In a recently completed project, funded by the Local Road Research Board, researchers developed a reference tool and compiled a literature review that local agencies could use to anticipate the infrastructure needs of connected and automated vehicles. Agencies can use these resources to plan for infrastructure upgrades and maintenance activities.Continue reading Resources Help Local Agencies Plan for CAV Roadway Needs
Video and statistical analyses showed that arterial bus rapid transit (ABRT) along Snelling Avenue in Minneapolis-St. Paul had no significant impact on traffic volume and wait times at intersections. Survey results demonstrated that users prefer the A Line over local bus service and consider it roughly equivalent to express bus, light rail and commuter rail service. Though ABRT has not converted automobile drivers to transit riders, users enjoy its easy payment format, cleanliness, route service and convenience. This study also provided recommendations for future ABRT line design considerations.
“Arterial bus rapid transit is perceived positively by users. It’s much like light rail and commuter rail—people think of it as equally useful as light rail.” —Alireza Khani, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota Department of Civil, Environmental and Geo-Engineering
What Was the Need?
Bus rapid transit (BRT) entails dedicated lanes for buses and off-board payment for users who purchase fares before boarding the bus. In recent years, arterial BRT (ABRT) has developed as an alternative for metropolitan areas that lack roadway width for dedicated lanes. ABRT uses off-board payment but not dedicated lanes; instead, it uses existing roadway arterials and limited stops, offering a fast and efficient commute for users.
In 2016, the A Line opened on the Snelling Avenue corridor in Minneapolis-St. Paul, the area’s first ABRT line. It quickly gained popularity among transit customers as an alternative to local bus service, complementing the Twin Cities’ light rail system and commuter rail service from the suburbs.
Because the A Line operates within existing lanes of traffic and does not feature pullouts at its stops, it could slow corridor traffic when buses stop to load and unload. A preimplementation study of the corridor and A Line service suggested that traffic impacts would be minimal. The A Line’s actual impact on traffic, however, had not been determined, and user perceptions had not been assessed.
What Was Our Goal?
MnDOT sought to examine the traffic impacts of the A Line in its first year of deployment, and to identify and quantify the A Line’s appeal to riders, including the service’s strengths and weaknesses, and how the transit experience of the A Line compares to local service. In addition, MnDOT needed to assess the characteristics of the service that could be used in new ABRT lines in the Twin Cities.
What Did We Do?
Researchers employed two strategies to evaluate A Line performance. First, the team conducted a traffic and transit capacity study. Investigators analyzed bus system data for ABRT and regular bus service capacity. In August 2017, researchers deployed four cameras each at two intersections: Snelling and University north of Interstate 94 (I-94), and Snelling and Dayton, south of the Interstate. Cameras collected video data for weeks before the 12-day Minnesota State Fair, which is held at the fairgrounds on Snelling Avenue, and additional video during the fair through its conclusion in September. Researchers analyzed recordings of four signal cycles before and after bus arrival at the intersections for traffic queues and volume.
Next, investigators studied the results of a 2016 Metro Transit survey of passengers on the A Line and four parallel standard bus lines. The study compared transit usage data from 2016 and 2017, before and after the A Line opened. The research team surveyed A Line passengers, station area residents, business workers and owners, automobile users, bicyclists and pedestrians. Team members also reviewed a recent study of Minneapolis-area real estate developers on transit facilities and options.
What Did We Learn?
Video and data analyses revealed that the A Line increased overall transit capacity, and the time its buses spent not moving while passengers were loading and unloading during a green traffic signal had no significant impact on intersection queue length or traffic flow at the two intersections—during and outside State Fair dates. The A Line carries more riders than the local bus along the same route, and the greatest rider turnover occurs at the Snelling and University station, which connects with light rail service.
Surveys identified the five attributes most important to satisfactory transit service: easy fare payment format, hours of operation, complaint resolution, personal safety while riding and courteous transit drivers. A Line users were more satisfied with ABRT than with local bus service, and showed no significant difference in satisfaction with the A Line compared to express buses, light rail and commuter rail. For most individual service attributes such as payment procedures, travel time, shelter cleanliness, and route and bus signage, the A Line performed better than local buses, the same as light rail but not as well as commuter rail. Nonuser surveys indicated a positive perception of the ABRT, but mixed impact on pedestrian and bicycling activities and little impact on reducing preferences for using automobiles instead of transit.
To improve A Line service, transit managers should focus on operating hours, the on-board safety of riders, reliability and total travel time. Researchers noted that rider satisfaction does not consider costs associated with improved service and recommended that future ABRT plans weigh improvements in the five key attributes of transit service against costs in planning new lines. The study findings and recommendations will be used in planning future ABRT lines.
“We will use this study to show MnDOT staff that arterial bus rapid transit should have minimal to no impact on existing traffic and signal operations.” —Carl Jensen, Transit Advantages Engineer, MnDOT Metro District
This Technical Summary pertains to Report 2018-35, “After Study of The Bus Rapid Transit A Line Impacts,” published December 2018. For more information, visit MnDOT’s Office of Research & Innovation project page.
Researchers developed a method for associating travel times and travel costs with transit mobility. In an evaluation of bus–highway system interactions, investigators found that park-and-ride lots and managed lanes put suburban and walk-up urban transit options on equal footing. Bus–highway system interactions improve access to job locations and have improved transit access to job sites by about 20 percent compared to automobile access. When wage-related costs are included, the benefit of automobile use over transit use diminishes significantly.
What Was the Need?
Bus service in the Twin Cities relies on MnDOT-built park-and-ride (PNR) lots and managed lanes—lanes for buses on streets and highways, including high-occupancy lanes—to help transit users travel from the suburbs and urban locations to job, retail, service and entertainment sites.
One measure of how a transit system of PNR lots and bus service works for users is job accessibility—the number of jobs that can be reached by a mode of transportation within a certain travel time period.
The type of lanes a bus uses impacts travel times via bus, and the differences in these travel times in turn impact the transit user’s ability to reach locations using walk-up transit service. The transit alternative to walk-up service is drive-to-transit service via PNR lots. The Twin Cities transit system intersects with over 100 PNR lots where transit users park their vehicles and take express and limited-stop services to business districts and job locations.
Understanding the impact of managed lanes and PNR lots on transit effectiveness in terms of job access requires diving into transit and travel data; developing ways to measure accessibility for walk-up, drive-to-transit and automobile-only travel modes; and adjusting methods so the cost of travel and the time of travel can be reasonably compared between modes.
What Was Our Goal?
MnDOT sought to evaluate how the bus and highway systems interact in terms of job accessibility. The research would consider how managed lanes and PNR lots affect job accessibility for walk-up and drive-to-transit users, compare these findings to automobile-only usage, and profile how well the transit system of the Twin Cities serves users in terms of cost to use and travel time.
What Did We Do?
In the first stage of work, the research team focused on the managed lane network to determine how it contributes to walk-up transit accessibility. Investigators developed a computer program to modify transit schedule data to reflect how buses operate in different managed lane configurations and calculate walk-up access to jobs systemwide.
In the second stage, the team developed a method for calculating accessibility via PNR use, and PNR accessibility in terms comparable to access via walk-up transit and automobile use.
In the third stage, researchers developed a mixed-mode accessibility profile of the system.
“The researchers did more than just measure mobility; they quantified access to employment in terms of travel time and travel cost, as well. Results put park-and-rides and suburban transit on equal footing with walk-up transit in urban environments.”—Jim Henricksen, Traffic Forecaster, MnDOT Metro Traffic Forecasting and Analysis
The research team incorporated a monetary dimension to travel time accessibility measures, associating costs of automobile use, parking fees, transit fare and travel time with travel modes in a value of time unit to compare accessibility between automotive and transit usage.
What Did We Learn?
Study results showed that PNR lots and managed lanes offer greater access to job sites. The longer the trip to a job site, the more competitive transit becomes with driving for commuting to work. Bus–highway interactions via managed lanes and PNR lots improve transit job accessibility relative to automobile use by 3.8 percent in a 30-minute commute and by 19.1 percent in a 60-minute commute. For the 60-minute scenarios, transit accessibility from the suburbs to the central business district improves by 319,322 jobs for the average worker.
For managed lanes, the greatest benefit is for suburban regions near express routes. On the I-94 corridor, where the greatest improvement by transit to accessibility is felt, every mile of MnPASS lanes offers an increase of 98 jobs accessible to average riders.
With express bus service, travel times from PNR lots to destinations decrease by an average of 10.7 minutes for the system. Compared to walk-up transit travel, drive-to-transit from suburban areas offers accessibility values roughly three times greater than travel by walk-up transit, in part because time spent driving in suburbs gets users to more transit facilities than the same time spent walking.
“We developed tools and methodologies, and applied them metrowide to bring new insights to the role of highway operations and planning on access to jobs through transit.”—Andrew Owen, Director, Accessibility Observatory, University of Minnesota
Researchers found pockets in the Twin Cities where transit and PNR are more competitive with automotive travel per dollar of travel. These areas highlight urban locations where the transit network is the most robust and suburban areas where automobile travel times are long compared to express transit. When researchers applied wage value to time spent traveling, the benefit of driving rather than using PNR lots and transit dropped 89.6 percent. The relative value of transit may increase further if measures account for productivity on transit.
This research helps MnDOT plan future PNR and managed lane facilities to maximize benefit to transit services. Value of time models and comparisons offer a way to measure the relative value of transit to automobile use in accessing jobs.
Future analysis may include long-term fixed costs associated with vehicle ownership and show further improvement in the comparative value of transit services to automobile use. Methods from this study may also be applied to other mixed-mode transit options, like biking, scooters or ride-sharing to transit access points.
This Technical Summary pertains to Report 2019-17, “Accessibility and Behavior Impacts of Bus-Highway System Interactions,” published April 2019. Visit the MnDOT research project page for more information.
Complete Streets is a transportation policy and design approach that requires streets to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities, regardless of their mode of transportation. A newly funded research project aims to demonstrate the economic and non-economic benefits of Complete Streets in the city of Richfield, which has been active in reconstructing several previously vehicle-oriented roads to allow for safe travel by those walking, cycling, driving automobiles, riding public transportation, or delivering goods.
By measuring the impacts of pedestrian- and bike-related improvements in Richfield, this Minnesota Local Road Research Board-funded study hopes to help guide future transportation investments for building sustainable and safe urban environments.
This analysis will include four closely related steps:
- First, University of Minnesota researchers will select suitable improvement sites in Richfield to study and collect project information, including project maps, description of complete street features and GIS files at the parcel level before and after the project.
- Identify economic and measurable non-economic benefits. The university will work with the City of Richfield to identify possible economic benefits (such as increased property value) and other measurable benefits (such as public health benefits associated with pedestrian or cycling activities) of the Complete Streets projects.
- Estimate economic benefits, such as increased housing value or as additional business activities.
- Lastly, researchers will quantify and monetize non-economic benefits, such as public health or environmental benefits related to pedestrian or cycling activities. Data about benefit indicators will be collected through survey or interview. These benefits will then be monetized using common value parameters identified from the literature.
Researchers produced a proof-of-concept for developing a one-stop permitting process that would allow commercial haulers to plan a travel route and secure all required permits from a single source. MnDOT is working to develop a first-of-its-kind, unified permitting process to consolidate the requirements of every jurisdiction in the state into a single, quick-response platform that meets the needs of haulers.
“From a hauler’s perspective, the permitting process can be very cumbersome. Each agency’s application is different as are the general provisions that haulers need to follow,” said Renae Kuehl, Senior Associate, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
“As carriers, we’re trying to do our due diligence in getting permits. But the current process can lead to significant safety and legal risks,” said Richard Johnson, Transportation Manager, Tiller Corporation.
What Was the Need?
Hauling oversize or overweight freight on Minnesota’s roadway system—highways, county roads, township roads and city streets—requires approval by each governing authority along the route. Roadway managers must review hauler travel plans to make sure size and weight limits for vehicles and loads will not endanger roadway facilities, hauler equipment and personnel before issuing the over-size or overweight permit.
Any single hauling route may require permits from multiple roadway authorities, each with different application procedures and response times. Some governing bodies, MnDOT among them, issue these permits online and can turn them around in minutes. Other agencies issue permits by mail, fax or email, which can take several days.
Haulers, however, may not have time to wait for a permit. If equipment breaks down at a loading site, for example, replacement equipment is needed immediately to meet contract deadlines and avoid paying labor costs for idle workers. A construction emergency may also demand large equipment be towed to a site. In situations like these, haulers often make the trip without appropriate permitting, accepting the legal and safety risks.
What Was Our Goal?
To simplify the permitting process, Minnesota local agencies would like to develop an online permitting application process that would allow permit-seekers to determine routes based on their vehicle and load size, and secure all necessary permits at one time. This research, the first phase of a multiphase study, aimed to determine the feasibility of a one-stop, unified permitting process by studying its technological and operational needs and gathering input from various stakeholders.
What Did We Do?
Investigators worked with the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) and a group of policy experts from county and state agencies, commercial haulers and consultants to identify audiences with a stake in a unified permitting process. During meetings in northern Minnesota and in the Twin Cities area, investigators and TAP members met with key stakeholders: haulers and representatives from industry organizations; seven MnDOT offices (including Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations, Information Technology, Maintenance and Geospatial Information); Minnesota counties; the City of Duluth; the Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council; Minnesota State Patrol; the State Patrol Commercial Vehicle Section; and a county sheriff’s office.
The research team identified the challenges and needs of each stakeholder and organized the concerns according to policy, process and technology. Then they explored solutions that would allow the development of a one-stop permitting process.
What Did We Learn?
Researchers determined that a unified permitting process is feasible. Policy issues include the need to standardize general provisions statewide, such as travel hours, insurance requirements and warning devices such as flagging needs. For example, currently the color of flags and lettering on banners vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; well-framed general provisions could make these requirements more uniform to serve multiple jurisdictions. The information required by each governing authority in its permit applications could also be normalized.
Process issues were about workflow. More than 80 percent of hauler requests are repeat-able: A commercial haul may be run on the same route with the same-size load three times a month for four months and may not require a full reapplication each time. Some agencies rely on paper, fax or emails to receive permit requests; others purchase permit-ting software; still others build their own software. These systems could be made more uniform so they could interact and share information among agencies.
Technology issues called for an interoperable system that could bring together geographic information system (GIS) capabilities and regulatory data that could be both received and shared. Mapping data could identify each permit required along a route being developed, and a portal could allow agencies to share information as well as allow permit-seekers to enter information and retrieve permits themselves. A portal could also integrate different software packages while offering information like Minnesota’s Gopher State One Call digging hotline.
In Phase II of this project, which has already begun, researchers will develop a pilot portal that allows users to create route plans, identify permits needed and apply for all permits in one action. Investigators will test the platform with a three-county group. If this effort is successful, researchers will build a unified permitting process for use within all jurisdictions in Minnesota.
MnDOT is also enhancing its software for handling oversize/overweight permits and carrier credentials. Transportation Research Synthesis 1704 surveyed state agencies about current offerings.
This post pertains to the LRRB-produced Report 2017-26, “Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Unified Permitting Process (UPP) Phase I,” published August 2017.
ST. PAUL, Minn. – The Minnesota Department of Transportation chose EasyMile, a France-based company specializing in driverless technology, to lead its autonomous shuttle bus pilot project. MnDOT announced in June it will begin testing the use of an autonomous shuttle bus in a cold weather climate.
“We’re excited to partner with EasyMile to help MnDOT test autonomous technology,” said Jay Hietpas, MnDOT state traffic engineer and project manager. “Their expertise will help us learn how these vehicles operate in a winter weather environment so we can advance this technology and position MnDOT and Minnesota as a leader.”
EasyMile, which has a location in Colorado, has conducted driverless technology cold weather tests in Finland and Norway. Minnesota will be their first cold weather test site in the U.S. EasyMile will use its EZ10 electric shuttle bus that has already transported 160,000 people more than 60,000 miles in 14 countries. The shuttle was tested in various environments and traffic conditions. During these tests, the shuttle operated crash-free.
The shuttle operates autonomously at low speeds on pre-mapped routes. It can transport between six and 12 people.
Initially, it will be tested at MnROAD, which is MnDOT’s pavement test facility. Testing will include how the shuttle operates in snow and ice conditions, at low temperatures and on roads where salt is used.
Testing is scheduled to start in November and go through February 2018. The shuttle will also be showcased during the week of the 2018 Super Bowl.
Hietpas said 3M will also be a partner in the project so the company can research various connected vehicle concepts including sensor enhancement and advanced roadway safety materials. When optimized, these materials would aid in safe human and machine road navigation.
Read more about the autonomous shuttle bus pilot project:
- MnDOT press release
- MnDOT Autonomous Bus Pilot Project website
- MnDOT Research project page
- EasyMile website
- MnDOT’s MnROAD facility
Related MnDOT research:
- Development and Demonstration of a Cost Effective In-Vehicle Lane Departure and Advanced Curve Speed Warning System (active)
- In-Vehicle Dynamic Curve Speed Warnings at High Risk Rural Curves (active)
- Transportation Futures Project
- Fog lines project
- Bluetooth low energy technology
- Collision avoidance
- Snowplow Driver Assist System
- In-Vehicle Work Zone Messages: Examining Signing Options for Improving Safe Driving Behaviors in Work Zones
- In-Vehicle Sign Systems May Improve Safety When Supplementing Road Signs
Researchers evaluated bicycle and motor vehicle interactions at nine locations in Duluth, Mankato, Minneapolis and St. Paul,in a study sponsored by the Minnesota Local Road Research Board to better understand how bicycle facilities affect traffic. Results show that on shared roadways without clearly marked bicycle facilities, drivers are more inclined to pass bicyclists, encroach on other traffic lanes or line up behind bicyclists than on roadways with clearly striped or buffered facilities.
“This project gave us qualitative information and some quantitative information. The observations made provide something we can build on,” said James Rosenow, Design Flexibility Engineer, MnDOT Office of Project Management & Technical Support.
“The solid line makes the absolute difference in bicycle facilities— something that we haven’t seen in any other study. We found that the presence of a clearly marked or buffered bicycle lane makes a large difference in the way drivers behave around bicyclists,” said John Hourdos, Director, Minnesota Traffic Observatory, University of Minnesota.
What Was the Need?
The availability of multimodal traffic facilities encourages travelers to use a range of transportation methods, from driving to riding on public transit and bicycling. Although bicycle use is low compared to motor vehicle and public transit use, MnDOT’s Complete Streets program encourages cities and counties to dedicate roadway space to bicycle facilities to expand transportation options and “maximize the health of our people, economy and environment.”
Planners and engineers typically consider bicycle facilities from the bicyclist’s perspective. It is less common to design and plan for bicycle use from the driver’s perspective. However, effective multimodal planning requires an understanding of how bicycles affect traffic if congestion-causing interactions are to be avoided, particularly on high-volume roads. Bicycle facilities must invite use, ensure safety for all road users and at the same time not slow traffic.
What Was Our Goal?
This project aimed to investigate interactions between drivers and bicyclists on urban roadways that employ various bicycle facility designs, and to determine how different bicycle facilities affect traffic. Researchers sought to look at bicycle facilities from the driver’s point of view.
What Did We Do?
The investigation team reviewed 44 bicycle facility design manuals and guidance documents, 31 research papers on implementation or assessment of facility designs, and design manuals used by seven other Complete Streets programs from around the United States to identify facility designs that warranted further study.
With help from the MnDOT Technical Advisory Panel and local planners, the team selected nine sites in Duluth, Mankato, Minneapolis and St. Paul that offered a range of facilities—buffered bicycle lanes, striped bicycle lanes, sharrows (shared-use arrows), signed shared lanes and shoulders of various widths.
At each site, they set up one to three cameras and videotaped during daylight hours for five to 51 days. Researchers then trimmed the video data into relevant car-and-bicycle-interaction time frames. This yielded from 16 to 307 hours of video from each site for detailed analysis.
The research team then reviewed the video and analyzed how drivers behaved when encountering bicyclists on roads with and without bicycling facilities. Researchers grouped driver behavior into five categories: no change in trajectory, deviation within lane, encroachment on adjacent lane, completion of full passing maneuver and queuing behind bicyclists. Researchers confirmed their observations with statistical modeling. After analyzing the results of behavior as it correlated with facility type, researchers presented the traffic flow implications of different bicycle facility designs.
What Did We Learn?
- Literature Review. Almost all design guidance drew heavily on directives from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials or the National Association of City Transportation Officials. Of the 62 bicycle facility design elements identified in bicycle guidance documents, fewer than half have been studied in any way for efficacy, safety or traffic impact.
- Video Analysis. On roadways with sharrows, signs for shared lanes or no bicycle facilities, drivers were more likely to encroach on adjacent lanes than were drivers on road-ways with buffered or striped bicycle lanes. Queuing, or lining up behind bicyclists, showed the greatest potential to impact traffic flows. The highest rates of lining up occurred on roads without bicycle facilities and roads with shared facilities but no marked lanes.
- Implications. Sharrows may alert drivers to the presence of bicyclists, but in the impact they make on traffic, sharrows differ little from no bicycle facilities. Roadways with signs indicating shared lanes also show little difference in driver behavior from roadways with no facilities. Therefore, where space allows, buffered or striped bicycle lanes should be used instead of sharrows or signs to increase the predictability of driver behavior and reduce queuing impacts on traffic.
This study provides enough data to support the recommendation of dedicated, striped or buffered bicycle facilities where demand or interest exists. However, the detailed video analysis conducted for this project provides only part of a three-dimensional study of the efficacy and value of various bicycle facility designs. Further study will be needed to quantify facility and vehicle-bicycle interaction in terms of other traffic impacts like speed and traffic flow coefficients, and to quantify crash rates and other safety impacts. Research is also needed to investigate bicycle facility demand and bicycle use on road-ways that do not currently have bicycle facilities.
This post pertains to the LRRB-produced Report 2017-23, “Traffic Impacts of Bicycle Facilities,” published June 2017.
A recent report issued by the U.S. Census Bureau looks at commuting patterns by U.S. workers in 2013 using data from the American Community Survey. It highlights differences in rates of automobile commuting by key population characteristics such as age, race, ethnicity, and the types of communities in which workers live.
One finding of note: young people in big cities were much less likely to drive to work in 2013 than they were several years earlier. For instance, urban workers aged 25 to 29 showed about a 4-percentage-point decline in automobile commuting between 2006 and 2013.
You can also find an extensive analysis of commuting behavior that was produced locally. In a recent multifaceted study sponsored by the Metropolitan Council and MnDOT, U of M researchers analyzed travel behavior over time in the Twin Cities.
The extensive five-part study report is based on the rich set of data produced by the Met Council’s Travel Behavior Inventory household travel survey. David Levinson, RP Braun/CTS Chair in the U’s Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering, was the study’s principal investigator.
The five components of the report examine:
- Changes in travel duration, time use, and accessibility
- Changes in walking and biking
- The effect of transit quality of service on people’s activity choices and time allocation
- Changes in travel behavior by age cohort
- Telecommuting and its relationship with travel and residential choices
For more information:
- Download the Twin Cities’ Travel Behavior Over Time report
- Download the U.S. Census Bureau report: Who Drives to Work? Commuting by Automobile in the United States: 2013
- Read more about the Travel Behavior Over Time study in CTS Catalyst:
Can rural Minnesota do multimodal?
You betcha, says a new study by University of Minnesota researcher Carol Becker, who compiled 65 examples of innovative multimodal rural and small urban transportation projects from around the United States.
The study, funded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, looks at alternatives for promoting and strengthening multimodal transportation in rural and small urban areas. Becker developed these six case studies to showcase different modes and strategies:
The city of Olympia, Washington, was mostly built during the automobile era. As a result, most of the city developed without sidewalks. In 2004, Olympia passed a voter referendum that linked enhanced parks with adding sidewalks throughout the city. The referendum was supported by parents who wanted safe routes to school for their children and by environmentalists who wanted alternatives to driving. But the key to voter approval was linking recreation at parks with recreation walking to and from the parks. The Parks and Pathways program is now retrofitting miles of sidewalks into neighborhoods.
Intercity Bus Service
North Dakota has the third-lowest population density in the United States. Despite this, it has a network of buses that connect small towns to larger regional centers. Such alternatives to driving allow residents — particularly elderly and disabled persons — to stay in their communities rather than move to large cities to access needed services.
A nonprofit in Mesa, Arizona, implemented a program to reimburse eligible seniors for car trips provided by other individuals. The program was moved to the regional transit provider for expansion. It did not scale up well, however, and was recently replaced with the East Valley RideChoice Program, which provides seniors and disabled adults with discounted cards for taxi service. RideChoice participants can receive up to $100 of taxi service per month for either $25 or $30, depending on their city of residence.
Integrating Highways into Small Town Fabric
One challenge to making smaller communities more walkable and pedestrian-friendly is that most small towns are built around highways. In fact, unless a bypass has been built, the main street of a small town is also typically a highway. This creates a conflict between groups who want to move vehicles efficiently and groups who want pedestrian-friendly downtowns.
Oregon took two steps to help mediate this:
- Added a functional classification to the Oregon Highway Manual for the portion of roadway that runs through small towns. This functional classification has very different design standards that can accommodate walking, biking, commercial activity along the roadway, parking along the roadway and many other small-town needs.
- “Main Street: When A Highway Runs Through It” was written to help local governments understand their options for creating a multimodal environment and better advocate for their interests with the Oregon Department of Transportation. The document explains ODOT funding processes and shows examples of design options. Local governments can then adopt these elements and standards into their local plans, which ODOT must work with when doing highway improvements.
Clinton, Iowa, is a city with a population of 27,000 on the Mississippi River in eastern Iowa. In 1995, the rail yard closed, which provided an opportunity to redevelop land. The city created a comprehensive long-range plan that included remediating soil contamination, purchasing land for redevelopment, realigning two streets and increasing transportation choices with a “complete streets” design. The reclaimed land will support a multi-use path, sidewalks and connections to cross streets.
Approximately $50 million has been secured for the project. A $2.7 million Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant was also received from the U.S. Department of Transportation in 2012 to pay for a multi-use trail with a direct connection to the Mississippi River Trail, decorative lighting and plantings. In the future, land will be sold for higher density, walkable development.
Impact Fees for Funding Infrastructure
As resistance increases to broad-based taxes, there has been a shift toward funding transportation with fees linked to specific projects. Examples include:
- Concurrency laws, which require capacity in governmental systems (either planned or existing) before development can occur. If capacity does not exist, development cannot occur. In the state of Washington, a number of cities use concurrency to set transportation fees paid by new development. Bellingham, Washington, uses this kind of system to raise funds for transportation projects.
- Development impact fees. Contra Costa County, California, has a capital plan for transportation improvements and sets a fee that is paid by new development to fund that infrastructure. Fees vary from under $1,000 to over $15,000 depending on where new development is occurring. The county expects to raise more than $845 million in transportation dollars from 2014 to 2030 using such a mechanism.
- Allowing local units of government to create special districts to fund transportation projects.
Rural and Small Urban Multi-Modal Alternatives for Minnesota – Final Report
Before a national audience of 1,400 urban planners and transit enthusiasts, Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin and others told the story of how the Twin Cities metropolitan area was transformed into a community that embraces “livability” and mass transit, including light rail.
“The growth was horizontal and there were lots of people who were saying it wouldn’t work in Minnesota,” said McLaughlin, during the opening plenary of the RailVolution conference in Minneapolis.
But the metro region bucked years of infighting and helped pass a transportation bill in 2008 that allows counties to tax for the expansion of transit in the metro area. Anoka, Ramsey, Hennepin, Dakota and Washington Counties decided to pool their resources from the quarter-cent transit sales tax, which is why the Southwest Light Rail Line is able to move forward.
“They had to believe their day would come,” McLaughlin said of the counties.
This was the first time the annual conference has been held in the Twin Cities, allowing Minnesota leaders to share their success stories.
Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner Charlie Zelle, who biked the Greenway trail to get to the conference, spoke of MnDOT’s commitment to multi-modal transportation and maximizing the health of Minnesota’s people and economy.
“MnDOT is more than a highway department,” he said. “We have a statewide bike plan and we will probably be the second state in the union to have a statewide pedestrian plan.”
Michael Langley of Greater MSP said a mix of transportation types is critical to attracting talented workers to the Twin Cities, especially millennials.
“Nearly every area of the world is facing a future workplace shortage,” he said. “It’s fueling a competition for talent like we’ve never seen.”
Federal Highway Administration Secretary Anthony Foxx on Tuesday addressed conference attendees about the need for a bipartisan compromise on funding. He proposed moving away from the Highway Trust Fund to a more inclusive transportation account (named the Surface Transportation Trust Fund) that also addresses rail needs, with $19 billion in proposed dedicated funding. He also discussed the recent announcement of $3.6 billion in resiliency funds for transit systems.
During his comments, he wore a red bicycle pin that the MnDOT commissioner frequently wears at multi-modal events.
During the five-day conference, attendees toured the recently completed Green Line and attended dozens of workshops on topics ranging from street walkability to bus-rapid transit to the use of mobile phones to enhance bus service. On Sunday, the Northstar commuter train traveled for the first time to St. Paul’s Union Depot and conference attendees took it back to Minneapolis.