The Future of Twin Cities Transportation PolicyNovember 28, 2007

2

A number of factors are converging to exacerbate congestion in the metro area.

The Met Council predicts that the seven county metro area will continue to grow in the next 20 years– Add over 1 million people and 470 thousand households– Add nearly 500 thousand new jobs and generate 4 million additional daily trips

Automobile ownership has increased significantly since 1970– From 1/3 of homes with two cars to nearly 2/3 with new cars since 1970– On average, there is slightly more than one car for every licensed driver in MN

Road usage, as measured by vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is expected to grow 51% by 2030. – 93% of all daily trips are motorized– Nearly 80% of urban interstates are already congested– Over 2,530 lane miles are needed to eliminate severe congestion by 2030, almost all in the

metro Minnesotans continue to become more mobile, yet demand far outpaces supply of roads

– Households living outside Minneapolis/St. Paul have increased from 54% to 73% since 1970– Jobs outside Minneapolis/St. Paul have increased from 44% to 69% in same period

Lane miles of freeway construction have declined significantly in the past 35 years– Only 151 miles added in the 1990’s; only 29 miles from 2004 to 2006

Minnesotans annually lose over 59 million hours in traffic at a cost of $1.1 billion including nearly 42 million excess gallons of fuel used due to congested roads – The average driver wastes 43 hours in traffic and 30 gallons of fuel per year– The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) estimates that metro drivers add a buffer of 1.3 to

1.7 times the normal travel time due to congestion– Delays have increased by 37 hours in the past twenty years, fifth worst in the nation

During the last decade, an average of 600 people per year have been killed in Minnesota traffic accidents

The I35 bridge across the Mississippi River collapsed in August, 2007 killing 13 people

3

Minneapolis/St. Paul has become one of the most congested metropolitan areas in the country.

Source: Texas Transportation Institute

Min

neapolis

/St.

Paul

4

Does congestion really matter? Not if we want to be like LA.

Congestion weakens urban economies because it slows the motion that makes our cities vital– City economies are losing to the suburbs; In 1969, only 11% of America’s largest

corporations were in the suburbs, now it’s over 50% Unreliable delivery bottlenecks the supply chain and increases costs to consumers

– Extra warehouses, vehicles, expeditors and other non value added items Companies must pay higher salaries to attract talent willing to offset commuting time Unreliable travel times cause drivers to build in ‘buffer’ time to our trips Congestion costs lives – think EMS

Source – David T Hartgen, Professor of Transportation Studies, UNCC

5

Transportation funding in Minnesota is less than 1% of the general fund, meanwhile other funding sources are declining.

520

623

31

538

192

852

150

431

80

482

414

420

199

728

72

483

640

556

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Fu

nd

ing

in

Do

lla

rs (

Mil

lio

n)

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010

Fiscal Year

BAP (Bonds & FF)

IRC/Bottleneck

Regular

730

1002

511

619

483

640

Numbers represent: Regular plus BAP/IRC/BN including bonds

Funding Source

654

800

896

556520

Funding facts

Gas tax rate has not increased in over 20 years

MVST revenues are forecasted to decline

Federal funding is generally flat

2008 Minnesota General Fund Allocations

MNDOT Construction Program

Gas Tax Rankings (by state)

6

According to the Transportation Alliance, there is over $1.5 billion of unmet annual needs in Minnesota.

System Category Annual unmet need

MN Trunk Highway MNDOT 20 year district plans $920 million

Local Roads and Bridges City/County bridges $50 million

Local roads $158 million

City roads/streets $130 million

Township bridges $9 million

Transit Metro area transit $208 million

Greater MN transit $50 million

Ports, Freight, Rail, Air Ports and waterways $5 million

Freight and rail $1.8 million

State airport fund $1.5 million

Total $1.53 billion

However, it’s unclear what if any impact this funding will have on reducing congestion.

7

2030: A tale of two cities?

Likely, though not yet funded Needed

8

Our current transportation policy is not a vision, it’s a fight over funding gaps and taxes.

‘Ask for as much as we can get’

Minimal discussion of key metrics like congestion and safety

Funds are allocated based on politics of re-election– Earmarks fund low priority projects– Pressure at state level to fund projects in

every district so large projects that reduce congestion often don’t get funded

Many competing interests all vying for their ‘piece of the worm’– K-12 education– Higher education– Environment– Energy– Health care– Human services– Public safety

Our issue isn’t funding, it’s priorities!

9

There is an absence of leadership on transportation.

Governor– Committed $1 billion in early days of administration to ‘fast track’ high priority projects– Has not articulated a longer term vision for transportation policy– Unclear what level of funding he is willing to support– Appears willing to consider gas taxes along with a bonding package– Does not support other tax increases as funding mechanisms

Legislature– Has not articulated a vision for transportation policy– Appear willing to fund at higher levels than the governor including sales tax increases – Unclear on the priority of transportation policy relative to other issues

Transportation advocates– Have not articulated a vision for transportation policy; trying to ‘get as much as we can get’– Do of good job of providing information and statistics to decision makers– Do a good job of identifying the needs and raising awareness

Met Council– Created 2030 Regional Transportation Policy– Goal for congestion actually increases the level of congestion in the next 25 years– Goal for highway capacity increase is 20%, goal for transit ridership increase is 100%– Defined criteria and scenarios for funding– Supports public/private partnerhips (PPP’s)

10

We need a vision for transportation policy.

It should focus on improving our quality of life– Reduce congestion– Improve safety– Reflect our desire to be mobile and drive – Drive economic growth

It must be measurable– Congestion relief– Accident avoidance

It must be based on facts, not emotions– Life cycle analysis– Specific criteria for project selection

It should include a combination of funding mechanisms– Free market approaches such as public private partnerships (PPP’s) – Traditional sources such as bonding– ‘Radical’ ideas such as increasing allocation from the general fund

We can start by learning from others.

11

HoustonBuilding Roads Cuts Congestion

New Freeway Capacity and Congestion Delays in Houston

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fre

eway

lan

e m

iles

ad

ded

(3

yea

r av

erag

e)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Del

ay P

er P

eak

Tra

vele

r (a

nn

ual

ho

urs

)

New Freeway Lanes Added Delay Per Peak Traveler

Implemented congestion relief program in the early 80’s– Added 100 miles/year of highways from 1986 to 1992– Reduced average delays for peak travelers 21%

Stopped spending in 1992 and congestion increased to pre-1985 levels Business community created Trip2000

– Build more road capacity– Manage demand through tolls and access management– Increase overall transportation efficiency

Governor created Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan– Created congestion targets– Quantified costs/benefits

12

Atlanta

Recognized that congestion was the biggest problem facing the city– Time to work increased by 24% to 31 minutes

in the 90’s– Transit market share was falling– Port of Savannah projected to double volume

in seven years

Created the Congestion Mitigation Task Force in 2004– Made recommendations to the Atlanta

Regional Commission (ARC)

Selection criteria based on cost/benefit ratio– Those that helped reach the congestion-

mitigation goal the quickest– Projects judged on their merit, efficiency and

effectiveness, rather than political benefits

13

Tampa

Constructed the Crosstown Expressway www.tampa-xway.com/home2– Reversible lanes– Electronic tolling– Computer based safety controls– Useage is 33% higher than planned with 50% higher than planned tolls

14

The solution will require strong leadership and new ideas.

Need champions to articulate the vision– Governor Pawlenty– Legislators– Business leaders

Create a congestion reduction task force to lead the effort– Define goals for congestion and safety– Develop criteria for selecting projects– Determine funding needs and methods to achieve– Reconsider existing funding formulas – Determine accountability for results

Consider free market options– Public Private Partnerships (PPP’s)– Toll truckways– Bridge endowments– Twin Cities Express and/or BRT network– Life cycle analysis

Supplement with more traditional funding schemes– Reconsider general fund priorities – Increase percentage given to transportation funding– Increased gas tax – Minnesota has not kept pace with inflation– Increased bonding – Transportation is an investment

"There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction." - John F Kennedy

15

A word about the gas tax; it’s not a viable long term funding alternative.

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Average

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0

Cen

ts p

er m

ile

Decline in real value of fuel taxes in 1997 dollars

16

Benefits of Public/Private Partnerships (PPP’s)

Lease, not sale of asset

Source of new capital– Typically raise more money than public agencies– Upfront fees and/or toll revenue sharing

Better management– Life cycle management

New infrastructure faster

Minimize risks to taxpayers

17

Information Sources

‘The Road More Traveled’ – Ted Balaker and Sam Staley

‘Safeguarding and Modernizing America’s Highway Infrastructure’ – Bob Poole, Reason Foundation www.reason.org/

‘Minnesota’s Transportation System: Our Future is Riding On It’ – Minnesota Transportation Alliance www.transportationalliance.com

Atlanta Regional Commission www.atlantaregional.com

Texas Transportation Institute tti.tamu.edu/

Minnesota Department of Transportation www.dot.state.mn.us

American Road and Transportation Builders Association www.artba.org

The Metropolitan Council www.metrocouncil.org/