metropolitan council & metro transit equity approach

1 Thrive & Metro Transit Equity Initiatives August 2014

Metropolitan Council & Metro Transit Equity approach This document provides an introduction to major equity initiatives underway at Metro Transit. It begins with broad policies and programs of the Metropolitan Council and moves to regional transit equity issues and initiatives under the direction of Metro Transit. It is not meant to be a comprehensive review of the Coun-cil’s work in the field of equity, but rather a high level summary. Finally, it responds directly to equity issues raised by the Equity Commitments Coalition for SWLRT and demonstrates the Council’s willingness to take action within its jurisdiction.

•Regionalpolicy:ThriveMSP2040•Regionalfocus:2014-15MetroTransitservice,customerfacilitiesandregionalplanning•Sub-regionalfocus:NorthMinneapolis&SWLRTconnections

Regional Policy: Thrive MSP 2040 Equity connects all residents to opportunity and creates viable housing, transportation, and recreation options for people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities so that all communities share the oppor-tunities and challenges of growth and change. For our region to reach its full economic potential, all of our residents must be able to access opportunity. Our region is stronger when all people live in communities that provide them access to opportunities for success, prosperity, and quality of life. For more information about Thrive MSP 2040, see thrivemsp.org.

2014-15 Metro Transit Equity InitiativesThe 2014-2015 Metro Transit Equity Initiatives is just the beginning. It is a high-level regional approach and first step in identifying areas to improve transit equity and initial action steps. This document is a summary of how our service performs today and how transitways strengthen access and connections to jobs for peo-ple living in racially concentrated areas of poverty (RCAPs). It also outlines action steps to enhance equity, which will be implemented by the end of 2015. These steps include:

•Adding 150-200 new or replacement customer waiting shelters. Nearly 100 of them will be located at new locations, the majority of which are within RCAPs;

•Providing enhanced shelter amenities like heat, light and transit information;•Strengthening our commitment on equal opportunity employment at the Metropolitan Council, with

added emphasis on Metro Transit’s new transitway projects;•Expanding community engagement by building on our previous efforts and partnering with local

community members and advocacy groups in a meaningful way.

Metropolitan Council members and staff will be reaching out to communities and advocacy organizations in the coming weeks and months to:

•Refine equity planning and develop new initiatives; •Review the Council’s response the SWLRT/North Minneapolis “equity commitments” document;•Engage community members about opportunities to improve service and related amenities

Thrive & Metro Transit Equity Initiatives August 20142

2014 Estimate Metro Transit Shelters and Amenities

Cost Minimum weekday boardings to consider placement*

Standard Shelter $7,500 40 urban area

25 suburban area

Advertising Panel $1,500

Light (solar or standard) w/o heat $5,000

Heat $30,000 80

*Heat can range from $10,000-$60,000

**Light (solar or standard) with heat $500

Real time schedule infor (existing power source)

$15,000

I. TransitCustomerShelters

Metro Transit owns and maintains 900 customer waiting shelters throughout the region, including those at Transitway stations, park and ride lots, transit centers and bus stops of which there are 800 (Map A). By the end of 2015, new shelters will be installed at 75-100 bus stops with a focus on RCAPs. An additional 75-100 old shelters, many recently acquired from CBS advertising, will be replaced, with the combined result of 150-200 new shelters available for our riders (Chart A).

Metro Transit has historical guidelines based on passenger demand to determine bus stop shelter placement. The minimum number of weekday passenger boardings required to consider placement of a shelter is 40 in the core cities and 25 in suburban areas, and more than 80 weekday boardings in any area to consider the addition of heat. These guidelines were developed to provide geographic coverage at lower boarding bus stops for transit customers in areas outside of core cities - many of which are destinations for Minneapolis and St. Paul residents.

Currently Metro Transit provides a shelter at about 50 percent of the stops that meet these minimum ridership requirements (Chart B). To meet 100 percent of shelter placement with these guidelines, an additional 400 shelters would need to be placed at bus stops at a cost of $3-5 million - not including amenities such as light and heat, or unforeseen site conditions.

ImageA:Oldshelter ImageB:Newshelter

*As noted above, shelter placement guidelines are under review.

Not all bus stops are suitable to place shelters. Locating shelters includes consideration of site suitability and space, spacing between shelters, transfer connections and ability to meet ADA requirements. Comprehensive and equitable shelter placement and amenity guidelines will be developed by Metro Transit with input from the community in 2014-2015.


Chart A: Shelter count Chart B: Shelter placement meeting minimum requirements

Shelter Amenity Improvement

In addition to the new shelters already programmed for 2014 and 2015, Metro Transit will also apply for funding to improve amenities at existing bus stops through the federal Ladders of Opportunity Grant to be awarded this year. Our application requests:

•$3 million in funding•Improvements to existing customer waiting shelters like solar powered light, heat and schedule

information •125-150 locations

A minimum of 10 percent of project funds to be dedicated for community engagement. Metro Transit will continue to pursue funding to make improvements to customer amenities, should this application be unsuccessful.

Thrive & Metro Transit Equity Initiatives August 20144 Thrive & Metro Transit Equity Initiatives August 20144

Blue Line

Green Line

§̈¦35E

§̈¦35W

§̈¦94§̈¦494

§̈¦394

§̈¦35

§̈¦35E

§̈¦35W

Saint Paul

Eagan

Blaine

Minneapolis

Hugo

Lino Lakes

Bloomington

Edina

Burnsville

Plymouth

Rosemount

Brooklyn Park

Coon Rapids

Savage

Eden Prairie

Fridley

Roseville

Inver Grove Heights

Maplewood

Maple Grove

Dayton

Minnetonka

Shoreview

Shakopee

Oakdale

Champlin

Arden Hills

Apple Valley

Woodbury

Crystal

Richfield

Cottage Grove

North Oaks

Golden Valley

Anoka

Saint Louis Park

Mendota Heights

White Bear Twp.

Brooklyn Center

New BrightonWhite Bear Lake

Vadnais Heights

Hopkins

New Hope

Prior Lake

Newport

Mahtomedi

South Saint Paul

Fort Snelling (unorg.)

Little Canada

West Saint Paul

Mounds View

Dellwood

Saint Paul Park

Robbinsdale

Centerville

Columbus

Grant

North Saint Paul

Ham Lake

Circle Pines

Falcon Heights

Sunfish Lake

Spring Lake ParkOsseo

Gem Lake

Forest Lake

Grant

Columbia Heights

Nininger Twp.

Saint Anthony

Andover

Lilydale

Grey Cloud Island Twp.

Lexington

White Bear Twp.

Saint Anthony

Pine Springs

Lauderdale

Mendota

Blaine

Medicine Lake

Birchwood Village

Hilltop Willernie

Landfall

Lake Elmo

Spring Lake Park

White Bear Lake

White Bear Lake

Transit Map

Map A: Existing and Planned Shelters

e

July 2014

I

0 2 41Miles

!! Proposed Shelter Sites

!! Bus Stops with Shelters

!T Transit Centers with Shelter

!P Park and Rides with Shelter

! Indicates HeatRacially ConcentratedAreas of PovertyAreas of ConcentratedPoverty

Map A: SheltersMap A: Shelters


II. TransitService

Background Some of Metro Transit’s most frequent (operating every 15-minutes or better on weekdays) and highest ridership transit routes serve Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RCAP) and Areas of Concentrated Poverty (ACP), including the METRO Green Line and Blue Line and bus routes 2, 3, 5, 18, 19, 64 and 84.

Portions of 46 local bus routes serve RCAPs. Ridership on these 46 routes totals nearly 20 percent of the region’s weekday rides. Since 2010, weekday bus trips increased on these routes an average of 5% on weekdays, 3% on Saturdays and 13% on Sundays. Examples of increased service include:

•Route 5 by 7% on weekdays•Route 19 by 33% on weekdays•Route 723 by 47% on weekdays

•Route 3 by 74% on Saturdays•Route 62 by 33% on Saturdays•Route 68 by 38% on Saturdays

Nearly 56,000 of 260,000 weekday boardings system wide, occur at bus stops within RCAP and ACP (see Map C).

Service Improvement Plan Metro Transit is developing a 10-15 year service improvement plan (SIP) for expanding the local and ex-press route bus network. This plan will help us prioritize where and how to improve our service when ad-ditional funding becomes available. Workshops with elected officials and community groups were held in November 2013. In addition, nearly 4,000 people completed our online survey. Staff are currently reviewing this feedback, identifying common themes, patterns and the most-requested improvements to develop a list of project ideas.

Goals of the SIP include:•Maximize ridership growth•Improve transit equitably•Emphasize high productivity/low-subsidy projects•Provide faster travel time

•Enhance connectivity of transit system•Support transit-friendly land use and design•Expand service for off-peak trip purposes

We can best achieve these goals by following four guiding principles in transit planning:•Design simple, direct routes. Simple routes that travel in nearly a straight line are easy to understand

and provide faster and more frequent service. A route that zigzags will be slower, more confusing and cost more to operate.

•Serve areas with high density of uses. Places with many people and destinations within a compact area are more cost-effective to serve with transit. Higher density allows for a smaller number of routes to serve a greater number of people and needs, making transit useful to more people.

•Balance frequency and coverage. This is the big tradeoff in transit. Metro Transit must balance its limited resources between providing fast, frequent service that people may have to walk longer distances to reach with service that covers more area, resulting in a shorter walk, but operates less frequently. The goal: serving the highest number of people while providing basic access across the region.

•Match level of service to demand. Whenever possible, we offer bigger buses and more frequent service where needed. Providing too much service is expensive and prevents trips and routes from being added in another area that needs it. Providing too little service makes transit less useful and can lead to crowding on existing service.

We are currently finalizing the review of survey input, incorporating feedback from other projects and re-visiting input from previous customer relations comments for overlooked project ideas. Our next steps are to estimate project costs and ridership and then determine prioritization evaluation criteria based on best practices and community transit values. Draft results will be available this fall for public review and feed-back, with a goal of finalizing the SIP in early 2015.

Thrive & Metro Transit Equity Initiatives August 20146 Thrive & Metro Transit Equity Initiatives August 20146

Blue Line

§̈¦35E

§̈¦35W

§̈¦94

§̈¦494

§̈¦394

§̈¦35

§̈¦35E

§̈¦35E

§̈¦35W

Saint Paul

Eagan

Blaine

Minneapolis

Hugo

Lino Lakes

Bloomington

Edina

Burnsville

Plymouth

Rosemount

Brooklyn Park

Coon Rapids

Savage

Eden Prairie

Fridley

Roseville

Inver Grove Heights

Maplewood

Maple Grove

Dayton

Minnetonka

Shoreview

Shakopee

Oakdale

Champlin

Arden Hills

Apple Valley

Woodbury

Crystal

Richfield

Cottage Grove

North Oaks

Golden Valley

Anoka

Saint Louis Park

Mendota Heights

White Bear Twp.

Brooklyn CenterNew Brighton White Bear Lake

Vadnais Heights

Hopkins

New Hope

Prior Lake

Newport

Mahtomedi

South Saint Paul


Little Canada

West Saint Paul

Mounds View

Dellwood

Saint Paul Park

Robbinsdale

Centerville

Columbia Heights

Columbus

Grant

North Saint Paul

Ham Lake

Circle Pines

Falcon Heights

Sunfish Lake


Gem Lake

Forest Lake

Grant

Nininger Twp.

Saint Anthony

Andover

Lilydale


Lexington

White Bear Twp.

Saint Anthony

Pine Springs

Lauderdale

Mendota

Blaine

Medicine Lake

Birchwood Village

Hilltop Willernie

Landfall

Lake Elmo

Spring Lake Park

White Bear Lake

White Bear Lake

Transit Map

Map B: Weekday Trips by Stop

e

July 2014

I

0 2 41Miles

Weekday Trips by Stop

1 - 50

51 - 150

151 - 300

301 - 500

More than 500Racially ConcentratedAreas of PovertyAreas of ConcentratedPoverty

Map B: FrequencyMap B: Frequency


Map C: Ridership


III. BusFleet

Metro Transit operates nearly 900 transit buses and remains committed to providing a fleet of clean, com-fortable and reliable buses to operate its service throughout the region, including in RCAPs. An analysis of vehicle assignments conducted as part of our Title VI Service Monitoring Study in 2012 showed that the av-erage age of buses used on predominantly low-income and/or minority routes is newer than for the overall system. This means that newer buses, which are most likely in better condition, are used on routes operat-ing in low-income and/or minority areas, such as RCAPs. This analysis will be completed again in 2015.

The newest generation of buses is 12% more efficient and has 90% cleaner emissions as compared to the late 1990s. Improved focus on maintenance has resulted in an 85% improvement in reliability. The number of bus miles between breakdowns improved from approximately 3,500 miles in 2003 to nearly 7,500 miles in 2012 and 2013. Our newest vehicles are considerably quieter, both inside and outside the vehicle.

Metro Transit’s 2012 Rider Survey indicated that local bus riders are overall quite satisfied with Metro Transit service. RCAPs are primarily served by local bus routes. On a scale of 1-5 (5 is highest) local bus riders gave us a score of 4.10. This compares favorably to the score from all customers of 4.23. An indicator of the high level of satisfaction on local routes is that local bus customers rated the following categories equal to or higher than the score of express riders:

•Vehicles are comfortable•Drivers operate vehicles safe/responsible•Vehicles are environmentally friendly•Availability of seats

IV.Transitwayandconnectingserviceplanning

Existing and planned transitways (as shown on Map D), including LRT, arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) and highway BRT, will strengthen the overall network serving RCAPs and employment centers, facilitating the movement towards greater economic opportunities for individuals living within the RCAP areas. Transitways improve mobility by providing faster service to new destinations. They also offer increased frequency and span of service, particularly in core transit market area.

Light-Rail Transit

In June of 2014 Metro Transit started service on its second light-rail (LRT) line: the METRO Green Line. This route connects downtown Minneapolis and downtown Saint Paul via the University of Minnesota and University Avenue. The METRO Green Line builds upon the success of the METRO Blue Line which began service in 2004. Both of these routes enhance the customer experience with:

•A faster, smoother ride•Low-floor vehicles for easier boarding•Stations that offer heat, light, way finding information and security cameras•Frequent service, with trips operating every 10 minutes throughout the day, every 10-15 minutes

evenings and every 30-60 minutes overnight


Bus Rapid Transit

In 2015, Metro Transit will introduce a new kind of bus service for the Twin Cities’ busiest urban streets starting with Snelling Avenue: A Line. Bus rapid transit – or BRT – improves existing station and roadway infrastructure, vehicles, technology and scheduling to provide a faster trip and an improved experience. BRT can be implemented in both urban corridor and highway settings. The benefits of BRT include:

•Frequent service: Service so frequent passengers won’t need a schedule, along with fewer stops so riders be moving more of the time;

•Train-like features: Riders save time by paying the fare before boarding and wait at enhanced stations;

•Enhanced stations with more amenities: Real-time departure signs so ensure riders always know when the bus is coming; enhanced maps and signage provide additional information;

•Enhanced security: Stations include cameras and emergency phones as well as additional fare enforcement by Transit Police and improved lighting;

•Specialized vehicles: Unique, recognizable buses with wider aisles and additional doors serve BRT lines so more people can get on and off easily.

Metro Transit’s goal is to implement one BRT line each year. Before 2020, and following Snelling Ave in 2015, BRT on West 7th Street in St. Paul and Penn Avenue in North Minneapolis are planned for implementation.

Arterial BRT station concept

Station Area Development Investing in a mix of housing affordability along the region’s transit corridors

As our region makes significant investments in transit, particularly transitways, we must also en-sure that the inevitable changes in neighborhoods along transit do not displace existing low-in-come residents. The increased accessibility that transit investments provide can lead to rising housing costs, making it more important to take proactive steps to preserve housing affordability and protect housing options for existing low-income residents. To promote a mix of housing afford-ability along the region’s transit corridors, the Council will:

•Align its resources and work with other partners to help preserve a mix of housing affordability along the region’s transit routes and corridors to help low-income households benefit from transit investments.

•Promote transit-oriented development that ensures a mix of housing affordability in transit station areas.


Map D: Transitways

!!̂̂!!̂̂

!!̂̂

Blue Line

Green Line

Green Line

Blue Line

Blue Line

Snel

ling

Ave

Chic

ago

Ave

Robe

rt S

t

Cent

ral A

ve

Penn

Ave

Frem

ont A

ve

Lake St

East 7th St

American Blvd

West 7th St

Henn

epin

Nico

llet A

ve

W Broadway

Ora

nge

Line

Red

Line

Northstar§̈¦94

§̈¦494

Saint Paul

Eagan

Blaine

Minneapolis

Hugo

Lino Lakes

Bloomington

Edina

Burnsville

Plymouth

Rosemount

Brooklyn Park

Coon Rapids

Savage

Eden Prairie

Fridley

Roseville

Inver Grove Heights

Maplewood

Maple Grove

Dayton

Minnetonka

Shoreview

Shakopee

Oakdale

Champlin

Arden Hills

Apple Valley

Woodbury

Crystal

Richfield

Cottage Grove

North Oaks

Golden Valley

Anoka

Saint Louis Park

Mendota Heights

White Bear Twp.

Brooklyn CenterNew Brighton White Bear Lake

Vadnais Heights

Hopkins

New Hope

Prior Lake

Newport

Mahtomedi

South Saint Paul


Little Canada

Mounds View

Dellwood

Saint Paul Park

Robbinsdale

Centerville

Columbus

Grant

North Saint Paul

Ham Lake

Circle Pines

Falcon Heights

Sunfish Lake


Gem Lake

Forest Lake

Grant

West Saint Paul

Columbia Heights

Nininger Twp.

Saint Anthony

Andover

Lilydale


Lexington

White Bear Twp.

Saint Anthony

Pine Springs

Lauderdale

Mendota

Blaine

Medicine Lake

Birchwood Village

Hilltop Willernie

Landfall

Lake Elmo

Spring Lake Park

White Bear Lake

White Bear Lake

§̈¦35E

§̈¦35E

§̈¦35E

§̈¦35W

§̈¦35W

§̈¦694

§̈¦394

§̈¦35

Transit Map

Map D: Transitways and Employment Density

e

July 2014

I

0 2 41Miles

!!̂̂ Multimodal Transportation HubNorthstar Commuter Rail

Planned Arterial BRT LinesMETRO System(Existing and Planned)

Racially ConcentratedAreas of PovertyAreas of ConcentratedPoverty

Employment Density


VI.CommunityOutreach

As was the case leading up to the METRO Green and Blue Line implementations, Metro Transit will conduct an extensive transit service planning process (local routing and Transitway connections) once a Transitway project is funded.

The Council and Metro Transit continue to demonstrate a commitment to community-based and commu-nity-led engagement practices through a combination of strategies employed to foster open and trans-parent public dialogue. Our sincere interest in hearing and including community voice in planning and decision-making is highlighted most recently in Metro Transit’s Central Corridor (Green Line) Transit Ser-vice Study during which we utilized a partnership with the District Councils Collaborative (DCC) of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and their Trusted Advocated Advocate Pilot Project, funded by the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative, to better “make sure that the bus service and LRT meet the transit needs of the communities served.”

The Trusted Advocate Pilot Project is modeled after a program of the similar name in Seattle for land use planning, as well as in Oakland. The model uses different approaches than traditional engagement models to allow the public sector to collect information from and build relationships with community members. The pilot project, as applied locally to the Central Corridor Transit Service Study (CCTSS) had five goals that guided its work:

•Increase participation of underrepresented communities in the CCTSS Study. •Promote learning by building capacity of underrepresented persons, including learning from available

communication tools and information. •Generate a transit service plan that serves the needs of those who live on the corridors (with particular

attention to underrepresented communities). •Strengthen the relationship between Metro Transit and underrepresented community members to create

a shared solution that will influence changes in the system for future planning. •Bring new model of engagement to the Twin Cities region.

On April 10, 2012, Metro Transit and the DCC accepted the WTS Minnesota Chapter, Rosa Parks Diversity Leadership Award which honors the positive transformation of the transportation industry. More information about the project can be found at www.metrotransit.org/central-transit-study

Metro Transit understands that each project is unique and no one model of engagement is appropriate for each scenario. In planning the connecting transit service with the METRO Green Line Extension, Metro Transit will seek creative partnerships and innovative engagement practices suitable to this corridor. In the end, Metro Transit strives to fully engage local communities all along the alignment to participate in a dialog that will mutually educate, communicate and address the needs of the community and the goals of the Met-ropolitan Council during the plan development and implementation of the Green Line extension project.

VII.TransitSecurity

Police officials—those whose professional ideal is to protect and serve people equally from all back-grounds—must face the challenges and complexities of a diverse society. They should live up to both our modern Community Policing charge to be both reflective of and responsive to the community we serve as well as Peels 7th principle:

“ To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence.”


Over the last year, and moving forward, the Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD) acted on numerous initiatives that both support the equity initiative and enhance security for our customers. These include:

•Diversification of police department reflective and responsive to the community. 50% of most recent officers hired are minority or women.

•Establishment of a new inner-city beat team at 7th and Nicollet with diverse staff serving a new community storefront, and creating a police presence at the bus stop with the highest number of riders and a high concentration of diverse riders.

•Initiation of Safe Zone team from downtown Minneapolis to North Minneapolis with a concentrated onboard police presence on Routes 5 and 19.

•Creation of downtown St. Paul Community foot and bike patrols•Creation of new full-time two-officer foot patrol in North Minneapolis focusing on West Broadway.•Establishment of Bike Rapid Response Team (BRRT) patrol serving downtown and north Minneapolis

which allows for greater engagement and community contact.•Creation of Joint Enforcement Team (JET) working with Minneapolis Police, Hennepin County Sheriff

and Minneapolis Parks Departments to reduce gun violence in North Minneapolis.•Engagement with the North Side Summer Safety Summit initiative in conjunction with the Minneapolis

Police Department and Sherman Patterson.•Participation in the “Broadway is Black” community study sponsored by Minneapolis City Councilman

Blong Yang.•Participation in the Jerry Vick Human Trafficking Task force to reduce and prevent human trafficking

through education and enforcement.•Support for the establishment of, and provided leadership in, the Twin Cities Black Police Officer

Association and Asian American Police Officer Association.•Participation in the St. Paul community ambassadors partnership with YWCA •The Metro Transit Police Department has also increased its police community outreach to 46 events

scheduled this year. Examples of community events and other community outreach by MTPD include: - Juneteenth, Cinco de Mayo, Somali Independence Day - Co-sponsorship of youth events including Zulu District Cub Scout Pinewood derby at Broadway

YMCA and proposed bike rodeo North Minneapolis - Green Line and public safety presentations, translated into Somali, Eritrean and Oromo languages - Lao Family Board presentation on police and Green Line safety - Hmong community safety tips broadcast by Jan Vang on Hmong radio - Summit University Planning Council, MTPD and Green Line safety presentation conducted at

SPPD Western District office - St. Paul Human Rights and Green line safety presentation at St. Paul Council of Churches - Xcel Energy and Green Line safety presentation at Rice Street offices

New Transitway stations will include security features such as cameras and phones. Metro Transit Police will work with local entities to develop information and camera access sharing at stations and bus stops where possible.


Sub-regional focus: North Minneapolis & SW LRT ConnectionsIn this document, the Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit respond directly to the list of transit-related equitable outcomes identified by the Equity Commitments Coalition for SWLRT made up of 30 community-based organizations and supported by Congressman Ellison. The focus of this document is on those items where the Council has authority. Responses are arranged by broad categories rather than by the order of the “Equity Commitments for SWLRT” document, as they were referenced in a number of areas and are inter-related.

Bus & Southwest LRT Transitway Service Planning The Council commits to engaging members of the community and other stakeholders in identifying oppor-tunities and weighing options to improve service in conjunction with development of the Southwest LRT corridor.

North Minneapolis is served by the most frequent bus routes in the region (Routes 5, 19) and is served by multiple connecting routes (7, 14, 22, 32). Route 30, a new route along Broadway was added this year on a demonstration basis and is partially funded by a federal grant.

•Map E shows existing bus routes, number of weekday boardings/stop, existing shelter locations. Future LRT lines are shown for reference.

•Since March 2010 Metro Transit increased weekday service on: - Route 5 by 7% (+20 weekday bus trips) - Route 19 by 33% (+53 weekday bus trips)

•Map F shows the number of weekday transit trips serving bus stops

Metro Transit will continue to look for opportunities to improve frequency of service where appropriate, as well as connections between bus routes. These improvements will be considered within the Metro Transit Service Improvement Plan (SIP) referenced in the previous section. The SIP will consider local bus route improvements as suggested by the Equity Coalition, but which are unrelated to Southwest LRT.

As was the case leading up to Green Line (Central Corridor) implementation http://www.metrotransit.org/central-transit-study and Blue Line (Hiawatha) http://www.metrotransit.org/central-south-restructuring.aspx, Metro Transit will conduct an extensive transit service planning process once Southwest LRT (Green Line extension) is fully funded.

This will include:

•Reviewing opportunities for bus service connections at all stations.•Considering of new service connecting north Minneapolis to SWLRT stations at Penn Avenue, Van

White Blvd, 21st Street Station and Royalston.•Considering how the objectives of a North Minneapolis circulator could be accommodated•Coordinating with Arterial BRT and other existing transit services

This process will include extensive community outreach and engagement work.

Additionally, this will build on our transit planning and outreach efforts with Northwest Metro Restructuring 2004-9, details at: http://www.metrotransit.org/expansion-northwest-metro.aspx, and more recent inter-action with Bottineau Corridor community outreach. Future Bottineau LRT connections will be considered as part of the Southwest bus connection planning.


Arterial BRT and Streetcar Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (ABRT) is included in the Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) as shown on Map D and discussed in previous section. A number of transitway studies are exploring the modern streetcar alter-native as a possible addition to the regional transitway system. While the TPP acknowledges that a broader discussion on modern streetcars needs to occur at the local and regional level, there are opportunities for projects to move forward on a case-by-case basis

The Metropolitan Council took action this year to recognize the conclusions of the Midtown Alternatives Analysis led by Metro Transit. The corridor is one of the region’s busiest transit corridors and is promising for both BRT and rail implementation. These potential investments depend on increased future revenue and local support from Minneapolis and Hennepin County.

The Council received several accolades for a unique and community-centered approach to public engage-ment through the Midtown study, an approach Metro Transit will expand and implement in the upcoming West Broadway study. Like the Midtown study, the West Broadway study has a strong emphasis on com-munity representation within the various project teams. In the past, project teams have primarily been com-posed of technical staff from Metro Transit and its government partners.

During the West Broadway study, streetcar improvements will be evaluated in detail, including potential economic development benefits. The study will provide sufficient information to support a Locally Preferred Alternative recommendation for a streetcar along West Broadway, should the project be technically viable and supported by community and by city, county, and Metropolitan Council policymakers overseeing the study. The Metropolitan Council is also working with Minneapolis and St. Paul and other communities to develop a regional streetcar policy.

As identified in previous section, the BRT Stations will include enhanced features such as shelter, light, heat and security.

Penn Avenue, as identified in the Council’s Transportation Policy Plan, is slated to be the site of the Coun-cil’s third arterial bus rapid transit line. Penn Avenue BRT (C Line) will provide fast, reliable service with enhanced station amenities similar to LRT. Development of the C Line would occur in conjunction with street improvements currently being considered by Hennepin County. This route is designed to carry the high volume of riders in along Penn Ave and Hwy 55 to downtown. A strong C Line-SWLRT connection is planned at Royalston Station which optimizes better service along Olson Highway and faster travel for most users’ trips, and a seamless connection to the METRO rail system within north Minneapolis.

C Line is not a good candidate for connecting with Southwest LRT directly at Penn Avenue Station. The majority of C Line riders will be destined for downtown and adding a stop at Penn Avenue would create a significant time penalty for those riders.

Other connecting bus service to Penn Ave LRT station will be considered in the connecting bus route plan-ning phase for Southwest LRT.


Bus Stops, Stations and Transit Centers Transit Centers facilitate high numbers of passenger transfers between multiple routes at a subregional lev-el. All have shelters, heat and light most North Minneapolis bus routes serve transit centers in Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Center, Rosedale, and Chicago-Lake Transit Center.

In North Minneapolis, there are nearly 40 bus stops with shelters. As noted in the previous section, Metro Transit will install or replace 150-200 new shelters throughout the region between 2014-2015. Metro Transit commits to 24 new and 15 replacement shelters in North Minneapolis (Map E).

Two bus stops in downtown Minneapolis (7th/Nicollet and 7th/Hennepin) serve the largest number of (thou-sands) of North Minneapolis transit customers each day. Both stops are planned to have custom shelters with heat and light by 2015.

Future bus stop improvements are planned with Arterial BRT stations in the Transportation Policy Plan. These include Penn Avenue (prior to 2020), Emerson-Fremont and West Broadway.

A primary Southwest LRT connection will be Royalston Station (7th Street & Olson Highway), and will facil-itate service with Routes 5, 19 and 22. This location will function much like a transit center with ABRT and LRT stations adjacent. Both will have light, heat, cameras and schedule information

Metro Transit will discuss with community members how to improve amenities at locations where riders transfer between two or more routes. Metro Transit will work to expand shelter amenities such as light and heat through the Ladders of Opportunity Grant, to be awarded this year.

During winter, Metro Transit practice is to remove snow after streets have been plowed.

Thrive & Metro Transit Equity Initiatives August 201416 Thrive & Metro Transit Equity Initiatives August 201416""

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"""

""

""

""

""

""

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"""

"

"

""

"

""

""

"

"

""

"

"

"

""

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

"

""

"

"

"

"

""" " "

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

""

""

""

""

""

"

""

"

"

"

""

""

"

"""""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"""""

"

"

"

"

""

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"" ""

UV18

UV11

UV11

UV11

UV11

UV111

UV111

UV113

UV113

UV115

UV14

UV14

UV17

UV18

UV2 UV2UV2

UV21 UV21UV21

UV22

UV22

UV22

UV27

UV27UV27

UV27

UV39

UV39

UV39UV39

UV5

UV5

UV5UV53 UV53 UV53

UV568

UV568

UV7

UV8

UV9

UV9

UV9UV9

UV14

Franklin AvenueStation

Cedar-RiversideStation

Lake Street/Midtown Station

UV7

UV2

UV7

UV18

14

14

14

5

5

5

22

22

22

7

7

19

19

19

30

9

9

721

724

32

32

32

32

§̈¦100

§̈¦394

""55

§̈¦94

§̈¦35W

American IndianOIC

Little Earth of United Tribes

Indian Health Boardof Minneapolis

Native AmericanCommunity Clinic

Minneapolis AmericanIndian CenterNACDI

Division ofIndian Work

Penn Avenue

Van White Blvd

Royalston Avenue

21st Street Station

Penn Avenue

Target Field

Golden Valley Road

Van White Boulevard

PEN

N

2ND

7TH

LYND

ALE

49TH

THO

MAS

26TH

INTE

RSTA

TE 9

4

36TH

42ND

35TH

34TH

SHER

IDAN

EMER

SON

YORK XE

RXES

394 HOV

WAS

HIN

GTO

N

MAI

N

MARSHALL

RUSS

ELL

GLENWOOD

9TH

DUPO

NT

GRAN

D

IRVI

NG

ZEN

ITH

14TH

PLYMOUTH

HIGHWAY 55

COLF

AX

QUE

EN

16TH

DOWLING

BRYA

NT

INTERSTATE 394

8TH

29TH

LAKE

UNIVERSITY

1ST

ALDR

ICH

FRAN

CE

5TH

23RD

HUM

BOLD

T

44TH

41ST

OSSEO

GOLDEN VALLEY

39TH

2 1/

2

EAST

RIV

ER

THEODO

RE WIRTH

LOWRY

4TH

37TH

11TH

13TH

3RD

46TH

OAK PARK

VICT

ORY

MEM

ORIA

L

ABBO

TT

27TH

CAM

DEN

CEDAR LA

KE

10TH

DREW

MAR

QUETT

E

15TH

25TH

17TH

LASA

LLE

45TH

WEST RIVER

WEBBER

PARK

NORTHSTAR COMM

UTER RAIL

24TH

ILION

COUNTY ROAD 81

SIBLEY

MCN

AIR

PACI

FIC

BROADWAY

50TH

BEARD

31ST

JAM

ES

SAINT ANTHONY

28TH

BYRD

LINDEN

MEA

DOW

HIGHW

AY 10

0

OAKDALE

GIRA

RD

FREM

ON

T

MANOR

RAMSEY

26 1/2

YALE

48TH

40TH

GRANT

22ND

3RD

ST N

TO

NB

I94

19TH

EDGE

43RD

PORT

LAND

30TH

LILACCH

OW

EN

SHORELINE

33RD

HILLSIDE

HUBBARD CALI

FORN

IA

LAKELAND

WAYZATA

OLIV

ER

51ST

47TH

12TH

6TH

PARK

VIEW

LYND

ALE

AVE

N T

O N

B I9

4

1 1/2

FARWELL

TYROL

COLU

MBI

A

BORD

ER

RAN

DOLP

H

MORG

AN

20TH

ISLAND

HIDD

EN L

AKES

NEWTO

N

ROYA

LSTO

N

LAUREL

KEWANEE

EWIN

G

VISTA

POPLAR

SOO

DUNWOODY

KENWOOD

SHINGLE CREEK

WAS

HBUR

N

SB I9

4 TO

WB

I394

KNOX

BROO

KLYN

18TH

WILLOW

UPTO

N

HALI

FAX

BASSETT CREEK

HENNEPIN

GRIM

ESW

ATER

FORD

VIN

CENT

CHESTNUT

INDI

ANA

WEST BROADWAY

BRID

GEW

ATER

EB I394 TO NB I94

VINELAND

LOGA

N

CHIC

AGO

46 1/2CR

YSTA

L LA

KE

HALL

WOODSTOCK

MOUNT VIEW

TERRACE

CURRIE

18 1/2

FERRANT

DRESDEN

21ST

NB I9

4 TO

LYN

DALE

AVE

N

ALPINE

HOLDEN

NICOLLET

TECHNOLO

GY

RIVER

BEVERLY

DAHLBERG

SUNN

YRID

GE

EB I394 TO 6TH ST N

SPRU

CE

NB I9

4 TO

49T

H A

VE N

JANALYN

GROVELAND

LEBER

MAR

Y HI

LLS

ZEPH

YR

LYN

PARK

38THGRA

MER

CY

SB I9

4 TO

WES

T BR

OADW

AY A

VE

INGLEWOOD

BONNIE

NB I94 TO DO

WLIN

G AVE N

SKYLINE

ISLEMO

UNT

BARNES

PARA

DE S

TADI

UM

LEGE

ND

HARMON

HALGLO

NAPCO

SB I94 TO DOW

LING AVE N

EB I394 TO 4TH ST N

VICTORY

MERIDIAN

MAPLE

EB I394 TO 12TH ST N

53RD

AVE

N T

O S

B I9

4

LAKEVIEW

BUSWAY

12 1/2

49 1/2

WB I394 TO PENN AVE SBRENNER

MAR

KET

LOWRY AVE N TO CORD81

HEANER

RIVER POINTE

HAWTHORNE

BANNEKER

KAREN

MILDREDMADALYN

WATER

GIVENS

VAN DEMARK

ALICE RAINVILLE

BOAR

DWAL

K

BEAR

D

4TH

41ST

COLF

AX

IRVI

NG

46TH

23RD

40TH

IRVI

NG

4TH

21ST

26TH

9TH

CURRIE

WAS

HBUR

N

31ST

RUSS

ELL

27TH

13TH

3RD

VIN

CENT

34TH

KNOX

24TH

OLIV

ER

35TH

UNIV

ERSI

TY

5TH

SHER

IDAN

51ST

24TH

WAS

HBUR

N

46TH

DUPO

NT

ABBO

TT

16TH

INDI

ANA

FREM

ON

TEM

ERSO

N

17TH

LOWRY

7TH

39TH

FRAN

CE

6TH

COLF

AX

EMER

SON

8TH

29TH

RAN

DOLP

H

NEW

TON

COUNTY ROAD 81

47TH

MAIN

18TH

MAR

SHAL

L

51ST

31ST

GRIMES

EWIN

G

ZEN

ITH

3RD

BRYA

NT

LOGA

N

CALI

FORN

IA

26TH26TH

GIRA

RD

BRYA

NT

5TH

27TH

HUM

BOLD

T

WAYZATA

VIN

CENT

5TH

SKYL

INE

8TH

27TH

14TH

3RD

5TH

MO

RGAN

DREW

11TH

BRYA

NT

MO

RGAN

KNOX

6TH

29TH

3RD

MOUNT VIEW

VIN

CENT

BRYA

NT

JAM

ES

CHOW

EN

18TH

ABBO

TT

6TH

46TH

FRAN

CE

QUE

EN

RUSS

ELL

NEW

TON

18TH

38TH

15TH

12TH

IRVI

NG

RUSS

ELL

6TH

PEN

N

THO

MAS

2ND

43RDTH

OM

AS50TH

8TH

QUE

EN

CEDAR LAKE

NEW

TON

10TH

EWIN

G

6TH

44TH

9TH

RUSS

ELL

LOGA

N

QUE

ENQ

UEEN

2ND

46 1/2

6TH

WAYZATA

16TH

2ND 3RD

30TH

3RD

OLIV

ER

12TH

7TH

50TH

CHO

WEN

INDI

ANA

15TH

PARK

30TH

INDIAN

A

17TH

JAM

ES

36TH

4TH

30TH

GRIM

ES

FREM

ON

T

MO

RGAN

7TH

44TH

30TH

18TH

COLF

AX

48TH

XERX

ES

JAM

ES

MAI

N

30TH

CALI

FORN

IA

43RD

LOGA

N

8TH

JAM

ES

29TH

2ND

34TH

3RD

14TH

NEW

TON

WAS

HBUR

N

26TH

10TH

OLIV

ER

RUSS

ELL

UPTO

N

XERX

ES

17TH

22ND

2ND

INTE

RSTA

TE 94

36TH

11TH

42ND

21ST

KNOX

CHESTNUT

GIRA

RD

WIL

LOW

8TH

29TH

25TH

6TH

35TH

4TH

4TH

THO

MAS

IRVI

NG

HIGHWAY 55

9TH

YORK

14TH

GIRA

RD

SPRUCE

15TH

37THJA

MES

37TH

EWIN

G

VIN

CENT

31ST

45TH

7TH

15TH

ALDR

ICH

50TH

14TH

NEW

TON

33RD

24TH

3RD

WEST BROADW

AY

HUM

BOLD

T

WAS

HBUR

N

IRVI

NG

SHER

IDAN

ZEN

ITH

9TH

24TH

GRANT

YORK

1ST

DUPO

NT

33RD

UPTO

N

ABBO

TT

LOGA

N

26 1/2

DUPO

NT

6TH

3RD

16TH

HARMON

26TH

KNOX

QUE

EN

BRYA

NT

KNOX

40TH

28TH

38TH

18TH

39TH

HUM

BOLD

T

NEW

TON

14TH

IRVI

NG

6TH

16TH

6TH

ALDR

ICH

23RD

10TH

30TH

QUE

EN

36TH

27TH

12TH

UPTO

NUP

TON

ALDR

ICH

SHER

IDAN JAM

ES

ALDR

ICH

3RD

5TH

LAKELAND

30TH

BEAR

D

28TH

XERX

ES

21ST

LOGA

N

CHESTNUT

INDI

ANA

31ST

45TH

NEW

TON

OLIV

ER

HUM

BOLD

TGI

RARD

22ND

OLIV

ER

33RD

PARKVIEW

MARSHALL

17TH

UNIV

ERSI

TY

LILAC

QUE

EN

YORK

FREM

ON

T

17TH

PEN

N

NORT

HSTA

R CO

MM

UTE

R RA

IL

4TH

2ND

WAS

HBUR

N

31ST

OLIV

ER

MO

RGAN

6TH

DREW

XERX

ES

39TH

24TH

DREWEW

ING

41ST

KNOX

ALDR

ICH

41ST

1ST

1ST

43RD

44TH

23RD

27TH

3RD

40TH

RUSS

ELL

10TH

LOGA

N

HALI

FAX

43RD

37TH

NICO

LLET

GRANT

KNOX

7TH

HIGHWAY 100

FARWELL

9TH

UPTO

N

LAUREL

RUSS

ELL

WASHBURN

FRAN

CE

RAMSEY

SHER

IDAN

35TH

41ST

37TH

4TH

MO

RGAN

42ND

QUE

EN

27TH

12TH

14TH

16TH

50TH

47TH

HALIFAX

THEODORE WIRTH GOLF COURSE

THEODORE WIRTH PARK

THEODORE WIRTH PARK

THE PARADE

BASSETTS CREEK VALLEY

WEBBER PARK

BRYN MAWR MEADOWS

FOLWELL PARK

BOOM ISLAND PARK

HALL PARK

NORTH MISSISSIPPI PARK

LORING PARK

VALLEY VIEW PARK

ISLANDS OF PEACE RIVERFRONT PARK

SHINGLE CREEK PARK

FAIRVIEW PARK

NORTH COMMONS

THEODORE WIRTH PARK

LAKE VIEW TERRACE PARK

MARY HILLS PARK

GLENVIEW TERRACE PARK

SANBORN PARK

JAMES I. RICE WEST RIVER PKWY

HARRISON PARK

BOHANON PARK

MANOR PARK

BOTTINEAU PARK

GAUVITTE PARK

LOMIANKI PARK

HI VIEW PARK

SOUTH HALIFAX PARKJORDAN PARK

MARSHALL TERRACE PARK

CREEKVIEW PARKHAPPY HOLLOW PARK

GLUEK PARK

CLEVELAND PARK

THOMAS HOLLINGSWORTH PARK

PERKINS HILL PARK

LOMIANKI PARK

GLEN GALE PARK

LOVELL SQUARE

FARWELL PARK

SUNSET PARK

COTTAGE PARK

EDGEMOOR PARK

PARKVIEW PARK

[

0 10.5 Miles

North MinneapolisTransit Service

Transit Shelters

" Planned 2014-2015

" Existing

Weekday Boardings by Stop

Fall 2013 Data

1 - 10

11 - 25

26 - 50

51 - 100

101 - 250

251 or more

Route 30 (new!)

Future Transit Improvements

Blue Line LRT Alignment

Green Line LRT Alignment

Penn Ave BRT - C Line

April 29, 2014

Map EMap E


Map F


Community Outreach As discussed in the previous section, the Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit will continue to pursue creative approaches to authentic engagement related to planning and work with community-based organi-zations.

Station Facility and Area Planning

Authority on land use and zoning requirements is held by cities, county and property owners. The Metropol-itan Council will coordinate with these entities to encourage transit supportive energy efficient development. Residents can expect that pedestrian sidewalk improvements will be made near stations with the South-west LRT project.

The City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County and MNDOT are responsible for Commuter Train storage, City Impound Lot, and local planning and zoning around transit stations. The Metro Transit Office of Transit Ori-ented Development is prepared to support the work of these three entities to address community requests around these issues.

Bicycling has grown significantly as a mode as is important to a sustainable and healthy region. The Coun-cil provides excellent resource to using our regional bicycle network and Metro Transit provides guidance and infrastructure to accommodate bicycles on buses and at stations. More information on current initia-tives here: https://www.metrotransit.org/bicycle

In addition, Metro Transit is working to develop innovations that support bicycle and transit integration. A pilot station at 7th Street and Olson Hwy in north Minneapolis is currently at 90% design and features integration of the station with an existing bike lane. Working with Minneapolis staff, the station will remove a potential conflict point by bringing the bike lane behind the station platform. An illustration of this station is attached. Results and feedback of this pilot station will guide potential designs for integrated bicycle and transit facilities in the future, including on Emerson/Fremont Avenues.

Several business development activities led by neighborhood associations and nonprofit community de-velopment organization are supported by Livable Communities Act grants awarded by the Metropolitan Council to the City of Minneapolis in the past. As neighborhoods and community development organiza-tions plan new business development along commercial corridors, the City of Minneapolis is eligible to seek Livable Communities grants to support these efforts. The Council looks forward to collaborating in these efforts through its new Office of Transit-Oriented Development.

The Council will explore establishing a capital fund targeted at entrepreneurs of color with appropriate gov-ernment and philanthropic entities. The Council cannot undertake this endeavor alone.

Security Through the development of arterial BRT, Metro Transit plans substantial increases in security infrastructure. Stations will feature multiple security cameras as well as emergency call boxes. To be effective, substantial communications systems are required along the length of the corridor to support station camera and phone infrastructure. For this reason, these installations will typically be installed through a transitway project such as arterial BRT planned for Penn Avenue and Chicago-Emerson-Fremont and potentially along West Broad-way through BRT or streetcar implementation.

Because of the significant communications infrastructure required, camera placement at every bus stop may not be practical. However, Metro Transit Police collaborates with Minneapolis Police Department and Hennepin County Sheriff in downtown Minneapolis in sharing camera information. Metro Transit Police will work with local entities and businesses to develop information and camera access sharing at stations and bus stops where possible.


Fares In 2013 and 2014, the Metropolitan Council is conducting a review of Regional Fare Policy. The guiding principles of the review of Regional Fare Policy Include: 1) Simplify fare system to improve customer service and fare compliance; 2) Preserve and enhance the common regional approach to fare policy that provides seamless travel for riders among providers and modes; 3) Promote ridership growth; 4) Increase customer use of Go-To Card technology that benefits riders and providers; 5) Mitigate negative impacts on those most reliant on transit and least able to afford fare increases; 6) Ensure compatibility with existing regional fare collections systems, processes and devices while supporting the need to integrate enhance-ments with technology, and 7) Maintain or increase revenue recovery rate.

Suggestions will be considered within this framework, and community engagement is expected in 2015.

Van White Station development The Council heard the concerns of Harrison leaders and local businesses and will work with governmental partners to help facilitate the resolution of differences on the land use around the Van White Station. How-ever, station area planning must be lead by the City of Minneapolis, in coordination with Metro Transit Tran-sit Oriented Development (TOD) office. Pedestrian sidewalk and bridge improvements will be made with the Southwest LRT project.

Efforts to prevent a land transfer at Van White Station must be lead by the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County and MNDOT. Additionally, the removal of the City of Minneapolis Impound Lot must be an effort spearheaded by the City of Minneapolis. Land use aspects should coordinate with Metro Transit Transit Oriented Development (TOD) office.

Affordable housing base The Council’s Housing Policy Plan, currently in draft form, has the overall policy priority to, “Create hous-ing options that give people in all life stages and of all economic means viable choices for safe, stable, an affordable homes.” Within this plan, the Council is committing to help create or preserve a mix of housing affordability along transit stations. The Council’s Livable Communities Act grants provide financial assis-tance to developments that support a mix of housing affordability.

Under the new Housing Policy Plan, the Council will continue to use affordability definitions based on the regional area median income (AMI) but will begin to encourage cities to meet need for housing to serve households earning 30% of the AMI, 30-50% of AMI, and 50-80% of AMI.

The work of Urban Home Works and the City of Lakes Community Land Trust to maintain and preserve a variety of housing choices and affordability for current and future residents has been supported by Livable Communities Act grants awarded by the Metropolitan Council to the City of Minneapolis on several occa-sions. This type of work and partnership will continue to compete well for these grants.

Disadvantaged Business Enterprises working on Southwest LRT On all federally funded construction projects, the Metropolitan Council sets goals for the project that ensure firms owned by women and people of color (referred to as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises or DBEs) receive some of the subcontracts made by the primary contractor on the project. Each contract receives a specific goal, depending on the ready, willing and able DBEs available to work and the scope of work for the project. The Council takes responsibility for evaluating the performance of its contractors against the goals and assisting the DBEs and primary contractors in achieving those goals.

Prior to the release of any proposals and/or bids on the Southwest LRT project, the Metropolitan Council will perform a goal methodology to determine the appropriate goals DBEs. This methodology is defined in federal regulations. Factors that will be considered in setting these goals include: the relative availability of ready; willing and able DBE certified firms in the 7 county metro area; the past Council DBE achievement in meeting goals on similarly priced and sized projects; the capacity of the currently certified DBE firms who are able to perform the required types of work or service called for; and the number of other projects al-ready being performed in the Twin Cities area that may deplete our pool of existing DBE firms.


Unbundling large contracts, a practice that helps ensure small, minority and women-owned businesses are able to bid on work with the Council is a routine Council practice. This was demonstrated in the building of the Green Line. The Metropolitan Council’s procurement system is bound by several state and federal laws and regulations. The Federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and the Metropolitan Council Underutilized Business Program are part of the procurement system and the Council actively engages with Itasca’s projects for Minnesota businesses to buy equitably.

Over 135 DBEs were used on this project with over $115 million going to those DBEs. Outreach and engagement with current DBEs and companies that would like to be DBEs is targeted to areas where insufficient DBE firms exist to meet Council and contractor needs.

The Council has a history of providing opportunities to introduce business to technical assistance provided by a wide variety of organizations including Metropolitan Economic Development Association (MEDA). Those organizations also partner with us in training events where subject matter experts come together to provide information and assistance for DBE businesses.

Workforce As a major employer in this community the Metropolitan Council is committed to ensuring our workforce is representative of the community. 30 percent of the Council workforce are people of color. The Council is currently working with a wide range of community-based training organizations to grow the workforce in a way that could meet the Council’s hiring goals and needs now and in the future.

Many jobs at the Council and with Council contractors, whether temporary contracted construction jobs or permanent Council operations jobs, require specialized skills and training. It is not enough for us to rely on educational institutions to provide our future workforce with all of the training necessary to do the jobs we offer. That’s why the Council is pursuing apprenticeship programs for many technical jobs within Metro Transit. The Council’s programs will work to recruit candidates from Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty areas whenever possible. When the Council builds a major project like the METRO Green Line or Southwest LRT, it hires construction firms to do the work. When it contracts with those firms, the Council works to ensure the contracts have a positive local economic impact. Not only is it important that firms owned by women and people of color receive work; it is also important that the workforce represent the community and that opportunities are available to women and people of color who want a job on the project.

The hiring goals for the Southwest LRT project are set by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR). Council project goals previous to the Green Line were 10% people of color. The MDHR increased the goal to 18% people of color for construction of the Green Line. That goal was reached. While the goal for the Southwest LRT set by MDHR will be 32% people of color, the Council will strive to exceed the goal based on available workforce.

The DBE/AA Oversight Committee on the Green Line asked the contractors to voluntarily provide information on the ethnicities of their workforce. The contractors complied and they reported on it at every meeting. In the future, for all mega projects at the Council, contractors will be required to report on the ethnicity of their workforce. This information will be reported every month at the Oversight Committee meeting.

The Green Line construction workforce data analysis illustrated which construction trade areas need assistance expanding the pool of qualified workers of color and female workers. The pool of minority and female workers in trades such as electricians, sheet metal workers, pipe fitters and iron workers must increase on the Southwest LRT. The Council has a plan to do just that. This plan would include working with a team of trainers, the unions, educational institutions and our LRT Works project. We would need to do more analysis to provide a cost benefit analysis. Partnerships with educational and workforce institutions are not new to Metro Transit or the Council, but additional work is underway to create a more direct pipeline


for graduates into the many positions available at Metro Transit.

More research will need to be done to see how viable it would be for the Council to pursue a contract with a Community Based Recruitment and Training Organization, as suggested by the Equity Coalition. By the time the SWLRT project begins construction, several projects that now have an Employment Assistance Firm (EAF) will be completed. We want those workers that have already been trained and identified to continue in their quest to become journeymen and women. Hiring them for the Southwest LRT project will be a priority.

The Green Line construction contracts did not have goals targeted by zip code and Council contracts did not require the contractors to provide this information. The DBE/AA Oversight Committee, made up of community members along the Green Line and a variety of advocacy organizations, asked the contractors to provide that information. The contractors complied and reported on it at every public meeting. In the future, for all large projects at the Council, this reporting requirement will be part of major contracts. This information will be reported every month at the Oversight Committee meeting and posted on-line.

IV. Reporting

The Metropolitan Council and Metro Transit report the outcomes of operations, workforce, programs, and initiatives and makes every effort to be transparent in all of its activities.

metropolitan council & metro transit equity approach

Documents