the current IRS reimbursement rate (used by most employers across the country) is $55 cents per mile.

Transit currently saves the Twin Cities region $80 million annually by reducing congestion delays, according to the Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report. Our own state transportation agency, MnDOT, has said that the state cannot build its way out of traffic congestion. Investing in transitways, especially in corridors with the level of jobs, residents, and congestion as the Southwest corridor, provides residents with an alternative to congested travel ("u text, we drive," as Southwest Transit likes to say) and is a step toward a more affordable transportation for residents and businesses alike.

# # #

 

100 million transit trips in Minnesota

From Barb Thoman, Executive Director

Transit service across Minnesota is taking people to the places they need to go. MnDOT’s 2011 Transit Report provides a summary of the “state of transit” in Minnesota, with information on providers, level of service, investment, and ridership.

In 2010, 100 million trips were taken on public transit in Minnesota. Our state’s residents rode to work and school on systems large and small. They caught the bus to the doctor in Roseau and to a summer community education class in Rushford. By the end of 2011, 70 of the 80 counties in Greater Minnesota had county-wide transit service – a dramatic increase from only 35 counties with county-wide service 20 years ago. 

All seven metro counties have transit service. Ninety percent of transit trips occur in the Twin Cities Metro Area, in part because service there is better funded, more widely available, and a greater density of destinations and riders make service easier to provide.

Some interesting things in the report: 

• State support for intercity bus service, primarily provided by Jefferson Lines, has lead to greatly increased ridership and declining costs. The state supports intercity connections between Minneapolis and Duluth, Rochester, and Sioux Falls; and service between Fargo, Bemidji, Grand Forks, and Wadena. 

• Transit providers with the lowest cost per rider are University of Minnesota transit, Winona Transit Service, St. Cloud Metro Bus, and Hiawatha light rail. Minnesota transit service cost numbers compares very favorably with peer agencies around the country.

• MnDOT estimated that currently only 60 percent of the transit need is being met in Greater Minnesota. Another $140 million annually will be needed to ensure that service is available in all counties and that routes and the frequency of service meets community needs. The report did not contain an estimate of the unmet transit need in the metro area as the Metropolitan Council would more appropriately make that estimate. 

Here is a link to the full report:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/transit/reports/transitreports/11/index.html

 

The Interchange –An All Star Multimodal Hub?

From Hilary Reeves, Communications Director

The proposed downtown Minneapolis multimodal transportation hub adjacent to Target Field—a.k.a. The Interchange—got a financing boost this past week with the announcement of $10 million in federal support through a TIGER grant from the US DOT. The goal is for the new facility to open when the Central Corridor Light Rail service begins in 2014, doubling the number of LRT trains arriving in downtown Minneapolis to 500 arrivals and departures per day. TLC wrote a letter supporting the project as part of the  application for TIGER funding.

 

 

Senator Amy Klobuchar (speaking) and l-r behind her: Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin; Metropolitan Council Chair Sue Haigh; Will Schroeer, Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce; Charlie Zelle, Minneapolis Area Chamber of Commerce

 

Senator Amy Klobuchar gathered with local leaders on Thursday, December 22, to indicate the importance of this transportation investment to making the Twin Cities a thriving economic center. She was joined by Sue Haigh from the Met Council, several county commissioners  and representatives from local Chambers of Commerce and the Minnesota Twins. A good-sized crowd gathered in the waiting area for Northstar commuter trains—another mode that serves the proposed location for the Interchange.

 

What is the Interchange? The Minneapolis Interchange and Saint Paul’s Union Depot will both act as multimodal hubs for the region’s growing transit network. The Minneapolis location for the proposed Interchange already serves both the Hiawatha light rail line and NorthStar commuter trains. The Interchange would serve the Central Corridor trains when it opens in 2014 and the Southwest LRT line, scheduled to open in 2018. It would also provide connections to more than 1,900 bus operations as well as to bicycle routes to surrounding neighborhoods and trails. Vehicle parking (400 new spaces) would also be part of the project. The Minneapolis Interchange also could serve any future high speed rail connections between Minneapolis/Saint Paul and Chicago. The newly renovated Saint Paul Union Depot will accommodate Amtrak trains traveling between Seattle and Chicago starting next year. The Minneapolis Interchange is a project of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA).For more information about The Interchange, visit the project web site. 

 

Senator Klobuchar said, “There’s a direct correlation between this kind of investment and economic development.” Noting the competition for these funds at the federal level, she said, “If they don’t come here they will go to Chicago or Arizona. I want it right here.” She thanked Representatives McCollum and Ellison, Senator Franken and former Senator Coleman for their support for the project at the federal level.

Metropolitan Council Chair Sue Haigh said that hubs like the Interchange and Union Depot help shorten transit time, making it more attractive for people to choose transit for commuting and other trips. She said that rather than building more parking ramps, Minneapolis could focus on other kinds of development.

Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin said the Interchange plaza would direct the flow of passengers to the different travel options, for commuters and also fans coming to Target Field.

McLaughlin called the Interchange “a prudent risk to move the county and region forward” and make it more competitive. He noted that business allies strongly supported the project and the build out of the transit system. “We are not talking about individual lines, we are talking about a system,” he said, adding “we will live our lives differently and better with these investments.”

Will Schroeer from the Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce and Charlie Zelle from the Minneapolis Area Chamber of Commerce both noted that the new hub would serve the people going to work using the Hiawatha and Central Corridor LRT lines. There are 280,000 jobs along the Central Corridor today, a number expected to rise to 374,000 by 2030. Zelle said, “Investments here are important for jobs at both ends of the Central Corridor LRT,” giving residents of Minneapolis and North Minneapolis access as well as opening the North Loop area for further development.

Minnesota Twins President David St. Peter said the Interchange would be “fulfillment of a vision our leaders had for a ballpark in the North Loop, with wonderful connections to transit.” He said fans will love accessing Target Field via the Northstar, Hiawatha, and the Central Corridor—hopefully for the All Star Game in 2014. He said, “These projects take vision, courage, and leadership.”

Funding for the Interchange project is not yet complete. According to a Star Tribune story, in addition to the $10 million from the TIGER grant, the Interchange project “was awarded $11 million by the Metropolitan Council. It also received $6.7 million from the county rail authority and $1.7 million from the Minnesota Ballpark Authority, which owns Target Field.” The Star Tribune reported the total project cost at $67.7 million. Commissioner McLaughlin said that there would be a proposal in coming weeks opening up options for public-private partnerships, including development rights, naming rights, and parking rights. The TIGER funding adds momentum to the project.

# # #