Assessment of Community Planning for

Mass Transit: Volume 7—Minneapolis-St.

Paul Case Study

February 1976

NTIS order #PB-253685
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

DIRECTOR’S OFFICE

Emilio Q. Daddario, Director

Daniel V. De Simone, Deputy Director

URBAN MASS TRANSIT ADVISORY PANEL

George Krambles, Chairman, Chicago Transit Authority

Walter J. Bierwagen Bernard M. Oliver

Amalgamated Transit Union Hewlett-Packard Corporation

Robert A. Burco Simon Reich

Oregon DOT Gibbs and Hill

Jeanne J. Fox Thomas C. Sutherland, Jr.

Joint Center for Princeton University

Political Studies

Lawrence A. Goldmuntz Frederick P. Salvucci

Economics and Science Planning Massachusetts DOT

Dorn McGrath Stewart F. Taylor

George Washington University Sanders and Thomas, Inc.

OTA TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM STAFF

Gretchen S. Kolsrud, Program Manager

Mary E. Ames Larry L. Jenney

V. Rodger Digilio Bev Johnson

Thomas E. Hirsch, 111 Teri Miles

CONTRACTORS

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill System Design Concepts, Inc.
PREFACE

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

Paul, Minnesota metropolitan area is one of nine case studies undertaken by

the Office of Technology Assessment to provide an information base for an

overall assessment of community Planning for mass transit.

The findings of the overall study are reported in the summary

document, An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit, which forms the

first volume of this series. The assessment was performed at the request of

the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate, on behalf of its

Transportation Subcommittee.

The study was directed by the Office of Technology Assessment’s

Transportation Program Staff with guidance and review provided by the

OTA Urban Mass Transit Advisory Panel. The firms of Skidmore, Owings

and Merrill and System Design Concepts, Inc., were contractors for the

study. This assessment is a joint effort, identifying different possible points

of view but not necessarily reflecting the opinion of any individual.

v
This report assesses how one of nine major

United States metropolitan areas made its decisions

about the development or modernization of rail

transit.

The assessment of the nine cities attempts to

identify the factors that help communities, facing

critical technological choices, make wise decisions

that are consistent with local and national goals for

transit. The study investigates the following issues:

Ž Are there major barriers to communication

and cooperation among governmental

agencies involved in transit planning and

operating? Do these barriers interfere with

making sound decisions ?

● Do transit decisions reflect the combined

interests of all major public groups, including citizen organizations, trade unions,

the business community, and others ?

● Does the planning process provide enough

information about the advantages and

disadvantages of alternative courses of

action to provide a solid basis for making

decisions ?

● Does the availability or lack of financing, or

the conditions under which financing has

been provided, unnecessarily limit the

range of options that are considered?

The ultimate purpose of the work has been to

cast light on those prospective changes in national

transit policy and administrative programs which

might improve, in different ways and to different

extents, the way communities plan mass transit

systems. The nine cities were selected to represent

the full range of issues that arise at different stages

in the overall process of planning and developing a

transit system.

San Francisco, for example, has the first regional

rail system built in decades, while Denver is

planning an automated system, and voters in

Seattle have twice said “no” to rail transit funding

proposals.

INTRODUCTION

The assessment of transit planning in each of the

nine metropolitan areas has been an inquiry into an

evolving social process. Consequently, the study

results more closely resemble historical analysis

than classical technology assessment.

This study employs a set of evaluation guidelines

to orient the investigation in the nine metropolitan

areas and to provide the basis for comparative

judgments about them. The guidelines were

derived from issues identified during preliminary

visits to the metropolitan areas, a review of Federal

requirements for transit planning, and an investigation via the literature into the state-of-theart in the field.

The evaluation guidelines cover major topics

which were investigated during the case assessment process. They deal with the character of the

institutional arrangements and the conduct of the

technical planning process,

GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT:

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

Some of the most significant influences on

transit planning are exerted by the organizations

responsible for conducting the planning and

making the decisions. Three guidelines were used

to evaluate the institutional arrangements in the

nine metropolitan areas:

●

●

●

Agencies responsible for various aspects of

transit decisionmaking should cooperate

effectively in a clearly designated “forum”.

The participants in this forum should have

properly designated decisionmaking

authority, and the public should have

formal channels for holding decisionmakers accountable for their actions.

Citizens should participate in the transit

planning process from its beginning and

should have open lines of communication

with decisionmakers.

vii
GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT:

TECHNICAL PLANNING PROCESS

The technical planning process provides the

information that public officials and their constituents draw upon in making plans and decisions.

Four guidelines were used to assess the technical

planning process in the nine metropolitan areas:

• Broad, explicit goals and objectives should

guide technical planning and decisionmaking.

Ž A range of realistic alternative solutions

should be developed.

• The evaluation of these alternatives should

give balanced consideration to a full range

of goals and objectives.

● A practical and flexible plan for financing

and implementation should be developed.

During visits to each of the nine metropolitan

areas, the study team interviewed the principal

representative of the transportation planning

institution and other main participants in the local

planning process. The visits were supplemented by

interviews with UMTA officials in Washington.

Pertinent documents—official plans, reports,

studies, and other material—were reviewed in each

case.

The information thus collected was used in

compiling a history of the transit planning process

in each case area, organized around key decisions

such as the decision to study transit, the selection of

a particular transit system, and public ratification

of the decision to pay for and build the system. The

main political, institutional, financial and technical

characteristics affecting the conduct of the planning process were then assessed in light of the

evaluation guidelines.

The same set of guidelines used in assessing each

case metropolitan area was employed in making a

generalized evaluation of the metropolitan experience. The results of the generalized evaluation are

summarized in the report, A n Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Summary Report, issued by

the Office of Technology Assessment in February

1976.

Vlll
CONTENTS

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

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

General Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Existing Passenger Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Transportation Planning Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CRITICAL HISTORY OF TRANSIT PLANNING AND

DECISIONMAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Early Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Decision to Study Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Decision on System Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHRONOLOGY OF THE TRANSIT PLANNING PROCESS . . . 17

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNING AND

DECISIONMAKING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Institutional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Technical Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

SUMMARY CASE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . ● . . . . . 25

ix
Summary and Highlights

●

●

●

●

The Twin Cities metropolitan area has

been studying and planning for a shortterm and long-range transit system since

1968.

No decision has been made thus far on

what kind of public transit service to

provide in the long term.

This is in part due to the fact that Twin

Cities does not feel impelled to make

rapid decisions on transit system selection and implementation because it has a

good bus transit system, In addition, it

does not have a severe air quality

problem; highway and street congestion

is not perceived as being severe; and fuel

shortages apparently were not as severe

as in many other metropolitan areas.

It is also due in part to deep divisions

between the two agencies involved: the

comprehensive planning agency

(Metropolitan Council), and the transit

agency (Metropolitan Transit Commission). Transit systems proposed by the

Council have relied primarily on bus

transit, while all of the Commission’s

proposed systems have contained a

backbone rail transit system.

● The Metropolitan Transit Commission

has taken over and significantly improved

the bus transit operation.

● A variety of well-designed and competently managed studies have been

carried out.

● Twin Cities, to a greater extent than any

other of the case assessment cities, has

studied and evaluated different concepts

in public transportation service.

● The Metropolitan Transit Commission

has competently designed and managed

a series of study programs so that

consultants have played only a technical

staff and support role.

● Transit planning has been closely tied to

land use and development planning,

partially because the Metropolitan Council, in addition to transportation review

powers, has and exercises limited control

over land development.

● The State Legislature has become deeply

involved in transit policy and planning

and will probably ultimately make the

decision on what kind of system will be

adopted and implemented.
Metropolitan Settingl

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

The downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul are

located about 10 miles apart on opposite banks of

the Mississippi River. St. Paul is Minnesota’s capital

city.

The metropolitan area, over 3,000 square miles,

is a major industrial, financial, cultural, and service

center for an area from Wisconsin to the

Midwestern States of Iowa, Nebraska, and the

Dakotas. It ranks among the five fastest-growing

regions in the Nation, with a 1970 population of 1.8

million. Today its population is greater than 2

million with over 60 percent living outside the

municipal boundaries of the two areas. As has been

the case in many U.S. metropolitan areas, the

population growth in the Twin Cities between

1960 and 1970 took place in the suburban ring; the

center city population declined (see Figure 2). The

population density is relatively low, and there are

no major physical conditions shaping growth.

A 30 percent rise in total work trips occurred

between 1960 and 1970. The pattern of increase

within the region kept pace with the changing

population distribution. The greatest increases

occurred in trips from the center cities to the

suburban ring, and within the suburban ring. Many

of the new trips used the private automobile. The

proportion of trips by automobile increased 52

percent between 1960 and 1970, while relative

numbers of trips on transit declined (see Figure 3).

In 1968 Minneapolis reconstructed eight blocks

of downtown Nicollet Avenue as a landscaped

pedestrian mall with a 2-lane transitway. The mall

is one of the first and most successful urban autofree zones in the country. Both downtown areas

are developing sophisticated pedestrian “skyways”

connecting their major commercial establishments.

I See Figure I, pages 8 and 9.

EXISTING PASSENGER

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

The Twin Cities metropolitan area has an

excellent highway system encircling and traversing

the entire region (see Figure 4). Four interstate

highways provide the major links: I-94, I-35W, and

the circumferential routes I-494 and I-694.

Highways systems represent the dominant

transportation facility for metropolitan area travel.

The streets and highways in the metropolitan area

total about 11,100 miles of roads, of which about

6,800 are located within the urban service area and

4,300 in the rural area. z

The physical growth of the urban area was

encouraged by the development of a horse-drawn

streetcar system beginning in 1872. The Twin

Cities Rapid Transit Company (TCRT) began

electric streetcar operations in 1889. The RTCRT

replaced the horse-drawn streetcars and at its peak

ran 444 route-miles with a 1,000-car fleet. It linked

the Minneapolis and St. Paul central business

districts with residential, employment, and

recreational areas covering approximately 800

square miles. The company designed and built all

but 141 of its streetcars.

After reaching its highest point during the

1920’s, ridership on TCRT’S streetcar and bus fleet

slumped during the Depression but surged again

during World War II, reaching 201 million by 1946.

Thereafter patronage declined steadily, bottoming

out at 50.5 million by 1970 (see Figure 5).

TCRT, locally owned from its inception, was

bought by an outside investment firm in 1949. The

new management immediately began to retire the

streetcars and completely replaced them with buses

by 1954. In that year the newly organized Twin

City Lines had a ridership of 86.6 million and a total

bus fleet of approximately 820.

z Metropolitan Council’s report to the legislature, The

Au/omafed Small Vehicle Guidezouy Study, April, 197s.

3
LAND AREA (197 O)

(square miles)

Minneapolis 53.4

St. Paul 52.2

Suburban Ring 2,002.4

Entire SMSA 2,108

POPULATION

Suburban Minn. St. Paul

Ring

1960 685,747 482,872 313,411

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

DENSITY

(population/square mile)

POPULATION

Percent Change 1960-1970

56%

-lo% -1%

Suburban Minn. St. Paul

Ring

Suburban Minn. St.Paul

Ring

1960 342 9,043 6,004

1970 534 8,135 5,935

FIGURE 2:TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN CHARACTERISTICS

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

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

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

the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S., Inc., 1974.

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

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

or other political divisions that are economically and socially integrated

with the central area.
WORK TRIP DISTRIBUTION

From Minneapolis and St. Paul to

Suburban Ring

Suburban Ring to Minneapolis and

St. Paul

Beginning and Ending in Suburban

Ring

Beginning and Ending in Minneapolis

196 0 197 0

WORK TRIP MODE

1960 1970

Ring

FIGURE 3: TWIN CITIES SMSA TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS 1960-1970

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

the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S. , Inc. , 1974.

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

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

or other political divisions that are economically and socially integrated

with the central area.
I

I

---- - -

i

I f J

35W

I

I

FIGURE 4: TWIN CITIES— EXISTING HIGHWAY SYSTEM

6
VEHICLE MILES OPERATED

(millions of miles)

Peak year = 1974 (23.3 million miles)

Low Year = 1967 (15.9 million miles)

REVENUE PASSENGERS

(millions of passengers)

Peak Year = 1960 (67.2 mil

Low Year = 1974 (47.6 mill

20.0 18.2 18.4 23.3

67.2 62.3 50.6 47.6

lion passengers)

ion passengers)

NET OPERATING REVENUE

(millions of dollars)

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

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

-$11.5

FIGURE5: TWIN CITIES TRANSIT OPERATIONS 1960-1974

Source: American Public Transit Association records for operations of the

Twin City lines and the Metropolitan Transit Commission.

Data for 1972 not available.

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

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

or other political divisions that are economically and socially integrated

with the central area.
Wright Count y

FIGURE 1: TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA

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

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

or other political divisions that are economically and socially integrated

with the central area.

8
N
In 1970 the Metropolitan Transit Commission

took over the private transit operations. Since then

hundreds of new buses have been purchased and a

minibus line installed in the two central business

districts. Additional improvements have increased

the mileage of routes by 50 percent and have

eliminated fares for elderly passengers during

nonpeak hours. The bus patronage has steadily

grown—by a total of about 22 percent—since the

public takeover in 1970. The existing transit system

includes 834 buses covering 85,752 miles of daily

scheduled bus miles operating over 1,303 miles of

routes (see Figure 6). Table 1 shows a breakdown of

Federal transit support to Twin Cities since the

early 1960’s.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

INSTITUTIONS

responsible for the 3-C functions for the

metropolitan areas The Council measures plans of

other area bodies against its Metropolitan Development

Guide. Minnesota’s Metropolitan Reorganization

Act of 1974 designated the Metropolitan Council as

the policymaking body with final approval power

for transportation development in t h e

metropolitan area.

TABLE l.=Federal Assistance to

Twin Cities Transit Programs

From F.Y. 1962 to May 31, 1975

Type of Assistance Federal Share Total Costs

Capital Grants . . . . . . . . . . . $30,647,000 $45,682,000

Technical Studies . . . . . . . . 2,666,000 6,512,000

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

Source: Urban Mass Transportation Administration

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

Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Transit

Commission, the Minnesota Highway Depart- Designation Agency

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

MPO Metropolitan Council

Metropolitan Council (MC)

The Metropolitan Council was created by State

legislation in 1967 to establish a framework to

coordinate regional. development in the

Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Sixteen

members of the Metropolitan Council are appointed by the Governor on a nonpartisan basis,

after consulting with members of the legislature

from the candidate’s Council district. j The chairman of the Metropolitan Council is appointed by

the Governor as the seventeenth voting member of

the Council and must be experienced in the field of

municipal and urban affairs.

As the regional A-95 agency, the Metropolitan

Council has power to review all proposals from the

area organizations for Federal funds.4 It also is

3 Before 1974 Metropolitan Council districts corresponded to

legislative districts; Minnesota’s Metropolitan Reorganization

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

principle.

J The Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95

requires one agency in each region to be empowered to review

all proposals for Federal funds from agencies in that region.

Circular A-95 replaced Circular A-82, which was created to

implement Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and

Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U,S.C. 3301).

Metropolitan Transit Commission

(MTC)

The Metropolitan Transit Commission was

established by the State legislature early in 1967

and covers the same seven-county area. The recent

Metropolitan Reorganization Act now provides for

the Commission members to be selected by the

Metropolitan Council as terms of present members

5 The Urban Mass Transportation Administration and the

Federal Highway Administration require Governors to

designate a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in each

area to carry out the “continuing, comprehensive transportation

planning process . . . carried out cooperatively . . .“ (the “3-C”

process) mandated by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 and

the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974.

According to joint UMTA-FHWA regulations published in

September 1975, MPO’S must prepare or endorse (1) a longrange general transportation plan, including a separate plan for

improvements in management of the existing transportation

system; (2) an annually updated list of specific projects, called the

transportation improvement program (TIP), to implement

portions of the long-range plan; and (3) a multiyear planning

prospectus supplemented by annual unified planning work

programs.

10
10 0 10 20

I —

miIes

I

I

I

Victoria

Coefes

I

I

Elko i

FIGURE 6: T WIN CITIES— FIXISTING BUS TRANSIT SYSTEM
expire. The Governor still appoints the chairman of

the Commission.

The Metropolitan Transit Commission is empowered to plan, construct, equip, and operate a

transit system in accordance with the Council’s

policy plans. It was directed by the reorganization

act to design a transit development program that

fits within the policy plans specified by the

Metropolitan Council. The original enacting

legislation provided for a wheelage tax to finance

operations. This tax subsequently was ruled

unconstitutional, and the 1975 legislature provided

about $22 million of nonproperty revenues for

MTC operations, a part of which will be used to

make up for a reduction of about one mill in MTC’S

areawide”property tax.

Minnesota State Highway Department

The Minnesota State Highway Department

participates as a member of the Transportation

Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council. The

Highway Department also provides transit assistance in rural areas. It has provided continuing

technical assistance to the Metropolitan Council’s

planning efforts in both highway and transit.

Minnesota State Legislature

Finally, the Minnesota State Legislature has also

played a role in the urban transportation planning

process by overseeing the development of

metropolitan government in the Twin Cities and by

taking an active part in the planning of a public

transportation system.

12
Critical History of

Transit Planning and Decisionmaking

This historical narrative describes briefly the

events that unfolded in each of three decisionmaking periods. Early studies in the Twin Cities

region proposed highway improvements. The

transit planning effort began in 1967, with a

legislative initiative leading to the decision to study

transit. The decision on system selection is still

under debate.

EARLY STUDIES

The first significant metropolitan transportation

planning effort, the Twin Cities Area Transportation Study (TCATS), began in 1958 under the

direction of the Minnesota Highway Department.

Although the Metropolitan Planning Commission

was in existence before TCATS began, no formal

communication or decisionmaking liaison was

established by the Minnesota Highway Department. Therefore, the TCATS effort focused almost

exclusively on the highway network in the

metropolitan area. However, it should be noted

that at this time no funds were available from the

U.S. Bureau of Public Roads to study transit. Many

of the existing freeways in the area were products

of the TCATS work.

In 1962, the Joint Program was established.

Participants were the Metropolitan Planning

Commission, the Minnesota Highway Department, and other planning and governmental bodies

in the region. From 1962 until 1967 the Joint

Program was designated the 3-C transportation

planning agency. It undertook a major transportation and land use study in the metropolitan area and

published a series of four principal reports that

made significant early contributions in formulating

the concepts of the region’s land use and development plan.

DECISION TO STUDY TRANSIT

In mid-1967 the Minnesota State Legislature

created the Metropolitan Council to replace the

Metropolitan Planning Commission as the regional

governmental body. The Metropolitan Council was

later designated the A-95 coordinating agency.

In 1969 the Metropolitan Council organized an

advisory group called the Transportation Planning

Program (TPP) to facilitate the coordinated,

comprehensive, and continuous planning of

transportation programs. The TPP was formulated

through interagency agreements between the

agencies responsible for transportation improvements and was composed of three

committees—the Management, Policy Advisory,

and Technical Advisory committees. Although the

TPP was criticized for its lack of effectiveness, it

provided a valuable forum for the exchange of

ideas, issues, and technical information. The new

Transportation Advisory Board created by the

Met ropolitan Council pursuant to th e

Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 has

replaced the TPP.

A few days earlier in the same legislative session,

the Metropolitan Transit Commission was also

established. One of its first actions was to hire the

consulting firm of Simpson and Curtin to prepare a

report on improvements for the bus system in the

seven-county area. One result of this study was the

purchase of the Twin City Lines bus company in

September 1970 and the present management by

contract with the American Transit Enterprises

Management Services (ATE).

DECISION ON

SYSTEM SELECTION

The Commission’s series of long-range planning

efforts began in 1968-69 with a long-range transit

planning study performed by Alan M. Voorhees,

Inc. 6 The Voorhees study made an inventory of

some 96 “new concept” vehicle systems and

concluded that any new system should evolve from

conventional system improvements. Upon completion of the initial phase of the study, a joint

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

for the Twin Cities Area (1969-70).

13
Metropolitan Transit Commission—Metropolitan

Council staff report was prepared to set forth the

major components of the long-range metropolitan

transit planning program for 1970 -71.7

One of the important conclusions of that joint

staff statement was the recognition that transit

planning should proceed on the basis of a “family of

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

rapid transit operating on exclusive rights-of-way

as the backbone of the system to provide trunk

service between selected major centers; (2) express

buses operating in mixed traffic in less congested

corridors; (3) local and feeder bus service to provide

a direct service to centers as well as to complement

trunk lines in low-density areas; and (4) passenger

distribution service within certain major centers.

Subsequently the Commission and the

Metropolitan Council selected a transit planning

consultant to develop a study design for the

remaining long-range transit planning and

preliminary engineering activities.

on May 26, 1970, the Metropolitan Council

approved the Commission planning grant application of $412,670 for Phase III-A-1, as a follow up to

the Voorhees study to examine and refine the

conceptual plan.

The two agencies continued to work together in

developing and approving the transportation

section of the Metropolitan Department Guide o f

February 25, 1971. The findings of the III-A-1

studies provided the basis for the document Transit

in Transportation, which the Metropolitan Council

subsequentl y approved in 1971 to be used as a part

of the basis for the refinement of the general

transportation plan.

Late in 1970 the Metropolitan Council approved

the request of the Metropolitan Transit Commission for a Federal grant application for preliminary

engineering activities to develop performance

specifications for a fixed-guideway vehicle system

(Phase III-A-2). This study followed the “family of

vehicles” system concept plan and was focused on

refining the transit plans covering determination of

route and station locations, and a schedule for

implementing the plan in stages. It recommended a

fixed-guideway vehicle system utilizing a 40-

passenger vehicle as the first link and the backbone

component of the regional system.

In 1971, the Minnesota State Legislature further

defined the role of the Metropolitan Transit

Commission. The Commission’s enabling legislation was amended to require its plans to be

consistent with the development guide prepared by

the Metropolitan Council. This was an early effort

by the legislature to remedy its failure in the initial

1967 legislation to coordinte the planning

authorities of the two agencies.

From the inception of the long-range transportation planning study (in 1968) until 1972, the

cooperative working relationship between the

Metropolitan Transit Commission and the

Metropolitan Council was generally successful.

The Metropolitan Transit Commission had coordinated its work with the Metropolitan Council

staff and obtained the requisite approvals for each

step in the multiphased process.

In the fall of 1972, conflict over transit planning

authority arose between the Metropolitan Council

and the Metropolitan Transit Commission. The

conflict is best described in two legal opinions

prepared by respected law firms—one for the

Metropolitan Council and one for the Metropolitan

Transit Commission. The legal opinion provided

for the Metropolitan Transit Commission states:

The legislature gave to the Metropolitan

Transit Commission the exclusive power to

develop a plan for a complete, integrated mass

transit system . . . (and) the power of

acquisition of an existing transit system is

modified to the extent that the Metropolitan

Council must approve the acquisition before

it is made. This does not diminsih that power,

but only conditions the exercise of that power

to the extent that Council approval is

necessary . . . In looking at the entire scheme

of transit legislation . . . the power to plan and

engineer must reside somewhere, and it is

very obvious that it still resides in the

Metropolitan Transit Commissions

The Metropolitan Council also solicited a legal

opinion in response to the Metropolitan Transit

Commission’s request for approval of the proposed

Transit Development Program. The Metropolitan

Council’s legal opinion states:

n Legal opinion concerning power of Metropolitan Transit

‘ February 25, 1970.

14

Commission to plan and engineer transit systems, by letter to

Douglas Kelm from David S. Doty, Esquire, November 28, 1972.
In our opinion . . . the Council is the only

agency which has the authority to prepare

and adopt a long-term comprehensive plan on

transportation and transit of the type that

would be subject to the review, hearing and

appeal provisions of Section 473 B.o6, Subdivision 6.9

The present conflict grew out of a difference of

opinion over the legislative mandates given the two

agencies. Both assumed the authority to plan

transit systems. While the Metropolitan Council

focused its initial attention on sewers and public

parks, the Metropolitan Transit Commission set

about developing a public transit plan. When the

Metropolitan Transit Commission completed and

approved a Transit Development Program in 1972,

based on the results of previous transit studies, it

requested the Metropolitan Council, pursuant to

the 1971 act, to review the Transit Development

Program.

The Metropolitan Council declined to review the

Commission’s plan on the basis that the 1971

legislation had given the Council exclusive authority to determine long-range comprehensive transit

plans. Although the Metropolitan Transit Commission renewed its request for review, the

Metropolitan Council maintained its position.

The growing conflict was based not only on a

rivalry over authority to plan. It also reflected a

difference in the type of transit system favored.

While the Transit Commission favored a fixedguideway system, the Metropolitan Council hired

Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. in 1972 to carry

out a $15,000 study to examine the advantages of a

bus approach to regional mass transit and to

develop implementation strategies. 10

During the same period, the potential of personal

rapid transit (PRT) to meet Twin Cities transportation needs began to surface as a public issue, due in

large part to energetic sponsorship of this concept

by University of Minnesota Professor Edward

Anderson.

At this juncture the Metropolitan Transit

Commission prepared to take its case to the State

legislature. During the 1973 legislative session

both houses received information on proposals for

an intermediate-capacity fixed-guideway system

from the Commission, a plan of exclusive busways

from the Metropolitan Council, and a PRT grid

network system from others. The House of

Representatives approved the implementation of

the Commission’s plan. However, it was tabled in

the Senate Urban Affairs Committee by the

chairman, who regarded the Council-Commission

controversy as one of metropolitan government

responsibility and authority rather than a conflict

between two choices of transit mode.

Then the legislature established a study Subcommittee on Mass Transit and adjourned for the

summer. During the summer this subcommittee

directed staff research on the mass transit controversy, held 17 hours of formal public hearings,

took a 6-day trip to five western cities to evaluate

transit hardware, and had numerous informal

discussions with knowledgeable individuals. The

result was a subcommittee report, “The

Metropolitan Mass Transit Need” (November 15,

1973), which favored elements of each plan. It

agreed with the Commission’s extensive bus

improvement program and automated fixedguideway proposal but felt it was too expensive; it

agreed with the Metropolitan Council’s strategy of

incrementally developing a transit system starting

with immediate bus system improvements, but

rejected a system solely of exclusive busways; and it

agreed with the PRT service concept of on-demand,

non-stop, origin-to-destination service but rejected

the proposed fine-grain network that was to be

exclusive PRT. Moreover the subcommittee staff

concurred in the Citizens League’s findings that

low-cost alternatives must be part of any transit

solution.

The legislature once again asserted its role as an

active participant in Twin Cities transportation

planning by enacting the Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 (MRA)11 along with several pieces

of legislation dealing with low-cost transportation

alternatives (carpools and employer vans, a bus

service expansion program, and a small-vehicle

fixed-guideway study).l2

The latter piece of legislation directed the

Metropolitan Transit Commission to plan an

automated small-vehicle fixed-guideway system

within the metropolitan transit taxing district. The

Q Letter to Albert J. Ho fstede, Chairman of the Nletropolitan

Council from Thomas S. Hay, Esquire, January 25, 1973.

lo “Feasibility of a Low Risk, Incremental Investment Strategy

for the Twin Cities Regional Transit System” Metropolitan

Council, 1973.

I I Minnesota Session Laws, 1974, Chapter 422.

12 S.F. No. 2703 .

15
Metropolitan Council was to cooperate with the

Metropolitan Transit Commission and to provide

general policy guidance in developing the plan. The

study was to be completed by January 1, 1975, and

reported to the legislature with Commission

recommendations as well as to the Metropolitan

Council for its review. Based on the plans

developed in this study, the Metropolitan Council

was to prepare a final report for the legislature

before February 1, 1975, setting forth its findings

and recommendations based upon the Metropolitan

Development Guide.

In.accordance with the 1974 MRA legislation, the

Metropolitan Transit Commission worked with

the Metropolitan Council and its staff members in

preparing a study design for Metropolitan Council

approval. In order to refine the general directives

set forth by the legislature, the Commission

convened a study design conference to define key

issues to be addressed in the study and to update

information on the state-of-the-art in each of a

dozen or more issue areas. The conference

participants included PRT system advocates,

representatives of transportation operating agencies, system planning experts, and manufacturers.

The resulting study design carefully specified the

considerations to be studied. The consultant was to

analyze and evaluate several alternative smallvehicle fixed-guideway systems and then compare

these systems with the current Commission plan.

The Minnesota Legislature provided $300,000

to finance the small-vehicle study. The

Metropolitan Transit Commission sought an

additional $100,000 from the Urban Mass

Transportation Administration to assist in the

effort. On August 6 , 1974, the Urban Mass

Transportation Administration reallocated

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

Commission’s request.

The work began in August 1974, directed and

closely supervised by a management committee

composed of three representatives from the

Metropolitan Council and three from the

Metropolitan Transit Commission. A consultant

team of DeLeuw, Cather with the support of two

local firms took major responsibility for the study,

reporting to the management committee. The

consultants’ final report was a technical report

prepared for the Metropolitan Transit Commission

showing the required comparison of several types

of personal and group rapid transit systems with

the Commission’s Phase III-A-2 recommended 40-

passenger vehicle.

The Commission and the Council drew conflicting findings and recommendations from the smallvehicle study. The Commission found that the

optimum system would be one based on a 16-seat

vehicle. It recommended implementing a fixedguideway system of some sort other than conventional large rail transit to serve as the basic element

of a transit system. In addition, the Commission

recommended against a PRT concept for regional

service and suggested that a final systems analysis

include light rail transit as a possible alternative to

the more heavily automated concepts.

The Metropolitan Council took the more extreme position against any automated fixedguideway rapid transit for a regional system;

instead the Council continues to support a regional

bus transit system as the best solution,

Thus, as yet no decision has been made on a longrange public transit plan. Nevertheless, agreement

has been reached to concentrate on making shortterm improvements in the bus transit system.
Chronology of the Transit Planning Process

1958 The Minnesota Highway Department

initiated the area’s first metropolitan

transportation planning effort, the

Twin Cities Area Transportation Study.

1962 The Joint Program was established,

consisting of the Metropolitan Planning

Commission, the Minnesota Highway

Department, and other planning and

governmental bodies. It undertook a

major transportation and land use study

in the metropolitan area.

1967 In mid-1967, the Minnesota State

Legislatur e established t h e

Metropolitan Transit Commission. The

Commission began in 1968 with a series

of long-range planning studies. A few

days later, the State legislature created a

new regional governmental body, the

Metropolitan Council. The Council set

up a Transportation Planning Program

to facilitate coordinated transportation

planning.

1969 Upon completion of the long-range

planning study done for the Transit

Commission by Alan M. Voorhees, a

joint Commission-Council staff report

was prepared, setting forth the major

components of a metropolitan transit

planning program for 1970-71. The

report recommended a “family of

vehicles” concept that would use a

variety of transportation modes, including fixed-guideway and bus service.

1970 Late in the year, the Metropolitan

Council approved a Federal grant to the

Transit Commission for preliminary

engineering on a fixed-guideway

system. The subsequent study proposed

a fixed-guideway system utilizing a 40-

passenger vehicle as the backbone of a

regional system.

1971 The legislature further defined the role

of the Transit Commission; it was to

implement the development guide prepared by the Metropolitan Council.

1972 In the fall, the Metropolitan Council

declined to review the Metropolitan

Transit Commission’s transit plan on

the grounds that the Council had

exclusive authority to determine longrange transit plans. Meanwhile, the

Council hired Barton Aschman, Inc., to

study a bus approach to regional mass

transit.

During the same period, further consideration of a personal rapid transit

(PRT) system was advocated by University of Minnesota professor Edward

Anderson.

1973 On November 15, the legislature’s

Subcommittee on Mass Transit published a report called “The Metropolitan

Mass Transit Need,” which favored

elements of the Council’s bus proposal

and the Commission’s fixed-guideway

plan, as well as selective use of PRT.

1974 The legislature passed the Metropolitan

Reorganization Act, directing the Transit Commission to complete by January

1, 1975, a plan for an automated smallvehicle fixed-guideway system within

the metropolitan transit taxing district.

The Council was to provide policy

guidance.

Work began in August 1974 guided by a

management committee composed

equally of Commission and Council

members. The consultant’s first report

compared the Commission’ s

recommended 40-passenger vehicle

system with other alternatives.

17
The Commission and the Council drew 1975 No decision has been made on a longconflicting findings from the study. The range public transit plan. However,

Commission recommended a fixed- agreement has been reached to concenguideway system other than concen- trate on short-term improvements to

tional rail transit, based on a n-seat the bus system.

vehicle. The Metropolitan Council opposed any fixed-guideway system and

continued to support a regional bus

system.

18
Critical Assessment of the Planning

and Decisionmaking Process

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

The conflicts between the Metropolitan Council

and the Metropolitan Transit Commission have

had both negative and positive effects on the Twin

Cities’ transit planning process. It is clear that

disagreements between the Council and the

Commission in particular instances have caused a

duplication of some planning efforts and delays in

some decisions.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the

public has benefited from the airing of the

alternative transit solutions that have been advocated. “It was the legislature’s purpose to

promote open discussion and possible disagreements, ” noted Metropolitan Transit Commission Chairman Doug Kelm, “with the idea that

through debate and discussion, a more thoroughly

considered overall plan for the metropolitan area

would result . , , indeed the legislature even made

provision for itself to be the final arbiter of any

dispute that the system was unable to resolve.”l3

. . . a transportation development program,

providing for the implementation of the policy plan

adopted by the Council.”l5

The language cited above from the MRAdirected

the Metropolitan Council to make broad policy

regarding transportation and directed the

Metropolitan Transit Commission to develop its

specific transportation development program consistent with the policy direction provided by the

Council.

In other words, the Metropolitan Council makes

“policy” decisions and the Metropolitan Transit

Commission makes “technical” decisions. The

Council-Commission controversy now centers on

what are “policy” decisions as distinct from

“technical” decisions. The selection of a transit

mode is the unresolved fundamental decision

which remains subject to this controversy. The

Metropolitan Transit Commission feels that choice

of mode is a “technical” decision while the

Metropolitan Council believes that the choice of

mode is a “policy ’’decision, or at the least, has a very

significant impact on implementing its policies for

Forum for Decisionmaking the region in all areas. 16

The Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 A final judgment concerning the success of MRA

(MRA) clarified the role of each agency concerning in resolving the transit planning conflict between

transit planning. The Metropolitan Council sets the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan

the overall policy framework or plan and then Transit Commission must be deferred until the

reviews the programs from each commission, decisionmaking process it put in motion has

including the Metropolitan Transit Commission, to produced a long-range plan.

make sure that they are consistent with the policy Public Involvement plan. More specifically, the act states that “the

(Metropolitan) Council shall adopt a transportation The early phases of long-range planning conpolicy plan as a part of its comprehensive develop- ducted by the Metropolitan Transit Commission in

ment guide . . . which shall include policies relating cooperation with the Metropolitan Council relied

to all transportation forums.”l4 Q In another section on a 41-member Advisory Committee on Transit

it is further stated, “The Commission shall prepare (ACT), a volunteer group composed of representatives chosen by the commissioners themselves.

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

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

“roles and Relationships of the Metropolitan Council and the pursuant to the Small Vehicle Study points out that a decision to

Metropolitan Transit Commission,” January 22, 1973. implement a regional, fixed-guideway system would preclude

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

19
An ACT member serves on the Project Management Board of some studies as the public representative. In addition, the group hears presentations on all projects. The poor attendance at ACT

meetings and the countless other responsibilities of

its members may be two reasons why the group has

been ineffective as a significant influence on the

Commission’s decisions.

.Although the Metropolitan Transit Commission

does not utilize conventional public hearings as a

method of community participation, it has frequently made informal public presentations on the

course of its studies.

When the Metropolitan Reorganization Act of

1974 placed responsibility for long-range comprehensive transportation planning with the

Metropolitan Council it also contained a provision

for public agency and citizen involvement which

states as follows:

The Council shall assure administration

and coordination of transportation planning with appropriate State, regional and

othe r agencies, counties , and

municipalities, and together with the

Commission shall establish such an advisory body consisting of citizen representatives, Commission, municipality, county

and appropriate State agency representatives in fulfillment of the planning

responsibilities of the Council and the

Commission.

Under this authority, the Metropolitan Council

established the Transportation Advisory Board in

September 1974 to replace the old Transportation

Planning Program (TPP) for the purposes of

providing a forum for local officials and citizens to

discuss transportation matters, for assisting and

advising the Metropolitan Council, and to satisfy

the planning requirements of the Section 134

provision of the Federal-Aid Highway Act. Its three

major activities were to consist of reviewing and

approving the unified transportation planning

program, monitoring the work of that program,

and developing an annual report.

The transportation Advisory Board has held one

or two meetings per month primarily focused upon

short-range issues of transportation concern. The

Board tends to reflect the views of county and

suburban officials. Overall, the Transportation

Advisory Board appears to have the potential for

being a more effective channel for agency and

20

community input than the TPP was, inasmuch as it

has been assigned its own staff coordinator and

appears to have better access to the Metropolitan

Council.

Generally, the discussion of transit issues in the

Twin Cities outside the walls of the formal

planning institutions has been widespread, perceptive, and sophisticated. One reason is the work of

the Citizens League. The League is an independent,

nonpartisan educational organization in the Twin

Cities area, founded in 1952, which has specialized

in questions of government planning, finance, and

organization. It has a number of volunteer research

committees which are supported by full-time

professional staff. Several such committees have

produced a number of reports since 1965 addressing transit issues. These reports have had

wide circulation and significant influence on the

transit planning process.

Other reasons can be cited for the high level of

community awareness of transit issues, including

extensive amount of press coverage by individuals

who understand the key issues, the open, wellpublicized discussion forums in the legislative

arena, and the large number of interest groups (for

example, the Minnesota Public Interest Research

Group, MPIRG) which are concerned with

transportation issues.

In developing its family of vehicles plan, the

Commission ran into significant community opposition. People questioned the need for a transit

plan consisting primarily of radial rail corridors

focused on downtown Minneapolis, where only 5

percent of all metropolitan trips were destined.

With two downtowns and a relatively low population density in the region, citizen groups felt

another type of solution would be more appropriate. The Citizens League conducted a series

of studies to develop innovative solutions to the

region’s transportation problems, based on an

initial premise that it was important first to build

transit ridership and not necessarily transit

facilities.

The Minnesota Legislature has provided the

Twin Cities metropolitan area with one of the

strongest and most comprehensive regional planning agencies anywhere in the country. Compared

with the more conventional Council of

Governments, which has only the review powers

given it by the Federal A-95 process as applied to

federally aided projects, the Metropolitan Council
has been provided with a means by which disputes

can be settled at the regional level.

The Council was authorized in its enacting

legislation to prepare and adopt a comprehensive

development guide for the metropolitan area

encompassing physical, social, and economic needs

of the area. It is further authorized to review all

long-term comprehensive plans for th e

metropolitan area, and if the Council determines

that such plans have “metropolitan significance,” it

has the power to temporarily set aside the plans.

More specifically, in order to implement plans the

Metropolitan Council has the further powers to:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

The

Review and comment on comprehensive

plans of local governments which are

required to subm-it such

Review and comment

interstate and State

proposals.

Review and comment

plans.

on metropolitan

trunk highway

on Federal aid

applications, including those for transit

planning or development where such

review is required by Federal law or a

Federal agency.

Veto grant applications of loca l

governments for open space land acquisition if the project is not in accord with

established priorities.

Operate a metropolitan sanitary sewer and

disposal plant system through a subordinate board appointed

Metropolitan Council.

Operate an open space program

subordinate board appointed

Metropolitan Council.

by th e

through a

by the

Regulate the location and use of solid waste

disposal sites.

Minnesota Legislature is considering the

enactment of a new mandatory planning bill that

would substantially increase the power of the

Metropolitan Council. The new act would require

each of the 189 municipalities and each of the seven

counties to develop a comprehensive plan by July 1,

1979. Each comprehensive plan would include

public facilities, implementation program and

financing, and a land use plan which would be

reviewed by the Metropolitan Council for consistency with the metropolitan plan. However, the

Metropolitan Council would first prepare a

Metropolitan System Statement by July 1, 1976,

outlining the capacity of each system—parks,

transportation, sewers, and airports. If then in the

determination of the Metropolitan Council a

particular comprehensive plan is not consistent

with metropolitan plans, the Metropolitan Council

could require modification as appropriate. The new

act would permit the Metropolitan Council to seek

court enforcement in order to implement these

review and modification powers.

Municipal control is preserved in all areas except

the four omitted in the Council’s System Statement. The new act is intended to enable the

Metropolitan Council to plan effectively for these

regional systems. To date, this is the strongest

legislation ever seriously considered by any State or

even debated in any State legislature.

TECHNICAL PLANNING PROCESS

This section evaluates the technical planning

work performed in the two major transit studies in

the Twin Cities area: the Metropolitan Transit

Commission’s three-phase, long-range transit

study, beginning in 1968, and the recent (March

1975) Automated Small Vehicle Guideway Systems

Study.

In summary, both studies were well designed and

meet many of the guidelines for a commendable

technical process. No significant criticism of the

technical work has been raised in the public debate

in the Twin Cities region. When a significant

segment of the community concluded the earlier

studies had not adequately investigated the smallvehicle alternative, the legislature responded with a

mandate for the additional study. The current

debate results from disagreement over the level of

service to be provided. The differences of opinion

probably are not susceptible to solution by provision of any additional technical information.

Goals and Objectives

The long-range transit study begun in 1968 was

ahead of its time in that it formalized its goals.

Three major goals were identified in the

Metropolitan Development Guide: “to provide for

ease of movement through the area” and “to

provide for a variety of modes of travel to meet the

needs of different people. ” These two goals are

directly related to the third and most important

21
goal, the achievement of what is generally called “a

higher quality of life.” Although these goals were

very general, they provided the basis for evaluation

criteria which were applied in the analysis of each

alternative.

Development and Evaluation

of Alternatives

The first effort in the long-range study program

was a technical report titled “Screening and

Evaluation of Public Transit Systems.” This report

considered nearly 100 transportation vehicle

concepts and concluded that prospects for viable

transit system alternatives would be limited to

conventional transit technology. The study found

that “new concept technology” was insufficient for

trunk, line transit systems although it might be

applicable for higher-density areas (presumably

circulation system application). Therefore, the

consultants selected more conventional transit

systems in a comparative evaluation for the longrange development program.

The basis for the comparative evaluation was a

set of criteria developed by the consultant after an

assessment of the area’s transportation requirements, extensive discussion with the Transit

Commission and its staff, the Metropolitan Council, and other Federal, State, and local officials as

well as private citizens. Criteria also were selected

from the regional goals as expressed in the

Metropolitan Development Guide, which had been

prepared by the Joint Program.l7

The range of alternatives did not include a “pure

highway” alternative or a “do-nothing” alternative.

It did consider several low-level capital investment

alternatives, including buses on freeways and

streets (System B), and metered freeway buses

(System E). The remaining alternatives included:

System A . . . . . . . .

System A-1 . . . . . .

System C . . . . . . . .

System D . . . . . . . .

System D-1 . . . . . .

Rapid Rail Transit

Rapid Rail Transit With Extended Station Spacing

Commuter Railroads

Busways Without Downtown Subways

Busways With Downtown

Subways

It should be noted that in 1968 and 1969 no

Federal requirements called for consideration of

alternatives; consideration of the “do-nothing”

alternative was almost unknown. In fact, Federal

aid monies were not available to a transit agency to

examine highway alternatives as potential

solutions nor was it considered appropriate to

infringe upon the jurisdiction of another transportation agency. The coordination between the

Commission and the Council was primarily at the

policy level and not at the technical level.

The study attempts to define each alternative

under study in comparable terms to the extent

possible. Although the base data information in the

forecasting model and patronage figures were

criticized by some,l8 generally the problems

identified were generic problems attendant with

the state-of-the-art. The data represented the most

recent and best available.

Next, each of the alternatives was evaluated by

the selected criteria using a five-point rating

system. This rating system, which utilized the

terms “superior,” “excellent,” “good,” “fair” and

“poor,” was also criticized as lacking sufficiently

precise measures to be able to point out significant

differences. l9 However, the major role of the

evaluation section was to present a comparative

evaluation of the way in which each alternative

transit system satisfies generally the designated

criteria so that the reader can gain a maximum

understanding of the tradeoffs in the process of

system selection. The study evaluation indicated

that rapid rail transit (System A) had the best

overall rating, although busways with CBD

subways placed a close second. The study evaluation appears to be comprehensive in considering

and discussing the application of each criterion. The

consultant also developed and described a transit

improvement strategy for long-range implementation and a recommended transit development

program.

The consultant’s study in Phase II recommended

conventional rail rapid transit to serve as the

backbone of a regional system for Twin Cities.

Notwithstanding this recommendation, the Commission moved forward in May 1970 with Phase III,

which was intended to carry the total regional

transit system to the point where all facilities would

17 Report No. .5 (~gbs).

22

IS MpIRG Report, “The MTC Long-Range Transit planning

Process: We’re not Gettin’ There,” November 8, 1972.

19 Ibid.
be sufficiently well-defined for the initiation of

final design. The Phase III work was divided into

three sub- phases as

Phase III-A-1 . . . . .

Phase III-A-2 . . . . .

Phase III-B . . . . . . .

follows:

System Concept Plan and

Refinement of Subsystems

(1970-71)

Development of Performance

Specifications for Regional

Fixed- Guideway System

(1971-72)

Preliminary Design and

Detailed Impact Analysis

The Phase III-A-1 study directly followed the

completion of the Phase II study. The study refined

transit corridors, further investigated development

impacts, produced financial plans, and identified

the functional roles of the members of the “family

of vehicles. ” However, this study did not recommend a fixed-guideway vehicle nor vehicle

technology to satisfy this function,

The study produced seven technical reports and a

final report entitled “Transit Options for the Twin

Cities Metropolitan Region,” which summarized

the findings of the technical reports and offered

some conclusions. One of the technical reports20

presented a discussion of new transit systems

pertaining to those systems in which the Federal

Government has expressed interest. The technical

work in examining alternative new technology

systems was criticized for excluding the discussion

of any foreign systems and presenting those

systems considered in a highly generalized

fashion. 21

As mentioned earlier, the findings of the III-A-1

study provided the basis for the development of the

Commission’s major policy statement entitled

‘Transit in Transportation” (January 1971) which

contains objectives, policies, and a system concept

plan based on the “family of vehicles” concept.

The Phase III-A-2 study was called “Development of Performance Specifications for a Regional

Fixed Guideway System.” This report was the last

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

systems from which a recommended system was

selected:

Type A—Rapid Rail Transit

Type B—Transit Expressway (Intermediate

Capacity Rapid Transit)

Type C—Activity Center Transit

Type D—Personal Rapid Transit

Type E—Bus on Busways

The last alternative, Type E, was added late in the

study at the request of the Metropolitan Council.

The analysis of these five transit systems indicated

that a conventional rail transit system (Type A),

while as cost-effective as the intermediate-capacity

fixed-guideway system (ICRT) (Type B), was

rejected on the basis that it would not provide

adequate service to the outlying major diversified

centers. The bus-on-busways sytem (Type E) was

ruled out on two counts—high annual cost and the

extreme difficulty in integrating buses into the

downtown areas. The PRT (Type D) and activity

center transit (Type C) (now called Group Rapid

Transit or GRT) were rejected primarily because

they were not cost-effective. Thus, the Commission developed performance specifications for the

ICRT system (Type B). It estimated that for a first

stage of the regional backbone system for the

family of vehicles approach, a 37-mile, $550 million

fixed-guideway system using 600 vehicles and 25

stations should be constructed. 22

The most recent study (March 1975), the

automated small vehicle fixed guideway systems

study, represents a technically sound and wellpresented culmination of work comparing the

capabilities and costs of several types of small

vehicle systems among themselves and with an

intermediate-capacity transit system. Within the

limitations and specific direction prescribed by the

legislature, the joint management effort of the

Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Transit Commission in directing a consulting team

appears to be quite successful.

The consultant’s technical report to the

Metropolitan Transit Commission demonstrates a

meticulous approach to defining, developing, and

evaluating the alternative small-vehicle systems.

The consultant team produced detailed working

papers over the course of the study. These working

20 Technlca] Report No. 3 entitled “Review of Technology and

Federal Urban Transit Programs.”

~’ MPIRG Report, op. cit., p. 39.

zz “performance and General System Specifications for the

Regional Fixed Guideway System,” Metropolitan Transit

Commission (January 1974).

23
papers covered objectives and criteria, data-base

development and analysis methodology, system

configurations, screening of small vehicle options,

selection of optimum small vehicle systems, traffic

forecasts, and system analysis simulation results

(in several drafts). The papers were reviewed by the

to obtain input in the course of the

The study devoted considerable

analysis of policy direction given by

study.

time to the

the Commission, the objectives and criteria which would be

utilized to compare the relative merits of one

system over another, and the methodology by

which the evaluation could be performed. The

thorough discussion of this study framework basis

appears to have assured the in put of all interested

parties.

The definition of the generic types of smallvehicle systems was very specific and appears to

have allowed the maximum opportunity for direct

comparison. In that regard, perhaps one of the

unique features of this study was the active

participation of a Transit Systems Supplier Advisory Committee composed of transit industry

representatives, which also reviewed and commented on the working papers. In addition, there

were two technical conferences sponsored for the

benefit of this study. Their input was valuable in

making the necessary adjustments among generic

systems to allow comparison. In addition to the

precise definition of alternatives to be considered,

the study includes a comprehensive inventory of

both domestic and foreign transit systems

throughout the world, indicating their status of

operation. The more important foreign systems are

outlined and discussed in the study’s technical

report.

Finally, the small vehicle study updated the work

of the Metropolitan Transit Commission on its

intermediate-capacity rapid transit system and

compares this system with the other small-vehicle

fixed-guideway systems. The alternatives were

compared in relation to each of the evaluation

criteria, and, where possible, presented in tabular

form. Once again, the evaluation of alternatives

appears to have been done in a comprehensive and

thorough manner. Each evaluation criterion was

discussed in the evaluation section, noting the

advantages and disadvantages

compared. Significant work was

the costs and present value

alternatives in an intelligible and

—

of the systems

done to present

analysis of the

precise manner.

The technical report by the consultants did not

recommend a preferred alternative. A determination of specific findings and conclusions from which

recommendations would result was left to the

Metropolitan Transit Commission and the

Metropolitan Council in accordance with the

legislative directive.

24
The purpose of this section is to summarize the

nature of the transit planning and decisionmaking

process in the Twin Cities region in light of the

guidelines listed in the Introduction to the case

assessments. The summary therefore is divided

into two parts: (1) Assessment of the Institutional

Context and (2) Assessment of the Technical

Planning Process.

1. ASSESSMENT OF THE

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

● Forum for Decisionmaking. -The State of

Minnesota Metropolitan Reorganization

Act of 1974 clarified the roles of the

Metropolitan Council an d the

Metropolitan Transit Commission in transit planning. Full resolution of competition

between these two organizations will come

only after the present process of selecting a

transportation development program is

worked out. On the other hand, the

coordination between transportation planning and land use and development planning has been very effective due to the

activities of the Metropolitan Council in

both these fields. The Minnesota State

Legislature has provided the Metropolitan

Council with one of the strongest and most

comprehensive sets of powers given a

regional agency anywhere in the country.

● Accountability of Decisionmakers.—The

Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan

Transit Commission are appointed bodies.

Since members of both have relatively

long-term appointemnts and no immediate

ties to local officials, these institutions have

developed a more regional approach to

problem-solving.

Summary Case Assessment

Ž Public Involvement .— Both the

Metropolitan n Council an d the

Metropolitan Transit Commission maintain citizen advisory committees. However, the bulk of citizen response and

contribution occurs outside the formal

institutions through several sophisticated

and influential citizen organizations.

2. ASSESSMENT OF THE TECHNICAL

PLANNING PROCESS

● Goals and Objectives.—The Metropolitan

Transit Commission’s series of long-range

studies selected a comprehensive set of

goals and objectives and applied them in

evaluating each study alternative.

● Development of Alternatives.-The range

of alternatives considered in the first

phases of the Metropolitan Transit Commission’s long-range studies was consciously limited to conventional transit

technology; in order to fully consider “new

technology” transit, the commission

launched a third phase. The recent

automated small vehicle fixed guideway

systems study also demonstrates a

meticulous approach to defining and

developing alternatives.

● Evaluation of Alternatives.— Although

evaluation procedures in the first Commission study were criticized for lacking exact

quantitative values and the second for

overgeneralizing the systems considered,

the Small Vehicles Study is regarded as

thorough and highly competent,

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