Presentation to
Governor’s Transportation Finance
Advisory Committee
June 22, 2012
Presentation Overview
• What is CTIB’s regional vision?
• Why invest in transitways?
• What role does CTIB play?
• What does CTIB invest in?
• Where do we go from here?
2
44th largest regional economy
Rank*
1
10
20
22
40
Countries and Metro Areas
United States
Spain
Chicago, IL
Switzerland
Greece
44
Minneapolis-St. Paul
49
59
61
93
98
Venezuela
Egypt
Ireland
Hungary
Ukraine
GP
$8,510.975
$552.568
$287.410
$263.656
$119.536
$103.605
$95.023
$81.904
$77.217
$47.184
$43.467
*World Rankings Based on Gross National and Metropolitan Product, 1998 (US$ Billions, Current)
Our Vision
A network of connected transitways
fully integrated with other
transportation elements




Move users efficiently & safely
Mitigate congestion
Enhance development & competitiveness
Improve sustainability & livability
5
A Shared Regional Vision
• Metropolitan Council
• Public
• Business Community
• Federal Transit Administration
• Corridors of Opportunity Policy Board
6
Regional
Vision
7
WHY INVEST IN TRANSITWAYS?
8
Why invest in transitways?
• We are growing
• We need to compete
• We want to protect and enhance our quality of life
9
Business wants more transit
Regions with robust transit systems work better. Those regions
are choice destinations for employers and employees, because
business has wider access to labor, and workers enjoy a higher
quality of life.
Our competitor regions understand this, and are increasing their
investments in transit. For us to remain competitive and attain
our regional economic goals, our region must continue to
strengthen our transit system.
- the Chambers of Commerce
10
Public wants more transit
Statewide
76% agree: “Minnesota would benefit from having an expanded and improved
public transportation system, such as rail and buses.”
69% agree: “I would like to use public transportation such as rail or buses more
often, but it is not convenient or available from my home or work.”
7-county metro
67% say public transportation has a positive impact on our ability
to attract businesses to the Twin Cities region.
73% say public transportation has a positive impact on jobs.
71% say public transportation has a positive impact on the quality
of life in Minnesota.
74% say public transportation has a positive impact on the amount
of traffic congestion.
Survey conducted in January 2012 by FM3 and POS for
Minneapolis and Saint Paul Chambers.
11
Transit lets us prosper:
A day in September 2011
Twins + Vikings + “Wicked”
State Fair
Rush hour for two downtowns
Central Corridor “eds & meds”
100,000 people
155,000 people
200,000 workers
67,000 workers
522,000 people
Transit is the only way to serve these numbers!
Transit makes possible a world-class region
(a region that can do more than one thing at a time)
12
Transit lets us prosper.
Lack of transit capacity limits job growth in
downtowns and suburbs.
Major HQs in downtowns
and suburbs say:
“We need transit to add
substantial jobs.”
SUPERVALU
Super Valu parking lot is full.
Not cost-effective to build a ramp.
13
We need transit
to compete
for workers.
14
Transit allows us to attract the future
Transit makes us a region that draws
the future’s workers and jobs.
“Companies are recruiting and
targeting the next generation of
talented workers, the
Generation Y and millennials
who increasingly prefer urban
lifestyles with mass transit.”
– Urban Land Institute
Source: Jeffrey Spivak, “Urban Office Momentum”,
Urban Land, September 14, 2011
15
Rail Means Business
Central Corridor Contracts:
Primary Contractors:
Carl Bolander & Sons Co., St. Paul
Graham Construction Services
Walsh Construction, Chicago
Ames Construction Inc., Burnsville
C.S. McCrossan, Maple Grove
Siemens Mobility, Sacramento, CA
Aldridge Electric, Libertyville, IL
ColliSys, New Hope
PCL Construction Services Inc., Burnsville
Sub-contractors include:
AirFresh Industries, Stillwater
Goliath Hydro-Vac Inc., Lakeville
Povolny Specialties, Inc., Inver Grove Heights
All Agape Construction Co.
Gunnar Electric Inc., Eden Prairie
Precision Testing , Burnsville & Virginia, MN
All Star Rolloff Inc., Inver Grove Heights
Hansen Thorpe Pellinen Olson Inc.
Princess Trucking Inc., Elk River
Am-Tec Designs Inc. , Scandia
High Five Erectors Inc., Shakopee
Professional Engineering Services
C.P. Office Products, Circle Pines
MC Supply
Terron Trucking, Bloomington
Crystal Welding, Maple Grove
Meyer Contracting Inc., Maple Grove
Transignal, Elk River
Highway Solutions Inc., Stillwater
Public Solutions Inc.
B & B Diversified Materials
Icon Services Corp., St. Paul
Rani Engineering Inc., Minneapolis
B & L Supply Inc., St. Paul
J & L Steel Erectors, Hudson, WI
Ray Trucking
Bald Eagle Erectors Inc., Eagan
J.D. Donovan Inc., Rockville
Rock On Trucks Inc., Waite Park
Big G Tech Support, Brooklyn Center
Joans’ Minority Owned Supplier, Mpls.
Safety Signs
Big Jay’s Cleaning Services
Kang Contracting Corp., St. Paul
Sanders Steel Erectors, Hastings
Borgert Products Inc., St. Joseph
Lanier Steel Products Inc.
CI Utilities, Blaine
Shaw Trucking Inc., Ham Lake
Carlo Lachmansingh Sales Inc., Minneapolis
Lema Trucking
Simplex Construction Supplies, Blaine
MBE Trucking Inc., Delano
Standard Contracting Inc.
COHO Enterprises, Brooklyn Park
MC Electric
Stonebrook Fence Inc., Prior Lake
Astro Engineering and Manufacturing Inc., Plymouth
Dispatch Trucking
MFRA Inc., Plymouth
Two Buffalo Construction Supplies Inc., Minneapolis
E & J Rebar Inc., Oak Grove
Midwest Lighting Products, Maple Grove
Utility Sales & Supply Inc., Loretto
Eagle Land Surveying Inc., Rockford
MTECH Electric Inc.
Wissota Supply Co., Hastings
E-Con Placer
Nexpro Personnel Services, Inc., St. Louis Park
Woody’s Rebar Co. Inc., St. Paul
Eden Resources, Eden Prairie
Northstar Imaging Services, Inc., Eagan
Yaw Construction Group Inc., Minneapolis
Elliott Contracting Corp., Minneapolis
O’Malley Construction Inc., Le Center
Z Companies Inc. (dba ZAN)
Environmental Enhancements
EVS Inc., Eden Prairie
Source: Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal,
February 25, 2011 from data provided by the
Metropolitan Council. Cities were not available for
all contractors.
16
Development on Hiawatha
Open
In
Construction
Proposed
Total
7,535
252
7,513
15,300
2000 April 2010
Units Forecast : 1999 Market Study, 2000 – 2020:
7,120
Highly Efficient System
2011 Legislative Auditor’s Report:
Transit Governance in Twin Cities
• MN has 2nd lowest subsidy per
passenger
• MN also has higher than average
fare-box recovery rates
18
Other regions know this, are ahead of us
& are building faster.
Source: Bill Rankin, c. 2006
Maps to same scale.
19
Our Competitors Are Far Ahead
160
140
100
80
Miles
120
BRT
COMMUTER RAIL
LRT
60
40
20
0
Salt Lake City
Denver
Dallas
Source: Adapted from Fresh Energy, 2012
Twin Cities
20
Other regions know transit matters, and
ARE INVESTING MORE:
Sales Tax Dedicated to Transit
Seattle
San Francisco
Atlanta
Boston
Cleveland
Dallas
Denver
Houston
San Jose
St Louis
San Diego
Phoenix
Minneapolis / St Paul
Adapted from TLC, 2011
21
Uncertainty Delays Private Development
• Uncertainty about funds
– delays transit construction,
– delays jobs,
– delays development.
• Businesses wait to see where transitways will go before
building and investing.
– Southwest LRT
– Central Corridor LRT
-- Northstar Ramsey Station
-- Hiawatha LRT
22
Summary of Why CTIB
Invests In Transitways
A thriving region -- the product we are making.
Transit -- an essential component.
Leave it out or put in too little -get a different, less competitive, product.
23
Overview of Structure and Funding Sources
WHAT ROLE DOES CTIB PLAY?
24
CTIB: Major Investor
25
Counties Invest Heavily
• Counties provide 80% of
Capital Cost Share Pre-FFGA
Non-Federal share (preFFGA)
• Counties assume
significant risk
– Fund PE & FD before the
FFGA commitment
26
26
Dedicated Funding Source for Transit
Funding Source:
¼ cent sales tax
$20 motor vehicle excise tax
Total Revenue:
$97 million per year (2011)
27
A County-Led Organization
• Authorization: 2008 Omnibus Transportation Finance Bill
(Minn. Stat. Section 297A.992) -- Counties voted for sales tax
• Five-County Joint Powers Board: Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin,
Ramsey and Washington
• Met Council has representative on Board
• Scott and Carver Counties: non-voting members
28
Basis for Weighted Voting System
Sales Tax
Population
29
Voting Distribution
P= Population
S= Sales Tax
%
Population
% Sales Tax
VOTES:
50% P + 50% S
Anoka
12.6%
8.4%
10
Dakota
15.0%
12.8%
13
Hennepin
44.1%
55.0%
47
Ramsey
19.7%
18.2%
18
Washington
8.7%
5.5%
7
Met Council
N/A
N/A
5
COUNTY
30
Legislative / Stakeholder
Expectations
• Property Tax Relief
– Operating Costs (398A.10 subd. 2) & Capital investment reduction
• Maximize Use of Federal Funds (297A.992 subd.5)
• Reduce the Reliance on State Bonding
– 33% state project share down to 10%
31
Legislative / Stakeholder
Expectations
• Expansion of the System
– “Supplement not Supplant” (297A.992 subd. 12)
• Construction, not Studies*
• Minimal administrative expenses
*Exception: Washington County Guaranteed Grants
32
Lean Administrative Structure
¾ of 1% (297A.992 subd. 4)
Executive
Committee
• No employees
Board
GEARS
• No buildings
• Use county staff
Senior Staff
• Work closely with Met
Legal
Finance
Communications
Council staff
33
Leveraging ~$1.5B in Federal Funds
34
Grant Funding: Sales Tax Receipts and
Historic Comparison
2008
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
$
2009
2010
2011
2012
$
7,000 $
6,832 $
6,538 $
7,432
6,989
7,107
8,416
8,468
8,761
8,152
9,786
10,200
6,326
6,627
6,458
7,067
7,371
7,175
7,272
7,058
7,042
7,726
7,926
7,344
7,194
7,823
7,111
7,749
8,412
7,000
7,071
7,328
7,537
5,368
8,745
9,017
8,945
8,574
7,206
8,073
9,322
7,757
7,748
8,348
8,813
28,698 $ 88,713 $ 91,328 $ 97,246 $ 40,225
35
Grant Funding: Bonds
• $110 million in bonds issued in Dec. 2010
• Issued by Hennepin County: $3 million savings
• Capital Grants for Central Corridor: 2011-2012
• May not be used for operating grants
36
Annual Grant Process Overview
Develops
Criteria /
Issues
Applications
CTIB
Prepare
Applications
Local/
Regional
Governments
Evaluate Grant
Applications
Metropolitan
Council
Grant Evaluation
and Ranking
System
Committee
(GEARS)
Consistency
Review
Award
Grants
CTIB
Legislature
Grant
Applicant
Reviews Annual
Report from CTIB
Completes
Project
37
Projects and Corridors Supported by CTIB
WHAT DOES CTIB INVEST IN?
38
Focused on Transitway Expansion
CTIB invests in:
• Engineering, construction and operations
• BRT, Commuter Rail, and LRT
CTIB does not fund:
• Studies*
• Passenger rail, regular route buses, arterial BRT
*Exception: Washington County Guaranteed Grants
39
Project Development Process
Locally Funded
Eligible for CTIB Grants
System
and early
corridor
planning
Alternatives
Analysis (AA),
Conceptual
Engineering (10%
plans), and initial
NEPA
environmental
review
Preliminary
Engineering
(PE, 30%
plans) and
final NEPA
environmental
review
specifications
and bid
documents
Varies
2 - ? Years
2 years
1 year
Final Design
- final plans,
Construction
Operations
and
Maintenance
3 - 4 years
On-going
Locally Preferred Alternative
Progression of example project development process
40
CTIB Grants Awarded to Date
Grants Awarded^
Capital
Operating
Washington
2008 / 2009:
$30.23 m
$42.14 m*
$0.95 m
2009 / 2010:
$78.02 m
$13.29 m
$2.55 m
2010 / 2011:
$132.77 m
$16.87 m
$2.66 m
2011 / 2012:
$122.24 m
$22.59 m~
$2.70 m
TOTAL
$363.26 m
$94.89 m
$8.86 m
^Grants awarded in November of each year are payable in the next Calendar Year.
*Includes statutorily required one-time grant to Metropolitan Council of $30.78 Million.
~2011 Special Session Law mandated an increase in the CTIB operating subsidy to 75% for the 2011-2013 biennium. 41
$467
million
invested
by CTIB
since 2008
42
42
Status of Corridors
Locally Funded
Eligible for CTIB Grants
Preliminary
Engineering
Feasibility
AA or EIS
35W N BRT
Bottineau
North Central
Gateway
Robert St.
Red Rock
135W S BRT
Riverview
Rush Line
Cedar BRT
Varies
2 - ? Years
Final Design
Construction
Operational
35W S BRT
Cedar BRT
Hiawatha
Central LRT
Northstar
Southwest LRT
2 years
1 year
3 - 4 years
On-going
Locally Preferred Alternative
Progression of example project development process
43
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
44
Current Regional Initiatives
Program of Projects
Corridors of Opportunity
HUD
Sustainable
Communities
Grant
Corridors
of
Opportunity
Living Cities
Integration
Initiative
45
Program of Projects (PoP) Study
Purpose of Study
Determine the feasibility of accelerating the development
of multiple transitway corridors (a Program of Projects) to
serve the region.
46
Main Questions for
Program of Projects
1. Is it possible:
– To complete our shared vision given current
funding practices and policy?
– To build our vision more quickly given current funding
practices?
Sneak peak at the answers: No
2. How have other cities accelerated their building?
3. What might work in our region? What are our options?
47
PoP Work Tasks
• Develop 3 Scenarios
• Analyze alternative PoPs using current funding practice
• Explore what Peer Cities have done
• Apply lessons learned and develop options for Twin
Cities metro area
We are here
• Propose an approach to fund and accelerate a PoP
48
Six Core Projects in All Scenarios
• Hiawatha LRT
• Northstar Commuter Rail
• Cedar Avenue BRT
(all phases)
• Central Corridor LRT
• Southwest LRT
• I-35W South BRT
(all phases)
Core Projects have approved alignments
and modes (LPAs) and are in Preliminary
Engineering , construction or operation.
49
Three PoP Scenarios w/
Nine Expansion Projects
Mode
BRT
BRT plus 1 Rail
BRT plus 3 Rail
LRT
BRT – Exclusive
None
2 projects
1 line
1 project
2 lines
None
BRT – Highway
Commuter Rail
4 projects
None
4 projects
None
3 projects
1 line
Arterial BRT
3 lines
3 lines
3 lines
Number of additional
Expansion Projects
9
9
9
50
Peer Cities Summary
City
Program
Total
Program
Cost
Base
Sales
Tax
Sales Tax
Increase
Total Sales
Tax
Modes
Capital vs
O&M
State
Funds
Dallas
DART Rail
Expansion
$1.6 billion
1 cent
No, bonding
only
1 cent
Transit only
Both
No
Denver
FasTracks
$6.8 billion
0.6 cent
0.4 cent
1 cent
Transit only
Both
Yes
Houston
METRO
Solutions
$6 billion
1 cent
No, bonding
only
1 cent
Transit only
Both
No
Los
Angeles
LA 30/10
Initiative
$17.5
billion
0.0 cent
1.5 cent
1.5 cent
Transit and
roadway
projects
Both
Yes
Phoenix
Future
High
Speed
Transit
Corridors
$3 billion
0.5 cent
Tempe
0.4 cent
Phoenix
0.5 cent
regional
1.0 & 0.9
cent respectively
Cities for transit
only
No
Regional for
transit and
roadways
Cities Both
Regional for
rail capital
Regional for
bus capital
and O&M
Seattle
ST2
$17.8
billion
0.4 cent
0.5 cent
0.9 cent
Transit only
Both
No
Salt
Lake
FrontLines
2015
$2.3 billion
0.50
cent
0.25 cent
0.75 cent
Transit only
Both
No
51

“Transitway corridors will guide our region’s growth, vitality and competitiveness.
Development along transitways will create distinctive places and strengthen local
assets while increasing ridership and expanding access to jobs, affordable
housing, and essential services for residents of all incomes and backgrounds.” 52
53
Peer Cities Findings
1.
All cities defined and developed a specific program of projects.
2.
All cities use sales taxes as the primary local funding source.
3.
All cities use sales taxes for transit and transitway capital and operations.
4.
All cities use FTA New Starts funding
5.
Several of the cities are implementing projects using all non-federal funds.
6.
Most of the cities had to raise their sales tax rate to fund a Program of
Projects.
7.
Only two of the seven cities receive state funding.
Further Information
Commissioner Peter McLaughlin, Chair
Counties Transit Improvement Board
&
Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority
peter.mclaughlin@co.hennepin.mn.us
(612) 348-7884
www.mnrides.org
55