MN2020: Transportation

Reimagining Transit

Thu, 16 May 2013 11:00:41 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

What if public transit operated more like a membership organization than an inexpensive shared taxi service? And what if the riders themselves helped govern it?

David Levinson, a skeptic at the University of Minnesota on all things transportation, asks these interesting, if slightly off-the-wall, questions in a new post on his lively and often counterintuitive blog The Transportationist.

"Membership ... changes the perspective from being a customer to being a member if not owner of the system," he writes. "As a member of a club, I want there to be more members, as it helps spread the costs and raises money for the services provided. I become an advocate for the organizations I join."

In addition, Levinson says, transit systems could adopt the model of institutions like museums and zoos and allow free "admission" with a local pass across the country. They could sweeten the allure with goodies like tote bags, mugs, newsletters and even a vote on governance. But, he adds, "I cannot find an example of a transit system that organizes and treats its riders as members."

These musings followed his suggestion that transit systems should use price incentives to promote the sale of unlimited ridership passes over one-time fares. Metro Transit, for example, offers monthly passes ranging from $59 to $113.50 -- or the $76 full-service Metropass for groups of at least 10 riders -- but barely one in eight trips is paid for like that.

To boost this kind of "membership," Levinson says, transit systems should consider cutting pass prices and raising individual fares: "At a relatively lower price, more people would get a Metropass. Possessing a Metropass would induce me to make more trips by transit (since the marginal cost of use would now be zero) ... People pay for the option of not having to think about price."

As you can probably tell from some of his buzzwords ("induce," "marginal cost"), Levinson relies heavily on economic analysis in much of his work. His blog, headlined "Club Transit," riffs off an earlier blog he co-wrote that examines pros and cons for public transit subsidies from an economics perspective.

I'll spare you most of the dismal-science details there (it's all in the link), but Levinson and coauthor David King come down largely on the anti-subsidy side. "Systems should over time pay for their own operation and maintenance from usage-derived revenue," they argued. "Like other public utilities, transit can and should be able to cover its operating costs from user revenue."

Any subsidies, they say, should be directed to disadvantaged riders from non-transportation revenues. "Perhaps the biggest problem with current subsidies is that they are place-based and not people-based," they wrote. "Why should the entire system be subsidized? Why should a professor pay the same fare as students?"

Further, Levinson and King say transit's initial and recurring capital costs should come in the form of ongoing value capture from properties the system serves -- places like downtowns and the Mall of America. This is a woefully underused policy that Minnesota 2020 supports. A UofM study has suggested eight property-based mechanisms to implement it; Levinson and King offer a different one: a tax on wages at transit-heavy employment nodes. At Minnesota 2020, we'd rather tax capital than labor, but in reality there's little movement here toward any kind of value capture for either roads or transit.

Metro Transit spokesman John Siqveland declined to comment on most of the Levinson-King proposals, but he did note that all Twin Cities transit providers charge the same fares and honor ride passes, which is not always the case in other metropoltian areas. "It's a service to our riders," he said.

As for dreams of a nationwide "transit club," Siqveland added, "numerous political, financial and logistical challenges" stand in the way of linking hundreds, if not thousands, of independent transit agencies in a common fare and pass structure.

For that matter, totally unsubsidized transit is at least as far a reach, especially as long as driving remains supported with many more non-user taxes. "One bad subsidy does not deserve another," Levinson and King wrote. "Just because cars are subsidized is not a reason to subsidize transit. It is an argument to remove the subsidies that exist. Technically (if not politically) it would be relatively easy to charge cars for their full cost via higher fuel taxes (or mileage fees)."

Politically, we know how relatively un-easy that is, with new proof just the other day. But we could have a more productive conversation about how best to finance a multimodal transportation system if the conservative transit-bashers would just acknowledge all the government largesse for motorways.

VIDEO: Senior Housing on the Corridor

Thu, 02 May 2013 11:00:31 +0000

By Tom Niemisto, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Tom Niemisto, Video Production Specialist

In what's being called the largest construction project along the central corridor light rail line, Episcopal Homes Senior Housing broke ground Wednesday on a campus expansion. The new Midway Village will provide independent living options with access to transit and a thriving community.

This project also signals a significant shift in urban planning policy, accommodating growing emphasis on an aging population with mobility along the central corridor line. The Green Line and the 180,000 square feet of senior housing are both expected to open in fall 2014.

From Lab to Table: We Need a Label

Wed, 01 May 2013 10:59:59 +0000

By Becca Cohen, Macalester College

Today’s grocery stores offer us a seemingly endless array of choices. Aside from brands, we can choose among gluten free, kosher, organic, and vegan products, but there is no label to indicate if a product is made with genetically modified ingredients.

Since more than 80% of processed foods contain some ingredient that was genetically modified (GMO), mostly because of an engineered corn, soy bean, or sugar beet additive, it’s likely U.S. shopping carts are filled with genetically modified goods. In addition to GMO corn and soybeans, which are the base ingredients for thousands of livestock and consumer food products, some immediately consumable fruits and vegetables are also genetically modified.

Why aren’t goods labeled in some way so consumers can decide to pass on a GMO product?

Farmers and some anti-hunger experts say genetic modification ensures predictable and abundant food supplies at a lower cost. However, studies have shown parts of these benefits may be overstated.

While the long-term impacts of GMO seeds are not known, many researchers have begun to notice some of the side effects that are occurring due to GMOs, including possible threats to biodiversity, increased use of toxic herbicides, and contributions to the rise of “super weeds” and “super bugs.”

More research is needed to determine if the consumption of GE crops is introducing new harmful toxins into our bodies. However, most of the studies linking GMOs to adverse health effects have been done on animals. Anti-GMO scientists criticize much of the research for being short-term, saying generational observations are needed to get a fuller understanding of GMO’s long-term impact on overall health.

Momentum to create greater transparency for GMO food is building, including here in Minnesota, an important food industry hub, hosting Cargill and General Mills. In addition, Minnesota is a large corn and soybean producer. Building greater GMO disclosure support here will have strong implications on industry and consumers.

The United States is one of the only industrialized countries in the world that does not currently mandate GMO labeling. The "Just Label It" campaign, an organization calling for the mandatory labeling of GMO foods, explains that GMO labeling is not a radical idea. Studies show that more than 90% of Americans support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Last November, California nearly became the first state to mandate food labeling but the ballot measure, known as Proposition 37, lost 53-47. According to New York Time story following the election, the measure's backers were encouraged it garnered 4.3 million votes, “even though they were outspent about five-to-one by opponents. They are now gathering signatures to place a similar measure on the ballot in Washington State next year.”

Labeling GMOs will not drastically change consumer behavior, but it can be a step in the right direction in offering consumers the right to know which foods are GMOs. Politics will play a huge role in the future of GMO labeling, but the change can start with consumer pressure. Grassroots campaigns in twenty-three states, including Minnesota, have formed a Coalition of States for Mandatory GMO Labeling to require food producers to label genetically modified foods in the USA.

Airports Will Survive Tower Closures

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:00:38 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Minnesota's St. Cloud and Blaine airports won't be seriously affected by pending closures of their control towers due to federal sequestration spending cuts, local officials say. Nine out of 10 U.S. airports already operate safely and efficiently without towers, and the scheduled closures of 149 across the country were based on their relatively low traffic levels.

Former Minnesota U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, never one to shortchange transportation funding, told the Associated Press that regional air traffic control facilities like the one in Farmington can handle most of the needs of aircraft using small airports. In addition, most pilots are well trained and experienced at handling uncontrolled air space.

"The hoopla about 149 towers being cut I think is misplaced," Oberstar, former chairman of the U.S. House Transportation Committee, said. "I'm rather skeptical about those crying wolf."

Not surprisingly, those doing the crying include some so-called "fiscal conservatives" in Congress and, of course, the trade association for 251 private contract tower operators who collect $140 million a year from the Federal Aviation Administration. The former have introduced bills to stop the closures and the latter has filed suit. The FAA itself has fed the insurgency with 30-year-old data overstating current safety risks.

The reaction from St. Cloud and at the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which operates the Anoka County-Blaine reliever airport, has been much more measured.

"We will be less safe without the tower," Bill Towle, director of the St. Cloud Regional Airport, told Minnesota Public Radio. "We're not going to be unsafe."

The tower closure, now scheduled for June, won't affect St. Cloud's twice-weekly service to Mesa, Ariz., via Allegiant Air, an airline spokeswoman said. And St. Cloud officials vowed to keep pursuing additional commercial flights, particularly a daily nonstop to Chicago. "It's not preventing those things from happening, but it's not helpful," said Mayor Dave Kleis.

Patrick Hogan of the MAC said the Blaine contract tower "adds an extra layer of safety" and its loss could push some of its 79,000 annual landings and takeoffs to the nearby Crystal Airport, which has an FAA-operated tower for just 44,000 yearly operations. But even though the Transportation Security Administration has reversed an overtime ban that caused 200 passengers to miss planes at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, other nationwide traffic control cuts at major airports could affect many more people flying from MSP, Hogan added.

One reason for the muted concern about the Blaine closure is that operations at the MAC's six reliever airports have plunged from 800,000 a year a decade ago to less than 400,000 now. That's been driven by the end of GI Bill benefits for flight training, fewer aviation hobbyists and broader economic woes, Hogan said. Nationwide, there's been more than a one-third drop in the rate of general aviation accidents since 1983, and not a single commercial airline fatality in four years.

Furthermore, at both St. Cloud and Blaine, many takeoffs and landings occur safely during night hours when the towers are not staffed. Blaine has recently improved its instrument landing lighting system to help at those times.

Both airports slated for contract tower closures fell well short of FAA thresholds for continued service: 150,000 total annual operations or 10,000 commercial ones. St. Cloud has about 40,000 a year overall and barely 100 commercial.

"Airports operate safely throughout the United States with and without towers," the FAA noted, adding that the 149 towers on the chopping block "did not meet the national interest screening criteria."

Some airports in other states are seeking local or state funding to keep towers open. That doesn't appear to be on the table in Minnesota. Nor should it be, given the high level of government support for our airports and executive jet setters. Meanwhile, "fiscal conservatives" should start regarding redundant aviation facilities with the same budget-cutting zeal they reserve for so-called "entitlements."

VIDEO: Bicycle Library

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:00:54 +0000

By Ellen Roos, Media Fellow Tom Niemisto, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Tom Niemisto, Video Production Specialist

In communities with high rates of unemployment and chronic health problems, bicycles can provide an important gateway to jobs and wellness.

Cycles for Change runs the Community Partners Bicycle Library with help from dozens of neighborhood organizations. This provides access to bikes for lower-income Minnesotans. It also gives community members basic information on state and local bike policies, enabling folks to take a leadership role in shaping their communities' two wheeled transportation issues for all Minnesotans.

We talked with the Bicycle Library director, Claire Stoscheck, and two women who's lives have been shaped by the program.

When Road Investments Pale, Focus on Access

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:00:30 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

It's hardly surprising that initiatives to raise Minnesota's less-than-average fuel tax have been abandoned at the Legislature, at least for this year. Like President Obama, Gov. Mark Dayton has been adamant in his opposition to increasing a levy for which public distaste far outweighs its actual pocketbook impact.

Besides, the last hike in Minnesota's impost at the pump, which took 20 years to achieve, fully phased up to 28½ cents a gallon just last July. With other, more significant, tax expansions on the table, waiting a while on this one seems prudent.

Remember, though, that per-gallon fuel levies don't rise with inflation and must be adjusted periodically to keep roads and bridges safe and sound. Glitches in the state's test of an alternative mileage fee reinforce the notion that we'll have to rely on the workhorse gas tax for years to come.

Meanwhile, two recent studies suggest that a stand-pat approach to motorway funding wouldn't be the worst policy at this time for most Minnesotans. (The exceptions could be rural residents; discussion below.)

The first study, by Randall Eberts of the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, tracks strong rates of national economic return for highway investments from World War II until the early 1980s, and again in the 1990s. Since then, however, bang for the buck has plunged, even dipping below shrunken interest rates by 2009. David Levinson of the University of Minnesota summarizes Eberts' findings and provides the key comparison chart on his blog.

"It appears that there is a convergence of thought that the U.S. highway system is maturing and that the system is no longer underbuilt," Eberts wrote. "However, that does not mean that funding for the highway system should be reduced. As a mature system, highways require maintenance, upgrading and replacement to provide the same level of services as before."

Levinson himself, the R.P. Braun/Center for Transportation Studies chair in transportation engineering at the U, has just issued another report showing that the Twin Cities, home to more than half of Minnesota's population, already enjoy the nation's fifth-best metropolitan access to jobs by automobile. What's more the region's average accessibility grew more than 30 percent from 1990 to 2010, while it actually declined in two-thirds of the other 50 biggest U.S. metros.

Levinson is a leading exponent of accessibility, defined as the ease of reaching valued destinations, rather than mobility and traffic congestion delays as a true measure of a transportation system's effectiveness. The most accessible cities in America, he calculated, are some of the largest, with Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York and Chicago taking the top four spots ahead of No. 5 Minneapolis-St. Paul.

"Travelers in many of these cities have the ability to reach their desired destinations, such as shopping, jobs and recreation, in a reasonable amount of time despite congestion and slower travel because these cities have greater density of activities," he said. "In short, these travelers enjoy better access to destinations."

Levinson added that "there are two ways for cities to improve accessibility -- by making transportation faster and more direct or increasing the density of activities, such as locating jobs closer together and closer to workers. While neither of these things can be shifted overnight, they can make a significant impact over the long term."

Freeway travel in the Twin Cities has been improved in recent years by some of Levinson's prescriptions: widening bottlenecks, redesigning gridlocked interchanges, congestion tolling, ramp meters. But the Metropolitan Council foresees little addition of Twin Cities highway lanes or new right-of-way for the next two decades. Instead, it is focusing on long-neglected transit improvements, which promote job density and heightened worker access far more than new pavement.

According to Levinson, better metropolitan access reduces auto dependence and commute times while increasing average wages and home values.

To be sure, what's missing from these analyses is rural areas' need for good highway connections over miles of countryside. One glaring example is Hwy. 14, still just two narrow, crash-riddled lanes of vital economic linkage through much of southern Minnesota's corn and soybean belt. Levinson's study doesn't address that issue at all, and Eberts' macroeconomic findings may not apply in such cases.

Minnesota's last gas tax hike went a long way toward shoring up wobbly bridges across the state and improving Twin Cities highways. By all measures, those assets are now well ahead of the national curve. Maybe the next increase, constitutionally dedicated to highway purposes, should focus on the state's rural corridors of commerce.

A Belt and Suspenders for Transit

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:00:16 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Gov. Mark Dayton's ambitious plan for Twin Cities transit development has drawn strong support from business groups, legislative leaders, local officials and editorialists. But the reaction to his bonding proposal this week, which omits state-level funding for the Southwest light rail line, has been more mixed.

"I still believe there should be a state partnership," Rep. Alice Hausman, who heads the House Capital Investment Committee, told the Star Tribune.

So does Minnesota 2020. The governor is relying on an increased transit sales tax in the seven Twin Cities counties to pick up the slack, still $118 million short of a $125 million contribution expected from the state for the $1.25 billion rail link from Eden Prairie to Minneapolis.

After much wrangling, similar 10 percent shares for construction of the Hiawatha, Central and Northstar rail lines were appropriated via state bonding by divided legislatures. The 0.25 percent metro sales tax enacted in 2008 over former Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto was earmarked solely for local shares of transit development, but some of that cash flow was later shifted to plug operating deficits.

That, of course, has weakened the region's ability to compete with peer cities such as Dallas, Denver and Seattle that already boast of comprehensive rail transit systems. Dayton's plan could do even more damage, particularly if his regional sales tax proposal doesn't survive the legislative session. Despite a recent endorsement from the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce, its passage is anything but assured, Hausman noted.

Good arguments can be made for both forms of transit funding.

Long-term borrowing is a time-tested way to finance infrastructure that will last for many decades. Debt service comes from a mix of statewide taxes that, taken together, are less regressive than pay-as-you-go sales taxes alone, which hit hardest on those of low incomes. And because the Twin Cities are Minnesota's chief economic engine and a frequent destination for people from all over the state, all Minnesotans have an interest in a thriving metro served by 21st century transportation improvements.

On the other hand, transit sales taxes as much as four times greater than the Twin Cities' current levy have sparked rail development in many competitor U.S. cities. The money comes mainly from residents near where the rails are laid, while visitors contribute roughly in proportion to their use of the system. And a higher transit tax -- 0.75 percent in five counties, 0.50 percent in exurban Scott and Carver counties under Dayton's proposal -- would be pretty permanent, reducing the uncertainty of recurring legislative battles over bonding for system expansion.

For an example of that, we need look back only to last year, when a conservative-dominated Legislature zeroed out Dayton's $25 million bonding request for the Southwest LRT. He kept the project on track only with $2 million from his discretionary borrowing fund.

Dayton's plan for "A 21st Century Transit System" calls for building up to 21 new metro bus and rail transitways over the next 20 years, as well as fully funding their deficit-riddled operations and expanding traditional bus services. It's a tall order for a region that has lagged its peers and needs to play serious catch-up.

But it will only be harder to achieve if we abandon one of the multiple funding sources -- local, county, metro, state and federal -- that have worked in the past. Both a stronger transit sales tax and continued state capital investment, perhaps with negotiated adjustments to past practice, comprise a sustainable strategy.

When it comes to transit support, we need a belt and suspenders.

‘Beachfront Property’ in Minnesota

Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:00:19 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Realtors know that home values depend on three things: location, location, location. Not long ago, that meant splendid isolation in sprawling suburbs. No more.

With the galloping fuel prices and mortgage meltdown of the past decade, now the best locations are urban and transit-accessible. Who says so? The real estate market.

A study of U.S. residential property value shifts from 2006 to 2011, released today, shows that homes near high-quality transit outperformed the rest by an average of 41 percent. In the Twin Cities, one of five metropolitan regions studied, the financial transit advantage was 48 percent. (pdf)

"When homes are located near public transportation, it is the equivalent of creating housing as desirable as beachfront property," said Michael Melaniphy, head of the American Public Transit Association, one of the study sponsors. "Consumers are choosing neighborhoods with high-frequency public transportation because it provides access in some instances to more than three times as many jobs per square mile [plus] lower transportation costs [and] walkable areas ..."

Wait, you say: Of course the trade group for urban buses and rail would say that. But the other sponsor, the National Association of Realtors, has no such agenda. They're happy to sell houses anywhere, but particularly where values are the highest. They have a strong disincentive to cook the books.

"Higher home values reflect greater market demand for areas near public transportation," said NAR chief economist Lawrence Yun. "Transportation plays an important role in real estate and housing decisions."

That makes sense these days because transportation is now the average U.S. household's No. 2 expense, topped only by housing itself. But it wasn't always so. Before the Arab oil shocks of the 1970s, 19-cents-a-gallon gasoline and $2,000 new cars made the cost of driving everywhere—largely in Detroit gas-guzzlers—practically negligible. For decades afterward, Americans kept ignoring the steeply rising costs when choosing a place to live.

Economics, however, eventually and inexorably, changes the culture and people's choices, and the changes are reflected in property values. The APTA-NAR study confirms that.

"When consumers choose a home, they also choose a lifestyle," the NAR's Yun said. "Shorter commutes and more walkable neighborhoods matter to a growing number of people, especially those living in congested metro areas."

The study focused only on properties within a half-mile of a rail or bus rapid transit station, which limited the Minnesota sample to those along the Hiawatha light rail and Northstar commuter rail lines. Each less than 10 years old, they account for only 11.2 percent of Metro Transit's bus-heavy weekday ridership. And their so-called "transit shed" is home to just 2.2 percent of the region's population.

Those 2.2 percent have been either smart or lucky, the study shows. They have access to three times as many jobs and save $324 a month in transportation costs compared with the rest of the metro. And their home values have been extraordinarily resilient during the Great Recession and the ongoing recovery.

It's unfortunate that the study did not consider bus routes, which predominate in most transit systems. But it's likely that homes with easy access to bus stops also held value better then those in transit deserts.

On the other hand, the findings provide strong evidence that the kinds of 21st century transit improvements conservatives routinely oppose significantly boost the wealth of families who choose to locate nearby. Not surprisingly, real estate development along the Central Corridor light rail—set to begin operations next year as the Green Line—has been robust.

"As Congress and state and local governments look for ways to accelerate economic growth, this study shows that investing in public transportation is a boon to revitalizing our economy," the APTA's Melaniphy said.

Plans are being drawn for a few more light-rail lines plus an array of highway and city street bus rapid transit improvements in the Twin Cities. Gov. Mark Dayton has called for a regional sales tax increase to finance them. We can still argue about the revenue mechanism, but the case should be closed on the benefits of these transit projects.

Driven to Poverty in the Suburbs

Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:00:25 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

With their sprawling geography and spotty transit service, suburbs are a lousy place to be poor. But that hasn't stopped people struggling to reach the poverty line from moving there. In the Twin Cities, more than half the poor now live in suburbs.

The suburbanization of poverty, to use a Brookings Institution coinage, is a nationwide trend, driven partly by the rising cost of living in walkable, transit-rich city neighborhoods. But what's saved in housing can be eaten up by the high costs of owning, maintaining and operating a motor vehicle in places where you have to drive everywhere.

"With gas now approaching or exceeding $4 a gallon, a full day's work at minimum wage sometimes won't pay for a single tank of gas," wrote David Moser in a new citytank post. "The burdens of sprawl weigh heaviest on the poor."

Minneapolis and St. Paul still have the highest levels of poverty in the metro area, each at 24 percent following sharp increases in the past decade. But only about one-fifth of Twin Citians live in the core cities, which means lower rates among the other four-fifths of the population translate into greater numbers of poor people.

Many of thm live in modest close-in suburbs such as Brooklyn Park and Maplewood that are rated less than half as walkable as the center cities by Walk Score. Further out in the 'burbs, Walk Scores dip another 50 percent in edge cities such as Ramsey and Lino Lakes (the area's worst at 14 out of 100, compared wth Minnesota-best Minneapolis at 69). But Census data show little poverty in those distant places.

Post-World War II suburban planning gets much of the blame for high transportation costs in an analysis by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute in British Columbia.

"Conventional transport planning generally ignores affordability as an objective [and] favors faster but more costly transport modes, such as automobile travel over slower but more affordable modes such as walking, cycling and public transit," he wrote. "This tends to create automobile-dependent transport systems, which increase total costs."

Those costs are borne by both the public and individuals, especially poorer ones.

"The portion of household budgets devoted to transporation tends to be significantly higher in automobile-dependent, sprawled locations than in more compact, multimodal locations," Litman added. "Lower-income households are particularly likely to save money by locating in more accessible, multimodal communities."

Sprawled suburbs are widespread in the United States, pushing average transportation costs to nearly 20 percent of household budgets. Gasoline alone eats up 4 percent of Americans' pretax income. Despite sky-high fuel taxes, western Europe spends just 10 to 15 percent of income on transporation, largely because folks there drive only about half as much as Americans.

Savings like that are the equivalent of higher incomes, especially for the poor. Of course, we know that wealth doesn't necessarily produce happiness. But Minneapolis-based National Geographic fellow Dan Buettner, after a five-year global study of happiness, has found that our transportation choices can be a significant indicator.

The No. 2 annoyance for Americans (after housework) is the wordaday commute, he reported. "If you can cut an hourlong commute each way out of your life, it's the [happiness] equivalent of making an extra $40,000 a year if you're at the $50,000-$60,000 level," he wrote. "It's an easy way to for us to get happier. Move closer to your place of work."

This can work for rich and poor alike. But for the poor, it can make the difference between abject poverty and a step up the ladder of financial soundness.

VIDEO: Reducing the Gawker Factor

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:00:13 +0000

By Tom Niemisto, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Tom Niemisto, Video Production Specialist

Even a minor traffic incident can cause gridlock in a crowded rush hour commute. Transportation infrastructure gets tested every day in the Twin Cities Metro, especially with rough roads in pothole season.

MNDOT deploys 8-10 FIRST (Freeway Incident Response Safety Team) vehicles to patrol the interstate freeways all day in the metro area, coming to aid of drivers with stalled cars, assisting state patrol in collision scenes, and maintaining the flow of traffic for other drivers.

Operations Engineer Brian Kary reminds that even if you've never had direct assistance of a FIRST unit you have probably benefited from the direct impact on traffic flow.

Greater Minnesota Transit Growing

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:00:55 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

What do you call a public transit agency with a 2,672 percent increase in ridership over that past 14 years? Today it's the Minnesota Public Transit Association's Transit System of the Year, honored for its steady expansion of "exceptional service at an affordable price."

Hiawathaland Transit, which serves the southeastern Minnesota counties of Goodhue, Rice and Wabasha, began in 1995 with a single dial-a-ride van in Lake City. Now it operates 40 wheelchair-lift buses across the region, including seven under a contract with the city of Winona. Last year it provided 195,423 rides in three counties, plus more than 200,000 in Winona.

In 1998, the earliest year for which ridership tallies are available, Hiawathaland transported just 7,501 passengers. Now it racks up more than that annually in every one of its eight owned-and-operated service areas stretching from Red Wing to Zumbrota, Wabasha to Faribault.

Hiawathaland, a service of Three Rivers Community Action Inc., was still a minor player with a handful of dial-a-ride vans in four small Goodhue and Wabasha cities until 2004. Then the area's bigger regional centers—Faribault, Northfield, Red Wing and Winona—started to come calling.

"They approached us," said Any Repinski, the system director. "They didn't want to administer transit anymore. We're the transit people around here. It's what we do every day."

Red Wing came first, turning its municipal system over to Hiawathaland in 2005. Since then, Red Wing ridership has grown more than 50 percent. Faribault and Northfield, rated among the state's worst outstate transit performers with ridership declines of 25 and 41 percent, respectively, from 2007 through 2011, joined Hiawathaland last year and began recouping their losses.

With its toll-free phone dispatch center in Plainview, broad reach, efficiencies of scale and constant efforts to serve more people, Hiawathaland is a model for consolidation of Minnesota's dozens of rural transit agencies, many of which coordinate poorly with each other. Hiawathaland's amazing growth comes not only from adding existing parts to the system, but also from improving their basic services and interconnecting them. For example, Hiawathaland has recently added several intercity routes that didn't exist before.

There still are service gaps across the region, including Rice County outside of Faribault and Northfield plus small towns like Pine Island, Zumbro Falls and Millville. Repinski said those places make "frequent requests for public transit." But state funding for Greater Minnesota transit hasn't kept up the with need, and Repinski said no further expansions are on the table for Hiawathaland.

Instead, last June the agency launched Hiawathaland Auxiliary Regional Transit (HART), which taps volunteer drivers to transport riders where no formal transit services exist. "We're moving into mobility management," Repinski said. "If somebody calls in, we're able to help, but it might be a ride in somebody's private car." The program sports a cute heart logo.

In 2011, earlier volunteer driver programs throughout Greater Minnesota provided 55,689 trips covering more than 1.6 miles, according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Greater Minnesota's wide-open spaces and sparse populations have challenged efforts to afford senior citizens, students, the disabled and the carless the mobility they need for work, shopping, medical appointments, recreation and all the other destinations that most of us take for granted. But aggressive expansion and improvement at regional levels combined with robust state and federal grants for outstate transit equipment and operations have made it possible and affordable: Hiawathaland's base fare is $1.25, $1.75 for dial-a-ride and $10 for intercity trips.

"It is not a money-making service, but it is vital," Repinski told the Rochester Post-Bulletin last year. "Our goal now is to maintain the services we have. Future expansions are on hold until more funds can be allocated to transit."

As our state policymakers weigh Gov. Mark Dayton's transformative plan for Twin Cities buses and light rail, they shouldn't forget the transit needs of Minnesota's 80 other counties as well.

An Odd Way to Promote Safety

Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:00:04 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Beginning in 2000, the federal government has poured $119.5 million into Minnesota traffic safety programs to combat the death and injury tolls of drunken driving, the state's cost of which the National Safety Council estimated at $262 million in 2011 alone.

The federal funding—spent on eliminating hazards, improving roadway safety, DWI enforcement, technology measures and public education—isn't exactly a gift to Minnesota, though. It's a penalty for lax state drunken driving rules that don't meet standards set by Congress. Otherwise, all of the money would go to regular road and bridge construction and maintenance.

This is nothing new for libertarian-leaning Minnesota, which said no thanks to millions in federal bonus highway funds before it became the last state in the union to adopt the national standard of 0.08 percent blood-alcohol content for drunken driving. Now our policy shortcomings are less glaring, but still costly. This year's hit is $13.8 million.

Minnesota isn't alone in this boat. Two-thirds of the states face similar restrictions, including neighboring South Dakota and Iowa, which recently came under federal review and stand to have a total of $22.5 million redirected this year. So far, North Dakota and beer-loving Wisconsin have avoided the federal sanctions.

According to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, our state laws fall short in three areas:

Mandatory sentences for repeat drunken drivers. Federal law prescribes at least five days in jail and 30 days of community service for second offenders, 10 days in jail and 60 days of community service for three-time-and-more losers; Minnesota doesn't. Chemical health assessments. The feds require them following DWI convictions; Minnesota doesn't. Ignition interlocks. Minnesota requires DWI offenders to drive only a vehicle with such a system to prevent drunken driving. But they may still own other cars that are not equipped with ignition interlock. That's a no-no in federal law, which says all vehicles owned or operated by the offender must be interlocked.

Displaying wisdom similar to their dawdling over 0.08, our elected leaders have let these weak laws and their fiscal penalties persist for 14 years. After all, according to DPS, the fund transfers amount to just 2.5 percent of the state's federal highway money over that period. And half of it goes to the state Department of Transportation anyway for roadway improvements like cable median barriers, rumble strips, better curve warning signs and intersection lighting. DPS spends the other half on things like enhanced enforcement and anti-DWI media campaigns.

Has this worked to cure the plague of drunken driving? Not particularly. In 2000, Minnesota racked up 245 confirmed alcohol-related deaths, 39 percent of the total. In 2011 (last year's numbers aren't in yet), it was 37 percent, although all traffic fatalities that year reached a six-decade low of 368, barely half the 2000 toll. Maybe the transfer-funded MnDOT safety improvements are saving more lives than just those of tipplers.

We could save more lives yet across America if the states got more serious about speeding, drunken driving and seat belt use, a new study from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute suggests.

Researchers Juha Luoma and Michael Sivak compared U.S. traffic fatality rates with the European champions in this arena, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. They found that Americans are three times more likely to die in a roadway crash than citizens of those countries. They recommended that U.S. states lower the BAC threshold for drunken driving to a Euro-style 0.05 percent; cut speed limits, especially in urban areas and for heavy trucks; step up enforcement with speed cameras, and get tougher to require all vehicle occupants to buckle up.

"The countermeasures ... would lead to only limited restrictions on driver behavior or privacy, but would likely result in substantial benefits in terms of human life saved, suffering avoided and expenses avoided," the researchers said.

They offered one additional idea that makes sense not just for safety, but for quality of life and economic efficiency, too: Find ways to put in fewer miles behind the wheel.

Much of the difference in population-based traffic death rates between our country and those across the Atlantic, the researchers found, stems from much more driving stateside. On average, each U.S. driver is on the road nearly twice as much as a European. In short, we drive faster, drunker, less protected and upwards of 4,000 miles more a year.

On the last point, Luoma and Sivak urged, "Consider new strategies to reduce distances driven (e.g., urban planning, encouragement of people to use more public transportation, telecommuting, etc.)."

Despite recently falling death tolls, each year traffic crashes still kill more than 33,000 Americans, including hundreds of Minnesotans. Slightly fewer than that die from gunfire. Unfortunately, effective policy responses to both these ongoing massacres remain far beyond our reach.

VIDEO: The Incredible Snow Melting Machine

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:59:13 +0000

By Tom Niemisto, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Tom Niemisto, Video Production Specialist

This is the kind of week, most of us would really like having a snow melting machine. Maybe if you ask the City of Minneapolis's public works department heads, they'll let you borrow theirs. The city's snowmelter can liquefy 30 tons of snow per hour, which can greatly reduce snow storage needs in a city short of space. They're still figuring out how best to utilize the three-year-old machine.

While the unit consumes lots of fuel, up to 60 gallons per hour, compared to hauling snow with diesel trucks and bobcats it shows potential energy savings.

An Evolved Transit City: Portland’s Lesson for Minneapolis

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:00:09 +0000

By Amber Collett, Guest Commentary

As a car-less transplant now living in Portland, OR, I’ve spent a lot of time observing the city from a bus seat. This prompted me to ponder the differences between transit systems in Minneapolis and my new town.

I hate to say it, but for its size, the Portland metro has a leg up when it comes to transit and cycling, especially in the level of integration between the two.

Planers there (or from my perspective, here) made an early investment in a robust metro-wide transit system that entices car owners to opt for busses, light-rail and foot-powered options. Close to 84 percent of Portland TriMet riders have a car but rarely use it, or choose not to own a car at all.

In essence, Portland’s public policies of the past have created a more connected and transit possible city. Their longstanding urban growth boundary, instated in the 1970’s, kept the city center dense and prevented the development of ring after ring of suburbs like the ones found around Minneapolis and St. Paul. By keeping the city dense, they ensured that their transit system would have the riders needed to make it a success.

On top of that, TriMet has the benefit of long-term community buy-in. Portland’s first light rail line began operation in 1986—compared to Minneapolis’s first light rail line which didn’t roll down the track until 2004. It all worked to create a long-term transit culture that Minneapolis is only just beginning to tap into.

In Portland, a whole generation of people think of TriMet and the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) light rail as inseparable from the city’s identity.

Minneapolis, on the other hand, has a relatively young transit system. Though having a young system does have its benefits—clean, modern buses, excellent maintenance and a system that almost always runs on time. It also means that transit funding and planning has taken a back seat to multiple-lane interstates and thoroughfares for decades. There is less flexibility for a transit rider in Minneapolis simply because there are fewer high frequency lines, fewer light-rail lines, and no streetcars. The regional balance of Portland’s transit system is something for Minneapolis to envy.

But, honestly, as a transit advocate, the biggest difference I’ve noticed between Minneapolis and Portland has nothing to do with the transit infrastructure. In the Twin Cities, there is a noticeable effort to make improvements. From a big picture perspective, the Twin Cities is an exciting place to be—advocates are still working to create a bigger and better system that serves the needs of commuters, transit dependent neighborhoods, and an aging urban population.

In Portland, it almost feels like they’ve resigned to the system they have; almost as if there is nothing left to advocate for—despite the system facing budget shortfalls and maintenance issues.

To confirm my impression, I talked with Josh Collins, a friend and transportation professional that has worked in the transit sector of both cities. When I asked Josh what prompted his move from Portland back to Minneapolis, he said, “Portland feels like it is already there—and they are pretty laid back and causal. There is a joke that goes, ‘When you flip the lights on in Portland, they’ll turn on a little bit more slowly than anywhere else—and maybe only half will come on, but everyone will say ‘it’s ok’. There is a passive acceptance of ‘we’re already there’ and we don’t need to push because we’re already Portland. Whereas the Twin Cities still has that push for something better—they’re recreating themselves.”

All in all, both cities have transit systems that inspire admiration—if for slightly different reasons. Looking ahead, Minneapolis has the challenge of intentionally building out a regional transit system that serves the needs of an aging population, commuters, and transit dependent neighborhoods. On the other end of the spectrum, Portland has the challenge of maintaining and servicing a system that has already been built out. In both cities, ongoing funding and community support will be essential in designing and sustaining a transit system that supports a livable community for generations to come.

See you on the road!

Amber Collett is a bicycling and urban advocate who lives in Portland, OR. She loves growing and cooking food, knitting, and going on outdoor adventures. She works for Minneapolis-based Fourth Sector Consulting and tweets @AmberCollett.

Portugal and Barbados are Beating Us?

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:00:36 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

In 2002, the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report ranked the quality of U.S. infrastructure as fifth best internationally. In the latest report for 2012-13, we're down to No. 25, behind such world powers as Iceland, Portugal and Barbados, and our competitiveness is slipping, too. Even Canada, our closest peer spacially and culturally, placed 15th.

One thing we still lap the globe in, however, is infrastructure quantity, particularly motorways and air transport facilities. But it's hard to be the bestest with the mostest, especially when U.S. executives asked about our most problematic factors for doing business recited a familiar litany of "inefficient government bureaucracy," "tax rates" and "tax regulations."

That was the subjective part of the annual report. Most other measures were derived from official statistics. And you can measure the executives' assessment against the fact that taxes now consume the smallest percentage of the U.S. economy in 60 years.

It's more than likely that last statistic has something to do with our crumbling infrastructure. Along with our fiscal deficits following orgies of tax-cutting, we've been running up daunting infrastructure deficits by deferring maintenance of what we have as we keep building more. This cannot end well. Because of these and other factors, U.S. competitiveness dropped from fourth to seventh in the World Economic Forum rankings in just the past two years.

Two very different prescriptions to get our infrastructure groove back on have crossed my desk this month.

One, from the libertarian Reason Foundation, calls for scrapping several transportation-related taxes; eliminating federal contributions to transit, commercial waterways and non-hub airports (but not hubs, highways and bridges); increasing tolling on interstate highways; authorizing more public-private partnerships and exempting transportation workers from federal labor protections.

The second, from the American Society of Civil Engineers, simply urges the nation to spend $4.7 trillion more than is currently authorized over the next three decades on transportation, water, sewer and electric power infrastructure. This is hardly more appealing than Reason's scenario of full-bore devolution, but we do have to raise and spend more on these vital engines of prosperity.

Strong Towns blogger Charles Marohn Jr., a nonpracticing Minnesota engineer, has flayed his former colleagues for recommendations like this, accusing them of self-interest and economic benefit projections that don't add up. Many of the "needs" cited by the ASCE, Marohn says, would simply continue the sprawl development that's bankrupting us.

The engineers have been issuing reports like this for years, grading our infrastructure near failing and calling for trillions in new investment. Hardly anyone has paid attention. Maybe if they weeded out the "wants" from the the "needs" and came up with cost estimates that reflect fiscal reality, policymakers would start to listen.

Even then, it would be a tough sell to the public. As other opinion probes have found, recent focus group participants in the Washington, D.C., area overwhelmingly called for better transportation and less congestion but voiced little desire to pay for it.

New financing schemes, including mileage fees and some of Reason's proposals, got little support from the focus groups. The most popular option was increasing federal fuel taxes, still stuck at 1993 levels that have been eroded by two decades of inflation and improving gas economy. But that was backed by less than a third of participants.

Bringing federal fuel taxes into the 21st century is still a good idea, but only if the extra money is focused on maintenance and rebuilding of existing roads and bridges. Most conservatives, Reason included, deplore the diversion of a fraction of that revenue to transit and nonmotorized transportation, but that's where most of our investments in new infrastructure should be directed.

And that's what the public wants, too. More than three-quarters of the D.C. respondents urged more spending on transit and nearly three-fifths backed more pedestrian and bicycle projects. Motorways came in last at 53 percent support. Opinion surveys in Minnesota have yielded similar results.

We need, and the people want, a grand bargain in transportation that maintains existing assets and focuses expansion on the non-motorway infrastructure that more and more Americans are choosing.

Photo credit: Joey, creative commons

Development Puts Green into the Green Line

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:00:25 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Light rail trains won't start running between the Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns until sometime next year, but already the project has spurred $1.2 billion in private real estate development along the route. That exceeds the $957 million public construction cost of what will be dubbed the Green Line, and it's just getting started.

"The LRT project that provided 4,455 construction jobs will create construction jobs in development for years come," said Susan Haigh, chairwoman of the Metropolitian Council, the line's builder.

Major construction on the 11-mile route halted for the winter with 84 percent of the project completed, including 10 miles of double track, new streets and sidewalks. The new Central Corridor is bringing improvements for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists as well as transit riders. All 18 stations have been built. Most of what's left is systems work and completion of the St. Paul Lowertown maintenance shop.

During the customer-discouraging chaos of torn-up and blocked-off streets since March 2011, 70 businesses in the corridor closed and 16 moved away. By the same total, 86, set up shop there and 22 others relocated within the corridor, according to Met Council figures. That means the total of more than 1,400 retail and other enterprises in the corridor stayed level amid temporarily lousy business conditions.

Forgivable business loans and other assistance totaling $11 million as part of the project helped some operations over the hump. Now the corridor is poised for strong economic growth when light rail riders and residents of nearly 7,400 new transit-induced housing units boost foot traffic around the stations. Drivers will have easy access to University Avenue businesses, too, despite the much-decried loss of nearly 1,000 curbside parking spaces. More than 16,000 parking spots remain at curbs and lots within a short block of the avenue.

The unique promise of the Central Corridor LRT extends beyond its business and residential opportunities, however. Its linkage of two downtowns, the State Capitol and the sprawling University of Minnesota Minneapolis campus in the middle—with well over 200,000 jobs and tens of thousands of students at those four nodes—will bring unprecedented efficiency to both riders and the Metro Transit system itself.

Massachusetts-based Yonah Freemark explained in a 2011 Transport Politic blog:

"The Central Corridor route offers a number of advantages that most new rail lines constructed in the United States do not: Peak service demand in both directions. A typical suburb-to-central city line acquires most of its ridership from work trips—from the suburbs to downtown in the mornings, and from downtown to the suburbs in the afternoons. If there is enough demand to run 10 trains per hour in one direction, however, the transit agency generally has to run (and pay for) 10 trains per hour in the other direction just to keep up—even if there's only enough demand for 5. This means too many vehicles running mostly empty in the opposite direction from peak."

With a major destination at each end, Freemark added, the Central "will reduce the problem of peak-period inefficiencies and ensure that the operator is able to attract a sufficient number of riders on all of its trains."

In addition, the Green Line's urban core route is ideally located to maximize benefits of its significant public investment, especially in terms of accessibility for those with the least of it. Key findings of a recent University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies report include:

*"Locating future development inside the I-494/I-694 loop will create additional regional accessibility to jobs, while locating development along transitways provides even greater benefits. In both case, the population with the greatest need receives the greatest benefits."

*"Locating new jobs near transitways produces larger increases in accessibility than locating new housing near transitways."

The research led by UofM Asst. Prof. Yingling Fan doesn't address locating new transit near existing jobs, as the Central does, but it's hard to imagine that the effects would be negative. For a project that more perfectly fits Fan's prescription for transitway benefits, look no further than the planned Southwest light rail line from downtown Minneapolis to the jobs-rich Eden Prairie area, a corridor projected to add 50,000 jobs in the coming years.

Currently, according to Transit for Livable Communities, only 25 percent of Twin Cities households and 10 percent of metro jobs are conveniently served by transit. That means the vast majority of metro residents have little or no chance at the $9,000 annual savings available to transit riders who ditch the car.

Taxpayers can reap similar savings if the Twin Cities concentrate more on the $4.5 billion job of building out the transit system than on the $40 billion in highway spending the Minnesota Department of Transportation says is needed to address traffic congestion. A full transit buildout, by the way, would create 30,000 jobs and $3 in direct economic benefits for every $1 invested, according to the corporate-sponsored Itasca Project.

For years now, supposedly business-friendly Minnesota conservatives have opposed the transit investments we need to build prosperity while progressives have promoted them. It's a classic red-blue conflict. Here's hoping the two sides can come together on the spendable green the Green Line and its rail-and-bus complements will stir up.

VIDEO: New Technology in Winter Clean Up

Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:00:35 +0000

By Tom Niemisto, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Tom Niemisto, Video Production Specialist

Clearing streets of snow and ice is about a lot more than just a plow truck. St. Paul public works is implementing new technology to make streets safe: pre-treat roads before snow arrives, using GPS tracking to make the trucks efficient, and automated salt distribution which can limit excess salt on roads.

VIDEO: Between Snow Events, At Work

Mon, 07 Jan 2013 12:00:37 +0000

By Tom Niemisto, {related_entries id="article_author_blogger"}Tom Niemisto, Video Production Specialist

There's a common misconception that winter public works crews operate only during snow emergencies. Not the case, says Mike Kennedy, director of maintenance and repair for the City of Minneapolis. While it's all hands on deck 24-7 for snow emergencies, in the interim, workers enforce sidewalk ordinances, remove graffiti, patch potholes, distribute salt and sand, and repair roads and bridges that enable transportation and commerce in Minnesota.

Who Dares to Touch the Third Rail?

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:00:33 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Conventional wisdom these days holds that the fuel taxes undergirding our roads and bridges cannot be raised without nasty political repercussions. Such hikes would directly hit everyone who drives, including folks at the bottom of the income ladder, and everyone else indirectly in likely higher prices for goods transported by truck.

This has become the new third rail of American public policy, and those shying away include President Obama and Gov. Mark Dayton. Both want tax increases to be targeted solely at the wealthy, and it's tough to achieve that with levies designed as user fees for public infrastructure that nearly everyone relies on.

Their opposition ignores some hard facts. Because of their unique per-gallon rate structure, fuel taxes constantly shrink in the face of inflation and gains in fuel economy, producing rolling tax cuts on autopilot. Every other major tax—income, sales, property—automatically tracks with inflation.

After years of slippage in fuel taxes' buying power, only 42 percent of the $202 billion spent on U.S. roads in 2010 came from fuel or vehicle taxes, according to federal statistics. Somebody's non-user taxes made up the $118 billion shortfall, a figure that dwarfs annual nationwide subsidies for transit, intercity rail, walking and bicycling combined.

Remember, too, that $118 billion worth of free rides severely distorts transportation markets, propping up our dominant mobility choice even as it loses market share to other modes. To quote Ronald Reagan, the last prominent conservative to push through a fuel tax increase (nearly 30 years ago), when something stops moving, government subsidizes it.

Fiscal realists, however, are edging away from the conventional wisdom. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles budget-balancing plan calls for raising the federal fuel tax 15 cents a gallon, just enough to cover Washington's current shortfall in transportation revenue. Even though the 18.4-cent federal levy on gasoline hasn't budged since 1993, Washington Post commentator Ezra Klein dismissed the proposal with two droll words—"Just saying"—in an op-ed illustrating, basically, that no one likes to pay higher taxes.

In Minnesota, Gov. Dayton's Transportation Finance Advisory Committee has urged increasing the state fuel tax of 28.5 cents a gallon by 40 cents over 20 years (pdf). Charles Zelle, Dayton's pick for state transportation commissioner, served on the panel and has voiced support for the increase. That attracted predictable broadsides from tax-averse state conservatives, who accused their own officials of tax banditry when the gas levy was raised for the first time in two decades nearly five years ago.

Never mind that, adjusted for inflation, Minnesota's fuel tax still falls more than 10 cents a gallon short of its buying power in 1988, even as we have more aging roads and bridges to maintain. It's also below the national average. The advisory panel's seemingly shocking proposal would only play catch-up and keep motorway revenue on an even keel going forward. A less controversial alternative could be a small immediate tax hike, followed by indexing to the rising costs of highway and bridge work.

The panel notes that fuel taxes are "less regressive than other fees" and, thanks to the Minnesota Constitution's requirement that they finance only "highway purposes," would restore fiscal health to state roads and freeways as well as county, city and township arterials. Minnesota fuel and vehicle registration taxes cannot be spent on transit or anything but roads and bridges.

Lately a few conservatives on the national scene have voiced openness to raising federal fuel taxes as an alternative to further deficit spending on transportation. Grover Norquist, of course, is already scolding them.

But maybe that third rail isn't so lethal after all. Third Rail is the name of my favorite blues band (the one my wife sings in), chosen because that's where the power is. Margaret Donahoe of the Minnesota Transportation Alliance reports that no politician in this state has ever lost an election for enacting a fuel tax hike. This goes back to the times when bipartisan majorities regularly raised the levy to meet needs.

A rigid conservative orthodoxy put an end to that decades ago. It's time for our progressive leaders to stop taking cues from the government-hating likes of Norquist and make the fiscally sane investments in building and (mostly) maintaining our infrastructure that Minnesota needs to move forward.

A Tale of Two Bike Cities

Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:00:19 +0000

By Amber Collett, Guest Commentary

I moved from Minneapolis, Minnesota to Portland, Oregon in August. I was (and still am) madly in love with Minneapolis, but if I was going to go anywhere, Portland seemed a safe bet. As a friend pointed out, I moved “from one bike capital to another. ”

Portland has long been lauded for its cycling infrastructure and walkability. The city’s strict zoning and development rules have resulted in dense housing and they have an avid cycling culture (which this Portlandia clip characterizes quite well).

On the flip side, Minneapolis is home to Bike Walk Twin Cities, part of the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program, which has dedicated more than $25 million in federal funding to increasing bicycling and walking in Minneapolis and surrounding areas. Investments in infrastructure along with a growing cycling culture (ARTCRANK, anyone?) led Bicycling Magazine to declare Minneapolis the #1 city for cycling in the nation in 2010—Portland reclaimed the title this year. Plus—and I think this is key—Minnesota actually has a winter. With snow. And below freezing temperatures. And people still bike year round. How dedicated is that??

5th St. NE Bicycle Stop Light, Minneapolis

Since moving, I’ve spent the last two months learning to navigate Portland—finding the best ways to my new favorite coffee shops and going miles out of my way to avoid hills that feel like mountains to my Midwestern legs. As I rode, I couldn’t help but compare my cycling experiences in these two great cycling cities.

First, I noticed the difference in bike lane construction. Portland has more of them, there is no doubt about that, but the lanes feel narrower and more likely to contain rain grates and other obstacles. I came spinning down this hill near my house to find a traffic cone in the middle of the lane with no warning—on a curve no less! But I can’t complain too much; the ride is a beautiful one with views of downtown and Mt. Hood.

Traffic Cone in Narrow Portland Bike Lane

Portland created more bike lanes, more quickly by retrofitting existing roads. Instead of road shoulders, there are bike lanes. All in all, Portland has 180 miles of bike lanes and ample bike parking. Also, they were one of the first cities in the nation to have bike boxes, which provide cyclists with dedicated space at traffic lights. No waiting behind cars and breathing exhaust while waiting for a green light!

In Minneapolis, many bike lanes are added when a road is resurfaced, providing the opportunity to perform a “road diet” (when a two lane road becomes one lane with a bike lane) or to stripe a bike lane while maintaining a shoulder.

A lot of this comes down to space limitations—Portland has drop off hills and dense vegetation that can create a wall of leaves along the side of the road. There is no room to make a road wider to accommodate a bike lane of Minneapolis proportions.

Minneapolis has to contend with snow build-up in the winter. Without a shoulder, bike lanes would become snow depositories—much to the chagrin of winter cyclists.

I certainly miss having the extra safe space a road shoulder provides. In Minneapolis, I could duck into the shoulder if there is an obstacle in the road, if a car turned a corner to quickly, or if I spotted broken glass or gravel in the lane. In Portland, I brace for the worst as I ride over grates, roots, and twigs having no escape space—all while contending with higher traffic volumes.

But, so as to not sound ungrateful, I must also note that many cities don’t have bike lanes yet. Having any dedicated space on the road automatically makes cyclists safer and reduces bike-car interactions. Plus, I live in SW Portland and am relatively far from the city center. I’m removed from some of the best examples of Portland cycling infrastructure. The more I explore other areas of the city, the more I can tell that Portland is a stellar example of inner city bicycling and road sharing.

Bike Box at Intersection in Portland

For an expert’s comparison, I talked with Steve Clark at Bike Walk Twin Cities about his impression of the two cities. Steve pointed out, “Minneapolis has been trying to catch up to Portland in terms of on-street facilities where certainly Portland has led the way with some of the nation’s first and finest bike boulevards and miles upon miles of bike lanes. But people come here from Portland and quickly become very envious of our off-street trails—particularly the Midtown Greenway which is basically a freeway for bicyclists and provides separate space for walkers and joggers too.”

All in all, it would take more than one article to compare the extensive bicycling networks in each city. From infrastructure to culture, both Portland and Minneapolis are flagships of cycling in the U.S. I’m excited to explore Portland’s 180 miles of on-street bike lanes bit by bit and will report back when I’ve seen them all!

See you on the road!

Amber Collett is a bicycling advocate who lives in Portland, OR but spends a lot of time cycling in the Midwest. She loves growing and cooking food, knitting, and going on outdoor adventures. She works for Minneapolis-based Fourth Sector Consulting and tweets @AmberCollett.