By Linden
Weiswerda, The Trust for Public Land (guest blogger)
Editor’s
Note: Our Twin Cities metro region is well known as a place where cityscape
meets green space. Millions visit our robust regional park system each year.
But did you know that most arrive by car? Some efforts are already underway to
connect more residents and visitors to Twin Cities parks in other ways. For
example, the Sierra Club North Star Chapter regularly leads outings to parks
and natural areas via transit. Nice Ride MN bike sharing will begin serving expand service to Mississippi River Park and Recreation Area this summer. And next year, new bus service on Lexington
Parkway will improve access to Saint Paul’s Como Park–one of our most visited
regional parks. As our region’s population grows and the regional park system
expands, will current transportation options ensure the parks are accessible to
all? Here, guest blogger Linden Weiswerda with The Trust for Public Land makes
the case for continuing to improve transit service to our regional parks.
Minnehaha
Regional Park, Minneapolis
Have you ever ridden a bus or light rail train to your nearest regional
park? Chances are high that your answer is no. According to the last Regional
Parks and Trails Survey (2008), less than 1 percent of people arrive at
Twin Cities regional parks and trails via public transit. While the Minneapolis-Saint
Paul region is filled with a diverse array of popular regional amenities that
can be reached by multiple modes of transportation, our regional parks largely remain
an untapped destination for the regional transit system.
The Twin Cities regional park system—which
includes sites from the Chain of Lakes Park in Minneapolis to Big Marine Park
Reserve in Washington County, and 49 other parks and park reserves—is an invaluable
asset that helps keep our region thriving and acts as “the state parks of the metro
area” (Metropolitan Council). As the largest and most natural public lands in our
metro area, the regional parks provide a unique experience for visitors. In
addition to protecting the most important and sensitive natural areas in the
Twin Cities for current and future generations, they are central to creating
healthy and enjoyable communities. And enjoy them we do, with over 44 million
visits annually to the regional park system. Time after time, surveys cite that
parks are one of the top reasons people find the Twin Cities region attractive
and want to move here.
Crosby
Farm Regional Park, Saint Paul
However, the 2008 Regional Parks Survey also found that almost 60
percent of visitors to the parks arrive by “auto, truck, RV, or van.” Meanwhile,
as
Transportation for America reports, 40 percent of Minnesotans are
without a driver’s license, exceeding the national average of 32 percent. If large
numbers of residents in the region cannot get to the regional parks and trails to
enjoy them except by car, how can this significant segment of our population benefit
from the regional parks? Combine this with decreasing rates of car ownership,
particularly among younger and older demographic groups, and the regional park
system could actually become less accessible over time—unless our region does
more to improve transit service to these destinations.
The current Twin Cities transit system provides limited means for
travelling to regional parks, in part because peak service times are tied to
the typical work commute. Transit services run most frequently during rush
hours on weekdays. However, park use generally peaks for special events, in the
evenings, and mostly on weekends.
Baker
Park Reserve, Three Rivers Park District
Livable communities are active seven days a week and throughout
the day as well. For comparison, think about a movie theater and office
building that share a parking lot. During the week office employees fill the
lot, and in the evenings and on weekends moviegoers take the same spaces. As a
result of this shared use, the parking area needed to meet demand has a reduced
development footprint, smaller amounts of pavement and stormwater runoff, and
generally has created a more efficient community that is utilized more of the
time. Increasing connections among the regional transit and regional parks and
trails systems could similarly benefit both systems, picking up more transit
riders in off-peak times and making regional parks more accessible to more
people at more times.
In building an efficient transit system, one with more housing
options and other development near stops and stations and with higher rider capacity,
we should also be sure that our transit system connects as many regional
attractions as possible, perhaps by both siting new parks near transit lines
and by extending bus service to parks in current off-peak travel times. Our regional
park system is also growing: current plans are to add more than 15,000 park acres
and 700 miles of trails by 2030. By taking advantage of that growth, we can
ensure that people can ride the bus or train, bike, or drive to their choice of
regional parks.
If you’d like to explore a fun tool for seeing which regional
parks (or other regional amenities) you can reach via transit in a certain
amount of time, check out Mapnificent.
Mapnificent is an online tool (still in an early phase of development) that shows
you the area you can reach via public transportation from any point in a given
amount of time. (A sample map for regional park destinations is pictured
below).
Mapnificent generated this map of regional parks
(red) that can be reached by transit from downtown Saint Paul (orange) in 30
minutes or less. (Note: Mapnificent does not work in Internet Explorer, but
will work with other major web browsers.)
For a map to all the regional parks and a list of the activities available,
visit the Regional
Parks page of the Metropolitan Council, which links to the local park
agencies who manage the regional parks and trails as well as their local park
systems.
All featured
images provided courtesy of The Trust for Public Land.
With the release of the recommendations by the Governor’s
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee and MnDOT’s annual report on Performance
Measurement, there is growing discussion about traffic congestion. Is our
congestion among the worst or average for our size? And how do we know?
The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)’s Urban Mobility
Report is the most often referenced national report comparing rates of traffic
congestion among metro regions. The most recent report ranked Twin Cities highway
congestion 16th in the nation, based on an indicator they call the
Travel Time Index, which measures the difference in the time it takes to make a
trip during peak times (i.e., rush hour) versus the average of all the non-peak
times (i.e., the rest of the day).
Our congestion ranking is exactly our ranking in terms of
population—16th. As you might expect, larger metro regions have more traffic
congestion than smaller regions, unless your economy is weak, as in Detroit,
and then your congestion ranking is lower than your population ranking.
So why does MnDOT’s recent Transportation Performance Report
say our region has the 7th worst congestion? This is not 7th
worst in the nation; it’s 7th of 32 “large” cities. We are in fact the most
populous region of the 32 regions classified as Large. And, we don’t typically compare ourselves with Columbus, Memphis, Las Vegas, or the majority
of the places in the Large region
grouping. Not surprisingly, these smaller regions have a lower level of
economic activity and less traffic congestion—making our rate in the group look
high.
So, remember: 16th in size, 16th in terms of our congestion
ranking and average.
MnDOT defines congestion as speeds below 45 mph. That seems like a pretty high threshold to me (40-45 mph isn't much of an inconvenience). Nevertheless, for 2011, MnDOT reported that only 21 percent of the 379-mile regional highway system is
congested during peak periods.
Nearly 80 percent of
our highway system averages speeds above 45 mph at peak periods. Twenty-one percent congested in the peak is a
slight drop from 2010, when the rate was 21.5 percent congested. The current rate is about the same as 2003
(20.8 percent) and 2007 (20.9 percent).
So remember: nearly 80 percent of traffic during rush hour
is going 45 mph or more
So what is not in these national and local reports that
might be helpful to know when you want to draw conclusions about traffic
congestion?
Our region has a very large regional highway system—8th
largest in terms of lane miles per person, according to the Federal Highway
Administration. The size of a region’s highway system does not always correlate
with its congestion rate. The transit-rich region of Portland, Ore., is a case
in point. That region has only 2/3 of the highway lanes miles that we do, and a
congestion rate that TTI reports to be only slightly higher than what we
experience. So Portland’s much smaller
highway system has not translated into terrible traffic congestion, largely because people have a lot of transit (and bike) options for avoiding it.
It’s also important to know how far people are commuting and
slowed by congestion. A region might have terrible traffic congestion, but if
the region is compact and commutes are shorter, the impact of congestion on
individual drivers is less. If we compare our region to Seattle, we see that
Seattle’s congestion rate is higher than in the Twin Cities but peak-period commute trips
there are much shorter (13 miles roundtrip vs. 21 miles in our region). In addition
Seattle offers many more transit options so people have more options for
avoiding congestion.
So remember:
congestion is as much a factor of how many options you have and how close
things are.
As we look to the future of our region and making mobility
possible for everyone, including the additional 900,000 people we expect to
live here by 2030, let’s remember that we already have a very large highway
system that should be kept in good repair. To remain competitive as a region and to offer
people options for avoiding congestion, we should finally build out a 21st
century transit system—and safe connections by bicycling and walking. Finally, I hope we can begin to refocus our
development patterns in a way that reduces the need to drive so far so even if
you can’t avoid congestion, you’re not in it for very long.
In the transportation and land use realm, Los Angeles has earned
an infamous reputation as a car-dependent metropolitan region with major air
quality problems. Today, however, a historic shift is underway and politicians,
planners, and citizens are rallying around a long-term vision of greatly
expanded transportation options and reinvigorated communities.
In mid-October I attended Rail~Volution 2012 in Hollywood
and saw firsthand the Los Angeles area’s extensive subway, surface rail, and
bus system that, thanks to Los Angeles County voters, will grow tremendously in
the decades ahead, transcending L.A.’s
image as a land of ubiquitous freeways. As Christopher Leinberger, a developer
turned researcher/advocate, noted during the conference, “the drivable suburban
fringe collapsed over the past half-decade” and it would be wise to plan for
new forms of land use and development going forward. It seems we can
increasingly look to the Los Angeles metropolitan area for this type of
thinking put to action.
Growing options for
getting around the Los Angeles area. (Photos courtesy of Barb Thoman)
Throughout my visit, I was struck both by the exciting transformation
taking place in the region and by the long arc of transit advocacy. Rail~Volution
began in 1995 in Portland and has since become a national, annual event where
public transit advocates and implementers share their homegrown experience and
evolving visions and philosophies. At a reception this year, I serendipitously
chatted with a Sacramento transit planner and former Minneapolis resident who
lobbied in the 1970s for creation of the Hiawatha LRT line that eventually
opened in 2004. It reinforced my sense
that while
good ideas often take time, they prevail through the committed efforts of
visionary leaders and engaged citizens. Transportation is both access to
opportunity and a major shaper of the places we call home. Consequently, we all
have a stake and we should all be advocates for “building livable communities
with transit,” the theme of Rail~Volution 2012.
The latest news on long-term trends in the national transportation
landscape informed many Rail-Volution sessions. As presenters emphasized, transit,
biking, and walking rates continue to rise steadily and greater investment in
transit is increasingly on the ballot and supported by local voters across the
country. The market continues to grow for housing and offices near good transit
and walkable streets. And new technology regularly opens up exciting new
possibilities from tracking bike and pedestrian trips (and comfort level) to
the potential for the 3D
Express Coach, a radical new hybrid of transit and highways.
Ample pedestrian lanes encourage foot traffic through a shopping area in Pasadena. (Photo courtesy of Kathie Doty)
Appropriately, most of the Rail~Volution sessions also
included a multi-dimensional approach—i.e. transit and housing, and community
development, and school access—that simply wasn’t taught to or practiced by
transportation planners and engineers who designed most of the roads, parking
structures, and transit systems in place today. This new, integrated approach
is leading to significant institutional changes. L.A. Metro, for example, has a
new definition for the "highest and best use” of land it owns near transit
stations. The new definition considers the long-term importance of affordable
housing (which translates into more future transit customers), not just the
highest short-term monetary return. And across the country, realtors, housing
developers, and home buyers can easily
assess the combined cost of housing and transportation at any precise
location.
While an arc of successful transportation advocacy can already
be seen in the inspiring Rail~Volution workshops, the L.A. tours of abundant LRT,
BRT, heavy rail, and lots of new bike lanes, and the large contingent of
attendees from the Twin Cities (over 80), the impetus for Rail~Volution is far
from over. Success has brought new challenges including an anti-tax movement
that is anti-transit, efforts to block local planning initiatives, and a lack
of federal leadership evident in MAP 21 (the recent federal transportation law)
that could negatively affect funding for transportation options in Minnesota. .
Since 1996, Transit for Livable Communities has strived to
bring long-range and holistic perspectives (and action) to the design of the
Twin Cities transportation system. Designing
a fair and effective transportation system has always been, and will continue
to be, a challenging endeavor. Getting it right depends on clear values, innovative
policy, and thoughtful definition of obstacles, as well as smart technology and
educated community members. Most importantly, it depends on involving all
stakeholders in a meaningful manner. We will continue to build a strong
coalition of partners advocating for the world-class transit/bike/walk systems
our region deserves. We will learn from other forward-thinking metro areas like
Los Angeles along the way, and expand this dynamic conversation about livable
communities when Rail~Volution comes to the Twin Cities in 2014.
When the Saint Paul and Minneapolis Chambers of Commerce
organized an Intercity Leadership Visit to Denver in early October, they had
more interest than could be accommodated. Ninety participants from business,
government, and the nonprofit sector in the Twin Cities region took advantage
of the opportunity to learn from their peers in the Denver region. The goal of
the trip: to learn what makes the Denver region such a desirable place to live
and work.
I recently asked Will Schroeer, an employee of the Chambers,
to talk briefly about his observations after the trip to Denver. I was in Denver for a week in July of this
year and I can attest to how impressed I was by many of the things Will talks
about.
Photos of multi-modal transportaton options in Denver, courtesy of Barb Thoman.
Barb Thoman: If you could describe the trip in
one word, what would it be?
Will Schroeer: Infrastructure. After the Denver region’s
economy tanked as a result of falling energy prices in the 1980s, Denver saw
investments in infrastructure as a way to free itself from the boom and bust
cycles that had plagued the region for decades. Today the region boasts a new international airport,
Coors Field, the Pepsi Center, a new light rail system, a strengthening of the
region’s park systems, and a major investment in the new Fitzsimons Life
Science District.
BT: Is the strategy
working?
WS: Denver believes it is, and the stats bear them out. The
region now boasts the nation’s third most diversified regional economy.
BT: When I was in
Denver this past summer, I saw that two new rail lines are currently under construction.
I also saw how much redevelopment was taking place around Union Depot, which
will become a multi-modal hub like we are building in Minneapolis and Saint
Paul. What did you learn about transit in Denver?
WS: Just about everyone we talked to in Denver–private
sector and public–told us that transit expansion has helped advance nearly all
the region’s goals: economic prosperity (attracting the work force of the future),
housing affordability, air quality improvement, and tourism. Denver is the #1
destination for 25-34 year olds—Millenials—and they come in large part for the
life that transit makes possible. We also heard a lot about how proud Denver is
to have landed the new US Patent Office, which will bring $40 million in
economic benefits over the next five years. What did Patent Office officials say
was the #1 reason Denver was selected? Transit.
Denver is paying for all this new investment—and reaping its rewards—through
a penny of a regional sales tax dedicated to transit.
BT: You said that you
toured the redevelopment at the old Stapleton Airport and I did the same this
summer. How would you describe it?
WS: Stapleton is a new mixed-use community on the east side
of Denver. It is walkable, will be served by a new rail line, and has the kind
of density you rarely see in new communities here. The success of Stapleton
made me think of the potential of the Ford Site in Saint Paul.
Barb Thoman: Is there anything else you would like to
highlight about the trip?
WS: I was particularly impressed by the Fitzsimons Life
Science District in Aurora and the adjoining University of Colorado Anschutz
Medical Campus. The 600 acre site will include bioscience laboratories, research
facilities, medical treatment and education, and in a few years a new VA Hospital.
We were told by the medical community that medical innovation happens over
lunch often through social interaction made easier by proximity and density. Again that spoke to the importance of compact
development, walking and public transit.
For more on this topic,
don’t miss TLC’s new two-page summary of public transit in Denver (PDF).
As anyone following or working on transit issues in 2011 knows it was a hectic first six months of the year. During the legislative session, funding for public transit was under assault. TLC worked diligently with our members and allies to try to protect transit funding. But,little was decided at the Capitol by the end of session in May. Negotiations stalled in June and led to the government shutdown in July before a budget deal was reached. The resolution was far from good for transit, but at least preserved existing service and fares. Needless to say, at the end of this long fight, everyone (including me) was very happy to be able to take some time off.
I was fortunate enough to get out of the country for a few weeks, making two stops in the two nations where my parents were born and raised. The first leg of my trip, to the United Kingdom, where my father was born, offered me a chance to explore the London transit system. While I’ve made previous trips to London, this was my first as a transit advocate/nerd and I was eager to see what the city had to offer. After getting picked up from the airport and given an Oyster card (the London equivalent of a Go-To Card) I was ready to go.
The London Underground, or “the Tube” as it’s known to locals, is the backbone of their system. Itextends to all corners of the city and seems to be used by pretty much everyone, regardless of race, class, income level, or occupation. My first trip on the tube was from the West London suburb of Ealing, where two sets of aunts and uncles live, to the East London community of Greenwich, home of the Prime Meridian (hence Greenwich mean time) which, as one Londoner suggested, was proof that England really is the center of the world. The trip took over an hour by train and bus, but felt very easy to do, and I would repeat the trip a couple more times during my stay without issue.
While I was excited to ride the tube and take a double-decker bus or two, I was unexpectedly impressed by another form of transit in London. My second day in town, I took the River Bus from Greenwich into Central London. The River Bus is a ferry that runs along the Thames River through the city and functions in the same way as a bus or train, making stops at docks along the way. Riding along the river allowed me to see a lot more of the city than taking the Underground, as it went past sites including the Tower of London, Tower Bridge, and London Bridge. The boats themselves were very comfortable as well, with spacious seating, both indoors and outdoors, and even a bar with food and drinks.
London’s also famous for its double-decker buses, the older style of which seems to have disappeared, but smaller versions are still all over the place in the city. I was most impressed by the frequency of buses. Most of the local routes I took to the nearest train station came every 7-10 minutes.
My most interesting experience on the bus came after a night out in Central London with a couple of friends. We were able to catch the “night bus” [Owen—is the night bus like a taxi that takes everyone who gets on where they want to go? Or did you happen to need to go where it went?] a bus with a route running all the way from the center of town out to my cousin’s place in Greenwich. I should mention that we picked up the bus at nearly 4 in the morning, after an entertaining evening on the town.
As much as I enjoyed checking out the transit infrastructure in London, the best part of the trip was actually walking around the city. While London isn’t nearly as built up vertically as larger American cities, the neighborhoods are very dense, with housing, shops, restaurants, parks, etc., very close to each other, making it an extremely easy place to walk around. To me there’s still no better way to experience a city than walking around it and taking in the surroundings.
As transit advocates in America we tend to glorify European cities’ transit systems, sometimes to a fault. London certainly didn’t disappoint. While I was happy to get back to a slightly less busy metro area here in the Twin Cities, I can’t help but think about what it might be like to live in a place with such good transit and with neighborhoods as walking friendly as London has to offer. Next stop on my trip (and my next blog entry), was my mom’s home country, the Seychelles islands. I’ll share getting around on La Digue, an island where bicycling and walking are the main modes of transportation.
From Bill Neuendorf, Policy & Advocacy Program Director
“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.” -U.S. Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, October 2, 1968
The Scenic & Wild Riverways Act was created in 1968 with strong support by then-Minnesota senator Walter Mondale and Wisconsin senator Gaylord Nelson. After construction of an unsightly and mammoth power plant along the river’s edge, Mondale pushed this legislation on behalf of local constituents so that such a disruption could never happen again along the banks of the St. Croix.
In the early 1970’s the Governors of both Minnesota (Wendell Anderson) and Wisconsin (Pat Lucey) recognized the potential for new development to harm the scenic beauty of portions of the St. Croix. Noting the importance of this riverway for the enjoyment of future generations, they requested federal protection to deter further obstructions to the river and to prohibit new improvements along the banks of both the Upper and Lower St. Croix. Forty-years later, Governors Dayton and Walker seem to have forgotten the need to preserve and protect these irreplaceable natural assets.
For decades, ideas have been tossed around regarding the aging lift bridge that leads from downtown Stillwater to rural Wisconsin. Visitors, travelers, and some business owners get upset at the traffic delays that occur in Stillwater’s historic downtown when the lift bridge is closed to vehicles so that boats may pass underneath. Delays are particularly noticeable during the peak tourism months.
After years of preliminary studies, Mn/DOT and WisDOT engineers settled on a mega-design that would replace the 2-lane local bridge with a massive 4-lane bridge that allows tourists and commuters to bypass downtown Stillwater at 65 mph. The proposed design was selected over more sensibly-sized options that yielded significant mobility and reliability improvements at far lower costs. This is may sound like good news for people who want to whip past Stillwater and for trucks who want to avoid the weigh station on the I-94 bridge, but for local taxpayers who foot the bill, it is a solution that is no longer grounded in reality. Several people question why such a monumental bridge needs to be built a mere 5-miles north of the existing I-94 interstate bridge that operates below capacity.
The legal troubles for this hulking highway bridge are due to its proposed location within the federally-protected scenic and wild river (one of only 165 in the U.S.). After several rounds of review and arbitration, the National Park Service (the federal agency that enforces the Scenic and Wild Rivers Act for the Lower St. Croix) rejected the current bridge proposal on the grounds that it was disproportionately-sized and would result in a negative impact to the scenic beauty of the river and immediate surroundings.
Based on this determination, some residents felt that Mn/DOT and WisDOT would revise the design to select a more appropriately-sized bridge that had less impact to the scenic beauty of the river and a smaller price tag. This is where fate takes a strange turn.
In recent weeks, several Minnesota Senators and Congressmen have been trying to drum up support to ignore the rationale behind the federal protection so that the over-sized bridge can be built. Governor Dayton has supported these efforts. The plan to exempt the mega-bridge from the federal protection has the support of some Stillwater officials and even more support from real estate and banking interests in western Wisconsin. These efforts have outraged residents who oppose the further destruction of the natural scenic beauty of the St. Croix riverway.
The current fervor of the U.S. legislators is particularly concerning when listening to the daily cries of record budget deficits in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. At this time of fiscal constraint, can Minnesota afford to buy the Hummer of bridges when a Chevrolet will get the job done for half the cost?
It is not as though other options don’t exist. In fact, there are numerous options available to resolve the maintenance and traffic capacity needs of the aging lift bridge. Several options would not only improve traffic flow across state lines but would do so in a manner that complies with the federal protections. Alternative designs and locations have been proposed to reduce the scope and scale of the proposed bridge. These alternatives recognize the context of the Stillwater and Oak Park Heights communities as well as the scenic beauty of the riverway. A smaller scale bridge reduces the cost to both MN and WI taxpayers while still providing area residents with a convenient crossing.
In short, is it time to replace the aging Stillwater lift bridge? YES!
Is it necessary for Minnesota to build a mega-bridge that will result in additional sprawl in rural Wisconsin? NO!
Can Minnesota afford a massively oversized bridge that drains precious financial resources away from other bridge projects that are more heavily used and that yield greater economic benefits to Minnesota? NO!
Can a smaller St. Croix bridge and additional bridge repair projects elsewhere in the state still put construction crews to work? YES!
Can a more-appropriately sized bridge still satisfy the travel demands of today and tomorrow? YES!
From Dave Van Hattum, Policy & Advocacy Program Manager
You often hear of stores, businesses, and offices validating your parking ticket as a way of thanking you for shopping there or defraying the cost of getting where you need to be. But, have you ever heard anyone offer to validate your bus pass or reward you for bicycling or walking to the same location? Even at meetings focused on sustainability, rail lines, and, ironically, parking pricing, I’ve rarely heard anyone offer to validate or cover my bus pass.
Culture matters. Our daily habits and assumptions about ‘appropriate’ behavior reflect our unique cultural perspectives and our broader values. Reimbursing individuals for the cost of parking their car, but not expenses associated with bus, bike or foot travel conveys a strong message. It’s interesting that our cultural norm is to “validate” parking. By only compensating meeting participants or shoppers for parking expenses, we, in effect “invalidate” bus use and the bus system, bicyclists and bike paths, and people who walk. Imagine if a meeting host asked, “Who needs gas money to get back to their office?” Why, exactly, does parking get such special treatment?
In the moment, the act of validating parking has a small impact on how people travel to meetings. After all, in most cases the parking validation isn’t saving the individual money; the employer realizes the savings, as most employees get reimbursed for parking expenses. But, the offer to validate parking reinforces the “driving” behavior and makes employers complicit in the practice of prioritizing cars over other modes.
On a broader scale, employers often provide free parking to employees as a perk, without the option of a similar contribution to non-car travel. Most retail and service destinations provide seas of “free” parking (at a considerable cost to their bottom line) but often lack bike racks and convenient bus stops. Moreover, the cultural preference for parking is top down not just bottom up. The Federal tax code provides miniscule incentives for employees to bike to work, and for years provided far greater incentives for driving than for taking transit. That changed last year with the federal stimulus—and Congress voted just this week to extend the benefit for transit.
If you’d like to see more transit and non-motorized transportation options, we encourage you to pay attention to how parking is dealt with in our culture. Here are a few things you can do:
Talk to your employer. Ask for a fair employee transportation benefit policy (i.e. equal benefit regardless of transportation mode) and a policy that employees will not accept a parking validation at meetings unless validation (i.e. reimbursement) is also offered for those who arrive by transit or bike. Encourage employers in downtown Minneapolis to sponsor a Nice Ride Minnesota bike sharing subscriptions for employees for making short trips during the day.
Write your Congressperson and thank them for extending the commuter benefit for transit, and keeping it on par with parking.
Give merchants and service providers the TLC business cards that say I arrived by bike/bus and want to see convenient infrastructure for those travel modes. (For copies of the cards, email owend@tlcminnesota.org or michelled@tlcminnesota.org.)
Note: In the bill extending the Bush era tax cuts, Congress also extended for one year the transit benefit cap, so that it matches the benefit allowed for parking expenses.
Irish Times: Seduced by the Sea (a travel article, but one of the main selling points of the destination is their bicycle rental program and bicycle lanes!)
Recent Comments