MN2020: Transportation

Rough Road Ahead

Thu, 10 May 2012 11:07:56 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Estimates of a "secret tax" U.S. motorists pay for driving on bad roads run from $15 billion to $67 billion a year, at the top end more than double what we pay in federal fuel taxes. But while the per-gallon tax rate at the pump hasn't budged in 19 years and remains a tiny fraction of nearly every other industrialized nation's, the hidden levy poor pavement exacts in increased fuel consumption, mangled suspensions and premature wear and tear keeps going up.

After a one-year improvement in the statistics thanks largely to federal stimulus repaving programs, miles of Minnesota trunk highways in rough shape saw another sharp increase in 2011, according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation's own condition reports. We now have 942 miles of the system rated poor, 197 more than the year before. Based on current cash-strapped maintenance plans, the number will more than double to 2,071 by 2021.

That would reduce more than 14 percent of the system to substandard, far above the state's official goals of no more than 2 percent of principal arterials in poor condition and no more than 3 percent of non-principals. What's even more discouraging is that Gov. Mark Dayton's $357 million Better Roads for Minnesota program, which envisions improving more than 500 miles of highway over four years, will only slow the entropic trend, not reverse it.

MnDOT also predicts that by early in the next decade the system will fall below key Government Accounting Standards Board infrastructure maintenance thresholds, risking a downgrade of the state's bonds. That would impose another tax in the form of higher government interest costs.

Minnesota isn't alone in facing this problem. Many parts of the country are in even worse shape, led by the District of Columbia with more than half its roads already in poor condition. "Every time we see a car that comes in from the district, you can see that its suspension is torn up," Gil Giro, a Rockville, Md., repair shop owner, told Bloomberg's Andrew Zajac recently. "It's almost like the vehicle has been driven off-road. I can defiinitely tell you that bad roads cause extra damage to cars."

I have some personal experience with this. My trusty Pontiac Vibe's front end was knocked so far out of alignment this year that it took special-order parts and hundreds of dollars to correct it. When I asked the service manager what causes this, he answered, "Driving." Sure, but probably not on smooth pavement.

Minnesota already pours three-quarters of its highway budget into maintenance, which includes everything from snow plowing to rebuilding broken-down roads and bridges. It isn't enough to protect decades of investment in infrastructure that is fast approaching the end of its useful life. And the farther we fall behind on upkeep, the more expensive it gets.

A 2003 study found that for every dollar spent on preventive pavement maintenance, $4 to $10 in rehabilitation costs are saved, as well as up to $14 in life-cycle costs. It's like the Fram oil filter man said: "Pay me now or pay me later."

Those dollar bills needed to avert spending many more have been pretty elusive, however. And one of the biggest obstacles, according to a 2011 Brookings Institution report, is the federal highway program itself.

The authors, Matthew Kahn of UCLA and tough-minded transportation engineer David Levinson of the University of Minnesota, fault the feds for "misaligned funding incentives," a lack of cost-benefit analysis and "mispricing of use." Their solution: radically reform federal highway progams to direct all current fuel taxes away from new construction and instead use them to "repair, maintain, rehabilitate, reconstruct and enhance existing roads and bridges." They call that step "Fix It First."

But what about growing areas that really need new roads? The next part of Kahn and Levinson's plan, "Expand It Second," calls for a Federal Highway Bank that would offer states construction loans "contingent on meeting strict performance criteria and demonstration of an ability to repay the loan through direct user charges [read: tolls] and capture some of the increase in land values near the transportation improvement."

Those would be tough pills to swallow, sure to be loudly opposed by any driver or landowner asked to pay more for the direct benefits of new public investment. The hit could be softened, however, by Kahn-Levinson's final proposal, "Reward It Third." If a new construction project met or exceeded performance targets such as on-time completion or environmental improvement, the bank would collect a reduced interest rate on the loan, resulting in lower tolls or less value capture from adjacent properties.

There's plenty of sense in these ideas to correct the incentives and pricing around highways, even if a few oxen get gored. While the current federal highway program encourages new infrastructure at the expense of maintaining what we have, the rate of return on these greenfield projects has been declining for decades. That's because the most economically efficient facilities have already been built, even if they're often left to crumble. Furthermore, some studies have shown that road repairs produce more jobs and economic bang for the buck than new construction.

Congress is currently negotiating new a federal surface transportation bill, nearly three years after the last one expired. We've had nine temporary extensions since then, with no change in policy. The prospects for reforming the program along Kahn-Levinson's lines range from slim to none this time. But eventually we'll have to come to grips with the accelerating disintegration of the world's greatest highway system and its negative effects on our economy, our job and cultural opportunities and even our pocketbooks.

Photo credit: Joey Rozier, creative commons

Prosperity Catalyst

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:00:18 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

The late namesake of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome famously observed that without professional sports the Twin Cities would be nothing more than "a cold Omaha." Well, we've dodged that bullet. Even if the Vikings leave town without getting a new playground, we'd still have three major pro teams, plus the football Gophers, performing in their own publicly-funded facilities. Omaha can't come close to matching that.

Where the Twin Cities don't measure up to their smaller, warmer Midwestern neighbors, however, is in transit connectivity to jobs. A 2011 report from the Brookings Institution found that our metropolis trails not only Omaha, but also Des Moines, Madison, Milwaukee and Wichita, in getting people to work by bus or rail.

We have fewer working-age residents near transit stops and less frequent service than the national average, which is led, surprisingly, by many cities in the West. Even sprawling Los Angeles does better, as do Fresno, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and Tucson.

Fortunately, there's an outstanding proposal to boost our competitiveness in this vital area—the Southwest light-rail project. It's supported by a near-unanimous business lobby, local governments, federal officials and a strong majority of Minnesotans. It would directly create more than 3,500 jobs while connecting workers to more than a quarter of a million more, 60,000 of them to be added in the Southwest corridor by 2030.

There's just one catch. Conservatives who control the Minnesota Legislature have zeroed out Gov. Mark Dayton's request for $25 million in state borrowing to hold the project's place in line for $625 million in federal funding. These supposedly business-friendly leaders insist on ignoring the support of five different chambers of commerce for the Southwest line. They've vowed to stop the project "in its tracks," even if it means wasting tens of millions on delays beyond the 2018 all-aboard target.

Some of these same so-called conservatives also favor spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a new Vikings stadium, which would accommodate something like 70,000 fans for 10 games a season, not counting other events that would happily continue at the 30-year-old Metrodome. Southwest LRT is projected to serve 30,000 riders every weekday—a year's worth of Vikings attendees every month.

On top of that, the same January 2012 bipartisan survey noted above found that 76 percent of Minnesotans say the state would benefit from expanded transit service, 69 percent would like to use transit more often if it were convenient and 61 percent back funding the Southwest LRT. In Hennepin and Ramsey counties alone, 69 percent support the Southwest initiative, with only 26 percent opposed.

"From the Red River Valley to southeastern Minnesota's bluff country, Minnesotans from all walks of like believe the state would benefit from having an expanded and improved public transportation system," the survey authors from GOP-oriented Public Opinion Strategies and DFL-aligned Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates concluded. "That finding helps explain why there is such solid voter support—both statewide and especially in the metro area—for moving forward with the Southwest Light Rail Line."

Furthermore, three-quarters of the 700 voters surveyed statewide found these arguments for the light rail convincing:

"Transit ridership in the region keeps growing, and we need to continue to meet the need for a reliable way to school and work." "One million more people are projected to live in the Twin Cities area in the next 25 years. If we do not invest in providing more transportation options now, we'll have more traffic and clogged roads, more pollution and a worse quality of life." "The Southwest Light Rail Line and other public transportation improvements are supported by the Minneapolis and St. Paul Chambers of Commerce [not to mention the TwinWest, Eden Prairie and Edina chambers], other area business groups and hundreds of employers across the region as a way to reduce traffic congestion and provide a way for workers to get to jobs more easily."

A Vikings stadium and the Southwest LRT have the same daunting price tag: $1 billion plus. Each requires hundreds of millions in contributions from local taxpayers ($500 million from Hennepin County property taxes and Twin Cities sales taxes for the LRT). The proposed state share of $125 million over several years for the Southwest would leverage $9 for every $1 borrowed.

Economic benefits of publicly financed sports arenas are arguable at best, while state-of-the-art transit is a proven widespread prosperity catalyst. The Central Corridor LRT, which won't start running until 2014, already has spurred lots of redevelopment along St. Paul's blighted University Avenue. The Northstar and Hiawatha lines also are drawing investments in housing, commerce and employment. The major redevelopment promised for the area around the Metrodome 30 years ago never happened.

We'll never be a cold Omaha when it comes to professional sports. But it will take some catching up to attain that dubious distinction for our growing population of transit riders.

Conservative By-pass of Infrastructure

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:00:40 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

It's mid-April in Minnesota, and our state policymakers are still pussyfooting around their best chance to rev up a sluggish economy: Investing in growth-producing public infrastructure. There's no serious disagreement with repeated studies showing that the right transportation, water and public facilities projects boost output in the short and long terms, especially for the benefit of middle-class Americans, and often with greater returns than those of private business ventures.

But anti-government sentiment in some quarters has stalled progress in St. Paul on a capital investment bonding bill that would put the state's enviable credit rating and nearly $2 billion in borrowing capacity to work at a time of historically low interest rates, bargain-basement bids from job-hungry contractors and lingering high unemployment in the construction industry.

Throw in the sorry state of Minnesota's roads, bridges and other infrastructure—even the State Capitol is crumbling—and this should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, well over a dozen members of the state House Republican majority won't vote for any bonding bill, according to Capital Investment Chairman Larry Howes, R-Walker.

This counterproductive stance complicates the prospects for state capital investment this year, making bipartisanship key to reaching the 60 percent legislative supermajorities required to borrow on the state's credit card. Little sign of that has emerged so far, with GOP-controlled House and Senate committees each proposing about $500 million in bonding (on very different things) and DFL Gov. Mark Dayton bidding for $760 million.

All those figures are well below half the $1.9 billion borrowing ceiling calculated under the most restrictive debt service guidelines laid down by the administration of Republican former Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

What's at stake here? Money-saving asset preservation of state higher education facilities, veterans homes, hospitals, prisons and offices. Local bridge replacement and road improvement. A start on the Southwest light rail project, which will eventually link workers to hundreds of thousands of jobs from Eden Prairie to Minneapolis and spur private development along its route similar to the economic growth accompanying the Northstar and Central Corridor transit lines.

Most projects in the bonding bills have obvious intrinsic value for Minnesotans. But infrastructure doesn't spur passions to match those aroused by taxes, illegal immigration and abortion. It's "a ho-hum subject" to most people, notes former U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. "Everyone falls asleep about it."

Well, not everyone. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, strange bedfellows indeed, have teamed up urge passage of a robust federal transportation bill. Business and labor in Minnesota need to make their voices heard the same way for investment in state infrastructure.

Why? Here's a checklist from a new report from the U.S. Treasury and the president's Council of Economic Advisers:

"Well-designed infrastructure investments have long-term economic benefits and create jobs in the short run. "This ... is especially timely as there is currently a high level of underutilized resources that can be used to improve and expand our infrastructure. "Middle-class Americans would benefit disproportionately from this investment through both the creation of middle-class jobs and by lowering transportation costs for American households. "There is strong demand by the public and businesses for additional transportation infrastructure capacity."

The report also cites "large private sector productivity gains from public infrastructure investments, in many cases with higher returns than private capital investment ... Well-designed infrastructure investments can raise economic growth, productivity and land values, while also providing significant positive spillovers to areas such as economic development, energy efficiency, public health and manufacturing."

Hailing the report, the Economist magazine said that "now seems like a very good time to undertake much more investment than normal. As the Treasury paper points out, very low interest rates and high unemployment mean that the odds of crowding out private spending and investment are much lower than normal. Cheaper than normal capital and labour also imply that taxpayers will receive a better deal on spending than would typically be the case."

To paraphrase Jimmy Fallon, who doesn't want a better deal? Some conservatives, it seems. State House Speaker Kurt Zellers has said bonding is "not a jobs bill." What is, then? Cutting taxes and government payrolls cancel each other out. It's time for the folks who campaigned for office on promises of job creation to get behind public infrastructure investment that's proven to work.

VIDEO: Coffee Buzz via Bicycle

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:00:55 +0000

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

A strong bicycle infrastructure fits into transportation decisions for commuters as well as companies who's goods and services align with an environmental mission.

Peace Coffee is a leader in the global fair-trade movement, but also strives to make an impact locally by delivering coffee orders by bicycle.

VIDEO: Bike Your Way to Health Care Savings

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:28:20 +0000

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

An innovative way to directly reward bicycle commuting is underway in the Twin Cities. Modeled after incentivizing trips to the gym with health care savings, a radio sensor system called RFID will electronically trigger when a registered bicycle rides past. Reaching a set number of rides will trigger direct savings on monthly premiums.

While insurance companies are still watching the results from the trial, University of Minnesota alternative transportation manager Steve Sanders says it's a great way to recognize the connection of bicycle transportation with preventive care.

VIDEO: A Forward Thinking Transit System

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:00:50 +0000

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

The turnout was larger than expected at this year's St. Paul Transportation Summit, hosted by SmartTrips.

Enthusiasm for an integrated multi-modal transit system is gaining support from city planners and commuters, while policy makers from across the political spectrum are getting on board to strengthen Minnesota's transit future.

Here is a video peek of the conference:

VIDEO: A Safer Ride to School

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:00:32 +0000

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

It's that time in the legislative session when proposals for the state bonding bill pour in. The Minnesota legislature is considering borrowing $775 million for state infrastructure work, maintenance, and research for future projects. It's also an opportunity to redesign infrastructure at a neighborhood level.

The Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, policy makers, and city planners gathered at the capitol to announce proposals for a $3 million Safe Routes to School program that would make it safer to get to class in Minnesota school districts on two wheels.

VIDEO: The Transit Tipping Point

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:00:31 +0000

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

With predictions of gas hitting five-dollars per gallon this summer, commuters will rethink transit options around Minnesota. A diverse transit system—mix of auto, bus, train, LRT, bicycle—takes pressure off congested roadways, encourages thriftiness, and cuts down on carbon emissions. Transit for Livable Communities is a St. Paul based non-profit that advocates for a diverse, equitable, and sustainable transportation system for all Minnesotans.

What is your tipping point for ditching gasoline and going with alternative transportation?

VIDEO: Parking Meters from the Future

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:00:37 +0000

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

After a two year test phase, the City of St. Paul plans to spend $1.3 million to replace downtown parking meters. The new devices will be the same multi-space kiosk meters like in downtown Minneapolis. The St. Paul Public Works department expects a 5 percent uptick in revenue with the newer technology, less repair, and the added convenience of credit card use.

St. Paul Public Information Officer Dave Hunt says the city is responding to business leaders in the downtown and choosing technology that caters to consumer habits.

VIDEO: Putting Pressure on Efficiency

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:00:27 +0000

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

A major tenet of sustaiability lies in the small decisions made every day that add up over time. The three R's of environmental friendliness can be applied to transportation, especially for Minnesotans who must rely on cars to get around.

You may have heard of the driving habits and tricks to help get the better gas mileage (inflate tires, use AC less, windows up, etc.). But even more important is reduction: taking fewer trips overall, especially since 48% of all trips are shorter than three miles.

Healthy Corridor For All?

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:00:05 +0000

By Emma Lucken, Undergraduate Research Fellow

We’ve written about why we love the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Line (CCLRT) between downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul. It will reduce auto dependence, revitalize the business sector, and provide residents easier access to health care, food, education, and—hopefully—jobs.

However, the area’s large Hmong, Somali, and African American communities worry that the spike in rent rates along the CCLRT could force many families to relocate. History warrants their suspicion: The Corridor’s African American Rondo neighborhood was devastated when I-94 literally divided the community. One example to the damage transportation projects around the country wreak every year on resident minorities who lack access to the planning process.

When again faced with a City Council rezoning plan that focused solely on transit-oriented development while ignoring health and equity implications, PolicyLink teamed up with TakeAction Minnesota and ISAIAH to begin the Healthy Corridor for All Health Impact Assessment (HIA). The HIA built relationships between technical advisors and the Corridor’s many ethnic groups while encouraging community leadership in science-based policy proposals for equitable land-use decisions.

They found much higher poverty and unemployment rates in the Central Corridor than in St. Paul and Ramsey County as a whole. Residents often lack access to local jobs because they do not meet the education requirements, and the jobs they do receive provide consistently lower-than-average incomes. The education gap will only increase with light rail, as the projected development creates more jobs with high education barriers while edging out manufacturing positions, which pay well and require fewer years of education.

After 55% of the Corridor’s industrial land has been rezoned to encourage high density residential and retail development, industrial businesses will likely sell and relocate to take advantage of the rising property values. While the several hundred manufacturing jobs at risk for relocation represent a small portion of the area’s total jobs, their loss only hurts the chances for residents with less education to secure a middle class income.

Ideally, workers at every education level would have access to jobs that pay enough to provide their families with food, health care, and other opportunities. Light rail does not counteract this goal; the investment it attracts could be used to create high-paying jobs for Corridor residents if we acknowledge the effects of current policy and look for options to offset the negative aspects of rezoning. The Central Corridor Funders Collaborative actively promotes one such option by providing grants to projects that support the local economy and communities—including a plan to create manufacturing jobs along the CCLRT.

While making it even harder for residents to find local high-paying jobs, current development patterns in the Corridor will also increase the percentage of income spent on housing. Property values within a quarter mile of the planned light rail stops have increased 8% as those elsewhere in the city declined 8%. Instead of benefiting from higher home values, most low-income residents rent. They will find it hard to absorb rising rent rates when 59% already spend more than 30% of their income on housing and 27% spend more than 50%.

Without public funding and incentives to ensure the preservation and creation of affordable housing, many of the Central Corridor’s most vulnerable residents will be displaced and its communities scattered. The St. Paul Housing Action Plan promises to preserve 399 subsidized housing units in the Corridor by 2013, but the city needs to do more.

The Healthy Corridor for All Community Steering Committee (CSC) recommended several strategies to protect residents by ensuring affordable housing. A density bonus program, for instance, would provide developers an incentive to provide a percentage of housing for residents who earn less than 80% of area median income. The bonus would increase with the percentage provided and the level of affordability.

A second proposal, targeted inclusionary zoning, aims to use the Corridor’s increasing property values to fund the development of affordable housing. The program would require mixed use and residential projects within a quarter mile of the light rail stops to either designate a set percentage of housing units as affordable or provide funding for the development of affordable options at alternative sites. The CSC also recommended codifying the commitment to affordable housing in the zoning ordinance as well as requiring Central Corridor developers to prioritize local applicants when hiring.

The St. Paul City Commission passed the rezoning plan last April—without the CSC’s proposals. True, it authorized feasibility studies on targeted inclusionary zoning and the density bonus program, and true, it created a workgroup to research and recommend strategies for the provision of affordable housing in the Corridor. However, the rezoning proposal should specifically acknowledge the city’s responsibility to protect existing communities.

The Healthy Corridor for All (HIA) reveals the effects of transportation improvements and the empowerment in cohesion and civic engagement when vulnerable communities are included in the policy debate. While the projected boom in public and private investment provides a wonderful opportunity for the Central Corridor’s diverse and low-income populations, we must continue to monitor light rail policies to ensure an equitable distribution of benefits.

2012’s Transit and Non-motorized Priorities

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:00:10 +0000

By Barb Thoman, Guest Commentary

Robust, economically prosperous and growing metro areas are going to have traffic congestion, as Minnesota 2020 has noted.

That’s why strong public transit and non-motorized transportation infrastructure play a vital role moving people efficiently and cost effectively. In rural communities, public transportation and complete-streets provide seniors, low income residents, teenagers, and environmentally conscious with greater mobility.

On the eve of 2012's legislative session, Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) is advocating several key transit initiatives to ensure stronger communities, protect our natural resources, and improve health and opportunities for all people.

Protect and Expand Public Transit’s Statewide Operating Funding

After suffering a $51.8 million state budget cut, Metro Transit, with the Met Council, has worked hard to backfill this loss, shifting nearly half of transit’s capital funds to operating funds. The state budget short fall also included significant cuts to suburban transit providers.

More than 80% of Twin Cities’ transit riders are going to work or to school. In downtown Minneapolis, 40% of workers arrive via public transit. Transit eases congested highway corridors and improves mobility statewide.

While transit is the only option for many, increasingly people see it as a convenient, cost-effective, and greener way to get around. A recent Star Tribune report demonstrates transit’s demand. Metro Transit experienced a 3.5 percent ridership spike in 2011. Transit ridership in the metropolitan area (including Metro Transit, the suburban providers, and Metro Mobility) topped 90 million for the second time.

The Twin Cities has an innovative transit system, one that surpasses peer regions in many measures of efficiency. What we lack is the revenue to expand our system as quickly as competing regions.

Expanded transit across Minnesota—TLC’s broader agenda—is essential to household affordability and building family and community wealth. Last year, families in the Twin Cities region spent 8.4% of their income on gasoline. Only 15% of jobs in the metro region are readily accessible by transit. This has to change.

Capital Bonding for Transit Investments

Governor Dayton recently delivered good news for future transit projects. His bonding bill proposes a $25 million down payment on the Southwest Light Rail line, $10 million for greater Minnesota transit and $25 million for a Nicollet Mall upgrade, which includes an improved pedestrian and transit environment.

This state funding will help leverage greater gains, as most transit and infrastructure improvements receive federal and local matching dollars.

The Southwest LRT line recently moved into the Preliminary Engineering phase and now competes with fewer cities for federal matching funds. To have a chance of starting construction in 2014, state bonding for Southwest LRT is essential.

While some legislators could try to scale back LRT funding in the final bonding bill, Southwest LRT enjoys support from the state’s three largest local chambers of commerce—Minneapolis Regional Chamber, the Saint Paul Area Chamber, and the TwinWest Chamber.

Other important transit projects include Metro Transit’s proposed Arterial BRT system and addition regional transitways of including Bottineau, Red Rock, and Gateway. The latter corridors are being assessed to determine the appropriate mode and routing

TLC is also monitoring efforts to advance intercity passenger rail, including Northern Lights Express and improved service between the Twin Cities and Chicago.

Enable Financing for Transit-Oriented Development

Developing communities in walking or bicycling distance to transit routes and jobs helps reduce household transportation costs, which are among families’ biggest expenses.

In 2012, TLC will work with policymakers to craft legislation that allows municipalities to use tax-increment-financing (TIF) or other value-capture economic development tools to support new transit-oriented development (TOD).

Increase Funding for Bicycle and Pedestrian Access

For a generation, Minnesota shortchanged bicycle and walking routes while prioritizing auto-centric transportation. With an aging population, fewer young people owning cars, and increasing levels of obesity, improving access and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians is paramount. Considering that 25% of car trips are one mile or less, increased walking and bicycling can dramatically reduce pollution and congestion.

In 2012, TLC will work collaboratively with partners to advocate for more bike trails and pedestrian connections that serve a transportation purpose.

TLC will also support allies pursuing:

Funding restoration for the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) to continue effective bicycling and walking promotion. General Obligation bonding for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) and other transportation programs that encourage more bicycling and walking.

Expand Bicycling and Walking Access and Measurement

TLC’s Bike Walk Twin Cities, a federal nonmotorized transportation pilot program, enters its most active year for project openings.

We will see:

four new bicycle boulevards, a trail connection, up to eight street projects for pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and a bike walk community center in Minneapolis’s Seward neighborhood.

Bike Walk Twin Cities staff and volunteers also will continue measuring bicycling and walking travel in Minneapolis and surrounding communities (See 2011’s Count Report).

These are top priorities for 2012, but we also know that transportation is in the news every day. At the federal level, we’re watching as a new transportation law takes shape. The last 20 years have seen a shift in thinking around transportation to embrace a multimodal vision. TLC supports these efforts at every level.

Barb Thoman is executive director at Transit for Livable Communities.

VIDEO: A Costly Oil Addiction

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:00:33 +0000

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

Ever year, $10 billion leaves Minnesota to buy oil, producing little economic development at home, according the Sierra Club North Star Chapter's latest report. It recommends raising fuel efficiency standards to 54.5 mpg to save consumer dollars at the pump, reduce pollution, and create jobs in Minnesota. It also calls for a key Minnesota 2020 initiative: more foot power.

Tax Cut on Autopilot

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:00:46 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

On July 1 this year, Minnesota's highway fuel tax will go up a half-penny to 28.5 cents a gallon, the last of seven phased increases that began in 2008. Absent legislative action, it won't go up again — ever. Before you raise a cheer, let's consider what that may mean for the safety, comfort, efficiency and even the cost of driving in the long run.

Unlike the major government levies on income, property and sales, excise taxes based on gallons of fuel do not automatically adjust for inflation. When prices of everything the gas tax buys — bridge and pavement materials, land for highway right-of-way, construction labor — go up, revenues for those goods stay put. Lately, fuel tax collections are actually in decline because of improved fuel economy and a long-term trend toward less driving.

This results in tax cuts on autopilot and increasing subsidies from general taxation, which is no way to finance a transportation system. Look no further to explain our deteriorating roads and official Minnesota projections of three times as much state highway pavement rated as poor in the coming years. Don't blame it on subsidies for transit, bicycling or anything else, either. Minnesota motor vehicle fuel and registration taxes are constitutionally dedicated solely to highway purposes.

Meanwhile, the coming tax hike at Minnesota pumps will be virtually invisible amid much larger fluctuations in gasoline market prices. For the average driver, the added monthly outlay will be 22 cents (Ouch!??). The entire four-year phase-in will bring the average extra hit to $3.67 a month, about the cost of single latte. And Minnesota fuel taxes will still be below the national and Midwest averages.

Now compare those extra highway user fees with the hidden costs of inadequate road capacity and maintenance: well over $1,000 a year in losses for the average driver because of wasted time and fuel in congestion plus added vehicle repairs.

Minnesota first enacted a motor fuel tax of 2 cents a gallon in 1925, about 10 percent of the pump price then. Over the next six decades, the levy was raised 10 times, usually without controversy. The state was building a web of roads and bridges that now stretches for more than 130,000 miles, a massive public works project that drew support from nearly every corner of the political spectrum.

Then things changed. Substantial completion of the Interstate highway system in the 1980s lent a sense of mission accomplished to the 20th century's historic expansion of motorways. Simultaneously, a near-religious devotion to no new taxes no matter what gripped the right wing. After reaching 20 cents a gallon in 1988, Minnesota's gasoline tax was stuck in neutral for the next 20 years, losing nearly half its buying power to inflation.

It took the deadly collapse of the Interstate Hwy. 35W bridge in August 2007 to move transportation funding to the top of the State Capitol agenda. In February 2008, the Legislature overrode Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a bill that hiked the gas tax 8.5 cents a gallon over four years. Most notably, this paid for a nation-leading program to repair or replace scores of unsafe bridges across Minnesota.

But no good deed goes unpunished by some conservatives. They drove four of their own who voted to override the veto from office in the House and tried to oust two others, branding them "tax bandits." That sentiment, writ large across the country, has even President Obama swearing off an increase in federal fuel taxes, which haven't budged since 1993.

Inflation has shrunk the 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax by more than a third in real terms. With declining revenues at the pump, Washington has been deadlocked for two years over reauthorizing federal transportation programs. Rather than raise fuel-based user fees, Congress bailed out the Highway Trust Fund with more than $70 billion in general revenue transfers over 18 months from 2008 to 2010. By comparison, federal general fund subsidies for transit total just $2.4 billion a year.

As roads and bridges age, a renewed focus on user fees from motorists will be required to finance needed maintenance and rebuilding. There's no appetite for that evident now, even as highway user funding remains on a long national decline, pegged by Pew Subsidyscope at just 51 percent of all government spending on roads, streets and bridges.

In fact, the United States is the only one among the world's top 34 industrial nations that doesn't fully fund roads with fees on driving. And a new report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) says state and federal fuel taxes now produce $33 billion a year less than their original revenues when adjusted for inflation.

Unfortunately, it's an iron law of economics that you get what you pay for. Come July 1, the incredible shrinking gas tax will begin its disappearing act again in Minnesota. Sometime in the next 20 years our policymakers should fix this recurring problem for good.

Despite the buzz you may have heard, mileage fees probably won't be the solution anytime soon. A Minnesota state task force that recently endorsed the concept also urged no "full-scale implementation ... until concerns are satisfactorily met," including thorny technological, operational and enforcement issues as well as privacy worries. In addition, members of the task force from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Trucking Association offered a written dissent, saying mileage fees shouldn't even be considered.

Their views as transportation stakeholders will be highly influential. Both groups' national organizations have long urged raising fuel taxes instead. So have automakers and even the petroleum lobby.

The ITEP report, "Building a Better Gas Tax: How to Fix One of State Government's Least Sustainable Revenue Sources," concurs. It recommends raising fuel taxes to restore adequate buying power, perhaps triggered when gas prices fall. It also calls for future automatic hikes linked to pump prices, the Consumer Price Index or road construction and maintenance costs, any of which would shield highway revenues from inflation like most other taxes. Finally, it urges reducing gas tax regressivity with refundable tax credits for low-income motorists. A similar measure was in Minnesota's 2008 enactment, since repealed to help balance the budget.

These are excellent ideas for Minnesota to consider. With any luck, the debate will begin in earnest before another 20 years go by.

Wireless Communication and Traffic Safety

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:00:53 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Firearms enthusiasts like to say that guns don't kill people; people do. They also claim, arguably, that more guns in law-abiding hands will lead to less violent crime. Similarly, smartphones don't cause traffic fatalities, but people using them unwisely sure do. On the other hand, "smartcar" wireless technology may eventually make vehicle crashes a thing of the past.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) raised hackles this month with a unanimous recommendation that states prohibit all use of wireless devices behind the wheel, hand-held or not. The move carries no force of law, but it could presage a federal mandate tied to highway funding, like those that dragged states into tightening drunken driving and seatbelt laws.

Given that no state has yet ordered all motorists to hang up and drive, Congress probably won't go that route anytime soon. Even though an unscientific online poll suggests surprisingly broad support for the measure, it would be a tough sell at a time when traffic deaths and injuries are on a steep decline across the nation. Washington's rules should get some of the credit for that, along with safer cars, safer roads, better emergency medical services and a long-term trend of less driving.

Meanwhile, however, distracted driving is increasingly implicated as a safety risk, blamed for nearly 10 percent of crash fatalities last year nationwide. That's no surprise when recent studies show that 5 percent of U.S. motorists — 660,000 of them — are using hand-held cell phones at any given daylight moment. Most people admit in surveys that they phone or text while driving, although they also overwhelmingly say they feel very unsafe as passengers if their drivers do so.

Distraction from electronic gadgetry isn't just a problem on roadways. It has caused deadly commuter train and marine collisions, as well as a 100-mile overflight by airline pilots working on their laptops. The New York Times recently reported on growing concerns over "distracted doctoring," citing a patient left paralyzed after a neurosurgeon made at least 10 cell calls during his operation.

The first documented highway fatalities due to wireless distraction occurred nearly 10 years ago, when a young Maryland woman talking on her cell crossed a median, flipped over and killed five. Last year, in a case cited by the NTSB, a Missouri teenager who had sent and received 11 text messages in the previous 11 minutes rear-ended a truck at 55 miles per hour, starting a freeway pileup that killed two and injured 38, most of them children on school buses.

Repeated scientific studies have shown that phoning and texting drain attention from safe driving and increase crash risks at least fourfold. And it doesn't matter where the wireless device is. What counts is how your brain is occupied, not your hands, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said.

Critics often argue that talking with a passenger in the car must be just as dangerous, then. Not true, researchers say, because a passenger, unlike someone on the other end of a phone call, can assist the driver's watchfulness for road hazards. Passengers also instinctively adjust their conversation to changing traffic conditions, studies show.

Without coercion from Washington, Minnesota and 34 other states already have banned texting while driving, on grounds that it takes eyes and thumbs off the task at hand more than chatting on the cell. A Virginia Tech study of commercial drivers found that texting, emailing and accessing the Internet multiply safety risks by a factor 163 — 40 times the downside of just talking on the phone.

Governments have been less restrictive of cell-phoning by most motorists. Minnesota is among 30 states that have banned it for young drivers only, while just a few states have prohibited all motorists from using hand-held devices. But people in many walks of life have become dependent on cellular connectivity while they're on the road, and spotty traffic enforcement in most jurisdictions does little to break those habits.

"It's going to take a long time for legislatures to pass laws, and a long time for states to begin to enforce the laws, and then a long time for behavior to start to change," Barbara Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, told CNN.

A Technological Fix?

While we're waiting for laws or evolving culture to direct our attention back to the road ahead, other kinds of wireless technology promise to make driving, or drivers themselves, largely obsolete. I recently reported on electronic communications' role in reducing U.S. vehicle miles traveled, especially among tech-savvy young adults.

Furthermore, futuristic vehicle technologies aim to render drivers' inattention harmless by warning them of impending collisions or even automatically braking and steering away from trouble. "The past several decades of auto safety have been dedicated to surviving crashes," said Greg Winfree, acting head of the federal Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). "The future will be about avoiding crashes."

A RITA report envisions "a safe, interoperable wireless communications network that includes cars, buses, trucks, trains, traffic signals, cell phones and other devices ... a starting point for transportation connectivity that will potentially enable countless applications and spawn new industries."

Already in traffic-packed south Florida, a $60 million state investment in highway information technology is directing drivers away from wrecks while also helping authorities clear them twice as fast as before. On Alligator Alley through the Everglades, speeders are automatically triggering roadside signs to warn them to slow down. Meanwhile, European researchers are working on a system to allow lines of cars to be linked wirelessly under control of a lead vehicle, shrinking safe following distances and easing congestion.

This all sounds wonderful. But, as transportation blogger Wayne Hanson wondered, "Will Americans accept sitting in their 'freedom machines' twirling a disconnected steering wheel as their vehicles turn, brake and accelerate on their own?"

Theoretically, that could eliminate crashes forever. But the consequences of system failure, familiar to anyone who's logged onto a computer in the past 30 years, could be more deadly than anything wrought by human inattention. For the time being, at least, we're going to have to stay focused on getting the most out of the software between drivers' ears.

Some Conservatives Get It on Infrastructure

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:00:12 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Part two of a two-part series. Read part one.

Boasting one of the nation’s lightest bond debt loads, Minnesota is ideally positioned to pump up its economic recovery with strong capital investment in public facilities.

At a time of record low interest rates, this opportunity to repair aging infrastructure, increase productive capacity and get thousands of construction workers off the jobless rolls should be a top priority for the 2012 Legislature.

The only thing standing in the way may be reflexive conservative opposition to government spending.

Once upon a time, taxing and borrowing for infrastructure wasn’t a partisan issue. Conservatives and progressives alike proclaimed the economic and quality-of-life benefits of first-rate public facilities, from Interstate highways to state college campuses. Over the past 20 years or so, these investments suffered collateral damage in right-wing antigovernment campaigns. But now there are signs of a change for the better.

Conservatives in Congress have backed off from their former resolve to cut federal transportation funding by one-third. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who famously scuttled a Hudson River transit tunnel project, called last month for several billion dollars in borrowing for transportation projects, even though his state ranks third highest in the nation in total debt.

Another conservative icon, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, turbocharged public infrastructure spending with the help of a $3.8 billion lease of the Indiana Toll Road to private investors. "The provision and upkeep of first-rate public infrastructure is a core duty of any responsible government, clearly within the sphere of government's legitimate purposes," he wrote in "Keeping the Republic," his book published in September. "It furnishes the backbone to which men and women of enterprise can attach their investments; it is a major part of government's role in promoting the flourishing of the private sector."

In Virginia, conservative Gov. Bob McDonnell has proclaimed that this year he “put the most new funding into roads and rail in the state in 25 years” – a $4 billion program that he noted was enacted “with broad bipartisan support.” It featured $2.9 billion in bonding.

McDonnell followed that up this month by proposing more dedication of existing revenues and future surpluses to transportation projects, including roads, ports and commercial space flight. “Transportation and economic development and prosperity are inextricably linked,” he said. “We have made much progress, be we still have much more to do.”

Even in deep-red Wyoming, Gov. Matt Mead urged more than doubling state capital construction projects next year. "This budget recommends investment in the programs that create opportunities — education, construction, highways, cities, towns and counties," he told the Legislature this month. "We invest in initiatives aimed at protecting and improving quality of life."

But you don’t have to take these conservatives’ word for the benefits of public capital investment. The economists at Moody’s have estimated that each dollar of new government infrastructure spending generates $1.59 of increased gross output. This is a greater return on investment than for any other economic stimulus effort except extended unemployment benefits and increased food stamps. It even beats payroll tax holidays, and it’s five times more effective than output-draining strategies like cutting corporate taxes, accelerating business depreciation or making the Bush income tax cuts permanent, Moody’s says.

Minnesota can no longer expect federal stimulus from Washington. We also have the second-lowest rate of regular federal spending among the states, 20 percent below the national average. And with no toll road full of out-of-state cars and trucks to sell off, Minnesota must pull itself up by its bootstraps and its stellar credit rating.

Since tax and user fee increases are off the table for the foreseeable future, prudent borrowing for durable public goods will point our way forward. Fortunately, we have the fiscal strength to do this.

Minnesota's state debt is proportionally one-third that of New Jersey, half that of Indiana, Virginia and the U.S. average, less even than Wyoming's, according to the Congressional Research Service's March 2011 report. It's also half of neighboring Wisconsin's and South Dakota's and less than that of Iowa and North Dakota. In fact, only four states — Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee and Texas — have smaller debt-to-personal-income ratios than Minnesota’s.

Along with its enviable balance sheet, Minnesota has strong standards to ensure that public borrowing isn’t wasted. The state constitution limits bonding to publicly-owned construction projects with a public purpose clearly set forth in law.

Despite all this, conservatives fixated on shrinking the public sector in an effort to grow the private will continue to oppose government capital investment. They imagine a great zero-sum game culminating in a Marxist-like “withering away of the state.” But enfeebled government would pose great risks for the private sector, as well.

In fact, as the conservative political leaders quoted above know, the public and private sectors are indispensable partners in the creation of prosperity. In the current economic environment of a lagging jobs recovery, historically cheap borrowing and chronic infrastructure maintenance deficits, it’s time for frugal Minnesota to stick with the job of building “the backbone to which men and women of enterprise can attach their investments.”

Photo credit: Enrico Fuente, creative commons

Perfect Market for Borrowing and Building

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:00:35 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Part one of a two-part series.

Little noticed amid the celebration of an unexpected state budget surplus projection was more good news for Minnesota's economic future: nearly $2 billion of general obligation borrowing capacity. Budget officials arrived at this figure based on stringent guidelines adopted during Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s administration.

In these days of sovereign debt crises stretching from Athens to Washington, some may consider more public borrowing a fast road to ruin.

It's not when a state like Minnesota can build on its tradition of prudent fiscal management to accelerate recovery from the economic doldrums and set the stage for stronger prosperity to come.

Tapping the state's highly rated credit is especially advisable at a time of record-low bond interest rates, declining infrastructure quality and catastrophic unemployment in the construction industry.

Unlike the crushing national debts of Europe and the proportionally lesser U.S. federal debt load of $15 trillion, not a penny of Minnesota’s $6 billion in outstanding capital bonds was used to plug government operating deficits. Instead, our taxpayers continue to benefit from the long-lasting public facilities built with bonding as they pay off the costs over decades. This is a sustainable route to growth employed by countless private businesses.

Meanwhile, as cash-strapped European countries have been scrambling to raise money at interest rates above 6 and 7 percent, Minnesota recently sold $769 million in general obligation bonds for capital projects at 2.82 percent, the lowest rate in state memory. Even a recent small downgrade of the state's credit rating from gold-plated AAA didn’t cool investors’ ardor for Minnesota bonds.

"The market is particularly favorable at the current time," noted Kristin Hanson, the Minnesota Management and Budget official who oversaw the bond sale. This won't last forever, though. That's why a robust capital investment bonding bill should be at the top of the Minnesota Legislature's 2012 agenda. There's no better time to preserve and improve state college and university campuses, mitigate flood hazards, fix bad local roads and bridges and attend to numerous other public infrastructure needs.

Would that bust the state budget? Hardly.

On December 1, Management and Budget forecast the total cost of servicing tax-supported bonds during the fiscal year that ends June 30, 2012, at $301.6 million, nearly $100 million less than in any year going back to 2006. It's less than 2 percent of the state budget, and it even assumes authorization of $775 million in capital borrowing next year.

In fact, Minnesota could double that investment and still remain well within the Pawlenty-era guideline of holding state debt supported by taxes to no more than 3.25 percent of annual state personal income. It stands at 2.45 percent now, having declined from 2.56 percent since the previous debt capacity report on Feb. 28 this year.

There's no need to go overboard on borrowing, however. Preliminary applications for 2012 bonding from state agencies and local governments total $2.3 billion, at least $1 billion less than in recent years. Policymakers should fund up to half of the dollar requests while economic conditions remain historically ripe to counteract job losses from the housing crash and reduced government spending on operations.

More than $400 million of the requests are for asset preservation and rehabilitation of public facilities at college campuses, National Guard installations, prisons, the State Capitol and elsewhere. These projects should be among the first approved. Other worthwhile proposals include a new University of Minnesota health clinic, additions and renovations to many other state campus buildings, a veterans home expansion, new sex offender lockups at St. Peter, intercity passenger rail development and local roads, bridges and transit.

Authorizing this work, and the thousands of well-paid private sector jobs that go with it, should be done early in the legislative session that begins Jan. 24. That way, many of the projects could get underway during the 2012 construction season.

This year's $500 million bonding bill wasn't enacted until late July, and only $1 million was under contract by late November.

That’s not unusual in a state where bonding is often held hostage as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations that last into May or beyond. But as recently as 2010 Pawlenty signed off on $680 million in capital investments in mid-March. That's smart policy that has helped keep Minnesota's overall unemployment rate about 25 percent below the national average in the Great Recession's slow-growth aftermath.

But construction workers still bear the brunt of joblessness in Minnesota. Their double-digit unemployment dwarfs the state's overall 5.9 percent rate (this was updated from an earlier version). More than 40,000 Minnesota construction jobs have dried up since 2006.

"We're by far the most depressed industry sector," said Kyle Makarios of the North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters. "We have 3 percent of the employment, but one-quarter of the unemployment. You can't focus on jobs without focusing on the construction industry."

In this tough economy, though, Minnesota is ideally situated for capital investment at record-low interest rates that will employ the hardest-hit jobless, repair and upgrade vital public facilities and set the state on the road to full recovery.

Read Part 2: Conservatives Who Get It on Bonding and Infrastructure.

VIDEO: Foot-powered Campus

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:48:17 +0000

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

Fix a flat? Slippery brakes? Need winter bicycle commuting advice? You're covered thanks to the MCTC Bicycle Collective. This group of student volunteers sets up a mobile bike repair shop on campus, aiming to empower, educate, and advocate for all bikers in the city.

Another reason why foot-powered progress works for Minnesota.

King Car on the Wane

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:59:59 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Blame it on the younger generation, new technology or the rising cost of car ownership, but America's century-long love affair with driving is losing its ardor. Evidence of this cultural shift to transit, nonmotorized mobility and fewer overall trips is broad and persuasive, and smart communities are responding to it.

Small towns in Arizona, Arkansas and Washington state, to name three featured in a recent Associated Press report, are narrowing wide main streets to make shopping more pedestrian-friendly. For example, the "road diet" in Chandler, Ariz., a suburb of Phoenix, boosted sales and prompted a dozen new businesses to open downtown.

In red and blue states alike, cities are building transit and bicycle infrastructure despite conservative complaints that doing so upsets the near-sacred autocentric order. Their arguments are increasingly out of touch with the diverse ways Americans are choosing to get around — or stay put and connect virtuallly.

Bicycling, walking and transit ridership are up in Minnesota and across the nation, while driving is stagnant or declining. The number of U.S. cars per person peaked in 2001 and per capita miles driven topped out in 2004, years before the Great Recession cut further into motoring's market share. No evil plot or government mandate explains this. It's clearly basic market economics: higher costs pushing people out of cars while substitute technologies built on wireless communication pull them out.

A General Motors study found that 46 percent of Americans aged 18 to 24 would give up owning a car to maintain Internet access and that teenagers value texting messages via smartphones more highly that driving. Nowadays fewer than one-third of U.S. 16-year-olds are licensed drivers, compared with 50 percent in 1978. Smartphones "offer a degree of freedom and social reach that previously only the automobile offered," said automotive analyst Thilo Koslowski in a recent post

For older folks raised on 35-cents-a-gallon gasoline and new cars costing 38 percent of a year's pay (in 1969), this may seem beyond strange. But the Millenial generation looks at $3-plus gas and sticker prices averaging 71 percent of median annual earnings (in 2009) and thinks: "What a waste!" These figures come from a fascinating slide presentation gleaned from 40 years of the Census Bureau's National Household Travel Surveys by University of South Florida transportation scholars Steven E. Polzin and Xuehao Chu. Along with travel trends, they document rising cell phone ownership, Facebook accounts, web-based college courses and online shopping — all of which make driving less necessary.

It's not only tech-savvy 20-somethings saving big money by eschewing the auto. Taxpayers of all ages come out ahead with low-cost public infrastructure for bicycling and walking. Bike Walk Twin Cities is turning $13.2 million in federal grants into more than 75 miles of new bikeways and sidewalks, barely more than the $12.5 million it's costing to rebuild just 1¼. miles of Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis for motorists. Similarly, 260 miles of bikeways in Portland, Ore., were established over 15 years for $60 million, a figure that often buys no more than a mile of freeway.

As with most economic shifts, amid all the winners—including people breathing less polluted air—there are losers, too. Folks in auto-dependent fringe suburbs have seen their property values decline in barely a decade from the highest in the nation, a distinction now claimed by walkable, high-density neighborhoods in center cities and inner-ring suburbs.

Young adults and downsizing Baby Boomers have led this preference switch. A survey by the National Association of Realtors found that only one in eight future homebuyers wants the drivable suburban-fringe house now in such oversupply. "This lack of demand all but guarantees continued price declines," Brookings Institution senior fellow Christopher B. Leinberger wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed. "Boomers selling their fringe homes will only add to the glut. Nothing the federal government can do will reverse this."

That's an interesting observation, given that the federal interstate highway program, despite all its benefits, was the chief instigator of suburban sprawl. Now, says Leinberger, "it was predominantly the collapse of the car-dependent suburban fringe that caused the mortgage collapse."

The Times paired Leinberger's essay with one by University of California-Berkeley Prof. Louise A. Mozingo that takes a hard look at another staple of driving-based sprawl. "Suburban offices are even more unsustainably designed than residential suburbs," she writes in "To Rethink Sprawl, Start With Offices."

"These workplaces embody a new form of segregation, where civic space connecting work to the shops, housing, recreation and transportation that cities used to provide is entirely absent," she adds. "Corporations have cut themselves off from participation in a larger public realm." Today, she notes, "this pastoral capitalism ... accounts for well over half the office space in the United States."

But that kind of land use won't thrive in an increasingly car-free America. "Those jurisdictions and businesses that first create livable, workable, post-peak-oil metropolitan regions are the ones that will win the future," Mozingo concludes

Leinberger's kicker is similar: "We have to stop throwing good money after bad. It is time to instead build what the market wants: mixed-income, walkable cities and suburbs that will support the knowledge economy, promote environmental sustainability and create jobs."

A Small Step Forward for Intercity Rail

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:00:14 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

These are discouraging times for advocates of improving America's decrepit intercity passenger train service. While dedicated taxes, government subsidies and private investment keep flowing to auto and air travel, modest efforts to rebuild the U.S. rail network for more efficient movement of people and freight keep hitting roadblocks.

The latest is an agreement in Washington to cut funding for Amtrak, the national passenger rail system, and zero out federal investments in development of so-called high-speed rail.

"So-called" because, aside from a few true bullet train projects on the east and west coasts, most of the rail improvement programs begun under former President George W. Bush focused on incremental increases in speed on existing routes.

This could be called "fast" or "faster" rail, not exceeding the 110-miles-per-hour U.S. speed limit on tracks also used by freight trains. While that's only half as rapid as the gleaming rail rockets of Europe and Asia, it would bring a significant increase in the value and marketability of U.S. train travel at a fraction of the economic and social costs of the real thing.

Along those lines, Minnesota, Wisconsin and federal rail officials have agreed that the best corridor for improved passenger rail service from the Twin Cities to Milwaukee, connecting then to Chicago, is the existing Amtrak Empire Builder route along the Mississippi River to La Crosse and across Wisconsin north of Madison. (For dedicated transportation wonks, here’s the 310-page report.)

This pushes aside competing desires to run trains through Eau Claire or Rochester, although proponents still insist those routes could be viable in the future alongside what is now designated as "the one reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternative" — the Mississippi River alignment.

Now we have needed clarification for continued planning and construction of the most important leg of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, a 15-year dream of better passenger train service radiating from Chicago to cities in nine states. What it doesn't do is guarantee any funding or a way around newly energized opposition to most passenger rail improvements.

But even in Wisconsin, there’s room for hope. While the conservative governor rejected $810 million in federal grants to convert a broken-down stretch of track between Madison and Milwaukee where freight trains can't exceed 25 m.p.h. into true high-speed infrastructure, Badger State officials now say their priority is "improving and enhancing" the Amtrak Twin Cities-Chicago route, which bypasses Madison by about 30 miles.

Now our neighbors east of the St. Croix River can continue to debate the wisdom of ignoring their capital city’s 350,000 potential rail passengers while we in Minnesota focus on the fastest possible train trip to the Midwest’s economic hub. Even with the refusal by Wisconsin’s current leaders to consider any track improvements for speeds beyond 79 m.p.h., the Minnesota Department of Transportation projects 5-1/2-hour service to Chicago as early as 2016.

That’s 2-1/2 hours faster than the slow slog now over ancient railbeds. It would be achieved by piecemeal upgrades of sections of track from St. Paul to Winona to 110 m.p.h. and improvements to 79 m.p.h. on the rest of the route in three states, as well as the possible elimination of some stops in Wisconsin. It’s estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the faster train’s passengers would neither board nor debark in Wisconsin, bee-lining instead between the Twin Cities and Chicago.

Compared with the best of the dozens of other alignments considered, the selected route boasts no significant grades to slow down trains, shorter travel times (at least half an hour faster than going through Madison or Rochester), hundreds of millions of dollars less in construction and maintenance costs and more population served with Minnesota stops in Hastings, Red Wing, Winona and La Crescent.

The river route "provided the most competitive and attractive alternative mode of transportation," concluded the study by Minnesota, Wisconsin and Amtrak officials. "The proper phasing of the improvements will achieve incremental reduction in travel time ... allowing for an incremental increase in frequency of passenger rail service."

Already, state and Amtrak officials are discussing adding a second Empire Builder round-trip train between the Twin Cities and Chicago to the one that runs daily now. Under the Midwest Regional Rail plans, service would eventually grow to eight trains a day. By comparison, none of the other routes studied could handle any passenger service at all without billions in capital improvements.

Even upgrading the river route now faces a formal comparison with the alternative of doing nothing, plus detailed environmental studies. But concentrating on one route for the foreseeable future is a small step forward. It will take many more to bring the economic, environmental, safety and convenience benefits of 21st century intercity rail to Minnesota.

Photo credit: Patrick Sullivan, Creative Commons