Policy – DSMIC

Proposed Revisions to the MIC’s Public Involvement Plan

Posted on Dec 15, 2014May 13, 2019 by Rondi Watson

We are interested to know your thoughts about the changes we are proposing to our Public Involvement Plan.

The MIC’s Public Involvement Plan (PIP) spells out our process for obtaining public input as an integral part of the transportation planning process.

Recently we put these procedures to the test, during the development of our Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). We noted several edits, deletions and additions to be incorporated into the 2013 PIP document as approved revisions. The proposed revisions are:

1. Delete all references to air quality consultations

Why is this being proposed?

As of late 2014, Duluth has received an ‘Attainment’ area for air quality; therefore federal ‘conformity consultation’ requirements no longer apply. (pages 7, 29, 33, 50)

2. Discontinue the step of placing hard copies of the Draft and Final TIPs and LRTPs at area libraries for review.

Why is this being proposed?

Placing hard copies at the libraries was a method of distribution that predated the 2005 SAFETEA-LU mandate to utilize electronic and online channels (e.g., CDs, websites and email) to deliver plans and planning process information. At that time the MIC switched from producing printed versions to formatting our plans as PDFs designed to be viewed online, as well as developing online-only visualization features such as interactive mapping. (pages 29, 30, 33, 40, 41)

3. Add the following language for members of the public who wish to give comments at regularly scheduled meetings of the Policy Board, TAC, HTAC and BPAC:

Speaker Rules – for Commenting at MIC Policy Board, TAC, HTAC and BPAC meetings (page 11)

Give your name and affiliation (if any)
Comment Time Limit: 3 minutes*
Limit your remarks to the specific plan, study or document under consideration by the Board
Be respectful in dialogue

* The Chair, with committee approval, has the option of extending or closing the public comment period, depending on the number of people who wish to speak and the length of the meeting agenda

Why is this being proposed?

The point of the speaker rules is to ensure that all people who show have the opportunity to have their say. The 3-minute time limit is consistent with Duluth City Council and St. Louis County Commission rules. Some flexibility in the amount of time for each speaker is allowed.

Let us know what you think

Public comments about the proposed changes may be made from December 14, 2014 through January 30, 2015, by commenting below, or contact Rondi Watson at (218) 529-7511 or by email .

Comments are also welcomed in person at the MIC Policy Board meeting on Wed, February 18, 2015, at 7pm at the Hermantown Dept. of Public Safety Training Center, 5111 Maple Grove Road, Hermantown, MN. The proposed revisions will be presented for a vote at this time, along with a summary of all comments received during the public comment period.

To view a copy of the 2013 Plan and the proposed changes, please visit www.dsmic.org/pip.

Local View: Duluth can follow bikeways plan for active transportation

Posted on Nov 26, 2018Nov 26, 2018 by Rondi Watson

Source: Duluth News Tribune 11-25-18 Local View: Duluth can follow bikeways plan for active trans…

By Ruurd Schoolderman on Nov 25, 2018 at 7:30 p.m.

Duluth has been making great progress as an active outdoor-recreation community. We are well on our way toward achieving the goal of having every citizen within a mile of an access point to Duluth’s trail system. The Duluth Traverse mountain biking trail and Superior Hiking Trail string together Duluth’s many neighborhood parks. Amenities like these make Duluth an attractive city to live in and to visit and are part of the city’s overall economic-development strategy.

This great investment to improve access to our green space by bike and on foot stands in contrast with the limited bike infrastructure that currently exists to safely navigate our neighborhoods and city for day-to-day active transportation. This is a missed opportunity.

The Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Bikeways Plan presents a vision to change this. The plan was prepared by the Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council, or MIC, a regional transportation-planning agency. The plan serves as a coordinating framework for the road authorities (city, county, and state) responsible for our road system.

The Duluth Bike Coalition, a chapter of the statewide bike advocacy group BikeMN, advocates for improvements to Duluth’s bike infrastructure. Our mission is to work to make biking for everyday transportation easy, safe, and fun for everyone.

Our current bike-transportation infrastructure for everyday transportation to work, school, and businesses does not serve users of all ages and abilities. As a result, a large portion of Duluth’s citizens which does not have access to a car or prefers not to drive is limited in transportation options. Think about low-income families, teenagers, and the many Duluthians who prefer to ride a bike as part of an active-transportation lifestyle.

Duluth Bikes supports the vision presented in the Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Bikeways Plan. We ask that the roadway authorities, especially the city of Duluth’s, make a concerted commitment toward implementing this vision. We hope the city of Duluth will use this plan to proactively work to develop access to bike infrastructure for all ages and experience levels.

Two open houses organized by the MIC are scheduled so the public may comment on the bike plan. They are a great opportunity for Duluth citizens to show their support for active transportation and to provide input on how they would like to see Duluth’s bike infrastructure improved.

Ruurd Schoolderman is chairman of the Duluth Bike Coalition (duluthbikes.org), a chapter of the statewide bike advocacy group BikeMN (bikemn.org).

Get involved

Two open houses are scheduled for the public to review and to provide feedback on the draft Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Bikeways Plan. The open houses are both Wednesday — one from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the other from 4-7 p.m. — at the Duluth Folk School, 1917 W. Superior St.

To read the bike plan, go to dsmic.org/study/dsbikeways.

What will our Transportation System Look Like in 2040?

Posted on Sep 1, 2014Dec 20, 2017 by Rondi Watson

Updating the 25-year Vision for Transportation in the Twin Ports

You are invited to attend one of the four public meetings on Connections 2040 – the Twin Ports Long Range Transportation Plan.

The Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council (MIC) is updating its Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to provide policy guidance, goals and strategies for jurisdictions within the greater metropolitan area of Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin. It covers a twenty-five year planning horizon and is updated every four years.

The over-arching purpose of the LRTP is to provide a planning foundation for jurisdictions to work cooperatively to provide a well-maintained, integrated, accessible and multi-modal transportation system to safely and efficiently move people and freight for the next 25 years, within the constraints of funding the region can reasonably expect to receive.

The heart of the Plan is a listing of proposed federally-funded transportation projects, as well as transportation initiatives underway within the region, to be implemented from 2015-2040. You can view an interactive map of the projects here.

To learn more about demographic trends for this area, projections, transportation priorities and planned projects, you have three opportunities for input:

1. Attend a Public Meeting

Thurs. Sept 11, 2014
5:00-7:00pm
Community Action Duluth, 2424 W 5th Street, Duluth, MN 55806

Thurs. Sept 18, 2014
4:00-6:00pm
Superior Public Library, 1530 Tower Avenue, Superior, WI 54880

Thurs. Sept 25, 2014
4:00-6:00pm
Arrowhead Regional Development Commission (ARDC)
221 W First Street, Duluth, MN 55802

Mon. Sept 29, 2014
4:00-7:00pm (drop-in)
214 West Superior Street
221 W First Street, Duluth, MN 55802

2. Visit our Connections 2040 web page at www.dsmic.org/lrtp for more information about the plan and to view the interactive map of proposed projects. You can use the “layers” tab in the upper right corner to toggle on and off views of information about environmentally sensitive areas, low-income and minority populations, etc.

3. Contact MIC Senior Planner James Gittemeier by phone at (218) 529-7556 or by email at jgittemeier@ardc.org.

Public Involvement in Transportation Planning

Posted on Oct 3, 2013Dec 20, 2017 by Rondi Watson

For many of us, transportation projects seem to come from nowhere. Others may vaguely remember a project “promised” years ago. Too often, people develop negative impressions of the process by which transportation projects come into being because of the lack of information about how these decisions are made.

That’s where public involvement comes in.

Right now we are updating our Public Involvement Plan – the steps we take and the tools we use to facilitate two-way communication while our plans and studies are underway. Public involvement gives community members an opportunity to provide input and lets our planning staff provide information, answer questions and understand their perspective.

Our work at the MIC is to study, analyze and make recommendations to make it easier for people and businesses to get where they need to go—whether by car, bike, bus, on foot, by air or on water. We think about how well these transportation systems will function, and how they can be paid for, not just today but for the next 5, 10, even 25 years.

Public involvement ensures that these decisions are made with input from the people who know this area first-hand.

With this in mind, take a look at the draft of the MIC’s updated Public Involvement Plan. We understand that there’s more to public participation than holding meetings. We need to become more visible and find multiple ways to get people and organizations involved.

So let us know: will these steps help to encourage participation in the MIC’s planning activities, as well as to broaden the range of voices and views expressed?

Lincoln Park Multimodal Study (2016)-2

Posted on Apr 21, 2013Jan 17, 2019 by Rondi Watson

This plan identifies issues and makes recommendations to improve safety and connectivity for all modes of transportation in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of Duluth, Minnesota.

Complete document (75 MB)

Executive Summary (95 kb)

Document is presented here in sections (to reduce PDF size):

Part 1 (10 MB / 22 pp)
Summary / Table of Contents /
Introduction / Stakeholder Involvement

Part 2 (19 MB / 38 pp)
Land Uses / Demographics /
Growth Scenarios / Road Network

Part 3 (22 MB / 27 pp)
Freight Network / Transit System

Part 4 / (10 MB / 32 pp)
Active Transportation–Bicyclists and Pedestrians /
Multimodal Integration / Safety

Part 5 (18 MB / 29 pp)
Recommendations and Appendix

Transportation Breakdown

Posted on Apr 13, 2012Dec 20, 2017 by Ron Chicka, AICP

Normally, every five or six years our elected representatives in D.C. put aside their political differences to reauthorize the nation’s transportation program — including the fuel tax, for construction of roads, bridges, transit and bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and safety programs.

This is because our economy relies on transportation, and bridges and highways are not Republican or Democrat. Everybody needs them.

The process has broken down

On March 30, Congress managed to avoid a shutdown of the nation’s transportation system by passing an eleventh hour extension of the current SAFETEA-LU legislation. This means that thousands of highway and infrastructure projects, here and across the nation, won’t stall out this construction season. Until June 30^th, anyway.

Funding our transportation infrastructure via nine “temporary” extensions – one stopgap measure after another, since the original SAFETEA-LU expired in September 2009- is not the way to move forward. The process has broken down.

The reason is simple: money

The major problem is the growing inadequacy of the federal gas tax, which hasn’t been raised since 1993. Not only are we attempting to build 21^st-century infrastructure with 20^th-century dollars, but also, as cars become more efficient, people need less fuel and pay less into the Highway Trust Fund.

With Congress bitterly divided, lawmakers can’t agree on where the additional funding should come from, although a number of ideas are being floated.

Legislative stalemate

For the past several months, the House attempted to gain enough support to pass a 5-year, $260 billion bill (the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act) that has new revenue incorporated into it via leasing and production fees from new oil-drilling rights on federal lands and coastal waters. This funding mechanism, although favored by nearly two-thirds of Americans (according to a poll by the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection), failed to gain bipartisan support.

Another provision of the bill, which would have terminated guaranteed funding for public transit, failed to gain even Republican support in the House and as a result, the bill was doomed from the start.

The Senate alternative (MAP-21), a two-year program with a price tag of $109 billion — had bipartisan support but was not taken up by the House and is unlikely to move forward even though the clock is again ticking.

Reforms to control spending

And before asking taxpayers to pay more for roads, rail, bridges, and infrastructure, we must ensure existing funds are not wasted. Both bills include significant reforms to control federal highway spending.

Both of the Senate and House bills include provisions to make the project delivery process more efficient and both consolidate existing transportation programs by nearly two-thirds.

And many lawmakers rightly argue that states should be given more flexibility in how they can find creative ways to use federal dollars. Congress should give more encouragement to innovative approaches, including public-private partnerships that leverage private investment with public dollars.

Gas taxes or user fees are not on the table – but need to be

In the current political climate, no one in Washington is going to suggest an increase in the gas tax. Yet more revenue from that source – or from a mileage-based user fee – is an essential part of a solution.

Every transportation policymaker understands the potential long-term solutions to these near-term problems, but few are willing to push them forward because they involve difficult choices about how to raise more money for federal transportation programs.

Election-year politics

“We’ve just been caught up partially in election-year politics and partially in this whole battle that seems to trump and override our issue, which is the budget battle,” said Pete Ruane, president and CEO of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. “That’s going to be part of this debate every single time until they finally make some tough decisions about how to fund these programs.”

Congress has now bought itself until just before the July 4 recess to come up with a final agreement on a transportation bill — or enact another extension.

Hopefully, over the next 90 days Congress will work something out and maybe by the end of the year we’ll have a long-term bill. But it’s also likely the issue won’t be settled until after the general election in November.

Everyone agrees on the broader goals of transportation policy and spending, which are economic growth and personal mobility. A long-term solution needs to be developed in a bipartisan fashion — and spearheaded by the administration — regardless of who is in power.

Co-writing credit: Rondi Watson

Carless in Duluth

Posted on Mar 16, 2012Dec 20, 2017 by Rondi Watson

It’s no secret that we Americans are in love with our cars.

They demonstrate our status and standing in society.

The way we’ve invested in roads and highways and the way we’ve developed our cities pretty much mandates that you need to own a car to be able to access jobs, food, education and recreation.

Driving a car has become the default mode of travel for almost all people for every trip of any distance.

And here in Duluth, perched on a steep hill with prominent winters, it makes sense that people want to drive.

So why would a person choose not to?

Video documentary and panel discussion

Carless in Duluth, a video documentary about people who walk, bike, or take the bus instead of driving, will premiere on:

Tuesday, March 20, 2012
6:00 pm
Teatro Zuccone
222 East Superior Street, downtown Duluth

Following the video, there will be a panel discussion with engineers, planners, and other experts in the area. Afterward, an informational tabling session will be held in the atrium where food and drinks will also be available.

Area bike and ped projects, and lots of them

The event, hosted by the Healthy Duluth Area Coalition, follows a series of public meetings that were hosted throughout Duluth about one month ago. At each meeting, residents were given the opportunity to learn about ongoing and upcoming bicycle and pedestrian projects happening all over the city, including the Cross-City Trail, the Duluth Citywide Sidewalk Study, and the Duluth Traverse Mountain Bike Trail, and gave their feedback about their interest in these projects as well as other potential ideas. Over 50 residents participated in these meetings.

The Carless in Duluth premiere and transportation forum on March 20th will conclude this series of public outreach events. Organizations including the Duluth Transit Authority, the Metropolitan Interstate Council, City of Duluth Engineering, and the Bike Cave Collective have already confirmed their participation in this event, with pending confirmation from the Northern Lights Express, COGGS, and the UMD Cycling Club.

Check it out – it’s free and open to the public.

Duluth-Superior’s Harbor Technical Advisory Committee: A Model for Successful Stakeholder Participation & Coordination

Posted on Feb 24, 2012Dec 20, 2017 by Rondi Watson

“A committee that actually gets work done”

The HTAC is a working group for addressing challenges and opportunities in the Duluth-Superior harbor, while promoting the port’s economic and environmental importance to both communities.

It is one of three advisory committees to the Metropolitan Interstate Council (MIC), the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Duluth-Superior urbanized area.

And it is unique–the only stakeholder group of its kind in the country.

More important, it is, in the words of former Duluth Seaway Port Authority Director Adolf Ojard, “a committee that actually gets work done.”

Complexity, Controversy and Collaboration

Port-centered issues are usually complex, often controversial and sometimes downright contentious: dredged material management; marine safety; port security; land and recreational uses; economic development proposals; accelerated corrosion of maritime infrastructure; ballast water and invasive species management; legacy environmental degradation and habitat restoration initiatives –to name a few.

None of these problems affects one group alone, and none can be addressed except through the coordinated action of many diverse organizations and individuals. The HTAC has emerged as a national model for doing just that, through planning, collaboration, information sharing and long-term institutional involvement.

Its diverse members all hold a stake in the continued success and health of the harbor. Participation on the HTAC encourages representatives from industry, government, academic, environmental, regulatory and citizen groups on both sides of the bridge to recognize that although they have distinct missions they also have shared goals.

HTAC members, in other words, are genuine stakeholders who have, over its 20-year history, learned the value of playing nice and working hard together.

Result: a new paradigm for dredge material handling

One recent example of the HTAC’s successful, collaborative planning process is what’s happening at Erie Pier. It might seem a little hard to get excited about this “hidden in plain sight” facility on the Duluth waterfront—but it represents an entirely new paradigm for dredge material handling.

Thanks to the efforts of many HTAC members who undertook an intensive multi-year planning process, and to the US Army Corps of Engineers which subsequently agreed to make a significant investment in redesigning and re-engineering the facility, a major physical restructuring of the full-to-capacity Contained Disposal Facility at Erie Pier was undertaken to convert it to a Recycle-Reuse Facility. It utilizes hydraulic sorting to separate out the clean, uncontaminated sand and silt that’s dredged from the shipping channels for reuse in large-scale projects such as road construction and landfill cover.

The Duluth Seaway Port Authority now manages Erie Pier dredge materials as a valuable, re-usable resource instead of a waste product. By creating a cost effective and environmentally sound alternative to standard dredge material disposal practices, it will save local taxpayers the millions of dollars it would have cost to develop a new CDF.

Sincerest form of flattery

It also has the potential to change the way other Great Lakes ports manage their dredging operations. Erie Pier has recently gained the attention of the Canadian federal government, which is looking at the Erie Pier facility as a model for a new hydraulic sorting procedure at one or more of their dredging sites.

Most port communities face similar challenges. For this reason, we’ve been invited to present the HTAC model at many national-level planning and port conferences in recent years.

More Information/Get Involved

You can follow or participate in this notable initiative that’s happening right here in Duluth-Superior. For more information or to get on our meeting mailing list, check out the HTAC page on the MIC website at dsmic.org/htac.

Writing credit: Andy McDonald contributed to this article.

Photo credits:
Duluth-Superior Harbor aerial view – Gary Lidholm, USDA Forest Service, Superior National Forest

Erie Pier aerial view – Google Earth 2010

Duluth Sidewalk Study

Posted on Feb 10, 2012Sep 7, 2018 by Mike Wenholz

Why do sidewalks matter?

Did you know that it’s estimated that up to 40% of the U.S. population does not drive? This includes children, of course, but also people who are disabled, elderly or choose not to drive. Sidewalks, not roads, are the main transportation facility for a big chunk of our community.

We’ve all seen people walking in the roads, but it’s not hard to see that sidewalks provide a preferable space for pedestrian travel than using the street. Take a close look at the picture for this post – it’s one that we took several years ago of an elderly couple making a perilous winter journey (presumably out of necessity) along the shoulder of Central Entrance near Miller Hill Mall, Duluth’s main commercial district.

Besides providing a safe passageway for all to use, investing in sidewalks—infrastructure that promotes walking—has many benefits spread widely across the community.

Health

It’s not news that an increasing portion of the population, including many children, lack regular physical exercise. And walking is one of the most practical ways to increase physical activity among a broad population.

Health experts believe that more balanced transportation systems can contribute to improved personal and community health not only because they accommodate and encourage active transportation, but also because they provide opportunities for increased social interaction and, with more “eyes on the street” can reduce crime.

Wealth

A good sidewalk network, by providing “walkable” infrastructure, is strongly linked to a community’s economic vitality. According to the Seattle Department of Transportation, “walkable neighborhoods typically have active streets that promote commercial exchange, while providing safe and efficient ways for residents to travel on foot.”

Green

Sidewalks can also promote less reliance on automobiles, when walking is an option for shorter trips.

Equitable

Walking tends to be particularly important for elderly, disabled and lower-income people who have few opportunities to participate in sports or formal exercise programs and more limited transportation options.

And most trips that anyone makes have a walking component, whether it is between a parking spot and a final destination or to and from a transit stop.

That’s Where We Come In

The MIC has been working with the City of Duluth and area stakeholders on a two-phase study of Duluth sidewalks. In today’s financial climate, resources for sidewalk maintenance and development are limited. Good information is needed to utilize those scare resources efficiently. A number of citizen groups in the Duluth area, as well as city administration, have requested that sidewalk information be developed to assist with making targeted decisions about sidewalk improvements. The results of this analysis will be used to determine future capital improvements for sidewalk development, preservation, snow removal and maintenance.

The first phase—the sidewalk inventory—has been underway since last spring to develop an accurate inventory of where sidewalks are located and what condition they are in. When it’s complete, this information will be presented as a searchable GIS tool.

The second phase of the study—priority pedestrian modeling¬ will identify which sidewalks are the most heavily used, based on pedestrian generators such as schools, retail areas and transit stops. Other information considered in the model includes population density, poverty rates and transit ridership.

So, what do you think?

Negotiations on the new federal transportation bill may eliminate funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure and dedicate it to the construction of roads and bridges only. Are sidewalks part of your personal transportation network? What ones around town do you use, or present obstacles?

Co-writing credit: Rondi Watson

The Long and Winding Road

Posted on Feb 3, 2012Dec 20, 2017 by Rondi Watson

Political gridlock in Washington has resulted in years of legislative limbo in dealing with our nation’s aging infrastructure. But something needs to happen by March 31, when the eighth (!) extension of the SAFETEA-LU federal surface transportation bill expires.

Transportation legislation

In a possible sign of progress, both the House and Senate have pledged to take action on the reauthorization process, which sets the laws, priorities and spending levels for federally-funded transportation projects and programs for the next several years. And indeed there has been a lot of Congressional activity this past month and even this past week.

But reaching agreement on what exactly will be included in the new transportation bill—and how to pay for it—is a convoluted process. Enacting a bill by the end of March will require that both the House and the Senate negotiate no fewer than ten procedural hurdles and more significantly, overcome deep political and philosophical differences. And from what we’ve seen just this week, there are plenty of differences to reconcile.

Good news, bad news

The House released its version on January 31^st, a five-year, $260 billion, 800-page surface transportation bill known as the “American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act.”

From our perspective, the proposed legislation contains some good news in that it is favorable to existing MPOs such as the MIC so that we can continue our work to plan, prioritize and coordinate federally-funded transportation projects with local input.

Of concern to us, however, is that funding for the Safe Routes to School program is eliminated, along with the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program and “complete streets” projects that make infrastructure improvements for bikers and pedestrians in addition to cars.

Certainly important to all MPOs, these funding categories would be turned over to the discretion of state DOTs to decide if and how they are continued. Essentially, states would have the option of spending money on these types of projects, but would no longer be required to. As the League of American Bicyclists commented, “it basically eliminates the status and standing <of the bicycling community> in the planning and design of our transportation system—a massive step backwards…to a 1950s highway- and auto-only program.”

Then, also troubling, the House Ways and Means Committee weighed in with a proposal to eliminate gas tax funding for bus transit and other mass transportation systems. Transit, Air Quality Improvement, Congestion Mitigation and other programs would be placed into a renamed Alternative Transportation Account and would need to be funded annually through the general fund and annual appropriations process.

Bipartisan support

Non-auto oriented transportation programs, however, do have a measure of bipartisan support, which up until recently has been how our country has made its important transportation infrastructure investments. Several House Republicans, led by Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) with backing from Democrats, attempted to amend the draft bill to restore funding for bike and pedestrian projects and Safe Routes to School.

And the Senate has so far managed to reach bipartisan agreement on their version of the bill. A two-year, $109 billion reauthorization, called Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century or MAP-21, passed the Environment and Public Works Committee last month. The transit component of that bill was released by the Senate Banking Committee with unanimous bipartisan support for public transportation programs at current funding levels and includes some reforms — such as allowing federal funds to be spent on operations — that transit advocates have been pushing for.

The sticking point: how to pay

You may have heard by now that the House’s bill, in addition to cutting some transportation programs to pay for the reauthorization, proposes a new source of revenue in the form of royalties from new oil and gas drilling leases on public lands and federal waters. This, however, is a contentious issue and may or may not make it into the final bill during the step when the House and Senate reconcile their two versions into a final bill.

It also extends the federal gas tax at the 1993 level of 18.3 cents-per-gallon (as well as the 24.4 cents-per-gallon diesel tax and the .001 cents-per-gallon leaking underground storage tank tax) for the next five years.

Pressure at the state level

Much of the pressure to pay for the problem of the nation’s aging bridges, highways, and transit systems will fall to the states. Most—like Minnesota and Wisconsin—are refocusing their priorities on preserving and maintaining the existing system rather than constructing new roads.

Although states may consider raising their portion of the gas tax, or automatically increasing the existing rate for inflation, finding new ways to fund transportation will require innovation, new technologies, and smarter management practices to ensure their scarce resources address the key problem areas.

MnDOT is conducting studies on new user-fee mechanisms that assess fees based on how many miles you drive on the roads rather than how much gas you put in your tank. Other states are considering expanded use of tolling and state infrastructure banks.

Unpopular at the personal level

And many of these new options may be downright unpopular. As we noted previously, it’s not just our politicians who will need to make some attitude adjustments.

No matter how long it takes for Congress to hammer out a new transportation bill, and despite the cuts it will make or efficiencies it will impose, all of us, as beneficiaries of the transportation network, will need to be willing to make a shift in how we think about paying our way.

Photo credit: http://www.cyberlearning-world.com

What Have We Done for You Lately?

Posted on Jan 28, 2012Dec 20, 2017 by Rondi Watson

We at the MIC are transportation planners. We lay the groundwork for projects that use federal tax dollars.

Large, public, tax-funded infrastructure requires a huge investment of federal, state and local funds—but then, our region’s mobility, quality of life, economic growth and competitiveness rely on the transportation network. Every household and business depends on safe, multi-modal transportation infrastructure for moving people and goods.

Local input, coordination, and planning expertise

Our job is to coordinate with all local jurisdictions so the money for this infrastructure is well-spent and reflects local priorities.

We at the MIC are also elected officials. Our Board members represent all local units of government in the Duluth-Superior area—states, counties, cities and townships. Because these neighboring jurisdictions all have responsibilities and make decisions that impact the transportation system, coordination is key to making efficient use of limited financial resources.

And the term “stakeholder” is the real deal for us – figuring out and working with those who have a vested interest in the decisions that get made. Our job is to work with the right people – planners, engineers, local officials – to set joint priorities for funding projects, agree on timelines, and to share information about the projects we’re up to.

Bottom-up planning process

This kind of cooperative process is what Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) like the MIC are designed to do, here and across the country. We facilitate a bottom-up approach to transportation planning, allowing for local input into decisions how federal funds are spent, instead of a top-down approach that would make decisions about local projects and priorities at the federal or state level.

Planning Successes

Most important, this planning process is getting real results in our area. Here are some of our planning successes:

HTAC: a national model

Our Harbor Technical Advisory Committee, or HTAC, is recognized as a national model for doing just that—getting the right people in the room to solve problems. The HTAC is a nationally-recognized, bi-state forum to discuss issues confronting the Ports of Duluth and Superior. The HTAC brings together a broad range of industry, environmental and government stakeholders to provide sound planning and management recommendations and to promote the harbor’s economic and environmental importance to our community.

Erie Pier Management Plan: first of its kind on the Great Lakes

HTAC stakeholders have worked for many years to craft the Erie Pier Management Plan, a blueprint for transitioning the Erie Pier Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) to a first-of-its kind Processing and Reuse Facility (PRF). By creating a cost effective and environmentally sound alternative to current dredge material disposal practices for Great Lakes ports, this innovative Plan will save local taxpayers the millions of dollars it would have cost to develop a new CDF.

Landside Port Access Study: targeted roadway construction

The Landside Port Access Study was used to educate the public and policy makers about the land-based access needs of the Port and laid the foundation for funding a new roadway project (Helberg Drive) to improve access and safety.

Corridor planning: addressing problems before they arise

The MIC’s Corridor Planning initiatives seek to be proactive, by identifying and addressing problems along local roadways before they arise. They balance mobility needs with adjoining land uses and environmental and community interests.

Our North 28th Street Plan identified and made recommendations to alleviate critical transportation issues on North 28th Street, in Superior, in advance of planned road reconstruction. Significant safety concerns needed to be addressed due to several conflicting land uses, including the construction of three new schools, a skate park, a recreational trail, housing units and a newly-developed commercial area.

The Duluth Heights Traffic Circulation Study was undertaken at the request of neighbors and local elected officials to address the issue of residential streets being used as an unwelcome and unintended thoroughfare to a commercial district. Using an extensive public participation process, MIC staff worked closely with residents to document the level of cut-through traffic, and identify options to reduce impacts and improve flow in and around the neighborhood.

This planning process set the groundwork for the City to pursue funding for a new roadway connection (Joshua Avenue) between the Miller Hill commercial district and the east side of Duluth.

Long Range Planning: coordinated goals and strategies

The MIC’s Long Range Planning initiatives provide policy guidance, goals and coordinated strategies for jurisdictions within the greater metropolitan area of Duluth, MN and Superior, WI.

Directions 2035 is our Long Range Transportation Plan, setting forth a vision for the area-wide transportation network for the next 25 years. The LRTP provides a framework for working cooperatively to provide a well-maintained, integrated, accessible and multi-modal transportation system to safely and efficiently move people and freight, within the constraints of funding the region can reasonably expect to receive.

The Duluth Urban Area Growth Impact Study examines how best to accommodate growth in areas outside the urban services boundary while ensuring taxpayer protection from the consequences of inefficient patterns of development. Future land use information from each jurisdiction was used as part of a regional planning process to examine growth impacts and to identify the specific areas best suited for development.

Bike, Pedestrian and Transit Planning: mobility and quality of life

The MIC’s planning initiatives for modes of travel that are not centered on cars and trucks account annually for about 20% of our work program and budget. They are important because they aim to improve access, mobility and quality of life for all people in our area, regardless of age or physical ability, whether they travel by car, bike, bus or on foot.

The MIC’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) engages local stakeholders to provide sound planning recommendations and to provide public outreach and education about bike- and pedestrian-related plans and projects.

The Duluth-Superior Area Bike Map is our most popular product, an award-winning guide to the best on- and off-street bike routes in and through this region.

The Duluth Sidewalk Study provides technical and policy guidance to assist local elected officials in working with neighborhoods during roadway reconstruction projects. The GIS-based interactive map is a powerful tool for decision makers to apply data to the sometimes-contentious discussions about locating sidewalks on local streets.

Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plans: The MIC was an early proponent of SRTS planning, working closely with many community stakeholders collecting data, conducting field observations and identifying safety issues around schools. The MIC’s recommendations have been incorporated into many funded projects to improve bike and pedestrian access to schools in the cities of Duluth, Superior and Proctor.

Transit Planning: The MIC provides ongoing input and technical assistance on local transit initiatives including planning and securing funding for a future downtown multimodal facility. Results from a recent ridership survey will be utilized by MnDOT to determine the potential for utilizing transit service to mitigate the effects of major construction projects statewide.

This is where you come in

Hopefully this gives you an idea of how we have worked (for nearly forty years!) to ensure that federally-funded infrastructure investments are developed with input from the people who know this area best. As a local resident, do our planning initiatives reflect your priorities?

Transportation Funding: From Neutral Ground to Battleground

Posted on Dec 16, 2011Dec 20, 2017 by Ron Chicka, AICP

As I discussed in an earlier post, there’s a growing local and national backlog of critical transportation infrastructure projects—with no funding in sight.

Consensus Actually Exists

You might be interested to know that all branches of the federal government, from both sides of the isle, agree that we are not investing properly now for the transportation needs of the future.

To put this in perspective, the U.S. is spending approximately 4 to 5 times less on infrastructure than other countries are, including developing nations like China and India.

Since our interstate highway system was built in the 1960s, government expenditures on infrastructure have fallen to just 2.4 percent of GDP. In contrast Europe invests 5 percent of its GDP on infrastructure and China 9 percent.

As a result, the United States Is now ranked twenty-third overall for infrastructure quality, between Spain and Chile.

Political Will Does Not

Not so long ago, spending tax dollars on infrastructure was not nearly so political and divisive as it is today. Roads, bridges and railways used to be neutral ground on which the parties could come together to support the country’s growth. In 1991, the federal transportation bill (the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, termed ISTEA for short), passed both branches of Congress by nearly a 5 to 1 margin.

Fast forward twenty years.

Today’s gridlock in Washington has resulted in years of legislative limbo. Transportation funding has been limping along under a series of short-term extensions and appropriations because Congress can’t agree on what should be included in the new transportation bill—and hasn’t figured out how to pay for them either.

The consequences of this inaction are severe. Crumbling bridges and roadways and increased congestion will not only be expensive problems to solve in the future, but will also have a cost in the increased amount of time we spend on substandard roads.

Our nation’s economic future relies on its ability to deliver goods and services, a task that is increasingly more difficult as our highway system falls into disrepair. Without action, our nation’s economic competitiveness will diminish.

While the urgency of the problem is plain to all – the political will to fix it isn’t there.

It Will Get Personal

And the hard part is, it’s not just our politicians who will need to make some attitude adjustments. All of us, as users of the transportation network, will need to be willing to make a shift in how we think about paying our way.

Mileage-based fees, not motor fuel taxes, are the fairest way to assess the costs and benefits to the users of the system. BUT…

Solutions Exist

There are many options, ideas and technologies available to us to pay for the transportation system we need, now and into the future.

But they will take some getting used to. I’ll talk about them in my next blog post. Stay tuned.

Pothole photo credit: David Erickson

I-35 photo credit: Marion Doss

My Awesome Walk to Work

Posted on Nov 16, 2011Dec 20, 2017 by Rondi Watson

My Facebook post today reads: “Another awesome walk to work this morning on the Superior Hiking Trail—despite the snow—or maybe because of it!”

Within seconds a friend (an actual friend, in this case) responded “I did the same. I love Chester Park.”

Another commented “You are the luckiest commuter ever!”

This exchange reminded me of the simple, real-life benefits of one of our favorite concepts here at the MIC: multi-modal transportation networks.

It’s all about options

From a transportation planning perspective, a multi-modal transportation network refers to a balance of infrastructure that supports multiple modes of travel — a mix of roads, air, marine/port, rail, public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities (including paved and non-paved trails). This mix is plainly visible on any given day in the Duluth-Superior area.

From a societal and governmental perspective, multi-modal transportation networks have been widely supported because a balanced transportation system encourages economic growth, reduces congestion and environmental impacts, and improves mobility and access to transportation.

From my personal perspective, though, a multi-modal transportation network means that I have options. It was just too nice of a morning to get in my car and drive (the very walkable distance of) two and a half miles.

Trails as commuter pathways

One big advantage of living in Duluth, Minnesota, is the proximity of urban areas to green spaces. A multi-modal system, in this city, means that I can walk out my back door onto the Superior Hiking Trail, which in turn intersects with our urban streets infrastructure across Skyline Parkway (as scenic a walk as you could ask for), down through a couple of local neighborhoods and to our downtown office.

And a community-wide vision is emerging for Duluth to become the premier trail city in North America. Developing an inter-connected trails system will provide not just outstanding recreational opportunities but compelling transportation options as well.

Quality of life improvement

Bottom line, I don’t have to get in my car and drive every time I need to go somewhere. I’m able to travel on foot (or by bike or by bus), and I consider that a big quality of life enhancement.

How about you?

Do you have an awesome walk to work of your own? Would you like to be able to walk or bike more often in your daily life? Does it make sense to continue to fund multi-modal transportation networks? (More on that topic to follow…)

Getting Everyone on Board: Coordinating Transit for Human Services

Posted on Oct 28, 2011Dec 20, 2017 by Rondi Watson

An updated transit plan for the Arrowhead Region has just been released for public review. It’s a plan that’s aimed to coordinate resources and cover more ground with less.

The 2011 Local Human Service Transit Coordination Plan for the Arrowhead Region outlines broad strategies as well as specific project ideas to help the transportation-challenged – elderly, disabled, and low-income – get to medical appointments, services and jobs.

The strategies and project ideas identified in the plan will be used to set priorities and support competitive bidding for certain Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds that are dedicated to assisting these groups.

Leveraging shared transportation resources

The Arrowhead Region comprises seven large, mostly rural counties – 10,635 square miles! Providing transportation services throughout this enormous area is a daunting prospect. And a few economic trends are making this challenge evermore daunting:

1) A large percentage of the region’s population is entering old age (and reduced income)

2) The per/mile cost of service (particularly due to fuel prices) has been increasing at a significant rate while

3) Federal and state transit assistance is facing significant cuts.

And that’s where the value of this transit plan comes in – to leverage existing resources (vehicles, drivers, etc.), to provide services more efficiently throughout the region with those limited resources.

Regional coordination is the essence of this plan

Many of the strategies identified in the coordinated transit plan call for projects that create more resource-sharing opportunities, or create “one-stop-shop” call centers that can assist with organizing and lining up ride opportunities.

Perhaps the most important project idea in the plan, however, is to convene a regional coordination body, bringing together the region’s service providers every year to continue to find ways to work together to overcome challenges. And that’s a big move forward!

Draft plan is open for comment

Can you think of another way to take on the daunting challenge to get everybody on board?

This plan is open for public comment until 11/10/11. For those of you interested, the plan can be reviewed on ARDC’s Regional Planning website.

Photo credit: Arrowhead Transit

Kicking the Can Down the Road

Posted on Sep 23, 2011Dec 20, 2017 by Ron Chicka, AICP

Are you hearing (or perhaps voicing) complaints about delays on area roadways, road construction or the high price of gas?

Statements like “with the price of gas so high they should lower the gas tax”?

Of course, throw in the usual “all the roads in this area are in terrible shape.”

It seems that we, the traveling public, want to have it all: safe bridges, smooth roads, no construction delays—all at less cost.

A “Can of Worms” – Indeed!

The problem is, it takes time to reconstruct and maintain our infrastructure and it costs a lot of money to do so.

And the backlog of needed projects is growing.

Right here in Duluth, where the I-35 reconstruction project will cost a total of $81 million over two-plus years, the “can of worms” interchange, which contains 31 individual bridges, will also need repair and restoration to the tune of an estimated $250 million. This will become a critical infrastructure need within the next 10 to 20 years–with no funding source yet identified.

Do (Lots) More with (Lots) Less

Today we are asking our road authorities (at the city, county and state) to do more with significantly fewer resources.

You may have heard by now of a recent survey by the Rockefeller Foundation, which found that two-thirds of the American public felt that a greater investment is needed in transportation infrastructure. Fully 80 percent of those surveyed agreed that spending on highways and bridges would produce jobs and economic growth, yet only 38 percent thought that federal spending should be increased and only 27 percent said that federal gas taxes should be raised to support this spending.

What the survey tells me is that we, as transportation planners and policy makers, have done a horrible job of helping the public understand transportation needs, transportation funding, and the consequences of failing to invest in transportation infrastructure.

Investing in transportation infrastructure supports multiple societal purposes besides our personal mobility, including American economic competitiveness, public health, environmental sustainability and energy independence.

If not addressed, many types of costs will be pushed out into the future.

What will our future generations say about this practice? How happy would we have been if previous generations had done this to us?

Great Lakes Short Sea Shipping (try saying that fast three times)

Posted on Aug 11, 2011Dec 20, 2017 by Rondi Watson

Steven Fisher, Executive Director of the American Great Lakes Ports Association, made the case for the value of the Great Lakes navigation system and discussed the legislative and regulatory issues posing challenges to the maritime industry at the MIC’s annual meeting on July 20, 2011.

Fisher noted that throughout the United States, road and rail congestion threaten economic growth and quality of life. Transportation planners (including the MIC) are examining how short sea shipping via the Great Lakes can ease some of the burden on the land-based transportation modes.

View Fisher’s discussion of all topics (4:39)

Safe, Cost-Effective, Environmentally Sustainable

Fisher asserted that waterborne transportation has demonstrated that it is the safest, most fuel efficient, cost-effective and environmentally sustainable mode of moving goods in the global economy. Vessels on the Great Lakes burn significantly less fuel and produce fewer emissions and have far fewer accidents than trains or trucks.

Great Lakes Harbor Dredging

Bottom line: there’s not enough money to properly dredge many Great Lakes commercial harbors.

Most ports require regular dredging to remove sand and silt that naturally accumulate in shipping channels. This work is the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but its FY 2012 budget only provides $22.4 million to dredge Great Lakes navigation channels, less than half the amount necessary. As a result, many ports are becoming difficult for ships to navigate, and in some cases, shipping channels have become blocked and two are slated for closure.

Congress should provide adequate funds in the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill to address the backlog of dredging projects at Great Lakes ports,

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Political Gridlock

Bottom line: The money being collected from waterborne commerce is not dedicated to commercial ports.

The Harbor Maintenance Tax is a fee collected from domestic commercial cargo loaded or unloaded from vessels using US ports in order to fund the Army Corps of Engineers’ operation and maintenance activities. This includes the dredging that is needed to keep the Great Lakes ports up and running.

Despite the fact that adequate revenue (approximately $1.3 billion annually) is being collected, Congress has traditionally used about half of the fund’s money to offset general spending. Fisher noted that although there is significant support in Congress to enact legislation to ensure that funds collected for harbor maintenance are spent for their intended purpose, the current political gridlock in Washington DC is hindering the progress of this initiative.

View Fisher’s discussion of Great Lakes dredging and funding (1:16)

Aquatic Invasive Species and the Great Ships Initiative

Bottom line: there is widespread agreement in both the maritime industry and the environmental community that the best way to prevent the transfer of aquatic invasive species is to keep them off ships in the first place. For that reason, there is considerable research being done to develop technology to treat ballast water and remove or kill aquatic nuisance species.

In 2007, the Great Ships Initiative (GSI) opened the world’s first fresh water ballast treatment technology test facility, located in Superior, Wisconsin.

View Fisher’s discussion of the GSI (1:13)

Future of the Shipping Industry on the Great Lakes

Bottom line: both the US and Canada are continuing to invest in the future of the shipping industry on the Great Lakes.

The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway, which is managed and operated jointly by Canada and the United States, is a unique and significant navigation route into the North American heartland for deep-draft vessels coming from the Atlantic Ocean and beyond.

Fifty years after its construction, both countries recognize that it provides important economic benefits by transporting cargoes such as grain, iron ore, and steel into and out of the Great Lakes region. Recent policy changes in Canada have spurred $400 million investment in rebuilding its Great Lakes fleet.

View Fisher’s discussion of future prospects for the GL maritime industry (1:05)

Photo credit, Laker in Duluth Canal: Minnesota Extension Service, Don Breneman

Photo credit, Laurentian Great Lakes: NOAA, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Video editing: Brian Heaton

Roads, Trails, or Both?

Posted on Jun 23, 2011Dec 20, 2017 by James Gittemeier, BPAC Vice-Chair

Priorities for Duluth’s Transportation System

As discussed in our previous blog, approximately $45 million in federal funds are being programmed for Duluth area transportation projects for 2012-2015.

The draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) spells out costs and timeframes for a total of 36 high-priority projects over four years and is now open for public comment.

Balancing the needs of all users

It seems we easily divide ourselves into those who drive versus those who ride the bus versus those who bike and so forth….an “us versus them” scenario.

Well, in reality the transportation system—and the public spaces they are a part of—are used by people in a much more complex way. You might drive to your job or to shop, but there will always be some amount of walking involved, from car to final destination and back again. You might use the sidewalks for walking from place to place, but also for stopping to talk to your neighbor in a common space. You might ride your bike down the big hill but put it on a DTA bus for the trip back up.

Looking through this lens, from the perspective of the users of the transportation system, you can see how this TIP has a major focus on how to really connect people in the safest and most efficient way possible.

Continuing to fix the highways

Preservation work on the two major bridges is needed to refurbish the Blatnik (I-535) in 2012 and the Bong (US Highway 2) in 2014. These TIP projects not only have the highest price tags and but also will receive the most attention—yes, just when the I-35 reconstruction “megaproject” is finished, there will be several more years of high-profile road construction projects, on the bridges this time!

Improvements for those who walk, bike, or take the bus

While the highway projects are devoted solely to cars and trucks, funding is also included to provide a safe alternative to driving. A paved pedestrian and bicycle pathway, running parallel to I-35, will connect the whole city from west to east. The Munger Trail will eventually extend all the way to the Lakewalk by constructing short segments of a new Cross-City Trail each year. The popular Duluth Lakewalk will in turn be extended from 60th Avenue East to Highway 61, and then out to Brighton Beach up the north shore.

Funding for the Duluth Transit Authority will purchase new buses and provide operating support for both its regular route and STRIDE bus service.

And thanks to recent Complete Streets efforts in Duluth, local street projects will take into account how the roads are being used by people every day and will be designed accordingly.

The projects funded in the draft 2012-2015 Duluth area TIP balance the need to move vehicles efficiently with the needs of all people who use these public spaces, including those who utilize public transportation, those who traverse the roads by bicycle and those who are on foot.

Which makes sense to us – what do you think?

A Lot Has Changed Since 1993…Except the Federal Gas Tax

Posted on Apr 14, 2011Dec 20, 2017 by Ron Chicka, AICP

According to MinnesotaGasP rices.com, the average statewide price this week is $3.85 per gallon and rising.

Ouch.

But how much of the price at the pump is due to federal taxes? It may be less than you think.

The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (24.4 cents for diesel fuel)—and has remained the same since 1993. Since it’s a flat rate (not a percentage of the price, like a sales tax), tax revenues do not rise even if gas prices do.

This means the buying power of these revenues is significantly less that it was18 years ago. That’s like you never seeing an increase in your paycheck to match inflation…since 1993.

Estimates by the Wisconsin Transportatio n Development Association suggest that the federal government would need to increase the tax to at least 28 cents per gallon just to recapture the purchasing power lost to inflation since 1993.

In this era of “no new taxes” and calls for streamlining government, I know that the topic of the gas tax is a controversial one. But as a deadline looms for the reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program, it’s no wonder that funding is such a stumbling block.

Is raising the gas tax worth it to you?

Are safe, driveable roads worth $9 a month to you?

Posted on Apr 12, 2011Dec 20, 2017 by Ron Chicka, AICP

A large majority of Americans think spending on transportation infrastructure is important, according to a recent national poll.

It’s interesting to note, however, that the majority also opposes paying more of their own money to improve or modernize our transportation systems.

80 percent believe that improving and modernizing transportation systems will boost local economies and create jobs.
Seventy-one percent oppose an increase in the gas tax.
Sixty-four percent oppose new tolls on existing roads and bridges.
Fifty-eight percent oppose paying a fee based on the number of miles they drive.

I can certainly sympathize with these respondents, who are feeling the pinch of a tight economy and reacting accordingly. I know gas prices at $4.00 inspire a lot of anxiety in plenty of people, myself included.

However, my recent trip to the Transportation Development Association conference in Madison highlighted the issue of the federal gas tax that helps to build, repair and maintain a first-rate nationwide transportation infrastructure.

The gas tax is currently a flat rate of 18.4 cents per gallon – the same as it’s been since 1993. Unfortunately, prices of asphalt and other road-building materials haven’t held so steady, so the budget for keeping roads safe and efficient is approaching a breaking point.

TDA has pointed out that an increase in the federal gas tax by 10 cents per gallon would cost the average family $9 more a month. Are faster, safer commutes and trips worth that much to you?

Or perhaps the better question is, for critical transportation infrastructure–where would you prefer the money come from?