TLC Supports Met. Council’s Proposed Shift to More Travel Options & Growth in Walkable Communities

 

By Barb Thoman, Executive Director

Post updated: 10/1/14.

 

 

Photo Credit: Metro Transit.

 

The Metropolitan Council’s draft 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (draft TPP), wisely calls for greatly expanding transit, bicycling, and walking options across the region and focusing on more compact, pedestrian-friendly development patterns. The draft TPP, an update of the plan developed in 2009, is out for public comment through Wednesday, October 1, at 5 p.m. TLC urges our members to send comment letters or e-mails to the Met. Council, offering their support for this proposed shift (see our sample comment letter at the bottom of this post). The Council is hearing pretty significant push back from proponents of the spread out, auto-focused, and costly development patterns of the last 50 years.

Demand for travel in the region is undergoing historic change. Young people are driving less and the Baby Boomer generation is starting to retire, both leading to fewer driving trips during peak periods. Ridership on transit is growing even as households in the region make fewer daily trips. Rates of bicycling are up, evidenced from data in the Met. Council’s Travel Behavior Inventory and from TLC’s 2013 Bike/Walk Count Report. The Council’s proposed approach in the draft TPP responds to these trends.

At more than 300 pages, the draft TPP is a long document. Here, we boil it down into thoughts on major topics. If you don’t have a day (!) to read the full plan, we suggest focusing on pages 67-125, which includes Vision and Strategies. Here goes:

• Land use – There is good language in this section (pages 126-148) that calls on cities and counties to prioritize walkable development, better connected streets, a mix of uses, development along transit, and more. This makes good economic and environmental sense and promotes equitable development and access for everyone. In coming years, cities in the metro will be required to update their comprehensive plans to be consistent with the TPPand other Met. Council plans. TLC believes that cities that want to access the funding streams available through the Met. Council (federal transportation, Livable Communities, and others) should be required to plan, zone, and invest in ways consistent with Met. Council plans. The region can no longer afford to subsidize expensive low-density development on farmland and open space at the edge of the region.
  
  
• Bicycle and pedestrian system – For ten years TLC has been calling for the identification of a regional bike system (pages 261-273) and it’s included in this plan! We applaud the statement on page 272 that “any new state transportation funding package should include additional funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure…”This is a foundation of the Move MN platform. We would like to see more attention to pedestrian access with a focus on major transit corridors, concentrated areas of poverty, access to schools, and access for seniors.
  
  
• Transit – The draft TPP acknowledges the transitway projects that can be completed with the current ¼-cent metro sales tax for transit (Southwest, Bottineau, Gateway, plus Orange Line bus rapid transit (BRT) on 35W). We have concerns about the region’s ability to also maintain existing transit infrastructure, including bus garages and already aging Blue Line rail stations. We also have concerns about counting on larger federal grant awards and expecting state motor-vehicle sales tax revenues for transit to remain steady, given the trend toward less driving.
  
  The increased revenue scenario is on par with what Seattle, Denver, and other peer cities are doing as they continue a rapid build-out of bus and rail across their regions. Additional revenue is essential for: bus system expansion (this requires more than the 1 percent per year proposed on page 234), construction of all arterial BRT lines, building a regional system of transitways in a timely fashion, and a better customer experience (via bus stop safety, comfort, access, and more information). We support the existing Transit Market Area approach to getting the most from regional transit investments by focusing those investments on areas with higher population and employment densities and demand for transit service. We were happy to see the transit chapter acknowledge the state legislative goal to increase the percentage of trips taken on transit—a goal TLC successfully worked on years ago. 

 

Transit Market Areas. Source: Metropolitan Council (PDF).

• Highway system– The draft TPP notes that the Twin Cities region has the eighth largest roadway system in the country and wisely proposes more attention to maintenance and preservation. We would spend even more on maintenance, plus increase the investment percentage for safety projects—including Complete Streets and treatments compliant with the Americans for Disabilities Act—on state, county, and local roads. In addition, we would carefully review the list of 50 proposed “spot capacity expansion” projects to ensure that these projects won’t just move congestion down the road. We support the proposal to add back the bus shoulder lane on I-94 between Minneapolis and Saint Paul (page 183).

Dave Van Hattum, TLC’s Advocacy Director, continues to call for all Met. Council and MnDOT plans—including this one—to have clear and measurable outcomes.

Don’t miss this opportunity to show your support for a new direction at the Council. Comments on the draft TPP are due Wednesday, October 1, at 5 p.m. Submit your comments by e-mail to [email protected].

 

SAMPLE COMMENT LETTER:

 

Subject: Comment on draft Transportation Policy Plan

 

I'm emailing to express my support for the direction the Met. Council has taken in the draft Transportation Policy Plan. 

 

I was very happy to see the call for greatly expanding transit, bicycling, and walking options across the region, as well as a focus on more compact, pedestrian-friendly development patterns. This makes good economic and environmental sense. 

 

Please continue to work on clear and measurable outcomes, but most importantly: Please don't buckle to the proponents of the status quo who want to continue the inequitable and costly policies of the last 50 years. The shift you have proposed will do much more to ensure we have a thriving metro region going forward, with better quality of life and access to opportunity.

 

Thank you.

 

[Your Name]

[Your Address]

 

 

Saint Paul Looks to Transit-Oriented Development Opportunities

An Interview with Gary Leavitt, Transit-Oriented Development Manager, City of Saint Paul

 

By Dave Van Hattum, Transportation Policy Director

 

Editor’s note: At the start of this year, the City of Saint Paul put new emphasis on transit-oriented development (TOD), hiring dedicated staff to manage TOD for the first time. Experienced developer Gary Leavitt stepped into the role. We recently sat down with Gary to talk about his approach to the job, and about realizing TOD potential in Saint Paul—along the Green Line and beyond.

 

Gary Leavitt. Photo credit: TLC

 

TLC: Tell us about your job with the City of Saint Paul.
GL: I was brought on primarily to assist with transit-oriented development along the new Green Line. Acting as a liaison for the City, I meet with owners, stakeholders, developers, brokers, or investors who want to do transit-oriented projects on University Avenue or elsewhere in Saint Paul. I meet as many people as I possibly can to talk about transit and about opportunity, and to explain why this is a good thing. The most difficult part of development is time; the longer it goes, the more it costs, and then it gets difficult to make a project work. My goal in that sense is to get involved early enough to save time by helping with small zoning issues, station-area or comprehensive plans, or potential funding sources. Coming from a private background helps me build rapport in the field.

 

TLC: Does the City have explicit goals for additional housing or commercial development?

GL: There isn’t really a number we put out there. I just like to use the term “a lot”—more than what we have seen in the last five years.

 

TLC: How would you describe the emerging TOD market along the Green Line specifically?

GL: The ridership is up much higher than we expected and that’s great. People are buying into it. In the beginning, some landowners and developers were saying, “We don’t know if it’s going to work or if it’s the right time.” Now, I am having meeting after meeting with people who are saying positively, “There is a lot of activity. A lot of people are riding and they’re getting off the trains and walking around in the neighborhoods.” We are seeing quite a few more opportunities than I expected.

 

TLC: What has happened to-date in terms of development along the corridor?

GL: We have a number of projects in the pipeline, including the Hamline Station development, new Goodwill site, old Whittaker Buick, and 2700 University. As far as development, Raymond Avenue has been tremendous. The most calls, probably 40 percent, have come from this station area so far.

 

Green Line LRT at Raymond & University, Saint Paul. Photo credit: Allison Osberg, TLC.

 

TLC: Are there big projects that have your or the City’s attention?

GL: The 35-acre “bus barn” lot near Snelling and University is the biggest by far. That is a joint development between a private owner, the City, and the Metropolitan Council. As we phase in development with these big properties, it is so important that we are thoughtful in the process. What may be a perfect deal today may not fit the market ten years from now. That consideration takes a lot of time and funding. And those are big home-run deals. But I also enjoy the smaller ones that really get neighborhoods involved and can happen now versus five years from now.

 

TLC: What might that site look like?
GL: I see four or five stories at most. I see mixed use as well as mixed income: housing, some commercial, hopefully some offices, plenty of open space for parks, walking, placemaking, and a gathering area. With a site this size and with so much opportunity, we want to create a destination not only for the neighborhood, but for out-of-area residents as well. I think the development will be phased, beginning with the Walgreens on the corner. Then, we’ll probably want to put housing at the Big Top Liquor site and keep moving south. With the A Line on Snelling as well, we want to focus on that corner to ensure we are pushing transit-oriented development opportunities south and north of University.

 

TLC: Where are the other TOD opportunities in the city?

GL: We are doing some research on Robert Street. We also are working on Gateway and those station-area plans. I’m a fan of Riverview on West 7^th Street; I think that is a huge opportunity.

 

TLC: Can you say more about station-area plans?

GL: We look up to a quarter-mile away from the transit station. Density is critical. We like to see buildings and storefronts up on the street. The whole goal is to get people out of cars­—get them on bikes, walking, and on the trains. When the plan is drafted, the community has a chance to weigh in. That was the process with the Green Line and we’re doing that planning on Gateway right now.

 

TLC: How does the City define or think about equitable TOD?

GL: Our region made this investment in the light rail and we hope everyone has the same opportunity to use it. Everybody should have an opportunity to prosper, whether by better, healthier, safer living, or access to new affordable or market-rate housing. Everyone should have access to those. And the bottom line is access to good, living wage jobs. If someone finds a job in another neighborhood, they have the opportunity to ride transit to get to that job.

 

TLC: Has the issue of gentrification come up in your work on TOD? How do you respond to those concerns?
GL: That’s a fair question and it does come up. It’s a healthy debate we have about how much affordable housing should happen, what gentrification takes place. I want bad landlords and slumlords out of the neighborhoods. But when we talk about new projects maybe raising rents, I think more about overall cost to live. I look at a new development that may be a couple hundred dollars more, but it’s safer, more energy efficient so your electricity bill is lower, cleaner so you’re sick less and missing work less, and closer to transit so you may not need a vehicle any longer. Your overall spending on a monthly basis could be the same or better.

 

TLC: Before moving to the Twin Cities, you worked in Phoenix. How do those transit and TOD markets compare?

GL: The biggest difference is that the Twin Cities community is very much involved. There are some community relations in Phoenix, but I’m shocked and pleased by the amount of community input you have here. Residents are excited and specific about what they want in the neighborhood. I’m happy to see that. You also have a more diverse set of riders here with people taking transit to a number of different destinations.

 

TLC: How do you see bike and pedestrian infrastructure as a part of TOD?

GL: Bike and ped are huge components of TOD. The most important part is getting people out of cars. That’s important to us as a city. With potential developments, I may target an area that I know is going to be on a new bike route. I may reach out to owners and developers so that we can have more green space and placemaking along these routes.  

 

TLC: Car parking is a challenge and an opportunity for every TOD project. How does parking factor into your and the City’s thinking?

GL: On University Avenue, we have no parking requirements, but as a practical matter you need parking in some places. We had a lot of discussions about that prior to the Green Line opening. With light rail planning in Phoenix in 2008, there was lot of concern that parking was going to be an issue, but after the train opened people were pleasantly surprised. I’m seeing that here as well. I’ve not received one call yet about cars parking in the neighborhood. People want to talk about potential problems. Let’s let the challenge come and we’ll address it then; let’s not create one out of thin air.

 

TLC: What would you say to the Saint Paul residents who might be skeptical of greater housing or commercial density?

GL: At the end of the day, what’s being tried here is for the greater good. At the end of the day, people are going to be safer, healthier, and have better opportunities to increase their quality of life. Nothing is perfect. Not everybody is going to be happy. That’s unfortunate, but we do what we can to accommodate everyone.

 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

 

Where we want to live—now and in the future

By Hilary Reeves, Communications Director

Editor’s Note: This piece by TLC’s Hilary Reeves originally ran in the Southwest Journal on May 28 as part of her regular “Spokes & Soles” column. 

What makes a good neighborhood? A recent survey shows walkability on the minds of many.

Every couple of years the National Association of Realtors conducts a National Community Preference Survey. The most recent, in fall of last year, indicates that people most likely to be in the housing market want to live in communities where it’s possible to walk or drive to shopping, restaurants, the library, and school. For those who plan to move in the next three years, the walkable neighborhood was preferred by an 18 point margin (57 to 39 percent).

 

The number one feature that people said there was too little of in their neighborhoods was “safe routes for riding bikes to work and shopping.” The next biggest needs were for more “public transportation within an easy walk,” “housing for people with low incomes,” and “shops or restaurants within an easy walk” of home.

 

Many are willing to give up a large yard to gain walkability. Asked to pick between a house with a large yard where “you have to drive to get to schools, stores, and restaurants” and a small yard in a walkable neighborhood, the latter won out, 55 to 40 percent.

 

People still overwhelmingly want to live in detached, single-family homes (76 percent) and not in condos or apartments. But, the preference for a house drops to 57 percent when the apartment or condo brings more walkability and a shorter commute.

 

A March 2014 blog about the survey on Planners Web asks, “Do your development regulations and transportation plans allow for single-family homes on small lots, in a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere within walking distance of shops, restaurants, and community facilities?” The blog notes that this is what “consumers increasingly want, but in many communities this option is hard to find.”

 

It may be fair to ask, however, if building primarily for single-family homes is best for walkability and for the changing demographics of the Twin Cities.

 

According to Jeff Speck, author of Walkable City, communities where walking is most possible (and driving least necessary) come with densities of “ten to twenty units per acre,” which basically means a mix of “apartments, row houses, and yes, some free-standing single family homes.”

 

Planning and zoning for these densities would also foster some other things that the Realtors survey said people want: more bike routes and more affordable housing.

 

Speck (Walkable City) points out that in the 1950s (when the US started building interstate highways and people starting moving to suburbs), Vancouver began advocating for high rises, with requirements for transit and green space. Now, walking and bicycling are 30 percent of all trips in that city.

 

In Minneapolis, biking and walking together account for about 10 percent of all trips, according to the American Community Survey, part of the US Census. The percentage of people commuting by bicycle in Minneapolis increased from 1.9 percent to 4.1 percent in recent years, according to a report, Modes Less Traveled—Bicycling and Walking to Work in the United States: 2008–2012.

 

These are the same years that Minneapolis saw a big expansion of bike routes and programs (such as Nice Ride Minnesota bike-sharing and community bike centers, such as SPOKES in the Seward neighborhood) funded in part through the $28 million Bike Walk Twin Cities federal Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program. The pilot program was the inspiration of Jim Oberstar, a long-time Minnesota representative in the US Congress. Oberstar, who died recently, was a transportation visionary.

 

The same kind of match-up of spending, community priority, and political leadership could help prepare the Twin Cities for changing demographics. According to the Metropolitan Council, by 2040 the population of people over age 65 will rise by 58 percent or nearly half-a-million. A bunch of seniors likely will have less preference for yards and more openness to mixed use condos and apartments. This same kind of development also fosters more affordable options.

 

Development of this sort would also meet one of the other preferences in the Realtors survey, for more diverse communities. A majority (53 percent) now favor “living in a community with a mix of people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds” (up 11 points since 2011). More people want to live in communities with various income levels” (48 percent in 2013 versus 42 percent in 2011). And 66 percent (up from 60 percent) now want to live in a community with people at all stages of life. 

 

 

Transportation & Urban Development

By Allison Osberg, MN GreenCorps Member (TLC)

 
Speaking at our latest Transportation on Tap happy hour event (L to R): Twin Cities developers Colleen Carey (The Cornerstone Group) and James Lehnhoff (Aeon) with TLC's Lars Christiansen.

Not all real estate is created equal. A development that connects its residents and users to the community in real, practical, and meaningful ways helps to create a place—not just a project. When a developer commits to walkable, bikeable, and transit-oriented design, they create a place where it’s possible for active, green, and local living to coincide.

After six decades of urban sprawl and heavy reliance on motor vehicle transportation, driving is declining and people young and old are returning to city centers, preferring more compact, walkable, multi-use neighborhoods. With the market’s renewed sense of just how interconnected transportation, urban development, and livability really are, Transit for Livable Communities took the opportunity to invite two Twin Cities developers to our latest Transportation on Tap happy hour event to discuss the importance of transportation in their work.

If you missed our conversation with Colleen Carey of The Cornerstone Group (a local, full-service real estate company focused on sustainable development) and James Lehnhoff of Aeon (a nonprofit, affordable housing developer), read on to see what they have to say about the role of their organizations in creating pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented communities.

 

TLC: At what part of the process does your organization factor in transportation when starting a new development? What are your priorities there and why?

Colleen: Access and availability to high-quality transit options are one of our key criteria in picking new projects. Our priorities revolve around creating great places for people to live and access to transit is one of the most important elements in our initial review of development opportunities.

James: Reviewing transportation options is one of the very first steps when reviewing a possible development for two primary reasons. First, many of our households have no or one car, which means having access to transit, walking, and biking facilities is very important for day-to-day needs and getting to work. Secondly, many of our funding sources have placed an increasing emphasis on proximity and access to transit In particular. In order to be competitive for funding, it is necessary to be close to transit.

 

TLC: Could you describe one development you’ve worked on where you’ve taken steps to encourage and ensure access to biking, walking, and/or transit?

Colleen: Lyndale Gardens is our most current example of The Cornerstone Group working hard to encourage more access to pedestrian, bike, and transit-friendly development. We have worked with the City of Richfield to redesign intersections to make them safer for pedestrians. We have toured the city by bike with the Planning Commission and City Council to understand the ways that bikers experience this community and we have lobbied hard for the addition of bike lanes along Lyndale Avenue in front of our development. We have also encouraged the city to retain a planner consultant to help them implement a more walkable plan for the Lakes at Lyndale area, which is centered around 66th and Lyndale.

James: Aeon purchased and completed substantial renovations on a property in Roseville now called Sienna Green, which is located in the southwest corner of Snelling Avenue and Highway 36. Prior to Aeon’s purchase, the property had a vast, underused, and crumbling parking lot but no bike racks and no sidewalk connection to buses and businesses along Snelling Avenue. In fact, it was common to see residents walking in the frontage road with cars speeding by. In partnership with the City of Roseville, Ramsey County, and the Metropolitan Council, we constructed off-site sidewalks to directly connect Sienna Green to the greater sidewalk system. We also installed conveniently located bike racks by each of the five buildings. The property went from a disconnected island to a well-connected community.

 

A rendering of the future public plaza that will connect The Cornerstone Group's Lyndale Gardens to Richfield Lake Park. Credit: The Cornerstone Group.

 

TLC: What specific challenges do you run up against in local cities when creating transit-oriented or pedestrian-friendly developments? What factors or changes would make your job easier?

James: Increasing land costs are making development more challenging. However, in existing developed communities, it can still be a challenge to add sidewalks where people may not be used to them and the prospect of change can be unnerving for some. Building parking spaces remains expensive and it is common for residents to still want a parking spot even when transit and pedestrian options are available, which speaks to the need for a more substantial transit system that allows people to feel better about not having a vehicle.

Colleen: The biggest challenge is the existing infrastructure. Most cities that we work with want a more walkable place but it is sometimes hard to move from a car-oriented environment to a place that is friendly to people on foot and on bike. The biggest factor in helping remove obstacles is a strong vision from the city and an openness to exploring all kinds of solutions.

 

Aeon's East Village, a mixed-use, mixed-income development in Elliot Park, Minneapolis. Photo: walkscore.com.

 

TLC: Can you share an example of a development that was very innovative from a transportation point of view—nationally or internationally—and describe how it has inspired you in your own work?

James: While it isn’t one specific development, the first time I visited Amsterdam and saw their absolutely incredible biking infrastructure, I was just blown away. They have created an integrated system where biking is on par, and in many cases ranked above, single automobiles. From bike parking to stop lights designed specifically for bikes, they have a system where biking is a viable transportation option used by many people. All of our new developments and preservation projects strive to help create a system like that.

Colleen: I am inspired every time I travel abroad and see the many ways that walkable cities make for dynamic and exciting places for people to be. Barcelona, Paris, Venice . . . the list goes on. I am also inspired by the American cities that have just "taken the bull by the horns" and built a transit system; not just a line but a whole interconnected system. We could use some of that foresight and political will—it would dramatically improve the long-term economic prospects for our entire region.

 

Interested in keeping up the conversation? Stay tuned for more Transportation on Tap events in 2014!

 

 

Thrive MSP – Good Policy Needed to Target Regional Growth

By Dave Van Hattum, Senior Policy Advocate

 

 

Good transit and bikeable, walkable neighborhoods are increasingly important to a metro region’s economic future. It’s a key reason to stay tuned in to the progress on Thrive MSP 2040—the Metropolitan Council’s long-range development plan for the Twin Cities region. Thrive MSP 2040 will set the direction and guidelines for where and how future housing and job growth occurs throughout the metro. And, as we’ve blogged in the past (here, here, and here), this plan should ensure that there will be synergy between development and transportation investments.

 

Less than three years ago, the Met. Council predicted that population growth in the Twin Cities region would boost the demand for vehicle travel substantially in the next 20 years. Recent changes in market forces, however, instead reflect growing demand for more transit, walking, and bicycling and reduced demand for driving. In combination with demographic shifts toward an older and more diverse population, this new reality compels the Council to move in a new direction.

    

Credit: Met Council Travel Behavior Inventory Summary (see the complete infographic here).

 

When the previous long-range development plan was crafted, it encouraged 70 percent housing and job growth to developing/rural parts of the region and only 30 percent development in Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and 63 surrounding suburbs—that means that most development was targeted to agricultural land and open space.

With our partners in the Coalition for a Strong Region, TLC has been advocating for a more sustainable, equitable, and affordable plan that targets the majority of new development inside Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and these closer suburbs. Specifically, TLC has pushed for 70 percent growth inside this zone and only 30 percent growth outward to developing/rural portions of the region.

The updated local growth forecasts (for each city) that the Met. Council released this fall signal a major shift in this direction—projecting 55 percent of future housing growth in Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and 63 surrounding suburbs through 2040.

Credit: Metropolitan Council.

TLC welcomes the change, but hopes that portion will increase to 70 percent, and that specific regional and local growth centers—for housing/jobs and industrial development—will be identified in the plan. It is hard to target development in a cost-effective way when you simply identify all of a city as the target. We believe specific regional locations should have the right zoning to accommodate the growth, as well as existing and proposed high-frequency transit service. Thinly spreading our limited financial resources—federal, state, and regional—is not going to achieve the results we need. Instead, resources should be targeted to specific locations if they are going to make a difference.

Seattle, Portland, and other regions show why it’s important to identify centers in the plan: More development inside the beltway, rather than on the region’s outer edge, not only encourages the use of new transit investments, but also protects resources, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and contributes to a thriving region.

The current draft of Thrive MSP policy directions signals a change in strategy for regional growth, but doesn’t yet set standards for results or emphasize transit and active transportation explicitly. It’s easy for TLC to get behind a more sustainable vision, but higher goals, more specifics, and performance measures are essential if Thrive MSP is to have any significant effect on the regional policy plans or local comprehensive plans that follow.

This is perhaps most crucial with regard to the Thrive MSP goals that emphasize racial equity, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and water protection.Particularly given the extensive racial disparities in our region, theCouncil’s main charge of promoting “orderly and economical development” must include equitable access to opportunity. And, if we are serious about sustainability, the region can’t afford not to take action against climate change. Both of these outcomes are served by focusing limited transportation resources on transit expansion, and by leveraging market forces to achieve more compact development.

As a draft of the full Thrive MSP plan is released in early 2014 and as progress on regional policy plans—Transportation, Housing, Water Resources, and Regional Parks— is made, we encourage readers to advocate for:

1. Specific, multi-modal performance measures tied to each of the plan’s goals
2. Identification of regional centers for housing/job growth and for industrial jobs
3. Regional investments that reflect the new priorities described above, and
4. Specific language in the Thrive MSP plan that will allow the Council, when necessary, to require local communities through their local comprehensive plans to align planning and investment with the new regional goals.

Weigh in at the Thrive MSP public open house scheduled for Thursday, November 14, 5-7 PM, at the Metropolitan Council Chambers (390 N. Robert Street) in Saint Paul!

 

 

 

 

Keeping Southwest LRT Moving Forward

By Barb Thoman, Executive Director

Southwest LRT cleared another hurdle yesterday, with the Southwest Corridor Management Committe voting 15-1 in favor of the recommended plan for the line.

We were glad to see the vote yesterday to move forward with Southwest LRT. The Southwest Corridor Management Committee includes representatives from the communities along the line. The sole “no” vote, from Minneapolis, emphasized concerns about preserving the water quality of the City of Lakes and about whether the freight re-route options have been explored fully. Even with these concerns, it’s clear that the region’s leaders, including those in Minneapolis, support advancing transit and preserving bicycle and pedestrian access in the corridor.

TLC’s priority is building out regional systems of transit, bicycling, and walking. These networks greatly increase access to jobs and quality of life for the region’s growing population. They create connected communities less burdened by air pollution and more likely to be healthy. As we look at projects and progress, therefore, we are focusing attention on the effect on the whole system, multimodal access, and impacts on disadvantaged populations and our environment.

The system: As TLC made clear last summer, our region needs to keep Southwest LRT (SWLRT) project costs at a level that preserves our chances for federal funding and that does not adversely affect the build out of the rest of the regional transit system. We are pleased that the SWLRT project office’s proposed project budget of $1.55 billion still is competitive with other LRT projects around the US with which our region will complete for federal funding. This budget includes ending the LRT line at the Southwest Station (as TLC recommended in the DEIS process years ago), while ensuring important bus connections and express bus service from Eden Prairie and adjoining counties. A full funding grant agreement application to FTA is planned for spring 2014. We can’t afford additional delay in finalizing the alignment, stations, and other details, and also securing municipal consent from all five cities along the line. This project is competing directly for federal funds with two projects in Maryland and one in San Diego.

The SWLRT project still needs a state commitment of 10 percent of the project cost and CTIB must also approve 30 percent of the project cost. The decision yesterday avoids taking property in St. Louis Park or in Minneapolis and is cheaper than the current estimates for freight re-route. Looking to the build-out of the full system, however, the issue bigger than the SWLRT project cost is that our region still lags in overall funding for transit, bicycling, and walking. To fully build out the regional plan (for LRT, BRT, bus, bicycling, walking, and streetcars) in fifteen years requires an increase of 3/4-cent in the regional sales tax for transit. Securing this funding will require support from across the region and likely will come only when the legislature approves new funding for transportation statewide.

Multimodal access: There must be commitment to maintaining bike/ped access in the corridor as well as improving bike/ped access to stations. Shallow tunnels for LRT in the Kenilworth Corridor allow for retention of bike/ped trails at grade from just north of the West Lake Street Station to Cedar Lake Parkway. Additionally, yesterday’s decision included the approval of an amendment to maintain the "character and alignment" of the existing Kenilworth trails. The northern tunnel eliminates the 21^st Street Station, which was projected to have very low ridership and minimal bus service.

 

Shallow tunnels for LRT in the Kenilworth Corridor allow for retention of bike/ped trails at grade from just north of the West Lake Street Station to Cedar Lake Parkway.

TLC has long pushed for charging a low daily fee for parking at transit stations along this line and at other LRT stations in the system. The region continues to spend a lot of money on parking at transit stations, including 3400 spaces for this project at a cost of more than $25,000 per space. Parking fees would more fully capture the costs of driving, encourage access to stations by transit, bicycling, and walking, and provide funding for bicycle and pedestrian access and costs related to transit-oriented-development. Parking fees would also better balance supply and demand as transit ridership increases. We believe the premium service provided by LRT justifies charging for parking, and that it may make sense to expand parking charges to park-and-rides regionwide sometime in the future. Transit agencies in other regions do charge for parking including RTA in Denver, SEPTA in Philadelphia, and BART in San Francisco, among others.

Disadvantaged populations: As with Central Corridor LRT, it is imperative to ensure that affordable housing in proximity to the line is a priority as part of future transit-oriented development. We support the plan to shift Canadian Pacific-owned freight tracks to the north side of the LRT tracks, as this strengthens transit-oriented development potential in Hopkins and St. Louis Park. As we stated in our comment letter on the SDEIS, we support locating the light rail maintenance base in Hopkins rather than in Eden Prairie. A Hopkins location provides better access from an operations standpoint and provides greater access to jobs at the facility.

Environment & Health: There are concerns that the SWLRT alignment might affect water resources in the Kenilworth Corridor. We are very encouraged by the fact that the watershed district has been participating in the process of evaluating the shallow tunnel option and approves of them. We agree with Minneapolis that all necessary precautions must be taken to ensure no harm to water resources, during construction and operation of the project. We also want to emphasize that the build-out of a regional system of transit, bicycling, and walking contributes to improved air quality, less run off from paved surfaces, retention of open space, and it fosters active transportation. These investments speak directly to our need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Metropolitan Council is expected to vote on the recommended plan for SWLRT on October 16 (3:00). We urge the Council to keep Southwest LRT moving forward while also working with residents and leaders from Minneapolis and other cities along the line to address remaining questions and concerns about this vital project. The Council will need to seek municipal consent for the project by the end of the year.

Tonight, a public open house will give community members an opportunity to ask questions and share their input on the recommended plan for SWLRT in Minneapolis. Find more information on our events calendar.

 

Key Takeaways from MnDOT’s Draft State Highway Investment Plan

Public comment period ends July 31. Public hearing July 29 at 4 PM.

By Barb Thoman, Executive Director

What highway investments will contribute to a prosperous future for Minnesota? How much should be spent to maintain existing pavements and bridges, retrofit streets to improve safety for everyone, and add transit infrastructure to highway corridors? What is the additional transportation funding Minnesota needs and how can it be raised without unduly burdening low-income Minnesotans?

MnDOT recently released its draft State Highway Investment Plan (MnSHIP), which seeks to address questions like these. With current projected revenues, MnDOT will have approximately $8 billion to invest over the first ten years of the plan and $10 billion for the second decade. These revenues are generated primarily from the state gas tax, vehicle registration fees, motor vehicle sales tax and federal funds. They are separate from allocations to counties, cities, and townships.

 

Image credit: MnDOT

The investment percentages shown below are for the first ten years of the twenty-year plan. Overall, TLC applauds the focus on maintenance, safety, and bicycle and pedestrian travel, and the reduction in emphasis on highway expansion. This allocation reflects recent trends in travel behavior (i.e. less driving) and growing demand for alternatives to driving (see pg. ES-10 of the draft plan). The draft plan also features much clearer investment categories—nine in all—and greater specificity in all areas of the plan.

 

 Image credit: Metropolitan Council

1 and 2. Pavements and bridges (59% of investment). Minnesota must maintain a large and aging system of pavements and bridges. Our state has the nation’s fifth-largest roadway system (141,000 miles in total with 12,000 miles owned by MnDOT). The Twin Cities metro area has the eighth-largest regional highway system (in lane miles per person). Projected investment levels are not adequate to keep up with maintenance needs, especially on the secondary system of state-owned corridors. MnDOT identifies an unmet need for maintenance of $4 billion over 20 years. TLC supports greater investment in maintenance to meet the agency’s repair targets.

3. Project Support (11% of investment). This category includes right-of-way purchases, consultant fees, and contractor incentives. Project support (program delivery) is slated to receive a significant percentage of investments. Including these costs, to the extent possible, with corresponding projects (such as pavements, mobility, safety, etc.) would provide greater transparency and accountability.

4. Roadside infrastructure (9% of investment). This category includes culverts, traffic signals, noise walls, signage, drainage systems, pavement markings, and even rest areas. These investments maintain safety and system integrity, reduce impacts on the environment, and improve quality of life.

5. Twin Cities mobility (7% of investment). The draft plan projects $520 million in highway expansion projects and high-occupancy toll lanes over ten years. This investment category is greatly reduced—as we think it should be—over what it has been for the last four decades. An aging population, less growth at the metro region’s edges, young people driving less, and the need to address climate change and equity, all signal the need to reduce spending on highway expansion.

The draft plan budgets for completion of the widening project/MnPass lanes on I-35E north of downtown Saint Paul; the completion of TH-610 west to I-94; the construction of MnPass lanes on I-94 between downtown Minneapolis and Saint Paul; and the construction of MnPass lanes on I-35W North from Minneapolis to Highway 10.

6. Regional and Community Improvement Priorities (7 % of investment). This category addresses regional or community priorities in Greater Minnesota, including conversion of two-lane state highways to four-lane divided highways, intersection changes, drainage projects, main street projects and other projects that address local safety, economic development, or quality of life.

TLC believes that complete street retrofits—especially in communities where a rural or suburban main street is a trunk highway—should receive additional attention and investment.

7. Traveler Safety (4% of investment). While safety is a part of all construction projects, this category includes independent installation of rumble strips, lighting, cable median barriers to prevent head on crashes, and other spending on what MnDOT calls “lower cost, high benefit” projects.

8 and 9. Access by walking and bicycling (3 % of investment). For the first time, MnDOT’s draft plan makes improved access by bicycling and walking a clear priority. TLC strongly supports this! Bicycling and walking are healthy, low cost, and environmentally friendly modes of transportation. Many people cannot drive— due to age, ability, or because they simply can’t afford to own a car—and they deserve a full quality of life. TLC would like to see faster progress than what the draft plan proposes on the expansion of safe, accessible facilities for walking and bicycling.

We remind the few people who still erroneously argue that bicyclists and pedestrians don’t pay transportation taxes that most people who walk and bicycle also own a car. And those who do not are likely paying more than their fair share for local roads through local property taxes  

The funding gap. The draft plan states that the funding gap over the next 20 years is $12 billion, or $600 million annually (equivalent to a 20-cent gas tax increase). If additional revenue is raised, TLC would like to see greater investment in pavements and bridges, safety, and community priorities, especially complete streets and flood prevention projects. Given the recent decade-long plateau in car travel, and the competitive advantage of regions with expanded transportation options, we seriously question the use of new funding for the additional highway expansion projects proposed on page 58 of the draft plan.  

What the draft plan is missing:

• Targets for reducing car travel (i.e. VMT) on the state highway system.
• Ambitious mode share goals for trips by transit, bicycling, and walking as required by state law.
• Discussion of the health impacts of proximity to high traffic corridors, which have high levels of harmful emissions and noise.
• Discussion of the impacts that road construction and runoff from roads have on land and water quality.
• A better description of traffic congestion in the Twin Cities. (Referencing the 2012 Texas Transportation Institution Urban Mobility Report, page 44 of the draft plan leads the reader to believe that the Twin Cities metro region has above average levels of traffic congestion, stating, “The Twin Cities area was ranked the seventh most congested of 32 metropolitan areas of similar size in 2010.” As we have written in a previous blog, a closer reading of the Urban Mobility Report finds that the Twin Cities is the 16^th largest metropolitan area in the U.S. but has only the 25^th worst traffic congestion. In fact, we are the largest of the 32 “large” metropolitan areas referenced and thus are not “similar in size.”)

Comment on the plan. A public hearing on the draft plan is scheduled for July 29 at 4 PM (MnDOT Central Office, 395 John Ireland Blvd., Room G15, Saint Paul) and public comment will be accepted until Wednesday, July 31. TLC encourages its members to review and comment on the plan. Recommended talking points:

1. Applaud MnDOT for prioritizing, and directing funds, to improved bicycle and pedestrian access.
2. Encourage MnDOT to explicitly convey to the public the recent dramatic changes in travel trends (VMT flat for a decade after a century of growth) that have critical implications for the allocation of transportation funds into the foreseeable future.
3. Encourage Mn/DOT to explicitly direct federal highway funds to key transit expansion projects in highway corridors.

 

Streetcars in the City

By Dave Van Hattum, Senior Policy Advocate, and Teresa Roark, TLC Intern

Energy around a streetcar revival has been steadily building in the Twin Cities—and with good reason. The modern streetcar is far more than an ode to the dominant transportation mode preceding today’s ubiquitous car culture. Streetcars provide a valuable transit option uniquely suited to dense urban settings and with strong opportunities for new commercial and residential development. But are streetcars likely to make a major comeback here in Minnesota?

Streetcars (referred to as trolleys outside North America) have been part of the U.S. transit system since the late 19^th century. By the 1920s, they were commonplace, even spawning the term “streetcar suburb” for their notable influence on development patterns and commuting habits.

As local authors John Diers and Aaron Isaacs describe in Twin Cities by Trolley, many older Minnesotans fondly recall riding the 520-mile streetcar network that once stretched from Stillwater to Lake Minnetonka, with dense grids of track serving Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

 

Passengers boarding a streetcar at Hennepin Ave. & 9^th St. in Minneapolis, part of the extensive network that once served the Twin Cities metro area.

After declining in the 1940s and 50s for a variety of reasons, including growing suburban development and the emergence of rubber tired buses, streetcars are reappearing in more and more cities across the country—not only as a way of moving people from one place to another, but as part of a comprehensive development plan.

Peer Cities Embrace Modern Streetcars

Today, modern streetcars operate in Charlotte, NC, Portland, OR, and the Seattle-Tacoma metro area.. New streetcar service will launch in Dallas and Washington, DC, later this year, and is under construction or procurement in Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Salt Lake City. Historic streetcars still operate in Boston, Memphis, New Orleans (replica), Philadelphia, and San Francisco.

  
Passengers about to board a modern streetcar in Portland, OR.

These streetcars operate in urban cores and make frequent stops. They are smaller and less expensive than light rail vehicles, but larger and more expensive than buses. Popular models can accommodate 41 seated passengers and 100 standing passengers. They can either operate with autos on existing streets or, like LRT, on their own rights of way.

STREETCARS
Key Differences from Light Rail Transit (LRT)	Key Differences from Buses
Less capacity (see graphic below)	More capacity (see graphic below)
Can operate in mixed traffic	Higher visibility
Shorter routes, more frequent stops	Often spurs more development
Less construction Impact	Electric powered
Less expensive $30 to $60 million/mile vs. $100 million/mile for LRT	More expensive $30 to $60 million/mile vs. $5 million/mile for arterial BRT

*Sources for cost estimates: Streetcars 101, City of Saint Paul website; LRT based on cost of Hiawatha, Central, and Southwest LRT cost, Metro Transit Arterial BRT Study.

 

Credit: City of Minneapolis

Streetcars, with their high visibility and fixed routes, encourage economic development and mixed-use land development. For example, since streetcar service began in 1996 in the historic South End of Charlotte, NC, property values have increased from $20 million to $360 million. The streetcar is now considered “the spine of the district.”

Portland, OR, first began operating Central City Streetcar in 2001. Since then, there has been $3.5 billion in development within two blocks of this streetcar line (over 50 percent of total downtown development). Much of this development has been mixed residential and commercial, with residential properties averaging just 0.6 parking spaces per unit. Not long after opening a streetcar line, Portland birthed United Streetcar, the only manufacturer of modern streetcars in the U.S.

It is easy to see why many American cities are choosing to invest in streetcars, but will the Twin Cities join them?

Studies are underway to evaluate streetcar feasibility and determine the best routes for streetcars in both Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

In Minneapolis, an Alternatives Analysis (AA) has narrowed the most feasible routes to a single starter line. From downtown, the line would travel south on Nicollet Ave. to Lake St. and northeast on East Hennepin and Central Ave. We imagine this starter line will have strong potential for future development and would attract visitors and downtown workers to a wide variety of restaurants, shops, and other attractions. The AA will also examine a longer route—from 46^th St. South to 41^st St. North—that may follow a successful starter line.

Other promising routes include a streetcar along the Midtown Greenway connecting the Hiawatha LRT and the future Southwest LRT (a project being studied by Metro Transit) and a streetcar along West Broadway serving North Minneapolis. Particularly given that the proposed Bottineau LRT route skirts North Minneapolis, a new streetcar on West Broadway could bring welcome reinvestment potential to that area of the city along with more frequent transit service.  

These potential streetcar routes and many others are simultaneously being assessed as possible rapid bus corridors.

Saint Paul is also studying streetcars. By the end of 2013 when the City’s streetcar feasibility study concludes, it will have identified one to two priority corridors for implementation. Over a dozen corridors are currently being examined, including Snelling Ave., Payne Ave., Lexington Pkwy., West 7^th/East 7^th St., Rice St., Ford Pkwy., Robert St., Grand Ave., and several others. Evaluation criteria include ridership potential, development potential, and transit-supportive land uses.

Streetcar Funding

Both Saint Paul and Minneapolis still need to identify a funding source for any future streetcar lines. Streetcars are not currently identified in the Metropolitan Council’s Transportation Policy Plan, nor eligible for funding through the Counties Transit Improvement Board (1/4-cent metro area sales tax for transit), or by Metro Transit, which has had very limited resources to increase bus service over the past decade.

Given the potential of streetcars, however, a variety of new funding sources are being explored. These include: 1) allowing streetcar construction and operation as one use of an increase in the metro area sales tax (HF 1444), 2) value capture legislation (HF 617), which would allow Minneapolis to secure a portion of capital costs by borrowing against future property tax increases in locations served by a streetcar, and 3) federal funding from the Federal Transit Administration’s Small Starts program.

Want to get involved and learn more? Weigh in on bringing streetcars back to Saint Paul. Stay informed about ongoing Minneapolis streetcar planning efforts and upcoming opportunities to participate: Nicollet-Central or Midtown Corridor.

Find more on Portland’s streetcar system and development-oriented transit here.

 

This Spring: Influence Twin Cities Regional Development for the Next 30 Years

By Dave Van Hattum, Senior Policy Advocate

 

 

The Metropolitan Council’s new regional development plan, Thrive MSP 2040, will set the framework for how the Twin Cities metro area will grow over the next 30 years.  It will influence the footprint of the developed area, including how much land will be converted from farmland and open space to housing and employment sites. It will set targets for affordable housing and establish goals for parks and water quality. And Thrive MSP will also influence our region’s future mix of transportation options: Will we invest in more highway lanes and new interchanges? Or will our region shift investments to additional public transit, bike routes, and sidewalks along with the repair of existing roads?  

You Have the Power to Influence this Plan

This spring, the Metropolitan Council is seeking input on the plan. We strongly encourage you to tell the Council what investments matter most to you, and what kind of community you want to live in going forward. Your ideas matter! Share them online, or participate at an upcoming Thrive MSP Roundtable Discussion near you. These roundtables will focus on four issue areas: 1) Regionally significant economic places, 2) land use and transit, 3) affordable housing priority, location and need, and 4) water supply and a thriving region.

Upcoming Thrive MSP Roundtable Discussions:

• Tuesday, April 30, 6:30-8:30 PM, Eagan
• Saturday, May 4, 10 AM-Noon, Saint Paul
• Thursday, May 9, 6-8 PM, Shoreview
• Thursday, May 16, 6-8 PM, Minneapolis

Setting Goals for Land Use and Transit

With regard to land use and transit, here are three key points to keep an eye on when you comment on Thrive MSP:

** Affordability = Opportunity. Thrive MSP should make sure the entire region has convenient access to transit and safe, accessible bicycling and walking options.

The Thrive MSP Transportation Goal should include the word “affordably.” Today’s transportation system works pretty well for people who can afford to drive a car, largely connecting motorists with destinations safely and reliably. But it nearly requires owning a car—a huge cost to families in the region. For young adults, the elderly, people with a disability, or others without the means for car ownership, this burden limits opportunity and makes home ownership, educational advancement, and personal health harder to achieve.  We can advance Thrive MSP’s equity principle by prioritizing affordable transportation options. For example, materials for the Thrive MSP Roundtable discussions ask, “How could transit investment decisions enhance access to opportunity for low-income and people of color. . . . ?” We think the best way to enhance access to opportunity is to increase investment in transit, bicycling, and walking – affordable options.

** Connect the Dots to Climate Change. Thrive MSP should help achieve Minnesota’s goal to reduce climate change by setting and measuring goals for the percent of trips by transit, bicycling, and walking in our region.

If our region is to dramatically reduce emissions that contribute to climate change, Thrive MSP needs to include a specific goal (as is already in state statute) for the share of trips made by public transit, bicycling, and walking that will help to achieve the state climate goals. To make progress toward those goals, the Met Council needs to explicitly advocate for the funding and policy change necessary to expand the availability of these transportation options.  Transit emits a fraction of the pollution of driving alone, and bicycling and walking are emissions free.

** Transit-Supportive Land Use.  Thrive MSP should encourage most new development inside the I-494/I-694 beltway and along transitways or near high-frequency transit.

As Thrive MSP Roundtable materials state, “Over the last 60 years, our rapidly expanding region built a network of highways and grew outward around them. This new development provided jobs, homes, schools, and recreation for the region’s residents. However, this development pattern is not sustainable.”  We agree with the Metropolitan Council. Planning for the majority of new growth (housing and employment sites) to occur where there is current infrastructure (roads, utilities, schools, etc.) in place, along major bus corridors and transitways, and inside the I-494/694 beltway where density levels are favorable for providing efficient transit makes good economic and environmental sense.

These materials also ask, “How could local land-use decisions improve the future viability of transit?” The Council can do this by ensuring that Thrive MSP is more specific, with clear goals, identified growth areas, and by channeling incentive funding into investments that help to achieve the plan’s goals.

Stay Informed, Get Involved

The Metropolitan Council will be working on Thrive MSP through the end of 2013, with adoption planned for February 2014. Because this plan will provide a strategic vision for the Twin Cities for decades to come, we encourage you to get involved, online or in person, throughout the process.

For more on this topic, don’t miss our other recent blogs in the Thrive MSP series:

Top Ten Elements in Regional Plans: Our Peers Have Set a High Bar

Thrive MSP 2040 – Why and How to Create a Shared Vision

Taking Transit to Home, Work, and . . . the Park?

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.