With Metro Transit reporting near-record ridership and excitement building for expanded bus and light rail transitways, these days look like the renaissance for transit in the Twin Cities.

There are plenty of reasons to celebrate new public-sector investments in transit. They will help reduce the number of cars on congested freeways, decrease emissions through use of hybrid buses and electric-powered light rail, offer commuters a convenient alternative to the frustrating rush-hour battle behind the wheel and save some travelers the frantic search for airport parking.

But the most fundamental reason for offering transit service - says the Federal Transit Administration - is to provide affordable mobility, a critical issue for low- and moderate-income people who depend more on public transit and constitute its core ridership.

While transit can improve connections to many important destinations such as health care, shopping, schools and training, the commute to work is critical. Minnesotans with incomes below the poverty level are about three times more likely than those with higher incomes to ride transit to their jobs.

All too often, access to reliable and timely transportation is one major barrier to employment for low-income people.

Just think about it.

Job opportunities for these workers are increasingly located in decentralized, outer-suburban locations, where transit service is largely limited to commuter runs from collection points to urban area job centers and back. Early morning north-south bus service runs the wrong direction for an Eagan day care worker living in Frogtown, for example, and a Lino Lakes resident who finds a job at a Fridley assembly plant can't go straight east or west at any time of day.

When viable transit service isn't available at the right times and locations, workers in poorer households must do what most Minnesotans do — they drive.

Census tallies show that three-fourths of Minnesota's workers from poor households drive or carpool to work, both statewide and in the Twin Cities. That's not surprising, given current transportation infrastructure and land-use patterns, with their emphasis on cars and car travel.

But it's a problematic choice. Car ownership means assuming a financial burden that consumes a significant portion of their pay. Research shows that transportation's share of the average budget drops from about 20 percent to about 10 percent for households with good access to transit.

If they can't afford a car, low-income workers must depend on sharing rides with others — often in older, unreliable vehicles. For the driving poor, job loss might be just a breakdown or a late driver away.

As public agencies and policy makers consider how to improve transit now and for the long term, they should emphasize service to those Minnesotans who stand to gain the most. Here are some suggestions:

• Ensure regular bus service. In the Twin Cities, low-income transit riders stand to benefit from improvements in frequent, reliable and easy-to-use bus service because low-income people are more likely to use buses than rail lines. While light rail service and bus transitways can make the transit system as a whole more comprehensive and better connected, their operation should not come at the expense of regular bus routes.
  
  
• Place transit hubs to serve low-income neighborhoods. Planning and development of urban transitways and transit hubs should ensure quality service for low-income neighborhoods and their residents, not just for higher income commuters.
  
  
• Secure affordable housing near transit. The Central Corridor light rail project is expected to spur new transit-oriented development along the line, which current residents fear may price them out of their neighborhoods. Proactive measures are needed to secure affordable housing for low-income Minnesotans near transit. Success will require a mix of government programs, community development strategies and private development participation.
  
  
• Reduce decentralized development. Prevailing development patterns work against the poor. Transit works best in densely settled urban areas with concentrations of jobs and other trip end points, allowing transit vehicles to deliver riders to centralized transit stops where they can walk to nearby destinations.

To dramatically improve access, cities and regions must wrestle with how communities are structured and move away from increasingly decentralized employment locations.

• Don't forget Greater Minnesota. Buses work in the urban areas of Greater Minnesota, but in less densely populated areas of the state, where distances between home and important destinations can be great, transit improvement strategies must take different forms. For example, supporting van pools, public dial-a-ride services and bus service from town-to-town.

Public transit expands the prosperity and improves the quality of life for many Minnesotans facing income and transportation constraints. When it comes to public policy and investment, Minnesota's governments and public agencies should redouble their commitment to serving those most dependent on transit.

Matt Kane is the director of policy and research and Charlie Quimby is a communications fellow at Growth & Justice, a progressive think tank based in St. Paul, which recently published a research brief on this subject.

download the full report.

download the policy brief.