Policy – Page 2

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