by: Anne White, DCC Walkability Coordinator
11/8/2012

The Walkability Survey was launched on May 6th, with more than 100 people walking to light rail stations. Many walkers reported seeing things they had never noticed before on routes they walked every day, noting cracked and uneven the sidewalks or delightful gardens. Some were surprised to find the walk was quick and easy. However, those making the trip with someone using a walker or a wheelchair said their eyes were opened to the extra challenges faced by members of the disability community. 

The next steps for the DCC are to take these survey findings out to the community for review and additional input, and to begin engaging government agencies in developing and implementing strategies to address the most urgent pedestrian realm improvements before the Green Line opens for service in 2014. 

As the second installment in our series exploring the Central Corridor Key Outcomes indicators report and Central Corridor Tracker, we interviewed Chris Ferguson, chair of the Business Resources Collaborative. The BRC was created to support Central Corridor businesses and property owners during LRT construction and is now beginning to turn its attention toward economic development after the line starts operating.

When you look at the Tracker's macro view of the Central Corridor after two years, what's your biggest takeaway? Were you struck by any particular findings so far? 

From a business perspective, the biggest surprise was that only 56 businesses had been lost as of the end of 2011, with a net loss of three. We’d expected more businesses closing due to the construction impact by this point in the project.  The lower business closings can be attributed to small business owners’ will, fortitude and creativity to survive and the positive impact of Ready For Rail program including forgivable loans, technical assistance and marketing. So far through August of this year, the Met Council is reporting 30 openings and 26 closings or relocations off the Corridor, so the trend is positive but businesses need continued support to recover from the impacts of construction and be in a position to leverage the Green Line.

It’s also good to see the project’s construction opportunity goals are being met. Local minority-owned companies are getting contracts and people in the neighborhood are finding opportunities to work on the project. When the early indicators didn’t show that, there was a lot of fear it wasn’t going to happen.

What other numbers will you be watching for this year?

We’ll definitely be watching the numbers of businesses and their change in size over time. The best indicator would be the actual revenue gain and loss businesses are experiencing so we can see how they are recovering, but that data is just about impossible to get.

From a retail perspective, we want to see a higher WalkScore, since that will mean the Corridor is more likely to have vibrant retail environment and people will have the sense this is a good place for them to be shopping and dining.

How are you supplementing the information available in the Tracker?

We did our own study related to mitigating business losses, with the help of Wilder Research. We wanted to understand whether the services and support provided businesses helped them and what the businesses themselves did to mitigate impact of construction.

The report also gives a more complete picture of the demographics of the businesses, for example, whether they own or rent space, how long they’ve been in business and their experience with construction-related disruption.

The full report was just finalized, and I’m sure there will extracts from that study reported in the months ahead.

Can you give us an example of what it found? Any surprises?

One surprise for me was how the high degree of construction impact reported by the businesses was offset by the level of participation in the services available to help keep the number of businesses closing lower than expected. Of respondents, 36% participated in one or more of the construction mitigation services offered—good, but not as high as we’d hoped.

Given how much impact they felt, it was a surprise so few had gone out of business.

That said, based on everything we understand, it’ll take these businesses three to five years post-construction to get back to where they are healthy and thriving. One reason so many have made it this far is because of the great outreach and community support they’ve received. We can’t just shut it off the day the line starts running. That community support will be very important in the years ahead.

As the BRC's focus moves from business preparation and survival to jobs and economic development, what metrics are you concerned about?

Jobs are key. This was brought home to me by a study that found the Twin Cities metro area has the widest gap in unemployment rate between blacks and whites out of 19 major metro areas. The Corridor is heavily African American, so if we are going to make an impact on employment disparities between whites and African Americans, this community will be important in effecting that change.

Business ownership is very diverse along the Corridor. It will be important to maintain that diversity and to create job opportunities here. Access to transit will go up, and so we will also hope to see increased resident access to workplaces across the region.

As construction winds down, we have to turn our attention to some of these larger questions. We have talked about equity a lot during this project, but we have to be honest about what’s really happening here. The focus on construction jobs is a narrow one. We have to measure equity and track this larger disparity if we’re going to do something about it as a region.

Which indicators are most meaningful to businesses and investors you'd like to attract to the Corridor? Do you wish you had other data you could track?

As I mentioned, revenue would be the best indicator. We’d really like to be able to track how quickly businesses recover and analyze why some are doing better than others. Whenever a business closes, it’s tempting to solely blame construction, but most of the businesses that were completely healthy going in will probably survive. Those already struggling or with weak balance sheets will have much more trouble absorbing the impact. Unfortunately, the fact that the project started immediately after a recession meant that fewer businesses were in a good financial position.

We’d like to see the number of new businesses grow. To capture the full benefit of line, we should start measuring the impact for two blocks beyond University Avenue.

The total number of jobs in the Corridor is obviously a significant metric. Is local employment for people living here growing or not?

After spending $1 billion along the Corridor, we should also see the tax base broaden. Bringing more businesses into the city will help lower tax rates overall, so we’d like to see that impact.

Describe the changes you'd like to see over the next decade or two. How will that show up in the numbers?

I’d like to see us maintain the diversity of income and population that helps give this community its character. Along with that, we’ll have affordable business space that gives businesses a place to get started.

We’ll increase our density. With more people living in the area, businesses will have more customers and the train will have more riders.

Overall, I’d like to see a sense of momentum created, where people and businesses want to be part of this place. For some businesses coming in, I think the Effective Coordination and Collaboration indicators will be seen positively. Those scores give a good sense that you’re becoming part of a community with some vision and common goals that is working together.

by: Lars Christiansen, Hamline-Midway Coalition
October 18, 2012

The Central Corridor Friendly Streets (CCFS) Initiative was active in public engagement for the past two years to involve residents of Frogtown and Hamline-Midway on a proposal to redesign Charles Avenue in St. Paul.  Among the highlights of our work were a series of block parties along Charles Avenue (three in Frogtown, two in Hamline-Midway) throughout the summer of 2011.  These block parties drew over 700 residents.  At the block parties, we displayed 23 images of various infrastructure and placemaking concepts, asking people to give their opinions about what they would like to see on Charles Avenue.  We also asked attendees to complete surveys to express their opinions about traffic on Charles and what changes should occur on the Avenue.  

The volume of data we gathered at those block parties – 1700 opinions, over 200 surveys – was staggering and took months to analyze.  This analysis may be found in “Central Corridor Friendly Streets:  Report on Phase 1”.  We also held three events in 2012 to gain opinions about median closures at the major arterials, placemaking, mid-block features, ‘greenstreets’ concepts, and other ideas.  All told, CCFS has reached out to almost 900 people over eight events, gathering over 2400 opinions and over 200 surveys.  

October 11, 2012

By: Emily Seru, HECUA (Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs)
October 3, 2012

Community organizations along the Central Corridor LRT line have been making use of college interns to work on issues ranging from equitable development, to environmental justice, to the promotion of art and culture. The HECUA Central Corridor Internship Program helps communities connect the energy and enthusiasm of interns with community-driven initiatives. Over three years of this program, HECUA has placed twenty-nine interns at sixteen organizations along the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit in Saint Paul. Those interns have worked more than 11,200 hours on community-designed projects seeking to engage, inform, and empower residents of neighborhoods near the LRT. Community organizations design the projects; HECUA seeks foundation funding and recruits and supports the interns as they implement each project over a 400-hour summer internship.

Examples of community-designed projects from summers 2011 and 2012:

Asian Economic Development Association

• Supported struggling small Asian businesses along the Corrido
• Promoted the "Little Mekong" business district near Western and University

Aurora St. Anthony NDC--African American Cultural Center

• Connected with artists, musicians, and performers in the African American community to gather ideas and visions for the Center
• Organized a series of listening sessions hosted by local artists

Frogtown Gardens

• Engaged residents about urban farming and gardening as they raise the funds to secure the vacant Wilder property within the neighborhood
• Assembled an archive of photos, videos, and social media postings on a summer’s worth of gardening and farming activities in Frogtown to promote excitement about and knowledge of urban gardening initiatives

Friendly Streets Initiative

• Helped to organize block parties and collated data from resident surveys on street calming and placemaking concepts for streets parallel to University Avenue
• Leveraged public input at City-run forums and in letter-writing campaigns to public officials and to the editors of city and community newspapers

Frogtown Neighborhood Association in partnership with Twin Cities LISC

• Created a map of vacant and foreclosed properties and properties of historical significance which the organizations will use in leveraging funds to help Frogtown residents stay in the neighborhood and to repair aging housing stock

Preserve and Benefit Historic Rondo Committee

• Helped build support for an African American cultural heritage district in St. Paul — the Historic Rondo Cultural Heritage District
• Connected with local residents and businesses through one-to-one meetings, community updates, flyers, and education at local events

Union Park District Council—Skyline Towers

• Created a summer youth program with Somali and other East African teenagers
• Led teens on walking tours as a part of the District Councils Collaborative’s walkability study to assess pedestrian access to the Light Rail
• Created “Dream Boards” detailing the pedestrian amenities they’d like to see added between the high-rise and light rail station and ideas for land use and future amenities such as parks and recreation facilities.

HECUA hopes to continue the Central Corridor Internship Program through summer 2014 and has secured funding for summer 2013 projects. A call for proposals from community organizations wishing to hire a paid summer intern for the summer of 2013 will be announced October 22, 2012. For more information, please contact Emily Seru at eseru@hecua.org.

About HECUA (http://www.hecua.org):
The Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs (HECUA) has more than forty years of experience in academic-community collaborations focused on social justice. HECUA provides experiential learning opportunities that link rigorous academic study with hands-on work for social change. Alumni of HECUA programs have emerged as leaders in community and advocacy organizations in Minnesota and elsewhere. Consortium members are Augsburg College, Augustana College, Carleton College, College of St. Scholastica, Colorado College, Denison University, Gustavus Adolphus College, Hamline University, Macalester College, Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, St. Catherine University, St. Olaf College, Swarthmore College, University of Minnesota, University of St. Thomas, and Minneapolis Community and Technical College.

Funders for the Central Corridor Internship Program have included:
The F.R. Bigelow Foundation
The Central Corridor Funders Collaborative
The Otto Bremer Foundation
The Saint Paul Foundation

September 26, 2012

We interviewed Jane E. Tigan of Wilder Research, the principal researcher and author of the Central Corridor Key Outcomes - Indicators report, which provides the basis for the Central Corridor Tracker.

Each year since 2011, the Tracker reports on a set of indicators that align with the four longer-term outcomes the Funders Collaborative seeks to achieve in the Corridor: Access to affordable housing; Strong local economy; Vibrant, transit oriented places; and Effective coordination and collaboration.

Can you give us some insight on how the specific indicators used in the Tracker were chosen?

We started by asking ourselves, well, what do the four broad outcomes look like on the ground? We came up with specific questions that expressed a desired outcome. For example, “Can people of all incomes afford to live on the Corridor?” pertains to affordable housing. Stating it this way led us to look at income distribution, which in turn helped guide the data that we used to help answer the question.

Overall, we worked hard to find indicators that were:

• reliable
• consistent,
• available for small a geographic area, and
• updated on a relatively timely basis.

As a result, we use a variety of data types and sources, including data from federal and state agencies, the Metropolitan Council, and data from a qualitative survey of key stakeholders.

You drew from data covering different time periods, some of it from before the construction began. How much can we tell from this early data?   

Though we aren’t yet able to say a lot about the context indicators like the change in population and race or income distribution, we are able to say quite a bit about other indicators. For example, the Corridor is a more expensive place to live (considering housing and transportation costs) today than it was in 2000.

Although one of our business indicators is pre-construction, it tells us a lot about the economic picture before construction started—that the Corridor had a net loss of 1 in 5 of its businesses with 5-19 employees. Then look at the indicator we added in year two (business openings and closings along the Corridor frontage). We know that during the first year of construction, 53 businesses chose to open along the Central Corridor and that 48 businesses didn’t make it. Knowing the preconstruction context informs the current findings.

This foundation of understanding will help us as, year after year, we continue to add data.

How would you advise us to interpret these numbers? What’s a reasonable time horizon in looking for changes?  

I think the answer really depends on the end user and the indicator. The Tracker was designed to be a yearly summary update to help guide the Funders Collaborative. Theirs is a big picture approach, compared to an individual who might work on affordable housing supply or business development and retention. For those users, we are counting on the working groups and other organizations to complement the Tracker with their own information and meaningful indicators.

Depending on the indicator, the time horizon can vary. For example, when we talk about construction creating job opportunities, the indicator needs to be more time-sensitive than the indicator related to changes in income. That isn’t to say that rapid change couldn’t occur—were there to be a massive influx of high income households in the Corridor, the data would likely show that.

It is worth saying here, too, that very little change is also notable. “No change” might not make for a captivating headline, but the fact is meaningful in and of itself.

What is your biggest challenge tracking what’s happening in the Corridor?

The Corridor is a very complex geography! It’s made of 13 neighborhoods. It has different micro-economies within it, each of which is impacted uniquely by shifts in the larger economy. There are many cultures, races and income levels living and working within the Corridor, each of which has stories and contexts for why they are or are not changing.

The Tracker was not designed to isolate one of these innumerable variables and say, “This is changing the Corridor”—it was designed to say, “This is the change on the Corridor.” The language difference is slight, but conceptually the difference is important. In describing the change, the Tracker strives to help us better understand the context in which we work and help us understand the Corridor. It serves as a complement to our on-the-ground knowledge.

Were there any surprises in year 2?

There were definitely surprises and things I’m really looking forward to digging into this next year. For example, I’m interested to see how the businesses of all sizes, but particularly those that employ 5-19 people, are doing this next year. The Corridor lost 20% of them from 2009 to 2010—was that a blip? Did they actually go away or simply downsize to a smaller category? 

I’m eager to see how the businesses that immediately front the Corridor are doing, if residential density has increased and whether some of the dramatic changes we saw in the WalkScores were a blip or a trend. And how have stakeholders opinions changed after an additional year of working together? Whew—there’s a lot to keep an eye on!

Are there any things you really wish you could measure, but can’t?

Oh so many! There are so many different aspects of a vibrant place. I would love to be able to measure the number and quality of culturally specific services and offerings, which would include things like grocery stores and restaurants, but also things like dentist offices that cater to or tend to work with specific cultural groups. Getting at that would be a proxy for the health and contribution of the immigrant business community.

What about something that gets at the health of the real estate market, both housing and commercial? Or an arts indicator? How about how welcoming the Corridor is to new people and businesses? The possibilities are endless!

Additional detail and more targeted datasets can be helpful for a specific endeavor, but I think one of the strengths of the Tracker is that it provides a high-level overview of those four big goals so that we can begin to answer: Overall, how are we doing?

What’s your biggest takeaway from this project so far?

Maybe the biggest takeaway is the reinforcement of how complicated the analysis of each indicator can be. A lot of people want to know, “Well, why is it like that?” We can offer some context as to why numbers are changing, but we really leave it up to the user to take the indicators and give additional life to the indicator through their own experience.

Earlier, you gave the big picture answer about the research challenge. What were some of more the nitty-gritty challenges?

Relatively speaking, the Central Corridor is a small geography, especially for the indicators where the sources are federal (like the income and race data). We can’t just go in and find a breakout for the Corridor, so for some of those indicators, we use the data at a census tract level and add up those numbers to give us the numbers for the segments and the Corridor as a whole.

Then for something like income, the Census Bureau doesn’t ask all questions of every resident; they use the responses of a smaller group in order to talk about the characteristics of an entire population. So when we ask the Census to get down to this geography, it has to draw upon a very small sample of people in order to be able to say something like, “In the east segment of the corridor, median household income is lower than in the west segment.”

These are actually estimates that have a margin of error on them, something that every sample-based estimate has. It means that the numbers are a little fuzzy, which means that talking about change over time can be challenging, because lots of the apparent change from year to year is likely within the margin of error. It is because of these considerations that we look at the data on an ongoing basis, so we can tell if the change is showing a real trend.

The economy in the Corridor has received a lot of attention, so we wanted to improve the economic indicators. We’ve made them more geographically refined by using numbers derived from block-level data. That’s good news! The challenge is that a time lag still results from processing the data and taking care that certain size firms in the data don’t skew the results.

Eagle-eye readers of the full report will likely notice that some of our data sources and geographies have changed. Some of these were for reasons beyond our control: for example, the federal agencies (HUD, USPS) that handle the data we used in the first report weren’t certain that they would release it again, so we had to retool.

Previously we were using ZIP code-based data for our business measures, which allow for some industry specificity, but really lack the geographic specificity that we desire the Tracker. Through new collaborations with folks at the Met Council and MN DEED, we had access to a more geographically refined dataset for businesses and residential units. Consistency from report to report is important, so for all changes in data sources, we’ve back-revised the data and analysis used for comparisons.

The Tracker provides some context within the Twin Cities as a whole and also breaks out the East, Middle and West segments of the Corridor. What kinds of things should users of this report look for in the bigger and smaller slices of data?

Users who might not work on the Corridor-wide scale or who are interested in seeing the variation can look at the full outcomes report [Central Corridor Key Outcomes- Indicators (2012)] for the segment breakdown. We also provide a few maps by census tract, which I have found particularly interesting.

Take a look at page 30 of the full outcomes report to look at the median income by census tracts. The data reported by tract allows you to see far more variation in median income along the Corridor than the segment breakdown. I like to look at a single LRT station and see all of the income variation in the tracts surrounding it.

Central Corridor Median Income 

“Vibrant places” and “effective communication and coordination” are a bit tougher to measure with hard numbers.

It’s important to remember that data can explain and help understand a lot about a place and help us guide our actions, but it can’t tell us everything. There is a certain indefinable quality about a place, especially when you’re talking about vibrancy. We can develop datasets to track a proxy for it over time, but you can also get out on the street and feel it (or not). People working on the corridor, in any context, really, will benefit from multiple angles and perspectives in order act.

We knew that there was no administrative dataset that could help us understand “effective coordination and collaboration.” For that reason, we chose to use a key stakeholder survey and interview to gauge progress on that goal. This has proven to be a good way to hear very openly and honestly from those folks who are closely involved with the Collaborative’s efforts.

Have you learned anything from this experience as a researcher?

Yes. Sometimes you have to email people a lot to get the data you need.

Seriously, this has reinforced for me just how much community members and stakeholders want to strengthen their story with data and analysis. There is a lot of interest in these topics and the questions that we’ve been asked are so astute. Navigating the many different projects related to the Central Corridor has also been a good learning experience for me.  A lot of people know and are committed to the Central Corridor in a big way!

Do you envision some other ways the Tracker might continue to evolve?

One thing we’re excited about is that the working groups are developing indicators of success for their particular group. These are different than the context-level indicators that we’ve provided so far and they are still in formation, but you can expect to see a section of the Tracker that is devoted to the working groups as they develop their indicators.

Are you aware of other researchers or communities taking this approach to tracking change?

‘Data’ is so hot right now! The idea of tracking change isn’t a new one, but from my perspective it has reached a new level of ubiquity within planning, community development and non-profit circles. The whole concept of community indicators is something that the field is constantly working to improve and make understandable and accessible to people who aren’t data geeks.

If you’re interested in examples from around the nation, there are organizations that bring together folks in many cities and neighborhoods who develop community indicators. Community Indicators Consortium and the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership are a good place to start.

by: Dan Bartholomay, Chief Executive Officer, Rail~Volution
September 20, 2012

Rail~Volution 2012 is fast approaching! This year’s conference will be from October 14^th to 17^th in Los Angeles, California. Rail~Volution is a network, movement and conference that brings together passionate people, like those working to make the Central Corridor a success, who want to engage in thoughtful discussion about building livable communities with transit. Conference goers are citizen activists, developers, business leaders, planners, local elected officials, transit operators, government officials and more, dedicated to creating healthy, economically vibrant, socially equitable and environmentally sustainable communities with transit. We come together each year – from more than 300 communities, towns and regions of all sizes and shapes – to share ideas and breakthroughs, frustrations and inspiration.

As the CEO of Rail~Volution based in Minneapolis, it’s a privilege to expand my knowledge and impact by working with visionaries from across the country who are leading the movement to build livable communities with transit. At the same time, I am proud to be a part of the leadership in Minneapolis/St. Paul that is showing the way. The Central Corridor of our region is gaining national attention as a place where residents, non-profits, public leaders, community groups and other stakeholders are experimenting with new approaches to solving difficult problems and to creating new opportunities.

This fact is borne out by the growing numbers of speakers from the Minneapolis/St. Paul region being featured at Rail~Volution this year! An impressive group of leaders from all sectors will be participating.  Susan Haigh will focus on best practices in Transit Oriented Development and Charlie Zelle will participate at the closing plenary. Katie Walker will grapple with how stakeholders can influence transit design while Russ Adams will share tools for regional coalition building. Their involvement and others will make a powerful contribution to the substance of the conference.

The full list of speakers and sessions with connections to the Central Corridor (below) shows how involved our region will be at the conference. Given the high level engagement, it’s no wonder why the Minneapolis/St. Paul region applied for and was selected to host the Rail~Volution 2014 conference!  To be held in September, it will be an excellent opportunity to showcase the vitality of our community and the positive outcomes resulting from hard work of those striving to build livable communities with transit, in our region.     

• Cliff Garten, (Cliff Garten Studio) speaker, “The Art of Transit” session.
• Jim McDonough, (County Commissioner and Chair of Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority) speaker, “Mixing it Up in Transit Hubs” session.
• Anne White, (District Councils Collaborative of Saint Paul and Minneapolis) speaker, “Extending the Reach of Rail with Biking and Walking: The Fundamentals” session.
• Erik Takeshita, (Local Initiatives Support Corporation) speaker, “The Art of Transit” session.
• Jonathan Sage-Martinson, (Central Corridor Funders Collaborative) speaker,  “Indicators of Success: How Do You Measure a Livable Community?” and “Finance: New Fund Sources” sessions.
• Polly Talen, (John S. and James L. Knight Foundation) speaker, “Going the Extra Mile: Building Sustainable Communities with Philanthropy” session.
• Peter McLaughlin, (Hennepin County Commissioner) moderator, “Sue Me/Sue Me Not: Turning Doubters into Believers” session.
• Susan Haigh, (Metropolitan Council Chair) moderator,  “TOD and Joint Development: What's the Best Organizational Approach?” session.
• Katie Walker, (Southwest LRT Community Works Manager, Hennepin County) speaker, “How Can Stakeholders Influence Transit Design?” session.
• Repa Mekha, (Nexus Community Partners) speaker, “How Can Stakeholders Influence Transit Design?” session.
• David Van Hattum, (Transit for Livable Communities) speaker, “Pulling Together: Lessons in Transportation Advocacy” session.
• Russ Adams, (Alliance for Metropolitan Stability) speaker, “Feel the [Regional Coalition] Power!” session.
• Mark Vander Schaaf, (Metropolitan Council) speaker, “Innovative Regional Partnerships: Mirage or Reality?” session.
• Julie Wischnack, (City of Minnetonka) speaker, “Working Together: No Longer an Afterthought” session.
• Laura Zabel, (Springboard for the Arts) moderator, “The Art of Transit” session.
• Charlie Zelle, (Jefferson Lines) speaker, “New Tools to Build Your Funding Case” and “Creating Livable Communities with Transit: Three Ways to Measure the Success of our Movement” session
• Guy Peterson, (Metropolitan Council) speaker, “Finance: New Fund Sources” session.

Los Angeles is doing amazing work and the conference is shaping up to be one of the best.  All in all, it promises to be an informative and inspiring event!  I hope you will consider joining us.  Register now for the conference or follow us on Facebook and on our website at http://www.railvolution.org/. 

See you in Los Angeles! 

by: Mary Morse, The Neighborhood Energy Connection (NEC)
September 19, 2012

This post is the second in an occasional series “Connections to the Corridor”.  In this series, we will highlight a variety of efforts underway to connect people to the Central Corridor (officially known as the Green Line) and beyond.

Perhaps you’re already sharing a car with a friend or family member—after all, the act of sharing cars is as old as cars themselves. But when HOURCAR hit the streets in 2005, it inaugurated the era of modern car sharing in Minnesota. Instead of passing keys back and forth across the kitchen table, today’s car sharing enthusiasts reserve vehicles online, gain access and enable ignitions using electronic key fobs, and enjoy clean and safe drives thanks to a crew of local member services staff who dote on members and vehicles alike. Modern car sharing is streamlined and efficient, and most people are able to reserve a car the same day they want it. It’s not uncommon to find 50 drivers happily sharing just one or two cars in their neighborhood!

HOURCAR was founded to make car ownership optional in the Twin Cities. As Minneapolis and Saint Paul become more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly, residents are expanding their transportation mode repertoires and finding that owning cars is less necessary. Drivers who calculate the full costs of car ownership find that the result is not pretty—most analysts estimate that a typical non-luxury car costs greater than $7,000 per year, for every year of ownership. Couple these ongoing costs with the hassles of finding parking spaces, managing oil changes, and fleeing snow emergencies and it’s no surprise that HOURCAR has seen its member roster grow.

The 38 vehicle HOURCAR fleet is situated across 31 hubs located in densely-populated, transit-rich Twin Cities neighborhoods and on five college campuses. HOURCAR members reserve any vehicle in the fleet for as little as a half hour or as long as three days. Combined with transit, taxis, walking, and biking, a judicious use of HOURCAR provides residents with a convenient and affordable personal transportation network. A variety of vehicles are provided to suit members’ needs, from hatchbacks to pick-up trucks. And while plenty of people use HOURCAR as their second family car, even more members choose to live entirely free from car ownership.

The car-sharing revolution makes a lot of sense from personal and public health perspectives. If you live in the city and own a car, chances are that you’ll use it for trips that could easily be made by bus, rail, bike, or even on foot. This driving leads to significant negative health impacts for you and for the people breathing your car’s emissions. Plus, cars are a major contributor to climate changing carbon pollution. Car sharing is the key piece of the transportation puzzle that allows people to stick with healthier transportation choices like biking and walking. Car sharing is also an excellent vehicle emissions reduction strategy since car sharing members tend to drive fewer miles overall than car owners. Minnesota’s HOURCAR in particular has been a leader in introducing eco-friendly operating practices to the industry, including launching the world’s first shared solar-powered plug-in vehicles in 2006.

HOURCAR is a program of the Neighborhood Energy Connection, a Saint Paul based non-profit that promotes energy conservation across Minnesota. The program’s non-profit status and mission-driven orientation ensure that HOURCAR makes business decisions to benefit its members and the greater Twin Cities community, from pricing to vehicle choices. As a member of the international Car Sharing Association, HOURCAR collaborates with car-sharing operators from across North America and around the world to drive technological and operational advancements. Thanks to these relationships, HOURCAR members enjoy reciprocity with a number of other U.S. car-sharing companies.

The HOURCAR program is poised to grow significantly in the next two years, particularly along Twin Cities transit corridors. HOURCAR management aims to have hubs near most if not all stops on the Green Line, and to extend the existing HOURCAR hub network into new neighborhoods and college campuses as well as adding new hubs within currently-served areas.

HOURCAR member plans are available for individuals, households, students, businesses and organizations. The minimum age of membership is 18. Information on car locations and membership plans is available at www.hourcar.org.

The car sharing service plans to expand over the next two years, including adding hubs near stops along the Green Line. 

by Jill Hentges and Scott Thompson, Metro Transit
September 6, 2012

This post is the first in an occasional series “Connections to the Corridor”.  In this series, we will highlight a variety of efforts underway to connect people to the Central Corridor (officially known as the Green Line) and beyond. 

This fall, Metro Transit will put the final touches on the transit service plan that will provide critical bus connections to Central Corridor (Green Line) light-rail service in 2014. Since January, efforts to engage community members in the planning process included surveys, interactive mapping, small group meetings, presentations, open houses and the integration of Trusted Advocates in partnership with the District Councils Collaborative of Saint Paul and Minneapolis (DCC).

Central Corridor Transit Service Study area is bounded by the Mississippi River on the south, I-35E on the east, Larpenteur/East Hennepin avenues on the north and by Hiawatha Avenue, East Lake Street and the Mississippi River on the west. The study area is almost completely urban, including downtown Minneapolis, downtown St. Paul and the University of Minnesota, and covers many neighborhoods of St. Paul and Minneapolis and the suburbs of Lauderdale, Falcon Heights and Roseville. All of these key stakeholder groups were offered an opportunity to get involved in the Central Corridor Transit Service Study.  The population of the study area is about 246,000, and as of 2008, there were about 357,600 jobs located there. This represents about 8.6 percent of the population and 22 percent of the employment in the entire metropolitan area.

Transit Literacy Provides Planning Guidance

Since kicking off the transit service study, Metro Transit has been on the road, connecting with as many of the communities (transit customers and community/neighborhood groups) in the study area as possible. Initially, engagement included conversations about individual travel patterns and transit use. Following the draft concept plan, outreach expanded to share the plan with stakeholders and to gather feedback and comments. Fortunately, the communities include populations that are incredibly transit literate. The data, feedback and comments were very detailed and invaluable in the planning process.

The Trusted Advocate Project – a new feature for community outreach in the corridor – was used to help design transit service to best serve residents, employers, employees and students within the study area. With funding from the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative, DCC contracted with nine organizers from communities traditionally underrepresented in the public process including renters and new Americans from Africa, persons with varied abilities, African Americans and Southeast Asians. The trusted community members met with groups in the study area to gather input on future bus service in the corridor.

Major travel patterns and service improvement themes voiced by stakeholders included:

•        Frequency improvements such as on Raymond Avenue and Dale Street

•        Easier neighborhood-to-neighborhood travel without having to transfer in downtown

•        Better timed connections in general

•        New crosstown routes, such as on Lexington Parkway in St. Paul

Click here to see the Proposed Central Corridor Concept Plan Bus Service Network (pdf).

Next Steps
The revised plan will be fine tuned over the next few weeks, and Metro Transit staff will present the recommended plan as an information item to the Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee on Sept. 24.

Informational Open House

Metro Transit will host an Informational Open House to announce revisions to the concept plan from 4:30-6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 10, at Rondo Community Outreach Library. Served by Metro Transit routes 16, 50 and 65.

Contacts

•        Central Corridor Transit Service Planning, Scott Thompson, Senior Planner, Metro Transit, Scott.Thompson@metrotransit.org, 612-349-7774

•        Central Corridor Transit Service Outreach, Jill Hentges, Community Outreach Coordinator, Jill.Hentges@metrotransit.org, 612-349-7318

•        Trusted Advocate Project, Karyssa Jackson, Communications and Outreach Coordinator, District Councils Collaborative of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, karyssa@dcc-stpaul-mpls.org, 651-528-8165