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.

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.

Crossing the bridge via the rear-view mirror

Over the opposition of Rep. Betty McCollum and Rep. Keith Ellison, the House voted on Thursday to provide an exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for a massive new freeway-style bridge over the St. Croix River at Oak Park Heights. All the other members of Minnesota’s Congressional delegation voted for the exemption. 

Transit for Livable Communities joined with many organizations in opposition to this large, expensive bridge for the same reason we have opposed other highway expansion projects. We are not anti-road or anti-driving, but we are against a pattern of decision making that continues to say “Yes” to highway expansion, shortchanging road maintenance and the ability to offer a range of transportation options to Minnesotans.

The Twin Cities metro has more highway lane miles per capita than Los Angeles. We already have a lot of roads to keep in good repair and, statewide, we have a huge backlog of bridges that need attention.

MnDOT, the state transportation agency, has said that it is not possible to build our way out of congestion:  more or wider lanes will eventually become clogged. MnDOT says it’s time to prioritize –more “high value and low cost” projects—yet this freeway-style bridge is just the opposite. The estimated cost of the proposed bridge is three times the cost of the new I-35W bridge and is projected to accommodate only a small fraction of the traffic. Cheaper options for a new St Croix Bridge were repeatedly offered but rejected.

The massive bridge over the St Croix River was designed in a different era. It is based on projections of driving and growth that are no longer valid. Traffic volumes in Minnesota are not growing and rates of driving are flat. Many people today can’t afford to live so far from work or to drive everywhere. An aging population and young people with different priorities want more travel options.

Despite new visions for the future and new priorities, we keep building wider highways, more and larger interchanges, and bridges that are too big.  TLC believes that our transportation investments need to start matching our stated priorities. With declining tax revenue and increasing maintenance costs, it is time to stop looking in the rear-view mirror and get back on track toward a 21^st century transportation network that prioritizes people rather than cars.

New Starts Faster!

From Dave Van Hattum, Policy and Advocacy Program Manager

President Obama, in his State of the Union address (1/31/12), put forward two initiatives that would have huge impacts on transit projects. Firstly, the President proposed using future savings in the defense budget to rebuild our nation’s physical infrastructure; and secondly, he directed all federal agencies to reduce bureaucracy and waste, including the New Starts program that funds major transitways, including light rail transit, bus rapid transit, and commuter rail. TLC's first look at the new rules yields the following summary.

The proposed changes to the New Starts program are designed to speed up the start-to-finish process. This is to be accomplished by granting pre-qualification warrants (based on ridership and cost estimates based on census data and post-data from comparable corridors), reducing the complexity of cost-effectiveness calculations, and eliminating repetitive analyses. This is smart policy that could help speed up the build out of our metro transitway system (pdf).

New Starts projects are competitively funded based on cost-effectiveness, environmental benefits and economic development benefits. The proposed rules place greater emphasis on social equity and economic development impacts. Social equity receives higher priority in three ways. 

1. The benefit side of the cost-effectiveness calculation will be based on total rides rather than total travel time savings. This change reduces the emphasis on attracting new riders, shifting the focus to those locations where there are the largest number of riders. This will tend to advantage core city and first ring suburbs, where housing and employment density is greater. There also are more low income residents and people of color in these areas (though the demographic makeup of the core and first ring suburbs is changing). The environmental rating will continue to include a calculation of car travel (VMT) reduction, which will still confer benefits to longer transit trips.
2. Transit dependent riders are counted double. Low-income individuals and people of color are far more likely to be transit dependent.
3. Higher scores will go to transitways where “policies maintaining or increasing affordable housing are in place.”

The proposed rules also tweak the assessment of economic development resulting from a proposed new rail line. The local economic development impacts of a new LRT line are typically significant. The Central Corridor Investment Framework, for example, projects $6 billion in mostly private investment along the corridor over the next 20 to 30 years. Accurately predicting these outcomes, however, is quite challenging, as many factors (global and local economy, road investment, etc.) besides the increased transit access are in play. 

The proposed rules ultimately make a relatively small change in the assessment of economic development impacts. Applicants, per the new rules, would have the option to make the case “beyond current land use plans” for broader economic impacts that would improve the overall rating for their project. FTA suggests that applicants develop scenario-based estimates of how greater density decreases car travel. The agency also commits to a broader inclusion of the economic development impacts of higher housing and employment density, “once better measures for agglomeration effects are developed.”

It seems fair to conclude that regions able to show how a proposed transitway will result in more dense or compact land use will be better positioned to receive federal funding via the New Starts program. Of course, there is a chicken or egg quality to the timing of building new rail lines and changing local land use plans and zoning. That’s why TLC will continue to advocate both for the investment necessary to speed up the build out of regional transitways and for a new regional plan (see Met Council update of Regional Development Framework) that provides incentives for locating more housing and employment near transitways (LRT, BRT, and commuter rail) and high frequency bus service.

US DOT press release about streamlining New Starts

# # #

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.

# # #