1. TWIN CITIES METRO AREA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Transportation Funding Advisory Committee June 2012

2. Metro Area Presentations 2 Transportation System Overview – Met Council Transportation System Funding – Met Council Transitway System Funding – CTIB Return on Investment – Itasca Group Congestion Pricing/MnPASS – MnDOT

3. Key Messages 3 Importance of transportation for regional economic vitality The metro area significance in state and national context Transportation vision: one system, multiple modes working together Building/funding a transportation system for the 21 st century

4. Benefits of Transportation Investments 4 Improved mobility Enhanced accessibility to markets and resources Accelerated productivity gains Increased competitiveness

5. Minnesota’s Economy is Strong 5 5.3 million people (21 st of 50 states) 2.68 million jobs (18 th ) $55K Median household income (12 th ) $270 billion annual gross domestic product (GDP) (17 th ) Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis

6. For Minnesota to Thrive, Minneapolis-St. Paul Must Thrive 6 2.85 million people (54% of the state) 1.58 million jobs (62% of the state) $64K median household income $200 billion annual GDP Home to 19 Fortune 500 companies Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis

7. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area is Important Nationally 7 16 th largest metropolitan area population 13 th largest metropolitan area GDP 15 th largest road network (TTI) 16 th largest transit ridership 17 th most congested region Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Transit Database, Texas Transportation Institute

8. Met Council’s Role in Transportation Planning 8 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in conjunction with Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) Long-Range Transportation Policy Plan Regional transit operations Transit funding oversight

9. Met Council’s Role in Shaping Development 9 Metropolitan development guide Regional policy plans: transportation, aviation, parks and water resources Regional forecast: population, employment and households Local comprehensive plan review

10. Metropolitan Development Guide 10 Promotes efficiency and innovation in regional service delivery Ensures effective stewardship of resources Expands our multimodal transportation system

11. Metro Area Population Growth 11 Total growth 2010-40: +893,000 (31%) Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012

12. Metro Area Employment Growth 12 Total growth 2010-40: +570,000 (37%) Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012

13. The Region Will Be Different in 2040 13 62% of new households will not have children 43% of regional residents will be non-white 50% of new households will be one income Senior population will more than double Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012

14. We Need Flexible Transportation 14 Growing population means growing demand on the transportation system Changing demographics mean changing transportation needs Area residents want more options –40% suggest providing more transit –20% suggest building better roads Sources: Met Council Residents Survey, 2007

15. METRO AREA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OVERVIEW 15

16. MnDOT/Met Council Partnership 16 A common vision & priorities: –Efficient use of limited resources –Preservation of existing system –Congestion management to preserve mobility –One multi-modal transportation system

17. Implementing Our Shared Vision Together 17 MnPASS Lanes –I-394 –I-35W (UPA project) Hiawatha LRT Northstar Commuter Rail Cedar Avenue BRT Central Corridor LRT

18. Major Regional Trends (1960-2009) 18 Growing and more decentralized region Major increases in transportation demand Very large highway capacity expansion investments Modest transit capacity expansion investments

19. Traffic Congestion is Growing Total annual delay = 78.5 million hours 2011 a.m. Congestion 19 Sources: Texas Transportation Institute, 2011 Mobility Report 2011 MnDOT Congestion Report

20. Traffic Congestion is Growing Annual delay per peak commuter = 45 hours 2011 p.m. Congestion 20 Sources: Texas Transportation Institute, 2011 Mobility Report 2011 MnDOT Congestion Report

21. We Have Significant Challenges to Regional Mobility Aging system – need for preservation Growing highway congestion Over $40 B required to “solve congestion” Challenging transportation finances 21

22. Improving Mobility A new policy direction 22 A realistic, innovative, flexible, sustainable and problem-focused investment direction: –Preserve, manage and optimize existing highway system –Focus on managing traffic congestion –Promote alternatives to driving alone

23. Improving Mobility Managing Congestion 23 MnDOT is a national leader in innovative congestion management solutions –300 miles of bus-only shoulders –Successful lower-cost/ high-benefit projects –I-394, 35W MnPASS (priced) lanes

24. Improving Mobility Future Congestion Management 24 Use Active Traffic Management (ATM) Construct lower-cost/high-benefit projects Expand system of managed (priced) lanes Strategically expand capacity

25. Improving Mobility Future Congestion Management 25 Optimize highway investments to move largest number of people, not cars Invest in transit Encourage alternatives to driving alone Promote transportation-efficient land use

26. Vision Beyond the Fiscally Constrained Plan 26 Highway Vision creates a $4+ billion “reservoir of projects” –Managed Lane Vision $1.5 B –Lower-Cost/High-Benefit Projects $1-$1.5 B –ATM Improvements $500 M –Strategic Capacity Enhancements likely exceed $1 B

27. Improving Mobility Optimizing freight 27 “A safe, efficient, high-capacity freight transportation system is essential to the economic well being of the region and the state” (Council Policy Plan) Primary metro freight issues: –Freight congestion on highways and railroads –Volatile fuel costs –Freight safety and security –Aging infrastructure

28. Improving Mobility Promoting Alternatives: Bikes and Peds 28 Bicycling shows promise as option for short trips –Bicycling rate is up, yet barriers still exist Good pedestrian environment essential to transit success Accessibility for persons with disabilities

29. Improving Mobility Local + Regional Bike & Ped Systems 29 Recommendations –Connections to transit –Removal of barriers –Safety improvements –Bike/pedestrian accommodations on roadways

30. Improving Mobility Aviation System MSP International –33.1 million passengers –436,000 take-offs and landings –135 non-stop markets served –127 gates –3.2 million sq ft of terminal space Reliever Airports –St. Paul Downtown –Anoka Co-Blaine –Flying Cloud –Crystal –South St. Paul –Airlake –Lake Elmo 30 Sources: Metropolitan Airports Commission

31. Transit: Critical to our 21 st Century Transportation System Provides Mobility Options Mitigates Congestion Serves Transit-dependent Populations Reduces Environmental Impact of Transportation Encourages Efficient Land Development Patterns 31

32. Transit-Oriented Development Examples Housing Commercial Mixed-use Institutional 32

33. Transit-Oriented Development Examples Housing Commercial Mixed-use Institutional 33

34. Transit System Overview Light rail Commuter rail Over 200 regular bus routes 8 regular route providers ADA & Dial-a-ride Vanpool 34

35. Transit System Overview 2011 Transit Statistics 94 million rides 3.4 million service hours 28% fare recovery $2.94 subsidy per passenger 35 Bus system accounts for 85% of regional ridership

36. Ridership Trends 36 2005: First full year of light rail March - April, 2004: Transit driver strike 2010: First full year of commuter rail High gas prices, economic stability = Transit ridership growth Economic Recession Beginning of Economic Recovery Oct 2008: Base fare increase of $0.25

37. Performance of the System Varies Transit System Performance (2010 statistics) 37 Service TypeSubsidy per Passenger Productivity (Pass. per Hour) Fare Recovery Urban Local$2.53 37.4 26.6% Suburban Local$4.58 15.2 17.1% Express$3.08 34.8 43.9% Light Rail$1.46 183.0 40.5% Commuter Rail$18.46 233.6 15.8% Dial-a-ride/ADA*$21.34 2.3 13.6% * Required by federal and state law

38. Our Transit System is Effective 38 Sources: National Transit Database

39. Our Transit System is Efficient 39 Sources: National Transit Database

40. Our Transit System is Cost-Effective 40 Sources: National Transit Database

41. Peer Region Comparisons Twin Cities regional transit system is… –Productive, more so than many systems with larger light rail systems –Cost-effective, high fare recovery and productive service results in a lower than average subsidy per passenger 41

42. Transit: Not Just for Transit-dependent Most transit riders are going to/from work or school (80%) 2 of 3 transit rider households have an automobile available; higher on rail service 42 Sources: Metro Transit Rider Survey, 2010

43. Park-and-ride Users Come From All Over, Just Like Drivers 74% of users live in regular route service area 85% of users live in 7- county metro area Greater Minnesota population centers St. Cloud Mankato Rochester 43 Sources: Met Council Park-and-ride Survey, 2010

44. Transit Carries a Significant Portion of People on the Freeways Transit Riders as a percent of Peak Hour Person Throughput I-94 West = 38% I-394 = 36% I-35W South = 34% 44 Sources: Met Council Ridership and MnDOT

45. Transit Carries a Significant Portion of People on the Major Arterials 45 Transit Riders as a percent of Daily Person Throughput Nicollet Ave = 37% Lake Street = 19% W. Broadway = 28% Sources: Met Council Ridership and MnDOT AADT

46. 2030 Transit Vision Double ridership between 2003 and 2030 by: –Maintaining and expanding the region’s base bus system –Building a network of rail and bus transitways –Providing a mix of services by the markets where they are most efficient and effective 46

47. Goal: Double Transit Ridership 47

48. Bus System Expansion Plans 48 Local bus –Increased frequency, span of service, coverage –Improved quality and speed of service Express bus –Increase service on existing routes to meet demand –Add service to new park & rides

49. What is a Transitway? Fast, reliable transit services with an improved passenger experience on high- demand corridors –Light rail transit (LRT) / busway –Commuter rail –Highway bus rapid transit (BRT) –Arterial BRT Promotes transit-oriented development 49

50. Transitways in the Vision 50

51. Transitways Status I-394 MnPASS Lane - Operation Hiawatha LRT (Blue Line) – Operation Northstar Commuter Rail – Operation Cedar Ave BRT (Red Line) – Construction Central LRT (Green Line) – Construction Southwest LRT (Green Line Ext.) – Design I-35W MnPASS/BRT (Orange Line) – Design 51

52. Arterial BRT Transitways 11 study corridors, 95 route miles 86,000 daily rides today 450,000 people and 460,000 jobs within ½ mile 52

53. Estimated Travel Time Savings from Arterial BRT 53 41 Minutes 58 Minutes Based on Afternoon Peak Period, Route 18 NB, American Blvd to 5th/Nicollet and Concept Plans Arterial BRT: 17 minutes (29%) faster 18 Buses: 8 trips/hour each direction 18 Buses: 11 trips/hour each direction

54. Advantages of New Arterial BRT Service improvements will help meet growing demand With Arterial BRT, corridor ridership will nearly double 54

55. Arterial BRT Cost Vehicles $10M Engineering $4M Contingency $3M Stations and Signals $14M Average Corridor: $31 Million $3-4 million average capital cost per mile $3.6 million per year/corridor average operating cost increase –Added service (2030 Service Plans), maintenance of stations and features –Offset by increased revenue Arterial BRT 55

56. METRO AREA TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OVERVIEW 56

57. Key Funding Messages 57 Public sector invested $4.8 billion in 2011 on roads and transit Complicated funding structure Maintaining the transportation system is a large and growing cost Not enough resources available to expand for increasing demand and mobility needs

58. Statewide Road and Transit Funding Sources Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011) 58

59. Statewide Road and Transit Funding Sources Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011) 59 Transit = 18% Roads = 82%

60. Statewide Road and Transit Funding Sources Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011) 60 Transit = 18% Roads = 82%

61. Statewide Road and Transit Funding Uses Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011) 61 Transit = 18% Roads = 82% 33% 48%

62. Metropolitan Road and Transit Funding Sources Total - $2.5 B (Est. 2011) 62

63. Metropolitan Road and Transit Funding Sources Total - $2.5 B (Est. 2011) 63 Transit = 32% Roads = 68%

64. Metropolitan Road and Transit Funding Uses Total - $2.5 B (Est. 2011) 64 Transit = 32% Roads = 68%

65. STIP 2011-14 (in millions) Planned Investments 2015-20 (in millions) 65 Metro Investment Plan 2011-2020 Average: $373 M annual Total: $1.5 Billion Average: $252 M annual Total: $1.5 Billion Includes bridge bonding authorized in 2008

66. Major Roadway Project Examples 66 St. Croix Bridge Replacement - $571-$676 M ($315-371 M Minnesota Share) I-35W/TH62 Crosstown - $288 M I-494/Hwy 169 Interchange - $125 M Lafayette Bridge Replacement - $130 M 1-2 projects can equal annual MnDOT metro district funding

67. ExpensesSources Metro Area Transit Operations 2011 Operating Expenses: $384M 67

68. Transit Operating Funding Issues 68 Current system preservation –Volatility/uncertainty of MVST revenue –Fare revenue limitations –General fund decline Existing funding levels do not allow for system expansion (either bus or rail) State share of rail operation uncertain

69. Forecasted Statewide MVST Revenues 69

70. Transit Capital Spending 70 $140-$160 M annually (excluding new construction of major transitways) Spending primarily for preservation of the system Major transitway construction can more than double annual capital spending, i.e. Central Corridor will average $200+ M per year

71. Uses by Category Uses by Objective Sources Transitways 73% Facilities 8% Technology & Equipment 3% Fleet 16% Transitways 73% Preserve 21% Expand 6% Federal 58% Regional Borrowing 11% Other 6% CTIB 19% State 6% Transit with CCLRT and SWLRT 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan: $2.59 B 71

72. Uses by Category Uses by Objective Sources Transitways 17% Facilities 24% Technology & Equipment 10% Fleet 49% Transitways 16% Preserve 66% Expand 18% Federal 59% Regional Borrowing 34% Other 2% State 5% Transit without CCLRT and SWLRT 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan: $824 M 72

73. Transit Capital Funding Issues 73 Lack a funding source to expand base bus system Regional capital bond fund for preservation dependent on legislative authorization Federal funding levels uncertain CTIB funds provide for some transitway expansion State capital share of transitway funding uncertain

74. Metro Area Transportation System – In Summary 74 Transportation system is important for economic development and vitality Growing transportation demand and preservation needs Region has a vision to develop a multimodal system Existing funding levels cannot meet the growing needs