greater minnesota gets on board: transit ridership grows while investment declines

8/14/2019 Greater Minnesota Gets on Board: Transit Ridership Grows While Investment Declines

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/greater-minnesota-gets-on-board-transit-ridership-grows-while-investment-declines 1/18

GREATER MINNESOTAGETS ON BOARDTRANSIT RIDERSHIP GROWSWHILE INVESTMENT DECLINES

Conrad deFiebre

Minnesota 2020 Fellow

December 2009



Table of Contents___ Introduction & Key Findings 1

Addressing Inequality 4

Turf Squabbles 6

Changing Rural Communities 8

Mismatched Needs& Assistance 10

Conclusion

& Recommendations 12

Appendix 13

Cover photo by Randy Stern used under Crea ve Commons.



Greater Minnesota Gets On Board 1

Introduction & Key Findings___________ In the eyes of many Minnesotans, public transit is a creature of the big ci es, a way to get around the urban jungle that is generally praised by policy progressives for enhancing mobility and prosperity, but denounced byconserva ves as welfare on wheels.

This ongoing debate tends to overlook the growing role of transit in Greater Minnesota, where it enjoyssupport from ci zens and local o cials across the poli cal spectrum and ridership gains that signi cantly

exceed the metro area’s, despite chronic resource challenges. It’s not hard to see why when you consider thestories of people like Dan Wieberdink of Pennock, Minn.

Kandiyohi Area Transit (KAT) gives Wieberdink, 25, a lifeline to work and volunteer opportuni es miles from hisrural group home despite cerebral palsy that keeps him in a wheelchair. “I take the bus wherever I go,” he said.“It gives me my independence. I’m able to do things on my own.” 1

For six years, Wieberdink has ridden KAT’s li -equipped vans to his job as an administra ve assistant for theWillmar Area United Campus Ministry and volunteer shi s at the Bethesda Pleasantview Nursing Home.Without KAT, founded in 1999, “it would be a lot di erent,” he said. “I wouldn’t be able to do half the stu I donow.”

KAT is one of 60 di erent Greater Minnesota transit services that cover most, but not all, rural coun es inthe state as well as urban centers such as Duluth, Rochester and St. Cloud. Ridership on this far- ung systemreached a record 11.2 million in 2008, an astonishing 7.8 percent increase over 2007 (compared with MetroTransit’s strong 6.1 percent gain). Ridership outside the Twin Ci es is on track for another 4.2 percent rise thisyear to an es mated 11.6 million. 2 S ll, state o cials say scal constraints keep non-metro service far short of need and demand.

The Minnesota Department of Transporta on (MnDOT) says this gap is likely to widen as the state’s elderlypopula on doubles by 2035, bringing parallel increases in the numbers of disabled and the poor who dependon transit for basic mobility. MnDOT also envisions greater demand for rural transit job commu ng, especiallyin growing regions north and northwest of the Twin Ci es, but no boost in resources to meet it.

Applica ons by rural Ki son and Pine coun es to establish transit services this year were rejected by stateo cials because of stagnant funding, including $1.9 million in transit unallotments by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.That le four coun es in Minnesota lacking any public transit and eight others having only municipal, notcountywide, services. 3

“It’s really unfortunate,” said Pine County Engineer Mark LeBrun. “We’re le with people not going placesbecause they can’t, or spending more driving when they shouldn’t.” 4

That’s largely because state-level transit funding hasn’t kept pace with demand or the growing contribu onsfrom federal and local sources.

The federal government increased its contribu ons to Greater Minnesota transit opera ons from $3.1 millionin 1999 to an es mated $10.3 million this year, a 232 percent boost. Over the same period, state General Fund

support grew by less than one-tenth that rate, from $13.2 million to $16 million, not even enough to coverin a on.

Local property taxpayers in Greater Minnesota kicked in rapidly growing shares of transit funding totaling$16.2 million from 1999 through 2001 before a por on of motor vehicle sales taxes (MVST) was dedicated to1 Telephone interview, August 2009.2 Tom Go ried, MnDOT O ce of Transit, telephone interview, September 2009.3 MnDOT Greater Minnesota Transit Plan dra . Ki son, Pine, Waseca and Wilkin coun es have no transit service. Blue Earth, Cass,Clearwater, Freeborn, Le Sueur, Nicollet, Olmstead and Rice coun es have services only within some city limits.4 Telephone interview, Sept. 22, 2009.



2 Greater Minnesota Gets On Board

transit in 2002 as a par al replacement. Lagging auto sales, however, held the MVST aid below the $8.5 millionrecorded in 2004 for every year a erward un l it hit $9.6 million in 2008 and an es mated $14.2 million thisyear, thanks mostly to a greater share of the tax going to transit.

And despite the MVST dedica on, Greater Minnesota property taxpayers have con nued to support transit intheir communi es to the tune of more than $2 million per year.

This year, with the state facing a huge budget de cit, General Fund transit support was cut statewide, althougha shi of 1.25 percent of MVST revenue from roads to transit is expected to maintain current opera ons inGreater Minnesota. The shi totals $6 million over two years, but $4 million of that is to nance Northstarcommuter rail opera ons that began in November and new dial-a-ride services in outlying areas of the sevenTwin Ci es coun es star ng in January.

State o cials say that leaves no room for expansion of basic transit in the 80 Greater Minnesota coun es. 5

Meanwhile, under bipar san legisla on being pushed by U.S. Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota in Congress,federal transit investment would increase 90 percent from current levels to $99.8 billion over six years,con nuing Washington’s aggressive support for rural mobility. 6 That ini a ve, however, appears to be bo ledup un l next year at the earliest. The Obama administra on has called for delaying it into 2011.

5 Tom Go ried, MnDOT O ce of Transit, telephone interview, Oct. 13, 2009.6 U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, statement before U.S. House Ways and Means subcommi ee on select revenue measures, July 23, 2009,p. 2. h p://transporta on.house.gov/Media/ le/Full%20Commi ee/20090723wm/Ways%20and%20Means%20Tes mony%2072309.pd f

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Full%20Committee/20090723wm/Ways%20and%20Means%20Testimony%2072309.pdf








Key Findings

Unbeknownst to many Minnesotans, public transit is an important lifeline for people in Greater•

Minnesota, especially growing popula ons of elderly, low-income and the disabled. It enjoys strongpublic support in most rural areas of the state.

A government-sponsored study pegged transit’s average economic impact per rural county in America•

at more than $1 million per year, with a bene t-cost ra o of more than 3 to 1.

Transit services, o en dial-a-ride vans, are available in much of rural Minnesota. Only four outstate•

coun es lack any public transit, although eight others, mostly in south central Minnesota, have only cityservices.

Despite these and other gaps in service and an unprecedented halt to expansion of the system because•

of state funding cutbacks, Greater Minnesota public transit posted a 7.8 percent increase in ridership in2008 and is on track for another 4.2 percent gain this year, to 11.6 million trips.

From 2003 to 2008, Greater Minnesota ridership increased 21.5 percent at the same me that state•

funding declined by 8 percent.

The Minnesota Department of Transporta on projects demand for Greater Minnesota transit next year•

at 17.9 million rides but predicts a 42 percent shor all in funding. Because of scant resources as far asthe eye can see, MnDOT expects to fall 27 percent short of its formal goal of mee ng just 80 percent of the demand.

When MnDOT asked exis ng Greater Minnesota transit providers to iden fy their greatest challenges,•

94 percent of them named inadequate funding.

Lagging state General Fund support – dropping this year to a level not seen since 2001 -- has hindered•

Greater Minnesota transit development. Fast-growing federal aid, motor vehicle sales tax contribu ons,local property taxes and opera ng revenues have had to pick up the slack.

The most successful of Greater Minnesota’s 60 transit agencies have overcome parochial insularity and•

short-sightedness to improve quality of life for many residents. Top strategies for ge ng the most forthe money include routes across county lines, aggressive e orts to coordinate with dozens of specialfederal transporta on programs and their local grantees, trip-scheduling technology, on-sta mobilitymanagers and alterna ves to costly dial-a-ride service such as route devia on, subscrip on ridershipand volunteer drivers using their own vehicles.



Addressing Inequality_________________


Throughout the United States, an es mated 40 percent of rural coun es have no public transit. Minnesotadoes be er than that with 85 percent of its 80 coun es outside the Twin Ci es receiving some level of service.But in too many of those places buses and vans don’t operate outside city limits or on evenings, weekends andsome weekdays.

The resul ng inequality across the state in mobility and access should be addressed with increased publicsupport – especially from the state General Fund, whose es mated contribu ons to rural transit this year arefalling to their lowest level since 2001 7 while federal aid and rider fares have posted strong increases.

The transit services themselves can do more as well to boost outreach and save money. Mul -county transitcoordina on in Minnesota’s northeastern Arrowhead, southeast corner and western prairies has producedfare box recovery measures comparable to those of xed-route buses in Minnesota’s largest ci es. 8

More coordina on is needed, as well, with at least 62 separate federal programs administered by eightdi erent departments that provide special transporta on services to the disabled, the elderly and the poor.This “presents a challenge to coordinate services in the most cost-e cient and e ec ve manner,” MnDOT says.“Each program may require di erent data to be reported and may operate under a di erent funding cycle [and

with] di erent billing systems … In many cases, insurance requirements prohibit agencies from sharing vehiclesor clients.” 9

For example, at least 86 di erent hospitals, nursing homes, nonpro ts and units of government operate elderlyand disabled transporta on services in Greater Minnesota – all separate from the 60 public transit agenciesserving the same area. 10 This can mul ply capital and administra ve costs that eat into opera ng budgets and,7 Tom Go ried, MnDOT O ce of Transit, telephone interview, Oct. 30, 2009.8 MnDOT, Op. Cit. Greater Minnesota Transit Plan dra , p. 59.9 MnDOT, Op. Cit., p. 3-26.10 MnDOT, Op. Cit.




ul mately, the number of people who can get where they need to go.

E ciencies can also be gained by introducing trip-scheduling technology or mobility managers to the dial-a-ride services that predominate in sparsely populated rural areas. In some cases, route devia on, a dial-a-ridehybrid that serves riders within a short distance of set routes; subscrip on services for regular riders, andvolunteer drivers, who use their own vehicles to transport riders in return for mileage-based expenses, can bethe most cost-e ec ve approaches to rural transit.

Transit managers from across the state showed they recognize the need for these and other improvements inseven workshops MnDOT conducted as part of developing a plan for Greater Minnesota transit through 2030. 11

But the most important key to mee ng Greater Minnesota’s transit needs is more public investment. At thispoint, however, prospects for that appear dim.

MnDOT’s dra plan projects a 42 percent shor all in funding to meet Greater Minnesota transit demand for17.9 million trips next year. Unless resources increase, the gap would grow to 54 percent of projected demandfor 22.3 million trips by 2030.

Faced with these daun ng gures, MnDOT’s formal goal, adopted in 2001, is to meet just 80 percent of thedemand. That, too, hasn’t been reached, with a 27 percent shor all expected in 2010. 12

“Transit systems in rural Minnesota are absolute lifelines,” said Tony Kellen, president of the Minnesota Public

Transit Associa on. “But right now we’re just maintaining a basic level of service. Some mes people haveto wait a week to get a ride.” 13 Not all the obstacles to rural transit come from shortages of public fundingor ine cient use of it. In some places, city and county o cials resist authorizing service for fear that newlymobile residents will do their shopping in the next town or county, damaging the local economy.Those concerns are mostly unfounded, as a ested by the broad popularity of rural transit once it’s established.No Minnesota county has ever dropped transit on economic grounds.

11 Ibid.12 Ibid.13 Telephone interview, September 2009.



Turf Squabbles________________________


But county commissioners who stood in the way of transit in rural Pipestone County – largely out of worry thatny Edgerton, Ha ield and Ruthton would wither in the gravita onal pull of the county seat at Pipestone (pop.

4,500) -- were voted out of o ce in 1996. Pipestone County Transit now boasts the highest per capita ridershipamong Minnesota’s 25 county transit systems. 14 Pipestone’s pro-transit board, however, had to wait un l 1999to get the vans rolling as the state weathered another periodic funding crunch. 15

Delays like that come with an opportunity cost. A Transit Coopera ve Research Program study sponsored bythe Federal Transit Administra on found an average economic impact of transit per rural county of more than$1 million per year and a bene t-cost ra o of 3.35 to 1.

“This is a signi cant level of bene ts,” the report notes. “The ra o of 3.35 to 1 exceeds by a large margin thereturns for many governmental programs that are considered successful.” 16

Posi ve economic impacts from rural transit include improved access to employment, educa on and medicalservices such as dialysis, increased tourism and tourism-related jobs and reduced living costs in remote areas,the study said.

“Without our services in this rural region, senior ci zens, people with mental and physical disabili es andlow-income individuals would be unable to a end to the normal, daily ac vi es that the rest of us take forgranted,” said Earl Henry, director of Northeast Iowa Community Ac on Transit, which serves ve coun es andhas regularly scheduled service to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Ac vi es such as medical and dialysis appointments, ge ng to work, grocery shopping, meal site prepara on,barber and beauty shop appointments, visi ng spouses, family and friends in nursing homes and hospitals, as14 MnDOT Greater Minnesota Transit Plan, Op. Cit. Appendix D, p. 21.15 Marc Hall, Pipestone County Transit director, telephone interview, Sept. 29, 2009.16 TCRP Report No. 34, 1998. h p://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_34.pd f

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_34.pdf






well as social ac vi es that enhance the quality of one’s life.” 17

Dave Engstrom, execu ve director of the Minnesota Associa on of Small Ci es, said the rapidly agingpopula on of Greater Minnesota has the same needs. “Small-town Minnesota is a very, very nice place to growold in, but we need more services,” he said. Cuts in state aid, however, have forced increases in property taxes,not for new programs, but just to minimize cuts in exis ng ones, he added. 18

Recent opinion research in Itasca County shows the importance of rural transit as a link to social services forthe disabled, elderly and poor, but at the same me li le willingness to support it either nancially or withvolunteer work.

Surveys of county residents, focus group par cipants and donors to the United Way of 1000 Lakes in GrandRapids placed transporta on at or near the top of issues facing the community, services needing improvementand greatest barriers to accessing other services. But transporta on also nished at or near the bo om of listsof needs being well served and e orts ge ng direct help from respondents. 19

The researchers concluded that accessibility to services, educa on, health care and employment is key tomee ng the needs of Itasca County’s most vulnerable popula ons. And that prompted the Grand Rapids-basedBlandin Founda on to nance a new $50,000 study, due out in December, of ways to improve transporta on inthe county.

“This nding corroborated what we’ve been hearing for several years – that transporta on is an issue forsigni cant segments of Itasca County residents, including those in poverty, the elderly and students,” saidWade Fauth, Blandin Founda on director of grants. 20

Added Jody Hane, United Way of 1000 Lakes execu ve director: “The most important thing is that when thestudy is complete, we will have some speci c, concrete tasks to begin bridging the transporta on gap and tohelp all residents start thinking di erently about transit.” 21

17 Earl Henry, quoted in Community Transporta on magazine, summer 2002. h p://www.ctaa.org/webmodules/webar cles/ar cle les/ct/ruraltransit02/roundtable.pd f 18 Dave Engstrom, telephone interview, Sept. 22, 2009.19United Way of 1,000 Lakes, “What Ma ers – An Assessment of Human Services Needs in Itasca County,” 2008. h p://www.unitedwayof1000lakes.org/what_ma ers.pd f 20 Blandin Founda on news release, Aug. 20, 2009, “Blandin Founda on awards grants for residen al transporta on study.” h p://blog.lib.umn.edu/hhhevent/insider/Blandin%20Founda on%20Press%20Release.pd f 21 Ibid.

http://www.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/ct/ruraltransit02/roundtable.pdf



http://www.unitedwayof1000lakes.org/what_matters.pdf



http://blog.lib.umn.edu/hhhevent/insider/Blandin%20Foundation%20Press%20Release.pdf












Changing Rural Communities_________ Rural transit sounds like an oxymoron to urbanites who retain a bygone image of life in the country. A centuryago, “most rural residents were involved in farming, forestry and mining; they lived in small communi eswith few outside contacts,” the Transporta on Research Board reported. “Today rural economies have a widediversity of economic ac vi es and demography, and rural life is much more connected to na onal markets.” 22

As America matured in the 20 th century, its rural areas underwent deep changes as well. The automobile and

the spread of highways mul plied the op ons for those able to drive. Meanwhile, the commercial vitality of the smallest towns waned along with the availability of alterna ves to the private car.

“In 1977 rural residents drove a third more miles to work and double the miles on family business than theirurban counterparts,” Community Transporta on editor Sco Bogren wrote in 1997. 23 “Between 1960 and1973, bus service in rural areas declined by 53 percent, while passenger rail service was cut by more than 80percent. The poor, the elderly and people with disabili es, in par cular, were becoming increasingly stranded.”

Then a federal rural transit demonstra on program, launched in 1973 under President Richard Nixon, “openedthe door for transporta on in rural areas,” said Linda Wilson, who used it to start bus service in Charlo esville,Va. 24

In the next dozen years, the U.S. rural transit network swelled to more than 1,000 agencies, gaining broadna onwide support. Rural transit operators are “service oriented, penny-pinching, exible and innova ve,represen ng all the values that this [Reagan] administra on ought to be embracing,” Rep. Newt Gingrich,R-Ga., said during a U.S. House hearing he led in 1985 along with Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn. 25

Minnesota was among the pioneers of modern rural transit. Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Inc., anonpro t community ac on agency, began transpor ng senior ci zens in four northeastern coun es under thefederal Older Americans Act in 1974.

Today Arrowhead Transit is one of the na on’s largest rural transit operators, with 85 vans and buses serving22 Op. Cit. TCRP Report No. 34.23 “Rural Transit: You Can Get There From Here.” Community Transporta on magazine, 1997. h p://www.ctaa.org/webmodules/webar cles/ar cle les/ct/spring98/rural_transit.pd f 24 Ibid.25 Ibid.

http://www.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/ct/spring98/rural_transit.pdf








seven coun es and nearly half a million riders of all ages each year. It o ers a broad array of services tailoredto the needs of individual communi es, not one size ts all.

For example, hours and days of opera on vary across Arrowhead’s sprawling jurisdic on from Duluth toInterna onal Falls and Grand Rapids to Grand Marais. It covers 16,123 square miles, more area than the statesof Connec cut, Delaware, Massachuse s and Rhode Island combined. 26

Arrowhead provides rides ve days a week in some areas, six or seven days in others, and coordinates tripsacross county lines. This year Arrowhead increased its service in Interna onal Falls to 12 hours each weekday,mainly to serve Rainy River Community College’s commuter campus. And everyone in the region can accessFriday bus rides to the Miller Hill Mall and medical facili es in Duluth, with city transit connec ons to otherdes na ons. 27

To the four original coun es of Itasca, Koochiching, Lake and St. Louis, Arrowhead Transit added Cook in1976, Aitkin and 1979 and Carlton in 1986. In recent years, it took over city dial-a-ride services in Cloquet andVirginia.

But when Arrowhead applied to extend service to neighboring Pine County beginning this year, somethingstrange occurred. Its request for $700,000 in state and federal assistance was turned down for lack of funds.

“That had never happened before,” said Pam Smith of Arrowhead Transit. “We were so sure we had a program

in place that we’d printed promo onal materials and planned a media blitz.”28

The freeze on funding scu led plans for express routes to Duluth and up and down Interstate Hwy. 35, plusdial-a-ride services for Hinckley, Pine City, Sandstone and surrounding areas. Now a slimmed-down proposalthat would “dras cally cut” much of that plan is pending with state o cials, but “expecta ons aren’t veryhigh,” Smith said.

26 Pam Smith, public rela ons and marke ng director Arrowhead Transit, telephone interview, Oct. 2, 2009.27 Ibid.28 Ibid.




Mismatched Needs & Assistance______ It’s not only areas without any transit services that are su ering under scal constraints. When MnDOT askedexis ng Greater Minnesota transit providers to iden fy their greatest challenges, 94 percent of them namedinadequate funding. When asked about barriers to expanding or improving their service, 97 percent pointedto funding for opera ons. If addi onal funds were available, 43 percent would increase their service hours, 34percent would expand their service area and only 3 percent would replace or add equipment. 29

Perversely, however, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act s mulus funds for transit were granted onlyfor equipment purchases, not service upgrades. Rural Minnesota systems got 58 new buses worth $7.1 millionand $4.3 million in facility improvements, but nothing for opera ons. 30 Metro Transit, meanwhile, was able tobolster its opera ng budget by pu ng millions of dollars in s mulus money into eet and facility maintenance.

Minnesota state agencies have been addressing inadequate coordina on of general public transit services withspecial transporta on programs for the elderly, disabled, unemployed and poor since at least 2004. In thatyear, a survey of two dozen separate funding streams found that MnDOT’s Greater Minnesota transit programsaccounted for less than half of the statewide total of $126.7 million in annual expenditures. Human servicetransporta on programs alone spent nearly $7 million more than the Greater Minnesota transit total of $57.8million in federal, state and local funds. 31

Subsequent reports from the state’s Interagency Commi ee on Transit Coordina on have highlighted isolatedsuccess stories of local transit providers teaming up with other agencies on trip scheduling and vehiclemaintenance, sharing and storage. In some cases, human service and economic development agencies cansave money by contrac ng with general transit providers, which in turn get a boost to their bo om lines.

Arrowhead Transit, for example, provided more than 43,000 rides for Head Start, day ac vity centers, countyand private social services and other programs in 2004 for less than $800,000 in contract fees. That savedan es mated $4 million compared with state reimbursement rates charged by private Special Transporta onService providers in the region. The average cost per trip was $4.22, signi cantly less than Arrowhead’soverall average cost that year of $7.63, thanks largely to aggressive e orts to co-mingle clients from di erentagencies on the same trips. The contract fees provided most of Arrowhead’s required 15 percent local share of opera ng funding, $312,000; the rest went for capital purchases. 32

The Midwestern Governors Associa on has called for “more federal transit op ons for residents in rural areas,”especially for “transpor ng individuals from smaller towns to larger ci es/towns,” mainly for nonemergencymedical care. “Public transit will likely play a greater role in keeping these elderly Americans in their homes,and lowering public and private expenditures on more expensive care op ons.” 33

The Minnesota interagency commi ee’s 2008 report, however, noted a “con nuing need to reduce barriersbetween state and federally funded human service programs and Minnesota’s public transporta on systems”and “duplica on and ine ciencies caused by the ‘siloing’ of transporta on funds through various state andfederal programs.” 34

“We’ve had sca ered successes all over the state in this area,” said Hal Freshley, policy and planningcoordinator for the Minnesota Board on Aging. “But it only works with extraordinary leadership and persistent29 MnDOT. Op. Cit. Appendix B, Electronic survey Exhibits E1 and E2.30 MnDOT American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Greater Minnesota Transit Projects. h p://www.dot.state.mn.us/federalrecovery/lists/greater-mn-transit-03242009.pd f 31 Interagency Commi ee on Transit Coordina on, Report to theGovernor, Nov. 1, 2006. Table 2, 2004 Minnesota Community Transporta on Expenditures – Across Agencies.32 MnDOT O ce of Transit, Minnesota Public Transit-Human Services Transporta on Coordina on Study, March 31, 2006, pp. VI5-VI8.h p://www.coordinatemntransit.org/reports/mncoordstudy/documents/0-FullCoordina onStudy.pd f 33 Midwestern Governors Associa on, Surface Transporta on Recommenda ons. March 2009, pp. 17-18. h p://www.midwesterngovernors.org/Publica ons/Transporta on_Recommenda ons.pd f 34 Interagency Commi ee on Transit Coordina on Report to the Governor, Nov. 1, 2008.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/federalrecovery/lists/greater-mn-transit-03242009.pdf



http://www.coordinatemntransit.org/reports/mncoordstudy/documents/0-FullCoordinationStudy.pdf


http://www.midwesterngovernors.org/Publications/Transportation_Recommendations.pdf











individuals who keep pushing for coordina on. We need to make it happen for everybody.” 35

He es mated that no more than about one-third of Greater Minnesota transit agencies have made signi cantprogress in coordina ng e orts with other government transporta on programs.

Meanwhile, there has been no upda ng of the 2004 funding survey or cost-e ec veness accoun ng of themany specialized transporta on programs. Greater Minnesota public transit agencies compile and publish thatinforma on on their services annually.

35 Hal Freshley, Minnesota Board on Aging, telephone interview, Oct. 22, 2009.




Conclusion & Recommendations______ It will be a challenge for Minnesota to meet the growing demand for transit services outside the Twin Ci esarea, but rising to that challenge is a must for the livability and prosperity of the state’s non-metro areas. Bothstate and local policymakers, in coopera on with an ongoing aggressive approach at the federal level, have apart to play in this vital e ort.

Here are the key elements:

State nancial support for Greater Minnesota transit should increase at least enough to match growth•

in demand. In be er economic mes than these, it should exceed that rate, allowing real growth in thesystem to address unmet needs.

Local leaders must set aside parochialism that can block rural transit ini a ves. In the long run,•

adequate, a ordable mobility will contribute more to a small town’s vitality than it loses in retail salesthat may move down the road.

Many transit agencies in Greater Minnesota need to boost their e ciency and outreach by aggressively•

partnering with neighboring areas and parallel transporta on e orts funded by health, human servicesand economic development programs.

Rural transit, lacking the popula on and trip densi es of urban services, must con nually seek new cost-e ec ve strategies. This can include trip-scheduling technology, on-sta mobility managers and dial-a-ridealterna ves such as route devia on and volunteer drivers using their own vehicles.



Appendix____________________________


Transit in Greater Minnesota

2008 Statistics

Statewide

Urban Systems




Dial-A-Ride Systems

Small Urban Systems



Rural Systems


greater minnesota gets on board: transit ridership grows while investment declines

Documents