assessment of community planning for mass transit: volume 7—minneapolis-st. paul case study

8/14/2019 Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Volume 7—Minneapolis-St. Paul Case Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/assessment-of-community-planning-for-mass-transit-volume-7minneapolis-st 1/30

Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Volume 7—Minneapolis-St.

Paul Case Study

February 1976

NTIS order #PB-253685



OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

DIRECTOR’S OFFICE

Emilio Q. Daddario, Director

Daniel V. De Simone, Deputy Director

URBAN MASS TRANSIT ADVISORY PANEL

George Krambles, Chairman, Chicago Transit Authority

Walter J. Bierwagen Bernard M. Oliver Amalgamated Transit Union Hewlett-Packard Corporation

Robert A. Burco Simon ReichOregon DO T Gibbs and Hill

Jeanne J. Fox Thomas C. Sutherland, Jr. Joint Center for Princeton UniversityPolitical Studies

Lawrence A. Goldmuntz Frederick P. Salvucci

Economics and Science Planning Massachusetts DOT

Dorn McGrath Stewart F. TaylorGeorge Washington University Sanders and Thomas, Inc.

OTA TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM STAFF

Gretchen S. Kolsrud, Program Manager

Mary E. Ames Larry L. JenneyV. Rodger Digilio Bev JohnsonThomas E. Hirsch, 111 Teri Miles

CONTRACTORS

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill System Design Concep ts , Inc.



PREFACE

This report on urban transportation planning in the Minneapolis-St.

Paul, Minnesota m etropolitan area is one of n ine case studies un dertaken bythe Office of Technology Assessment to provide an information base for anoverall assessment of community Planning for mass transit.

The f indings of the overall s tudy are reported in the summarydocument, An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit, wh ich forms thefirst volume of this series. The assessment was performed at the request of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate, on behalf of itsTransportation Subcommittee.

The study was directed by the Office of Technology Assessment’sTransportation Program Staff with guidance and review provided by theOTA Urban Mass Transit Advisory Panel. The firms of Skidmore, Owingsand Merrill and System Design Concepts, Inc., were contractors for thestudy. This assessment is a joint effort, identifying different possible pointsof view but not necessarily reflecting the opinion of any individual.

v



This report assesses how one of nine majorUnited States metropolitan areas made its decisionsabout the development or modernization of railtransit.

The assessment of the nine cities attempts toidentify the factors that help communities, facingcritical technological choices, make wise decisionsthat are consistent with local and national goals fortransit. The study investigates the following issues:

Ž Are there major barriers to communicationand coopera tion among governmenta lagencies involved in transit planning andoperating? Do these barriers interfere with

making sound decisions ?

q Do transit decisions reflect the combinedinterests of all major public groups, in-cluding citizen organizations, trade unions,the business community, and others ?

q Does the planning process provide enoughinformation about the advantages anddisadvantages of alternative courses of action to provide a solid basis for makingdecisions ?

q Does the availability or lack of financing, orthe conditions under which financing hasbeen provided, unnecessarily limit therange of options that are considered?

The ultimate purpose of the work has been tocast light on those prospective changes in nationaltransit policy and administrative programs whichmight improve, in different ways and to differentextents, the way communities plan mass transitsystems. The nine cities were selected to representthe full range of issues that arise at different stages

in the overall process of planning and developing atransit system.

San Francisco, for example, has the first regionalrail system built in decades, while Denver isplanning an automated system, and voters inSeattle have twice said “no” to rail transit fundingproposals.

INTRODUCTION

The assessment of transit planning in each of thenine metropolitan areas has been an inquiry into anevolving social process. Consequently, the studyresults more closely resemble historical analysisthan classical technology assessment.

This study employs a set of evaluation guidelinesto orient the investigation in the nine metropolitanareas and to provide the basis for comparative judgments about them. The guidelines werederived from issues identified during preliminaryvisits to the metropolitan areas, a review of Federalrequirements for transit planning, and an in-vestigation via the literature into the state-of-the-art in the field.

The evaluation guidelines cover major topicswhich were investigated during the case assess-ment process. They deal with the character of theinstitutional arrangements and the conduct of thetechnical planning process,

GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT:

INSTITUTIO NAL CON TEXT

Some of the most significant influences ontransit planning are exerted by the organizationsresponsible for conducting the planning andmaking the decisions. Three guidelines were usedto evaluate the institutional arrangements in thenine metropolitan areas:

q

q

q

Agencies responsible for various aspects of transit decisionmaking should cooperateeffectively in a clearly designated “forum”.

The participants in this forum should h avep rop erly d esignated decisionmaking

authority, and the public should haveformal channels for holding decision-makers accountable for their actions.

Citizens should participate in the transitplanning process from its beginning andshould have open lines of communicationwith decisionmakers.

vii



GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT:

TECHN ICAL PLANN ING PROCESS

The technical planning process provides theinformation that public officials and their con-stituents dr aw u pon in making plans and decisions.Four guidelines were used to assess the technical

planning process in the nine metropolitan areas:• Broad , explicit goals and objectives should

guide technical planning and decision-making.

Ž A range of realistic alternative solutionsshould be developed.

The evaluation of these alternatives shouldgive balanced consideration to a full rangeof goals and objectives.

q A practical and flexible plan for financingand implementation should be d eveloped.

During visits to each of the nine metropolitanareas, the study team interviewed the principalrepresentative of the transportation planning

institution and other main participants in the localplanning p rocess. The visits were sup plemented byinterviews with UMTA officials in Washington.Pert inent documents—official plans, reports ,stud ies, and oth er material—were reviewed in eachcase.

The information thus collected was used incompiling a history of the transit planning process

in each case area, organized around key decisionssuch as the decision to study transit, the selection of a particular transit system, and public ratificationof the decision to pay for and build the system. Themain political, institutional, financial and technicalcharacteristics affecting the conduct of the plan-ning process were then assessed in light of theevaluation guidelines.

The same set of gu idelines u sed in assessing eachcase metropolitan area was employed in making ageneralized evaluation of the metropolitan experi-ence. The results of the generalized evaluation are

summarized in the report, A n Assessment of Communi-

ty Planning for Mass Transit: Summ ary Report, issued bythe Office of Technology Assessment in February1976.

Vlll



CONTENTS

SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

METROPOLITAN SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

General Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Existing Passenger Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Transportation Planning Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CRITICAL HISTORY OF TRANSIT PLANNING ANDDECISIONMAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Early Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Decision to Study Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Decision on System Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHRONOLOGY OF THE TRANSIT PLANNING PROCESS . . . 17

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNING ANDDECISIONMAKING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Institutional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Technical Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

SUMMARY CASE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q . . . . . . q . . . . . 25

ix



Sum mary and Highlights

q

q

q

q

The Twin Cities metropolitan area hasbeen studying and planning for a short-term and long-range transit system since1968.

No decision has been made thus far onwhat kind of public transit service toprovide in the long term.

This is in part due to the fact that Twin

Cities does not feel impelled to makerapid decisions on transit system selec-tion and implementation because it has agood bus transit system, In addition, it

does not have a severe air qualityproblem; highway and street congestionis not perceived as being severe; and fuelshortages apparently were not as severeas in many other metropolitan areas.

It is also due in part to deep divisionsbetween the two agencies involved: thecomprehensive planning agency(Metropolitan Council), and the transitagency (Metropolitan Transit Commis-sion). Transit systems proposed by theCouncil have relied primarily on bustransit, while all of the Commission’sproposed systems have contained abackbone rail transit system.

q The Metropolitan Transit Commissionhas taken over and significantly improvedthe bus transit operation.

q A variety of well-designed and com-petently managed studies have beencarried out.

q Twin Cities, to a greater extent than anyother of the case assessment cities, hasstudied and evaluated different conceptsin public transportation service.

q The Metropolitan Transit Commissionhas competently designed and manageda series of study programs so thatconsultants have played only a technicalstaff and support role.

q Transit planning has been closely tied toland use and development planning,partially because the Metropolitan Coun-cil, in addition to transportation reviewpowers, has and exercises limited controlover land development.

q The State Legislature has become deeplyinvolved in transit policy and planningand will probably ultimately make thedecision on what kind of system will beadopted and implemented.



Metropolitan Settingl

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

The downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul arelocated about 10 miles apart on opposite banks of the Mississipp i River. St. Paul is Minnesota’s capitalcity.

The metropolitan area, over 3,000 square miles,is a major industrial, financial, cultural, and servicecen te r fo r an a rea f rom Wisconsin to theMidwestern States of Iowa, Nebraska, and theDakotas. It ranks among the five fastest-growingregions in th e Nation, with a 1970 pop ulation of 1.8

million. Today its population is greater than 2million with over 60 percent living outside themu nicipal bound aries of the two areas. As has beenthe case in many U.S. metropolitan areas, thepopulation growth in the Twin Cities between1960 and 1970 took place in the suburban ring; thecenter city population declined (see Figure 2). Thepopulation density is relatively low, and there areno major physical conditions shaping growth.

A 30 percent rise in total work trips occurredbetween 1960 and 1970. The pattern of increasewithin the region kept pace with the changing

population distribution. The greatest increasesoccurred in trips from the center cities to thesubur ban ring, and w ithin the subur ban ring. Manyof the new trips used the private automobile. Theproportion of trips by automobile increased 52percent between 1960 and 1970, while relativenumbers of trips on transit declined (see Figure 3).

In 1968 Minneapolis reconstructed eight blocksof downtown Nicollet Avenue as a landscapedpedestrian m all with a 2-lane transitway. The mallis one of the first and most successful urban auto-free zones in the country. Both downtown areas

are d eveloping soph isticated pedestrian “skyw ays”connecting their major commercial establishments.

I See Figure I, pages 8 and 9.

EXISTING PASSENGER

TRANSPO RTATION SYSTEM

The Twin Cities metropolitan area has anexcellent highway system encircling and traversingthe entire region (see Figure 4). Four interstatehighways provide the major links: I-94, I-35W, andthe c i rcumferen t ia l rou tes I -494 and I -694 .Highways systems re p re se n t th e d o min a n ttransportation facility for metropolitan area travel.The streets and highways in the metropolitan areatotal about 11,100 miles of roads, of which about6,800 are located within the urban service area and4,300 in the rural area. z

The physical growth of the urban area wasencouraged by the development of a horse-drawnstreetcar system beginning in 1872. The TwinCities Rapid Transit Company (TCRT) beganelectric streetcar operations in 1889. The RTCRTreplaced the horse-draw n streetcars and at its peakran 444 route-miles with a 1,000-car fleet. It linkedthe Minneapolis and St. Paul central businessdistricts wi th res iden tial, employment, and

recreational areas covering approximately 800square miles. The company designed and built allbut 141 of its streetcars.

After reaching its highest point during the1920’s, ridership on TCRT’S streetcar and bus fleetslumped during the Depression but surged againduring World War II, reaching 201 million by 1946.Thereafter patronage declined steadily, bottomingout at 50.5 million by 1970 (see Figure 5).

TCRT, locally owned from its inception, wasbought by an outside investment firm in 1949. Thenew management immediately began to retire thestreetcars and comp letely replaced th em w ith busesby 1954. In that year the newly organized Twin

City Lines had a rider ship of 86.6 million and a totalbus fleet of approximately 820.

z Metropolitan Council’s report to the legislature, TheAu/omafed Small Vehicle Guidezouy Study, April, 197s.

3



LAND AREA (197 O)

(square miles)

Min n eap olis 53.4St . P a u l 52.2Suburban Ring 2,002.4

Entire SMSA 2,108

POPULATION

Suburban Minn. St. Paul

Ring

1960 685,747 482,872 313,411

1970 1,069,553 434,400 309,828

DENSITY

(population/square mile)

POPULATION

Percent Change 1960-1970

56%

-lo% -1%

Suburban Minn. St. Paul

Ring

Suburban Minn. St.Paul

Ring

1960 342 9,043 6,004

1970 534 8,135 5,935

FIGURE 2:TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN CHARACTERISTICS

Figures do not reflect the addition of five counties to the SMSA since 1970:

Scott, Carver, Chisago, Wright, St. Croix.

Source: Urban Transportation Fact Book, American Institute of Planners, and

the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S., Inc., 1974.A Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) includes a center city (or

cities) , usually with a population of at least 50,000, plus adjacent counties

or other political divisions that are economically and socially integrated

with the central area.



WORK TRIP DISTRIBUTION

From Minneapolis and St. Paul to

Suburban Ring

Suburban Ring to Minneapolis and

St. Paul

Beginning and Ending in Suburban

Ring

Beginning and Ending in Minneapolis

1 9 6 0 1 9 7 0

WORK TRIP MODE

1960 1970

Ring

FIGURE 3: TWIN CITIES SMSA TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS 1960-1970

Source: Urban Transportation Fact Book, American Institute of Planners, and

the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S. , Inc. , 1974.A Standard M e t r o p o l i t a n S t a t i s t i c a l A r e a ( S M S A ) i n c l u d e s a c e n t e r c i t y ( o r

c i t i e s ) , usua l ly wi th a popula t ion of a t l eas t 50,000, plus adjacent counties





I

I

- - - - - -

i

I f J

35W

I

I

FIGURE 4: TWIN CITIES— EXISTING HIGHWAY SYSTEM

6



VEHICLE MILES OPERATED

(millions of miles)

Peak year = 1974 (23.3 million miles)

Low Year = 1967 (15.9 million miles)

REVENUE PASSENGERS

(millions of passengers)

Peak Year = 1960 (67.2 mil

Low Year = 1974 (47.6 mill

20.0 18.2 18.4 23.3

67.2 62.3 50.6 47.6

lion passengers)

ion passengers)

NET OPERATING REVENUE

(millions of dollars)

Peak Year = 1966 ($2,517,233)

Low Year = 1974 (-$11,493,181)

-$11.5

FIGURE5: TWIN CITIES TRANSIT OPERATIONS 1960-1974

Source: American Public Transit Association records for operations of the

Twin City lines and the Metropolitan Transit Commission.

Data for 1972 not available.

A Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) includes a center city (or

cities) , usually with a population of at least 50,000, plus adjacent counties





W r i g h t C o u n t y

FIGURE 1: TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA

A Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) includes a center city (orcities) , usually with a population of at least 50,000, plus adjacent countiesor other political divisions that are economically and socially integrated


8



N



In 1970 the Metropolitan Transit Commissiontook over the private transit operations. Since thenhundreds of new buses have been purchased and aminibus line installed in the two central businessdistricts. Additional improvements have increasedthe mileage of routes by 50 percent and haveeliminated fares for elderly passengers duringnonpeak hours. The bus patronage has steadily

grown—by a total of about 22 percent—since thepu blic takeover in 1970. The existing transit system

includes 834 buses covering 85,752 miles of daily

schedu led bus miles operating over 1,303 miles of rou tes (see Figu re 6). Table 1 shows a breakdow n of

Federal transit support to Twin Cities since theearly 1960’s.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

INSTITUTIONS

responsible for t h e 3 - C f u n c t i o n s f o r t h emetropolitan areas The Council measures plans of other area bodies against its Metropolitan Development

Guide. Minnesota’s Metropolitan ReorganizationAct of 1974 designated the Metropolitan Cou ncil asthe policymaking body with final approval powerf o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t in t h emetropolitan area.

TABLE l.=Federal Assistance to

Twin Cities Transit Programs

From F.Y. 1962 to May 31, 1975

Type of Assistance Federal Share Total Costs

Capital Grants . . . . . . . . . . . $30,647,000 $45,682,000Technical Studies . . . . . . . . 2,666,000 6,512,000

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33,313,000 $52,194,000

Source: Urban Mass Transportation Administration

The major institutions involved with transporta-tion planning in the metropolitan area include the TABLE 2.—Federally Recognized Regional Agencies

Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan TransitCommission, the Minnesota Highway Depart- Designation Agency

ment, and the State legislature. A-95 Metropolitan Council

MPO Metropolitan Council

Metropolitan Council (MC)

The Metropolitan Council was created by Statelegislation in 1967 to establish a framework tocoordinate r e g i o n a l . d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h eMinneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Sixteenmembers of the Metropolitan Council are ap-pointed by the Governor on a nonpartisan basis,

after consulting with members of the legislaturefrom the candidate’s Council district. j The chair-man of the Metropolitan Council is appointed bythe Governor as the seventeenth voting member of the Council and must be experienced in the field of municipal and urban affairs.

As the regional A-95 agency, the MetropolitanCouncil has power to review all proposals from thearea organizations for Federal funds.4 It also is

3 Before 1974 Metropolitan Cou ncil districts correspon ded tolegislative districts; Minnesota’s Metropolitan Reorganization

Act of that year reorganized them on the one-man, one-voteprinciple.

J The Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95requires one agency in each region to be empowered to reviewall proposals for Federal funds from agencies in that region.Circular A-95 replaced Circular A-82, which was created toimplement Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities andMetropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U,S.C. 3301).

Metropolitan Transit Commission(MTC)

The Metropolitan Transit Commission wasestablished by the State legislature early in 1967and covers the same seven-county area. The recent

Metropolitan Reorganization Act now provides forthe Commission members to be selected by theMetropolitan Council as terms of p resent members

5 The Urban Mass Transportation Administration and theFederal Highway Administration require Governors todesignate a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in each

area to carry out the “continuing, comprehensive transportationplanning process . . . carried out cooperatively . . .“ (the “3-C”process) mandated by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 and

the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974.According to joint UMTA-FHWA regulations published inSeptember 1975, MPO’S must prepare or endorse (1) a long-range general transportation plan, including a separate plan forimprovements in management of the existin g transportationsystem; (2) an annually updated list of specific projects, called the

transportation improvement program (TIP), to implementportions of the long-range plan; and (3) a multiyear planningprospectus supplemented by annual unified planning workprograms.

10



10 0 10 20I —

miIes

I

I I

Vic tor ia

Coefes

I

IElko i

FIGURE 6: T WIN CITIES— FIXISTING BUS TRANSIT SYSTEM



expire. The Governor still appoints the chairman of the Commission.

The Metropolitan Transit Commission is em-powered to plan, construct, equip, and operate atransit system in accordance with the Council’spolicy plans. It was directed by the reorganizationact to design a transit development program thatfi ts within the policy plans specified by the

Metropoli tan Council . The o r igina l enact inglegislation provided for a wheelage tax to financeoperations. This tax subsequently was ruledunconstitutional, and the 1975 legislature providedabout $22 million of nonproperty revenues forMTC operations, a part of which will be used tomake u p for a redu ction of about on e mill in MTC’Sareawide”property tax.

Minnesota State Highway Department

The Minnesota State Highway Departmentparticipates as a member of the TransportationAdvisory Board of the Metropolitan Council. TheHighway Department also provides transit assist-ance in rural areas. It has provided continuingtechnical assistance to the Metropolitan Council’splanning efforts in both highway and transit.

Minnesota State Legislature

Finally, the Minnesota State Legislature has alsoplayed a role in the urban transportation planningp ro c e ss b y o v e r se e in g th e d e v e lo p me n t o f metropolitan government in th e Twin Cities and bytaking an active part in the planning of a publictransportation system.

12



Critical History of Transit Planning and Decisionmaking

This historical narrative describes briefly theevents that unfolded in each of three decision-making periods. Early studies in the Twin Citiesregion proposed highway improvements. Thetransit planning effort began in 1967, with alegislative initiative leading to the decision to studytransit. The decision on system selection is stillunder debate.

EARLY STUDIES

The first significant metropolitan transportationplanning effort, the Twin Cities Area Transporta-tion Study (TCATS), began in 1958 under thedirection of the Minnesota Highway Department.Although the Metropolitan Planning Commissionwas in existence before TCATS began, no formalcommunication or decisionmaking liaison wasestablished by the Minnesota Highway Depart-ment. Therefore, the TCATS effort focused almostexclusively on the highway network in themetropolitan area. However, it should be notedthat at this time no funds were available from theU.S. Bureau of Public Roads to study transit. Manyof the existing freeways in the area were productsof the TCATS work.

In 1962, the Joint Program was established.Participants were the Metropolitan PlanningCommission, the Minnesota Highway Depart-ment, and other p lanning and governmental bodiesin the region. From 1962 until 1967 the JointProgram was designated the 3-C transportationplanning agency. It undertook a major transporta-tion and land u se stud y in the metropolitan area and

published a series of four principal reports thatmade significant early contributions in formulatingthe concepts of the region’s land use and develop-ment plan.

DECISION TO STUDY TRANSIT

In mid-1967 the Minnesota State Legislaturecreated the Metropolitan Council to replace theMetropolitan Planning Commission as the regional

governmental body. The Metropolitan Council waslater designated the A-95 coordinating agency.

In 1969 the Metropolitan Council organized anadvisory group called the Transportation PlanningProgram (TPP) to facilitate the coordinated,comprehensive, and con t inuous p lann ing o f transportation programs. The TPP was formulatedthrough interagency agreements between theagencies r esp on sible f or t r a n s p o r t a ti on i m -p r o v e m e n t s a n d w a s c o m p o s e d o f t h r e ecommittees—the Management, Policy Advisory,and Technical Advisory committees. Although theTPP was criticized for its lack of effectiveness, it

provided a valuable forum for the exchange of ideas, issues, and technical information. The newTransportation Advisory Board created by theMet ropolitan C o u n c i l p u r s u a n t t o t h eMetropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 hasreplaced the TPP.

A few d ays earlier in the sam e legislative session,the Metropolitan Transit Commission was alsoestablished. One of its first actions was to hire theconsulting firm of Simpson an d Curtin to p repare areport on improvements for the bus system in theseven-county area. One result of this stud y w as thepurchase of the Twin City Lines bus company inSeptember 1970 and the present management bycontract with the American Transit EnterprisesManagement Services (ATE).

DECISION O N

SYSTEM SELECTION

The Commission’s series of long-range planningefforts began in 1968-69 with a long-range transitplanning study performed by Alan M. Voorhees,Inc. 6 The Voorhees study made an inventory of some 96 “new concept” vehicle systems andconclud ed that any new system should evolve fromconventional system improvements. Upon comple-tion of the initial phase of the study, a joint

b Phase n-Development O} Long Range Transit Improvement Program

for the Twin Cities Area (1969-70).

13



Metropolitan Transit Commission—MetropolitanCouncil staff report was prepared to set forth themajor components of the long-range metropolitantransit planning program for 1970 -71.7

One of the important conclusions of that jointstaff statement was the recognition that transitplanning sh ould proceed on th e basis of a “family of

vehicles” concept. The system was to consist of (1)

rapid transit operating on exclusive rights-of-wayas the backbone of the system to provide trunkservice between selected major centers; (2) expressbuses operating in mixed traffic in less congestedcorridors; (3) local and feeder bus service to provid ea direct service to centers as well as to complementtrunk lines in low-density areas; and (4) passengerdistribution service within certain major centers.Su bsequ en t ly t h e Co m miss io n and theMetropolitan Council selected a transit planningconsultant to develop a study design for there ma in in g lo n g - ra n g e t r a n s i t p l a n n in g a n dpreliminary engineering activities.

on May 26, 1970, the Metropolitan Councilapproved the Commission planning grant applica-tion of $412,670 for Phase III-A-1, as a follow up tothe Voorhees study to examine and refine theconceptual p lan.

The two agencies continued to work together indeveloping and approving the transportationsection of the Metropolitan Department Guide o f February 25, 1971. The findings of the III-A-1studies provided the basis for the document Transit

in Transportation, which the Metropolitan Councilsubsequentl y appr oved in 1971 to be used as a part

of the basis for the refinement of the generaltransportation plan.

Late in 1970 the Metropolitan Council approved

the request of the Metropolitan Transit Commis-sion for a Federal grant application for preliminaryengineering activities to develop performancespecifications for a fixed-guideway vehicle system(Phase III-A-2). This study followed the “family of vehicles” system concept plan and was focused onrefining the transit plans covering determination of route and station locations, and a schedule forimplementing the plan in stages. It recomm ended afixed-guideway vehicle system utilizing a 40-

passenger vehicle as the first link and the backbonecomponent of the regional system.

In 1971, the Minnesota State Legislature furtherdefined the role of the Metropolitan TransitCommission. The Commission’s enabling legisla-tion was amended to require its plans to beconsistent w ith the developm ent guide pr epared bythe Metropolitan Council. This was an early effortby the legislature to remedy its failure in the initial1967 legislation t o c oo r d i n t e t h e p l an n i n gauthorities of the two agencies.

From the inception of the long-range transporta-tion planning study (in 1968) until 1972, thecooperative working relationship between theMetropolitan T r a n s i t C o m m i s s i o n a n d t h eMetropolitan Council was generally successful.The Metropolitan Transit Commission had coor-dinated its work with the Metropolitan Councilstaff and obtained the requisite approvals for eachstep in the multiphased process.

In the fall of 1972, conflict over transit planning

authority arose between the Metropolitan Counciland the Metropolitan Transit Commission. Theconflict is best described in two legal opinionsprepared by respected law firms—one for theMetropolitan Council and one for the MetropolitanTransit Commission. The legal opinion providedfor the Metropolitan Transit Commission states:

The legislature gave to the MetropolitanTransit Commission the exclusive power todevelop a plan for a comp lete, integrated m ass

transit system . . . (and) the power of acquisition of an existing transit system ismodified to the extent that the MetropolitanCouncil must approve the acquisition before

it is made. This does not d iminsih that power,but only conditions the exercise of that powerto the extent that Council approval isnecessary . . . In looking at the entire schemeof transit legislation . . . the pow er to plan an dengineer must reside somewhere, and it isvery obvious that i t st i l l resides in theMetropolitan Transit Commissions

The Metropolitan Council also solicited a legalopinion in response to the Metropolitan TransitCommission’s request for approval of the proposedTransit Development Program. The MetropolitanCouncil’s legal opinion states:

n Legal opinion concerning power of Metropolitan Transit

‘ February 25, 1970.

14

Commission to plan and engineer transit systems, by letter toDouglas Kelm from David S. Doty, Esquire, November 28, 1972.



In our opinion . . . the Council is the onlyagency which has the authority to prepareand ad opt a long-term comp rehensive plan ontransportation and transit of the type thatwould be subject to the review, hearing andappeal provisions of Section 473 B.o6, Sub-division 6.9

The present conflict grew out of a difference of opinion over the legislative mandates given the twoagencies. Both assumed the authority to plantransit systems. While the Metropolitan Councilfocused its initial attention on sewers and publicparks, the Metropolitan Transit Commission setabout developing a public transit plan. When theMetropolitan Transit Commission completed andapp roved a Transit Development Program in 1972,

based on the results of previous transit studies, itrequested the Metropolitan Council, pursuant tothe 1971 act, to review the Transit DevelopmentProgram.

The Metropolitan Council declined to review theCommission’s plan on the basis that the 1971legislation had given the Council exclusive authori-ty to determine long-range comprehensive transitplans. Although the Metropolitan Transit Com-mission renewed its request for review, theMetropolitan Council maintained its position.

The growing conflict was based not only on arivalry over authority to plan. It also reflected adifference in the type of transit system favored.While the Transit Commission favored a fixed-guideway system, the Metropolitan Council hiredBarton-Aschman Associates, Inc. in 1972 to carryout a $15,000 study to examine the advantages of abus approach to regional mass transit and todevelop implementation strategies. 10

During the same period, the p otential of personalrapid transit (PRT) to meet Twin Cities transporta-tion needs began to surface as a public issue, due inlarge part to energetic sponsorship of this conceptby University of Minnesota Professor EdwardAnderson.

A t th i s ju n c tu re th e Met rop o li ta n Tra n si tCommission prepared to take its case to the Statelegislature. During the 1973 legislative sessionboth houses received information on proposals for

an intermediate-capacity fixed-guideway systemfrom the Commission, a plan of exclusive buswaysfrom the Metropolitan Council, and a PRT gridnetwork system from others. The House of Representatives approved the implementation of the Commission’s plan. However, it was tabled inthe Senate Urban Affairs Committee by thechairman, who regarded the Council-Commission

controversy as one of metropolitan governmentresponsibility and authority rather than a conflictbetween two choices of transit mode.

Then the legislature established a study Subcom-mittee on Mass Transit and adjourned for thesummer. During the summer this subcommitteedirected staff research on the mass transit con-troversy, held 17 hours of formal public hearings,took a 6-day trip to five western cities to evaluatetransit hardware, and had numerous informaldiscussions with knowledgeable individuals. Theresult w as a subcomm ittee report, “TheMetropolitan Mass Transit Need” (November 15,1973), which favored elements of each plan. Itagreed with the Commission’s extensive busimprovement p rogram and au tomated f ixed-guideway proposal but felt it was too expensive; itagreed with the Metropolitan Council’s strategy of incrementally developing a transit system startingwith immediate bus system improvements, butrejected a system solely of exclusive bu sways; and itagreed with the PRT service concept of on-demand,non-stop, origin-to-destination service but rejectedthe proposed fine-grain network that was to beexclusive PRT. Moreover the subcommittee staff concurred in the Citizens League’s findings thatlow-cost alternatives must be part of any transitsolution.

The legislature once again asserted its role as anactive participant in Twin Cities transportationplanning by enacting the Metropolitan Reorganiza-tion Act of 1974 (MRA)11 along with several piecesof legislation dealing with low-cost transportationalternatives (carpools and employer vans, a busservice expansion program, and a small-vehiclefixed-guideway study).l2

The latter piece of legislation directed theMetropolitan Transit Commission to plan anautomated small-vehicle fixed-guideway systemwithin the metropolitan transit taxing district. The

Q Letter to Albert J. Ho fs tede, Chairman of the Nletropol i tan

Council from Thomas S. Hay, Esquire, January 25, 1973.lo “Feasibility of a Low Risk, Incremental Inv estment Strategy

for the Twin Cities Regional Transit System” Metropolitan

Council, 1973.

I I Minnesota Session Laws, 1974, Chapter 422.

12 S.F. No. 2 7 0 3 .

15



Metropolitan Council was to cooperate with theMetropolitan Transit Commission and to providegeneral policy guidance in developing the plan. Thestudy was to be completed by January 1, 1975, andreported to the legisla ture with Commissionrecommendations as well as to the MetropolitanCouncil for its review. Based on the plansdeveloped in this study, the Metropolitan Council

was to prepare a final report for the legislaturebefore February 1, 1975, setting forth its findingsand recommendations based upon the Metropolitan

Development Guide.

In.accordan ce with the 1974 MRA legislation, theMetropolitan Transit Commission worked withthe Metropolitan Council and its staff members inpreparing a study design for Metropolitan Councilapproval. In order to refine the general directivesset forth by the legisla ture , the Commissionconvened a study design conference to define keyissues to be addressed in the study and to update

information on the state-of-the-art in each of adozen or more issue areas. The conferencepart icipan ts included PRT system advoca tes,representatives of transportation operating agen-cies, system planning experts, and manufacturers.

The resulting study design carefully specified theconsiderations to be studied. The consultant was toanalyze and evaluate several alternative small-vehicle fixed-guidew ay systems and then comparethese systems with the current Commission plan.

The Minnesota Legislature provided $300,000

t o f i n a n c e t h e s m a l l - v e h i c l e s t u d y . T h e

Metropolitan Transi t Commission sought anaddi t iona l $100,000 from the Urban MassTransportation Administration to assist in theeffort. On August 6 , 1974, the Urban MassTransportation Administration reallocated

$127,200 of its technical studies funds to satisfy the

Commission’s request.

The work began in August 1974, directed andclosely supervised by a management committeecomposed of three representatives from theMetropolitan C o u n c i l a n d t h r e e f r o m t h eMetropolitan Transit Commission. A consultantteam of DeLeuw, Cather with the support of twolocal firms took major responsibility for the study,reporting to the management committee. Theconsultants’ final report was a technical reportprepared for th e Metropolitan Transit Commissionshowing the required comparison of several typesof personal and group rapid transit systems withthe Com mission’s Phase III-A-2 recommen ded 40-

passenger vehicle.

The Commission and the Council drew conflic-ting findings and recommend ations from th e small-vehicle study. The Commission found that theoptimum system would be one based on a 16-seat

vehicle. It recommended implementing a fixed-guideway system of some sort other than conven-tional large rail transit to serve as the basic elementof a transit system. In addition, the Commissionrecommended against a PRT concept for regionalservice and suggested that a final systems analysisinclude light rail transit as a possible alternative tothe more heavily automated concepts.

The Metropolitan Council took the more ex-treme posit ion against any automated fixed-guideway rapid transit for a regional system;instead the Council continues to sup port a regionalbus transit system as the best solution,

Thus, as yet no decision h as been mad e on a long-

range public transit plan. Nevertheless, agreementhas been reached to concentrate on making short-term improvements in the bus transit system.



Chronology of the Transit Planning Process

1958 The Minnesota Highway Department

initiated the area’s first metropolitantransportation planning effort , theTwin Cities Area Transportation Study.

1962 The Joint Program was established,consisting of the Metropolitan PlanningCommission, the Minnesota HighwayDepartment, and other planning andgovernmental bodies. It undertook amajor transportation and land use studyin the metropolitan area.

1967 In mid-1967 , the Minneso ta S ta teL e g i s l a t u r e e s t a b l i s h e d t h eMetropolitan Transit Commission. TheComm ission began in 1968 with a series

of long-range planning studies. A fewdays later, the State legislature created anew regional governmental body, theMetropolitan Council. The Council setup a Transportation Planning Programto facilitate coordinated transportationplanning.

1969 Upon completion of the long-rangeplanning study done for the TransitCommission by Alan M. Voorhees, a

joint Commission-Council staff reportwas prepared, setting forth the majorcomponents of a metropolitan transitplanning program for 1970-71. Th erep ort recom men ded a “ fa mily of vehicles” concept that would use avariety of transportation modes, in-clud ing fixed-guideway and bus service.

1970 Late in the year, the Metropolitan

Council approved a Federal grant to theTransit Commission for preliminarye ng in ee rin g o n a fixe d -g u id e w aysystem. The subsequent study proposeda fixed-guideway system u tilizing a 40-

passenger vehicle as the backbone of aregional system.

1971 The legislature further defined the role

of the Transit Commission; it was toimplement the development guide pre-pared by the Metropolitan Council.

1972 In the fall, the Metropolitan Councildeclined to review the MetropolitanTransit Commission’s transit plan onthe grounds that the Council hadexclusive authority to determine long-range transit plans. Meanwhile, theCouncil hired Barton Aschman, Inc., tostudy a bus approach to regional masstransit.

During the same period, further con-sideration of a personal rapid transit(PRT) system was advocated by Univer-sity of Minnesota professor EdwardAnderson.

1973 On November 15, the legislature’sSubcommittee on Mass Transit publish-ed a report called “The MetropolitanMass Transit Need,” which favoredelements of the Council’s bus proposal

and the Commission’s fixed-guidewayplan, as well as selective use of PRT.

1974 The legislature passed the MetropolitanReorganization Act, directing the Tran-sit Commission to complete by January1, 1975, a plan for an automated small-vehicle fixed-guideway system withinthe metropolitan transit taxing district.The Council was to provide policyguidance.

Work began in Augu st 1974 guided by amanagement committee composed

equally of Commission and Councilmembers. The consultant’s first reportc o m p a r e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’ srecommended 40-passenger vehicle

system with other alternatives.

17



The Commission and the Council drew 1975 No decision has been made on a long-conflicting findings from the study. The range public transit plan. However,Commission recommended a fixed- agreement has been reached to concen-guideway system other than concentrate on short-term improvements totional rail transit, based on a n-seat the bus system.vehicle. The Metropolitan Council op-posed any fixed-guideway system andcontinued to support a regional bus

system.

18



Critical Assessment of the Planningand Decisionm akin g Process

INSTITUTIO NAL CON TEXT

The conflicts between the Metropolitan Counciland the Metropolitan Transit Commission havehad both negative and positive effects on the TwinCities’ transit planning process. It is clear thatd isagreements be tween the Counci l and theCommission in particular instances have caused a

du plication of some planning efforts and d elays insome decisions.

On the other hand, it can be argued that thepublic has benefited from the a iring of thealternative transit solutions that have been ad-vocated. “It was the legislature’s purpose topromote open discussion and possible dis-agreements, ” noted Metropolitan Transit Com mis-sion Chairman Doug Kelm, “with the idea thatthrough debate and discussion, a more thoroughlyconsidered overall plan for the metropolitan areawould r esult . , , indeed the legislature even mad eprovision for itself to be the final arbiter of anydispute that the system was unable to resolve.” l3

a transportation development program,. . .providing for th e implementation of the p olicy planadopted by the Council.” l5

The language cited above from the MRAdirectedthe Metropolitan Council to make broad policyregard ing transpor ta tion a n d d i r e c t e d t h eMetropolitan Transit Commission to develop itsspecific transportation development program con-sistent with the policy direction provided by theCouncil.

In other words, the Metropolitan Council makes“policy” decisions and the Metropolitan Transit

Commission makes “technical” decisions. TheCouncil-Commission controversy now centers onwhat are “policy” decisions as distinct from“technical” decisions. The selection of a transitmode is the unresolved fundamental decisionwhich remains subject to this controversy. TheMetropolitan Transit Commission feels that choiceof mode is a “technical” decision while theMetropolitan Council believes that the choice of mod e is a “policy ’’decision, or at the least, has a very

significant impact on implementing its policies for

Forum for Decisionmakin g the region in all areas. 16

The Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 A final jud gmen t concerning the su ccess of MRA

(MRA) clarified the role of each agen cy concerning in resolving the transit planning conflict betweentransit planning. The Metropolitan Council sets the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitanthe overall policy framework or plan and then Transit Commission must be deferred until thereviews the programs from each commission, decisionmaking process it put in motion hasincluding the Metropolitan Transit Commission, to produced a long-range plan.make sure that they are consistent with the policy

Public Involvementplan. More specifically, the act states that “the(Metropolitan) Council shall adopt a transportation The early phases of long-range planning con-policy plan as a part of its comprehensive develop- ducted by the Metropolitan Transit Commission inment guide . . . which shall include policies relating cooperation with the Metropolitan Council reliedto all transportation forums.” l4 Q In another section on a 41-member Advisory Committee on Transitit is further stated, “The Commission shall prepare (ACT), a volunteer group composed of represen-

tatives chosen by the commissioners themselves.

15 Mjnnesota Statutes 1971, Section 473 A.06, Subdivision la.

I J Statement by Cornrnission Chairman Doug Kelm on the 16 The Counci]’s report (April, 1975) to the legislature

“roles and Relationships of the Metropolitan Council and the pu rsuan t to the Small Vehicle Study p oints out th at a decision toMetropolitan Transit Commission,” January 22, 1973. implement a regional, fixed-guideway system would preclude

I ~ Minnesota Statutes 1971, Section 473A. 051, Subdivision 1. other needed regional service improvements, p. 37.

19



An ACT member serves on the Project Manage-ment Board of some studies as the public repre-sentative. In addition, the group hears presen-tations on all projects. The poor attendance at ACTmeetings and the countless other responsibilities of its members may be two reasons why th e group hasbeen ineffective as a significant influence on theCommission’s decisions.

.Although the Metropolitan Transit Commissiondoes not utilize conventional public hearings as amethod of community participation, it has fre-quently made informal public presentations on thecourse of its studies.

When the Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 placed responsibility for long-range com-p reh en siv e t ra n sp o r tat io n p la n n in g w i th th eMetropolitan Council it also contained a provisionfor public agency and citizen involvement whichstates as follows:

The Council shall assure administration

and coordination of transportation plan-ning with appropriate State, regional ando t h er a g e n cie s , co u n t i e s , andmunicipalities, a n d to g e th e r w i th th eCommission shall establish such an ad-visory body consisting of citizen represen-tatives, Commission, municipality, countyand appropriate State agency represen-ta tives in fulfi l lment of the planningresponsibilities of the Council and theCommission.

Under this authority, the Metropolitan Council

established the Transportation Advisory Board inSeptember 1974 to replace the old TransportationPlanning Program (TPP) for the purposes of providing a forum for local officials and citizens todiscuss transportation matters, for assisting andadvising the Metropolitan Council, and to satisfythe planning requirements of the Section 134provision of the Federal-Aid Highway Act. Its threemajor activities were to consist of reviewing andapproving the unified transportation planningprogram, monitoring the work of that program,and developing an annual report.

The transportation Ad visory Board has held oneor two m eetings per m onth prim arily focused u ponshort-range issues of transportation concern. TheBoard tends to reflect the views of county andsuburban officials. Overall, the TransportationAdvisory Board appears to have the potential forbeing a more effective channel for agency and

20

comm unity inpu t than th e TPP was, inasmuch as ithas been assigned its own staff coordinator andappears to have better access to the MetropolitanCouncil.

Generally, the discussion of transit issues in theTwin Cities outside the walls of the formalplanning institutions has been widespr ead, percep-tive, and sophisticated. One reason is the work of

the Citizens League. The League is an independent,nonpartisan educational organization in the TwinCities area, foun ded in 1952, wh ich has specialized

in questions of government planning, finance, andorganization. It has a number of volunteer researchcommittees which are supported by full-timeprofessional staff. Several such committees haveproduced a number of reports since 1965 ad -dressing transit issues. These reports have hadwide circulation and significant influence on thetransit planning process.

Other reasons can be cited for the high level of

community awareness of transit issues, includingextensive amount of press coverage by individualswho understand the key issues, the open, well-publicized discussion forums in the legislativearena, and th e large number of interest groups (forexample, the Minnesota Public Interest ResearchGroup, MPIRG) which a re concerned wi thtransportation issues.

In developing its family of vehicles plan, theCommission ran into significant community op-position. People questioned the need for a transitplan consisting primarily of radial rail corridors

focused on downtown Minneapolis, where only 5percent of all metropolitan trips were destined.With two downtowns and a relatively low popula-tion density in the region, citizen groups feltanother type of solution would be more ap-propriate. The Citizens League conducted a seriesof studies to develop innovative solutions to theregion’s transportation problems, based on aninitial premise that it was important first to buildtransit r idership and not necessarily transitfacilities.

The Minnesota Legislature has provided theTwin Cities metropolitan area with one of the

strongest and most comprehensive regional plan-ning agencies anywhere in the country. Comparedwith the more conventional Co u n c i l o f Governments, which has only the review powersgiven it by the Federal A-95 process as applied tofederally aided projects, the Metropolitan Council



has been provided w ith a means by which disputescan be settled at the regional level.

The Council was authorized in its enactinglegislation to prepare and adopt a comprehensivedevelopment guide for the metropolitan areaencompassing physical, social, and economic needsof the area. It is further authorized to review alllong- te rm com pr eh en siv e p lans

f o r t h emetropolitan area, and if the Council determinesthat such plans have “metropolitan significance,” ithas the power to temporarily set aside the plans.

More specifically, in ord er to implement plan s theMetropolitan Council has the further powers to:

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

The

Review and comment on comprehensiveplans of local governments which arerequired to su bm-it such

Review and commentinterstate and S ta teproposals.

Review and comment

plans.

on metropolitant runk h ighway

on Federal aidapplications, including those for transitplanning or development where suchreview is required by Federal law or aFederal agency.

V e t o g r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n s o f l o c a lgovernments for open space land acquisi-tion if the project is not in accord withestablished priorities.

Operate a m etropolitan sanitary sewer anddisposal plant system through a subor-d i n a t e b o a r d a p p o i n t e dMetropolitan Council.

Operate an open space programsubordinate board appointedMetropolitan Council.

b y t h e

through ab y t h e

Regulate the location and use of solid w astedisposal sites.

Minnesota Legislature is considering theenactment of a new mandatory planning bill thatwould substantially increase the power of theMetropolitan Council. The new act would requireeach of the 189 mu nicipalities and each of the seven

counties to develop a comp rehensive p lan by July 1,1979. Each comprehensive plan would includepublic facilities, implementation program andfinancing, and a land use plan which would bereviewed by the Metropolitan Council for con-sistency with the metropolitan plan. However, theMetropolitan Council would first prepare a

Metropolitan System Statement by July 1, 1976,outlining the capacity of each system—parks,transportation, sewers, and airports. If then in thedetermination of the Metropolitan Council aparticular comprehensive plan is not consistentwith metropolitan plans, the Metropolitan Councilcould require modification as appropriate. The newact would permit the Metropolitan Council to seek

court enforcement in order to implement thesereview and modification powers.

Municipal control is preserved in all areas exceptthe four omitted in the Council’s System State-ment. The new act is intended to enable theMetropolitan Council to plan effectively for theseregional systems. To date, this is the strongestlegislation ever seriously considered by any State oreven debated in any State legislature.

TECHN ICAL PLANN ING PROCESS

This section evaluates the technical planningwork p erformed in the two major transit studies inthe Twin Cities area: the Metropolitan TransitCommission’s three-phase, long-range transitstudy, beginning in 1968, and the recent (March1975) Automated Small Vehicle Guideway SystemsStudy.

In summ ary, both stud ies were well designed an d

meet many of the guidelines for a commendabletechnical process. No significant criticism of thetechnical work has been raised in the public debatein the Twin Cities region. When a significantsegment of the communit y concluded the earlierstudies had not adequately investigated the small-vehicle alternative, the legislature responded with amandate for the additional study. The currentdebate results from disagreement over the level of service to be provided. The differences of opinionprobably are not susceptible to solution by provi-sion of any additional technical information.

Goals and Objectives

The long-range transit study begun in 1968 was

ahead of its time in that it formalized its goals.Three major goa ls were iden t i f ied in theMetropolitan Development Guide: “to provide forease of movement through the area” and “toprovide for a variety of modes of travel to meet theneeds of different people. ” These two goals aredirectly related to the third and most important

21



goal, the achievement of what is generally called “ahigher quality of life.” Although these goals werevery general, they provided the basis for evaluationcriteria which were applied in the analysis of eachalternative.

Development an d Evaluationof Alternatives

The first effort in the long-range study programwas a technical report t i t led “Screening andEvaluation of Public Transit Systems.” This reportconsidered nearly 100 transporta tion vehicleconcepts and concluded that prospects for viabletransit system alternatives would be limited toconventional transit technology. The study foundthat “new concept technology” was insufficient fortrunk, line transit systems although it might beapplicable for higher-density areas (presumablycirculation system application). Therefore, theconsultants selected more conventional transitsystems in a comparative evaluation for the long-range development program.

The basis for the comparative evaluation was aset of criteria developed by the consultant after anassessment o f the a rea ’s t ranspor ta t ion re -quirements, extensive discussion with the TransitCommission and its staff, the Metropolitan Coun-cil, and other Federal, State, and local officials aswell as private citizens. Criteria also were selectedfrom the regional goals as expressed in theMetropolitan Development Gu ide, which had beenprepared by the Joint Program.l7

The range of alternatives did not includ e a “pu rehighway” alternative or a “d o-nothing” alternative.It did consider several low-level capital investmentalternatives, including buses on freeways andstreets (System B), and metered freeway buses(System E). The remaining alternatives included:

System A . . . . . . . .System A-1 . . . . . .

System C . . . . . . . .System D . . . . . . . .

System D-1 . . . . . .

Rapid Rail TransitRapid Rail Transit With Ex-tended Station SpacingCommuter RailroadsBusways With o u t Do wn -

town SubwaysBusways With DowntownSubways

It should be noted that in 1968 an d 1969 noFederal requirements called for consideration of alternatives; consideration of the “do-nothing”alternative was almost unknown. In fact, Federalaid monies were not available to a transit agency toe x a min e h ig h wa y a l t e rn a t iv e s a s p o te n t i a lsolutions nor was it considered appropriate toinfringe upon the jurisdiction of another transpor-

tat ion agency . The coord ina t ion be tween theCommission and the Council was primarily at thepolicy level and not at the technical level.

The study attempts to define each alternativeunder study in comparable terms to the extentpossible. Although the base data information in theforecasting model and patronage figures werecriticized by some, l8 g e n e ra l ly th e p ro b le msidentified were generic problems attendant withthe state-of-the-art. The data represented the mostrecent and best available.

Next, each of the alternatives was evaluated by

the selected criteria using a five-point ratingsystem. This rating system, which utilized theterms “superior,” “excellent,” “good,” “fair” and“poor,” was also criticized as lacking sufficientlyprecise measures to be able to point out significantdifferences. l9 However, the major role of theevaluation section was to present a comparativeevaluation of the way in which each alternativetransit system satisfies generally the designatedcriteria so that the reader can gain a maximumunderstanding of the tradeoffs in the process of system selection. The study evaluation indicatedthat rapid rail transit (System A) had the best

overa ll rat ing , a l though busways wi th CBDsubways placed a close second. The study evalua-tion appears to be comprehensive in consideringand discussing th e app lication of each criterion. Theconsultant also developed and described a transitimprovement strategy for long-range implementa-tion and a recommended transit developmentprogram.

The consultant’s study in Phase II recommendedconventional rail rapid transit to serve as thebackbone of a regional system for Twin Cities.Notwithstanding this recommendation, the Com-mission mov ed forward in May 1970 with Phase III,

which was intended to carry the total regionaltransit system to the point w here all facilities would

17 Report N o . .5 ( ~gbs ) .

22

IS MpIRG Report, “The MTC Long-Range Transit planningProcess: We’re not Gettin’ There,” November 8, 1972.

19 Ibid.



be sufficiently well-defined for the initiation of final design. The Phase III work was divided intothree sub - phases as

Phase III-A-1 . . . . .

Phase III-A-2 . . . . .

Phase III-B . . . . . . .

follows:

System Concept Plan andRefinement of Subsystems(1970-71)

Development of PerformanceSpecifications for RegionalFixed- Guideway System(1971-72)

P r e l i m i n a r y D e s i g n a n dDetailed Impact Analysis

The Phase III-A-1 study directly followed thecompletion of the Phase II study. The study refinedtransit corridors, further investigated developmentimpacts, produced financial plans, and identifiedthe functional roles of the members of the “familyof vehicles. ” However, this study did not recom-mend a fixed-guideway vehicle nor vehicletechnology to satisfy this function,

The study p rodu ced seven technical reports and afinal report entitled “Transit Options for the TwinCities Metropolitan Region,” which summarizedthe findings of the technical reports and offeredsome conclusions. One of the technical reports 20

presented a discussion of new transit systemspertaining to those systems in which the FederalGovernment has expressed interest. The technicalwork in examining alternative new technologysystems was criticized for excluding the discussion

of any foreign systems and presenting thosesystems considered in a highly generalizedfashion. 21

As mentioned earlier, the findings of the III-A-1study provided the basis for the development of theCommission’s major policy statement entitled‘Transit in Transportation” (January 1971) whichcontains objectives, policies, and a system conceptplan based on the “family of vehicles” concept.

The Phase III-A-2 study was called “Develop-ment of Performance Specifications for a RegionalFixed Guideway System.” This report was the last

to be finished in the Commission’s phased ap-proach. This study again considered five generic

systems from which a recommended system wasselected:

Type A—Rapid Rail TransitType B—Transit Expressway (Intermediate

Capacity Rapid Transit)Type C—Activity Center TransitType D—Personal Rapid TransitType E—Bus on Busways

The last alternat ive, Type E, was add ed late in thestudy at the request of the Metropolitan Council.The analysis of these five transit systems indicatedthat a conventional rail transit system (Type A),while as cost-effective as the intermediate-capacityfixed-guideway system (ICRT) (Type B), wasrejected on the basis that it would not provideadequate service to the outlying major diversifiedcenters. The bus-on-busways sytem (Type E) wasruled out on two counts—high annual cost and theextreme difficulty in integrating buses into the

downtown areas. The PRT (Type D) and activitycenter transit (Type C) (now called Group RapidTransit or GRT) were rejected primarily becausethey were not cost-effective. Thus, the Commis-sion developed performance specifications for theICRT system (Type B). It estimated that for a firststage of the regional backbone system for thefamily of vehicles approach, a 37-mile, $550 millionfixed-guideway system using 600 vehicles and 25stations should be constructed. 22

The most recent study (March 1975), theautomated small vehicle fixed guideway systemsstudy, represents a technically sound and well-presented culmination of work comparing thecapabilities and costs of several types of smallvehicle systems among themselves and with anintermediate-capacity transit system. Within thelimitations and specific direction prescribed by thelegislature, the joint management effort of theMetropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Tran-sit Commission in directing a consulting teamappears to be quite successful.

The consultant’s techn ica l repor t to theMetropolitan Transit Commission demonstrates ameticulous approach to defining, developing, and

evaluating the alternative small-vehicle systems.The consultant team produced detailed workingpapers over th e course of the study. These working

20 Technlca] Report No. 3 entitled “Review of Technology an dFederal Urban Transit Programs.”

~’ MPIRG Report, op. cit., p. 39.

zz “performance and General System Specifications for the

Regional Fixed Guideway System,” Metropolitan TransitCommission (January 1974).

23



papers covered objectives and criteria, data-basedevelopment and analysis methodology, systemconfigurations, screening of small vehicle options,selection of optimum small vehicle systems, trafficforecasts, and system analysis simulation results(in several drafts). The papers w ere reviewed by the

to obtain input in the course of the

The study devoted considerableanalysis of policy direction given by

study.

time to thethe Commis-

sion, the objectives and criteria which would beutilized to compare the relative merits of onesystem over another, and the methodology bywhich the evaluation could be performed. Thethorough discussion of this study framework basisapp ears to have assured th e in pu t of all interestedparties.

The definition of the generic types of small-vehicle systems was very specific and appears to

have allowed the maximum opportunity for directcomparison. In that regard, perhaps one of theunique features of this study was the activeparticipation of a Transit Systems Supplier Ad-visory Committee composed of transit industryrepresentatives, which also reviewed and com-mented on the working papers. In addition, therewere two technical conferences sponsored for thebenefit of this study. Their input was valuable inmaking the necessary adjustments among generic

systems to allow comparison. In addition to theprecise definition of alternatives to be considered,the study includes a comprehensive inventory of b o th d o me s t i c a n d fo re ig n t r a n s i t sy s te msthroughout the world, indicating their status of operation. The more important foreign systems areoutlined and discussed in the study’s technicalreport.

Finally, the small vehicle study u pd ated the w orkof the Metropolitan Transit Commission on itsintermediate-capacity rapid transit system andcompares this system with the other small-vehiclefixed-guideway systems. The alternatives werecompared in relation to each of the evaluationcriteria, and, where possible, presented in tabularform. Once again, the evaluation of alternativesappears to h ave been done in a comprehensive andthorough manner. Each evaluation criterion wasdiscussed in the evaluation section, noting theadvantages and disadvantagescompared. Significant work was

the costs and present valuealternatives in an intelligible and

—

of the systemsdone to present

analysis of theprecise manner.

The technical report by the consultants did notrecommend a preferred alternative. A determina-tion of specific findings and conclusions from wh ichrecommendations would result was left to theMe t ro p o l i t a n T ra n s i t Co mmiss io n a n d th eMetropolitan Council in accordance with thelegislative directive.

24



The purpose of this section is to summarize the

nature of the transit planning and decisionmakingprocess in the Twin Cities region in light of theguidelines listed in the Introduction to the caseassessments. The summary therefore is dividedinto two parts: (1) Assessment of the InstitutionalContext and (2) Assessment of the TechnicalPlanning Process.

1. ASSESSMENT OF THE

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

q Forum for Decisionmaking. -The State of

Minnesota Metropolitan ReorganizationAct of 1974 clarified the roles of theM e t r o p o l i t a n C o u n c i l a n d th eMetropolitan Transit Commission in tran-sit planning. Full resolution of competitionbetween these two organizations will comeonly after the p resent p rocess of selecting atransportation development program isworked out. On the other hand, thecoordination between transportation plan-ning and land use and development plan-ning has been very effective due to theactivities of the Metropolitan Council in

both these fields. The Minnesota StateLegislature has p rovided the MetropolitanCouncil with one of the strongest and mostcomprehensive sets of powers given aregional agency anywhere in the country.

q Accountability of Decisionmakers.—TheMetropolitan Council and MetropolitanTransit Commission are appointed bodies.Since members of both have relativelylong-term appointemnts and no immediateties to local officials, these institutions havedeveloped a more regional approach to

problem-solving.

Summary Case Assessment

Ž Pu blic I nvolvem en t .— Both th e

Metropolitan n C o u n c i l a n d th eMetropolitan Transit Commission main-tain citizen advisory committees. How-ever, the bulk of citizen response andcontribution occurs outside the formalinstitutions through several sophisticatedand influential citizen organizations.

2. ASSESSMENT O F THE TECHN ICAL

PLANNING PROCESS

q Goals and Objectives.—The MetropolitanTransit Commission’s series of long-rangestudies selected a comprehensive set of goals and objectives and applied them inevaluating each study alternative.

q Development of Alternatives.-The rangeof alternatives considered in the firstphases of the Metropolitan Transit Com-mission’s long-range studies was con-sciously limited to conventional transittechnology; in order to fully consider “new

t ech n olo gy ” t r an s it , t h e co m m is sio nla u n c h e d a th i rd p h a se . T h e re c e n tautomated small vehicle fixed guidewaysystems study a l so d e mo n s t ra te s ameticulous approach to defining anddeveloping alternatives.

q E v a lu a t io n o f A l te rn a t iv e s .— Althoughevaluation procedures in the first Commis-sion study were criticized for lacking exactquantitative values and the second forovergeneralizing the systems considered,the Small Vehicles Study is regarded as

thorough and highly competent,

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1976 0-68-467 25

assessment of community planning for mass transit: volume 7—minneapolis-st. paul case study

Documents