Transportation Finance Advisory Committee
April 20, 2012
Veterans Building
- Meeting Record-
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Commissioner Tom Sorel-MnDOT ;Mark Philips-DEED; Susan HaighMetropolitan Council; Cal Brink-Marshall Chamber of Commerce;Charlie Zelle-Jefferson Lines; Dan RileyTarget Corporation; Art Rolnick-U of M; Corey Hoeppner-RBC Capital Markets; Adolph Ojard-Duluth
Seaway Authority; Shar Knutson-AFL-CIO; Peter McLaughlin-Hennepin County; Toni Carter-Ramsey
County; Harlan Madsen-Kandiyohi County; Jan Rintamaki-Polaris Industries, Inc.
COMMISSIONERS WELCOME
Commissioner Sorel welcomed members and discussed the responsibility of the Transportation Finance
Advisory Committee. The Commissioner explained the problems facing transportation funding. He said
that he is looking forward to this discussion.
INTRODUCTION
Members introduced themselves and were asked to offer one expectation for the committee and
process:
-
Conduct an a-political process and have a vision
Articulate a clear vision and develop a strong comprehensive plan
The vision should be comprehensive and systematic, multi-modal and integrated
Address freight issues
Check personal agendas at the door
Craft a plan for the 2013 legislative session to ensure Minnesota has a good competitive
economic plan for 2013.
Craft a vision for state transportation financing; may play out a little different for the Twin Cities
area
Work hard, and engage each other to support Minnesota’s global transportation initiative.
To craft a report that looks far enough in the future to allow outstate folks to remain
competitive.
The committee must be bold and think beyond past solutions, as they are not serving us well.
Link the vision to good jobs that enhance the community
Be multi-modal and not focus on a separate set of silos.
Develop recommendations that help the state remain economically competitive along with use
of benefit-cost tools to conduct a rigorous analysis of recommendations.
Create a bold vision that looks beyond the directions we have been following, but not be
reckless.
Develop a financing system that is comprehensive, systematic and multi-modal.
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee
April 20, 2012
Page 2
Ken Buckeye, TFAC Project Manager, explained to members that the binders contain information we feel
is important for for members and additional information will be provided as we move through the
process. Please bring the binders to successive meetings. Ken explained that the parking passes received
today are also good for the May 18th meeting. The first three meetings are scheduled for Fridays.
OVERVIEW OF COMMITTEE PROCESS
Charlie Petersen, facilitator, gave an overview of the committee process, including scope of work for the
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee, roadmap, and ground rules. He noted that December 1 is
the committee’s deadline for producing a report for the Governor along with a marketing plan.
Charlie discussed the organization structure and discussed the importance of building common
knowledge. He said that the committee’s purpose is to identify viable transportation funding and
operations. With regard to decision making, he would expect two meetings during the months of
September and November. A report will be created and presented to the Governor. The next two
meetings are scheduled for Fridays. He inquired if further meeting dates should be on Fridays or if other
days of the week would be preferable. One member said that Tuesdays and Thursdays are bad. It
appeared that Mondays may be most desirable.
Governor’s Three Scenarios. Three Lenses. Over the next 20 years:
1. Spending continues along existing projections
2. Maintain the present level of quality and capacity
3. Build a world-class system.
A couple of members raised concerns as to the appropriateness of the 20 year planning horizon,
suggesting that planning for a 25-30 year period may be more appropriate.
Notes from the meetings will be sent to TFAC for approval. When approved, they will be posted on the
TFAC website.
A member requested that members receive Mr. Petersen’s information about the scope of the work.
Ground rules for operation:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Minds are for ideas
Voices are to share your ideas - share it here in this room, so it can be discussed
Ears to Listen to what other people are saying
Sharing should be done in an atmosphere of respect. Please raise hands to speak
Focus from a consensus standpoint. As we are on a limited time frame we will move to a super majority,
we will need 60%. Fifty-one percent doesn’t constitute a majority, but we can share pros and cons.
Meetings are open to public observation. Public comment times will be available at some future
meetings. Whatever Mr. Petersen puts on the flip chart gets documented. Minutes will be sent to
members about a week in advance of the upcoming meetings. They will be e-mailed to members, and
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee
April 20, 2012
Page 3
then, following approval, they will be placed on the website. With regard to alternates, please limit
yourself to one alternate. Please let us know who that alternate is. Mr. Petersen will have a post-it that
says parking lot, where you can place ideas you would like discussed at future meetings.
QUALITY OF LIFE PRESENTATION
Karla Rains and Ingrid Schneider gave a presentation on Quality of Life (“Q of L”), a market research study
that was conducted by MnDOT recently. Highlights include:
-
Transportation helps enable many Quality of Life indicators such as education, housing and jobs.
Fiscal matters come into play
Perception of dwindling resources
Starting to develop an understanding of tolerance
Household costs for transportation did not show up on the Quality of Life findings
Cost issues with auto ownership were not indicated
The Committee requested a breakdown of the survey results by income. Ms. Rains indicated that she will
provide that information to the committee.
Literature review:
Customers talk about “quality of life” not just policy makers. Collectively it is commonly used, rarely
defined, and infrequently measured. Ms. Rains noted that 29 focus groups were conducted around the
state. Customers were combined by age groups. The initial questions to focus groups were: 1) What is
quality of life and 2) What are the elements of quality of life. Eleven areas were identified that contribute
to quality of life. Transportation was mentioned in every group, even though the presenters did not
identify themselves as being from transportation, but rather from the State.
Once transportation was identified, focus groups were asked what contributes to, or detracts from,
quality of life with regard to transportation. Four groups were ethnically grouped. Each group suggested
contributors to quality of life including: Education, employment, finances, environment, housing, family,
friends and neighbors, health, local amenities, recreation, entertainment, safety, spirituality, faith and
serenity, and transportation.
The separate transportation areas included:
-
Access
Design
Environment
Maintenance
Mobility
Safety
Transparency (Planning and communications)
A survey was mailed to 7500 Minnesotans. Forty-five percent returned a 12-page questionnaire.
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee
April 20, 2012
Page 4
Ms. Schneider shared what we learned from the survey. Minnesotans are basically satisfied with their
quality of life. Transportation is very important to over 50% of those who responded. Education and
Finance are more important to the younger generation. The more mature groups found transportation,
spirituality, faith and serenity to be more important. Education, environment, employment, housing and
transportation were major concerns to younger groups. The survey also tried to predict satisfaction of
MnDOT services. Maintenance was identified by the focus groups as being the largest predictor of
satisfaction. More than 8 of 10 Minnesotans are satisfied with services they receive from the State.
Take-aways from the Q of L presentation identified by TFAC
-
Needs of next generations will shift, and not be static
Transportation allows the other Q of L indicators to be met
There is a lot of interconnectedness with transportation and housing, employment and education
Where facilities are can help determine where transportation is; solving the problem can be
about where we have facilities.
A high level of highway maintenance is very important to QofL
We need to be strategic in our thinking
How do we translate the cost of the problem to how do we pay
Q of L research is transformational thinking in that we now know that all of the issues are
connected.
Data did not indicate household cost of transportation
Committee would like to view data broken down by income, locations (metro, inner-city)
Does access include affordability
Maintenance, access, and safety of roadways were determined to be most important.
A member inquired whether MnDOT shared, or whether information was available to people at the focus
groups regarding future funding, the needs, funding gap, and cost of inflation, as well as reasons for some
of these issues. It was noted that these issues were not discussed as part of the focus group.
Ms. Schneider replied that fiscal matters were discussed, however, financing per se was not discussed.
This was not the primary purpose of this project. A member noted that there is a question as to whether
MnDOT operates in a fiscally responsible manner. Ms. Rains agreed . She said that there was an
acknowledgement and appreciation of the difficulty to meet its needs. A member commented that
Minnesotans are tolerant until we meet level of intolerance and then we drop off suddenly.
A member inquired whether personal or household cost showed up in the survey answers. Ms. Schneider
answered that there were some concerns about transportation fees. A member would like to see the
breakdown by income. Ingrid said most were reviewed by area, but she believes the figures can be
broken down by income. Ms. Schneider said that we do have automobile ownership as one of the
questions, but perhaps it could also be linked to income.
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee
April 20, 2012
Page 5
A member requested that we consider the needs of our aging population 30 years from now, and the
varying needs as a result of that. Another member noted that transportation is one of the areas that
allow the rest of the things happen. Transportation links to each facet of quality of life.
A member noted that when we look at the goal and scope of the group he is concerned what percentage
of transportation systems are used by consumers vs. businesses. We need to get that data set to make a
holistic decision. He asked what the percentage of use between the two is. Commissioner Sorel said that
we will get a better understanding about this at future meetings.
A member noted that the connection between education/housing/ can help determine the demand for
transportation. Ms. Schneider noted that MnDOT is working on corridor planning with other state
agencies. Ms. Rains stated that customers were aware we had a lot of roads and limited dollars. A
member noted that when he looks at the correlation of maintenance being rated the highest, and
wonders how it can be translated to the public that costs for maintenance are significant.
Commissioner Sorel summarized that this is very transformational thinking. That has not always
occurred. All items are connected. If you make a decision to invest in one area, you may have a negative
impact on another area. Ms. Schneider said that much information is available from the survey and
additional analysis could be completed, if there are specific questions.
MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES
Minnesota GO presentation
Mark Nelson, Director of the Office of Statewide Multi-Modal Transportation, discussed Minnesota GO,
MnDOT’s 50-year vision for Minnesota transportation. The vision poses the questions “What are the
needs of the state beyond the current generation?” and “What is it that we are attempting to do with
transportation investments?” He also asked what principles should guide us toward the future. A world
economy demands a world class system to remain competitive. It must include transit, waterways, rail,
and transportation systems owned by us, as well as our partners. It is also a shared vision of a
collaborative group of local government, agencies, citizens and stakeholders. Additionally, students, and
the University of Minnesota were included. Challenges and opportunities include: the aging population,
accessibility will be more of a challenge; health care costs, energy shifts, changing work environments,
telecommunications and access to services, persistent budget challenges, and energy shifts.
Mr. Nelson said that he went to a conference where a futurist spoke and was told that technology will
change our lives in ways we can’t even imagine—something that needed to be considered in our plan.
Mr. Nelson explained the system must be flexible to adapt to changes in the environment, technology,
and the economy. As a State agency we are responsible for the trunk highway system. We need to
consider how the public interacts with the highway system, especially in rural areas where the trunk
highway is often the main street.
Guiding principles that were adopted include:
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee
April 20, 2012
Page 6
-Leverage public investments to achieve multiple purposes
-Ensure accessibility
-Build to a maintainable scale
-Ensure regional connections
-Integrate safety
-Emphasize reliable and predictable options
-Strategically fix the system
-Use partnerships
MnDOT is currently working on the 20-year multi-modal plan. In addition, a number of additional plans
will be created.
Mark noted that page 3 of the Minnesota GO plan gives some food for thought as members consider the
definition of a world class transportation system.
Questions and discussion regarding Minnesota GO presentation
-
Transportation planning leading to policy, need input on priorities
Affordability of transportation for households! Funding for transportation based on use of
system, holistic fashion
Public transportation provides a way to jobs for low income
Social equity in transportation; workforce with access to jobs (transportation to get there and
back)
Need to balance transportation investments to have a positive impact on household
Need for community planning: holistic, follows a zoning perspective (along roads and
transportation corridors)
- Needs gap is $65 billion and revenue is $15 billion = $50 billion shortfall; dollar values
(cost/benefit) on a 50 year vision of transportation in Minnesota; what is the vision? Where do
we go?
- Focus on land-use planning; private investment, public investment = need to build together
World-class Transportation System Foundational Elements
Mr. Petersen asked what the group envisions a world-class transportation system to be for Minnesota.
He inquired what it would look like and how it would operate. He also inquired what would be the
critical components of this system. The following table identifies those components within three broad
categories;
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee
April 20, 2012
Page 7
Discuss a world-class transportation system for Minnesota
In the year 2032 (20 years), what is your image for a “world-class transportation system in Minnesota? What will it
look like? How will it operate? What are the critical components of this system?
Efficiency and Balance
State-wide Focus








Market Driven
Multi-model
Affordable and accessible
Balanced and integrated
Statewide
Statewide multimodal system
that is affordable to users
(everybody)
Critical components
o Connectable (urban,
rural, people, freight,
multi-modal)
o Economic opportunity
for all
o Affordable to
Minnesotans
o Sustainable –
maintenance of the
system

Safe and sound
Strong, reliable, affordable
access to jobs



User fees cover
marginal cost of using
the transportation
system
Flexible and adaptable;
flex to changing
conditions, innovation,
population, good and
services
Investment based on
net present value –
trade-offs of people’s
time, vehicle cost,
movement of goods –
versus cost of new
projects


Fees, Gen tax,
public/private
partnerships
Clear cost structure,
cost matched to benefit








Scalability
Engineered delivery system to reduce the number of
trips and travel; move people to people AND move
goods to people (too many roads, too many
jurisdictions); clusters and corridors, high tech
delivery systems
Capacity for additional growth in market and
planning for innovation (the “1950s” Interstate
Highway System)
Optimized and integrated system of roads, transit,
freight movement and development pattern
(land-use)
Integrated connectivity with options (hubs);
train/bus/car/bike/walk (multi-modal) digitally
connected
Transit corridors integrate land use planning to
promote job growth, access to education, affordable
housing
Multi-modal, moves – goods, people, services
Multiple use of transportation corridors for
clean/waste water, telecommunications, etc.
Discussion and questions on World-class system:
 Efficiency of the current MN Pass system
 Having a world-class transportation system creates a first-class competitive regional economy
 Look for revenue streams that can finance transportation
 We need to maintain what we currently have
 Fall behind by what percent, when
 What does a world class system look like? What does it take to have one?
 A world class transportation means livability in Minnesota
 Regional competitiveness – transit and economic
 Look for efficiencies and a better use of funds, plan to a vision
Closing Remarks
The committee requested to see a comparison of how Minnesota is doing compared with other states.
This would lead to development of the marketing plan that the Governor has also requested through this
process.
Innovative Ideas
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee
April 20, 2012
Page 8
-
Connections both physically and technologically
Engineered system to reduce number of trips and travel delivered and dispatched centrally
Multi-modal statewide, affordable, accessible, balanced and integrated
In response to a question about the ability for MnPASS to raise revenue, Nick Thompson said that its
purpose is to ease congestion, and not to generate revenue.
A Transportation Funding Advisory Committee member suggested that he believes that the main purpose
of the committee is to find new money and more funding for transportation. He suggested that we
should also be considering efficiencies and better uses of the dollar, etc. It was noted that people live just
as far from their employment as they can afford to. We shouldn’t rule out the politically tough decisions.
A member said that it would be helpful for the committee to learn of examples of different innovations
and creativity and how Minnesota compares in using those types of innovations.