Dr. Schultz’s recent article gave much valuable history and analysis about the Metropolitan Council. I don’t conclude, as he did, that the Metro Council should be elected. I’m writing here, however, to raise a narrower and seldom-discussed point.
Metro Transit (which was founded by statute in 1967, two years after the Met Council) was not always embedded within the Council. Initially, it did not even own and operate the Twin Cities’ bus system, though it was clearly the legislative intent that its creation would bring this about. It was a free-standing government entity, with transit planning responsibilities, and in 1970 it acquired the old Twin Cities Rapid Transit Company. It remained independent of the Council until 1994, though the Council was gradually given more authority over Metro Transit.
I believe a free-standing regional transit authority was the better model. I believe the Southwest Corridor debacle supports this view. Transit, and particularly transit serving a large, spread-out metropolitan area, is a very complex enterprise. Its governance and management require a focus not easily found by a generalist planning agency with operational responsibilities in several other distinct fields. Both the very flawed route selection process (which in my view drove both the budget overruns and the years-long delays) and the multi-billion-dollar budgets would have been attended to better with a focused, single-mission agency having oversight. Approving the route and closely monitoring budgets would not have been item #12 on the agenda; they would have been THE agenda.
There’s another reason, as well, to prefer the separate-agency model for transit. We had big debates in the 1970s through the 1990s as to what direction to take for transit in the Twin Cities. A rail system, in tunnels downtown? A “lighter” rail system? Keep things as-is? Dedicated busways? Paratransit? Personal Rapid Transit? Should the transit system be just for transportation? If so, should it be aimed mostly at lower-income people who don’t have a reliable car, or should it aim to attract more upscale commuters to reduce congestion and pollution? Should it be designed to have its own impact on shaping the physical development of the community? I believe the metropolitan area was served better by having these questions debated by separate agencies, with separate policy governance, in full view of community and opinion leaders.
Had we been on the post-1994 model in those decades, the debates would have been largely technical debates carried out by professional staff, with their conclusions brought to the policy-making body for final decisions. I suspect we never would have built the light rail lines we now have. (And yes, I realize a lot of people think that would have been a good thing; I’m not one of them.)
Some disclosure is needed here. From 1970 through 1978 I worked for the old regional transit authority, always on the governmental side, never in operations. While this may bias me toward the free-standing model, the fact is I followed transit policy in the metro area before then, as a newspaper reporter, and after that and to the present day, as a citizen and activist. Thus I’ve paid attention for 48 years, just eight of them working within the structure itself—and even those years gave me good insight into how things really worked.
The biggest problem is that the folks who want to serve on the Met Council invariably are mostly interested in the historic mission of regional planning. Yet, most of the work involves operating a transit system. Neither get done optimally. Another factor is the level of interest of the Governor who is instrumental in the appointments. Keen interest at the top apparently has been lacking at the top for a few decades – regardless of party affiliation, IMO.
Steve, thanks for this comment. There are many histories of public transportation in US. You could find, and probably borrow, some from the Minnesota Transportation Museum’s library. MTM’s president, Aaron Isaacs, has written several books himself about transit in Minnesota.
Yes, transit has been profitable, and was consistently before cars became ubiquitous. After that, the only way transit systems made money for businesses was by providing poor service to poor people who had no other options. Maybe an effective business model, but as cities became concerned about congestion, air pollution and the like, this was not good enough. Thus, in the 60s and 70s virtually every transit system in any city of consequence came under public ownership – where, of course, profit is not the goal, and as far as I know, it does not happen anywhere. (There are numerous other public services which could be, but aren’t, operated on a for-profit model. Libraries and parks come quickly to mind.)
Investing in transit – subsidizing, if you prefer – is viewed by most policy-makers as a good tradeoff, to reduce congestion and air pollution, and shape development into more efficient patterns. Also to attract riders including those who could drive if they so chose. We subsidize auto travel in numerous ways as well, so public funding of public transit seems only reasonable to transit advocates.
Regards.
I wonder if anyone has considered authoring a history of public transportation in the US? Has it EVER been a self supporting business? Even the freight rail systems began by selling stock in their companies and then going bankrupt, leaving shareholders largely holding the bag. Eventually freight hauling became somewhat profitable, but moving people always seems to be subsidized by government. Why is that?
Correction: The Twin Cities’ bus system came under public ownership in 1970 (not 1971). My mistake.
The article has been updated, thank you.