TWIN CITIES METRO AREA TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEM

Transportation Funding Advisory CommitteeJune 2012

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

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 21st century

Benefits of Transportation Investments

4

• Improved mobility

• Enhanced accessibility to markets and resources

• Accelerated productivity gains

• Increased competitiveness

Minnesota’s Economy is Strong

5

• 5.3 million people (21st of 50 states)

• 2.68 million jobs (18th)

• $55K Median household income (12th)

• $270 billion annual gross domestic product (GDP) (17th)

Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area is Important Nationally

7

• 16th largest metropolitan area population

• 13th largest metropolitan area GDP

• 15th largest road network (TTI)

• 16th largest transit ridership

• 17th most congested region

Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Transit Database, Texas Transportation Institute

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

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

Metropolitan Development Guide

10

• Promotes efficiency and innovation in regional service delivery

• Ensures effective stewardship of resources

• Expands our multimodal transportation system

Metro Area Population Growth

11

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 -

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

2,850,000

3,743,000 Total growth 2010-40: +893,000 (31%)

Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012

Metro Area Employment Growth

12

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 -

500,000.0

1,000,000.0

1,500,000.0

2,000,000.0

2,500,000.0

1,548,000

2,118,000

Total growth 2010-40: +570,000 (37%)

Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012

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

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

METRO AREA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OVERVIEW

15

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

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

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

Traffic Congestion is Growing

• Total annual delay = 78.5 million hours

• 2011 a.m. Congestion

19Sources: Texas Transportation Institute, 2011 Mobility Report

2011 MnDOT Congestion Report

Traffic Congestion is Growing

• Annual delay per peak commuter = 45 hours

• 2011 p.m. Congestion

20Sources: Texas Transportation Institute, 2011 Mobility Report

2011 MnDOT Congestion Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving MobilityOptimizing 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

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

Improving MobilityLocal + Regional Bike & Ped Systems

29

• Recommendations– Connections to transit– Removal of barriers– Safety improvements– Bike/pedestrian accommodations

on roadways

Improving MobilityAviation 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

30Sources: Metropolitan Airports Commission

Transit: Critical to our 21st Century Transportation System• Provides Mobility Options

• Mitigates Congestion

• Serves Transit-dependent Populations

• Reduces Environmental Impact of Transportation

• Encourages Efficient Land Development Patterns

31

Transit-Oriented Development Examples• Housing• Commercial• Mixed-use• Institutional

32

Transit-Oriented Development Examples• Housing• Commercial• Mixed-use• Institutional

33

Transit System Overview

• Light rail• Commuter rail• Over 200 regular

bus routes• 8 regular route

providers• ADA & Dial-a-ride• Vanpool

34

Transit System Overview2011 Transit Statistics

• 94 million rides• 3.4 million service

hours• 28% fare recovery• $2.94 subsidy per

passengerExpress

14%

Urbal Local67%

Commuter Rail1%

Light Rail12%

Other2%

Suburb Local5%

35

Bus system accounts for 85%of regional ridership

Ridership Trends

36

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

73,343,611 67,171,51

0

80,787,300

85,307,600

88,943,500

94,770,400 88,931,40

091,073,50

093,903,93

6

Annual Transit System Ridership

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

Performance of the System VariesTransit System Performance (2010 statistics)

37

Service Type Subsidy 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

Our Transit System is Effective

Dallas

Houston

Phoenix

St. Louis

Milwaukee

Pittsburgh

Seattle

Peer Average

Cleveland

Denver

Twin Cities

San Diego

Baltimore

Portland

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

19.419.7

20.623.2

24.525.025.626.126.427.027.3

33.634.1

37.1

2010 Productivity (Passengers per Hour)

38Sources: National Transit Database

Our Transit System is Efficient

Dallas

Houston

Phoenix

St. Louis

Cleveland

Baltimore

Peer Average

Portland

Pittsburgh

Denver

Seattle

Milwaukee

Twin Cities

San Diego

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

13.0%17.9%

18.7%21.7%

22.7%23.2%23.4%

24.3%24.5%

25.5%26.5%

27.4%27.6%

38%

2010 Fare Recovery Percentage

39Sources: National Transit Database

Our Transit System is Cost-Effective

Dallas

Pittsburgh

Baltimore

Houston

Seattle

St. Louis

Cleveland

Phoenix

Peer Average

Denver

Twin Cities

Portland

Milwaukee

San Diego

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00

$6.31$4.23$4.19

$3.93$3.93$3.89

$3.83$3.82

$3.67$3.00$3.00

$2.90$2.83

$1.91

2010 Subsidy per Passenger Trip

40Sources: National Transit Database

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

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

42Sources: Metro Transit Rider Survey, 2010

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

MankatoRochester

43Sources: Met Council Park-and-ride Survey, 2010

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%

44Sources: Met Council Ridership and MnDOT

Transit Carries a Significant Portion of People on the Major Arterials

Roadway Use Person Throughput

Cars(95+%)

People in cars

(65-80%)

Buses (<1-5%)

People on buses

(20-35%)

Major arterial impacts ex-amples

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

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

Goal: Double Transit Ridership

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

0

20000000

40000000

60000000

80000000

100000000

120000000

140000000

160000000

Bus Rail Ridership Goal

47

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

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

Transitways in the Vision

50

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

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

Estimated Travel Time Savings from Arterial BRT

53

Current Arterial BRT0

10

20

30

40

50

60

27 27

185

13

9 Red Light

Boarding

Moving

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/houreach direction

18 Buses:

11 trips/hour each direction

Advantages of New Arterial BRT

• Service improvements will help meet growing demand

• With Arterial BRT, corridor ridership will nearly double

2010 2030 with Arterial BRT0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Weekday Ridership

54

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

METRO AREA TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OVERVIEW

56

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

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

58

Roads82%

Transit18%

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

59

Gas Tax18%

Vehicle Registration Tax12%

MVST7%

Federal Highway16%

Other Road

1%

Road Property Tax28%

Transit18%

Transit = 18%

Roads = 82%

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

60

Gas Tax18%

Vehicle Registration Tax12%

MVST7%

Federal Highway16%

Other Road

1%

Road Property Tax28%

Transit Property Tax1.5%

State GF + Bonds1.5%

Sales Tax (CTIB)2%

Fares3% Federal

Transit5%

Transit MVST5%

Transit = 18%

Roads = 82%

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

61

State Construction16%

State Operations & Other13%

Debt2%

State Patrol2%

DNR/Collections1%

County Roads21%

Township Roads

3%

City Roads24%

Greater MN Transit

2%

Metro Area Transit Operations

8%

Metro Area Transit Capital

3%

New Starts Projects5%

Transit = 18%

Roads = 82%

33%

48%

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

62

Roads68%

Transit32%

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

63

Gas Tax15%

Vehicle Registration Tax10%

MVST5%

Federal Highway13%

Road Property Tax25%

Transit Property Tax3%

State GF + Bonds3%

Sales Tax (CTIB)4%

Fares6%

Federal Transit

8%

Transit MVST8%

Transit = 32%

Roads = 68%

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

64

State Construction14%

State Operations & Other10%

Debt1%

State Patrol2%

DNR/Collections1%

County Roads13%

Township Roads<1%

City Roads27%

Metro Area Transit Operations

16%

Metro Area Transit Capital

6%

New Starts Projects10%

Transit = 32%

Roads = 68%

STIP 2011-14 (in millions)

Traveler Safety $77.9

Preservation $888.7

Mobility Im-provements

$285.3

Regional and Com-

munity Pri-orities $39.7

Right of Way, De-

sign, Project De-

livery $201.6

Planned Investments 2015-20 (in millions)

Traveler Safety $105

Preservation $961.1

Mobility Im-provements

$250.9

Regional and Com-

munity Priorities

$12.6

Right of Way, Design, Project Delivery $180.0

65

Metro Investment Plan 2011-2020

Average: $373 M annualTotal: $1.5 Billion

Average: $252 M annualTotal: $1.5 Billion

Includes bridge bonding authorized in 2008

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

MVST53%

State GF9%

Federal3%

Fares28%

CTIB/ Counties5%

Other3%

ExpensesSources

Metro Area Transit Operations2011 Operating Expenses: $384M

Metro Transit Bus63%

LRT7%

Northstar4%

Metro Mobility11%

Dial-

a-Ride2%

Contracted Route3%

Suburban Providers9%

Other2%

67

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

Forecasted Statewide MVST Revenues

69

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15380

420

460

500

540

580

620

660

560.3

591

621.2

663.1

605.6 593.8

556.8 537.8 532.3

512.7

441.8 453.1

'2/05 '2/12 Actual

State Fiscal Year

In M

illi

on

s

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

Uses by Category Uses by Objective

Sources

Transitways73%

Facilities8%

Technology &Equipment

3%

Fleet 16%

Transitways73%

Preserve21%

Expand6%

Federal58%

Regional Borrowing

11%

Other6%

CTIB19%

State6%

Transit with CCLRT and SWLRT2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan: $2.59 B

71

Uses by Category Uses by Objective

Sources

Transitways17%

Facilities24%

Technology &Equipment

10%

Fleet 49%

Transitways16%

Preserve66%

Expand18%

Federal59%

Regional Borrowing

34%

Other2%

State5%

Transit without CCLRT and SWLRT2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan: $824 M

72

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

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