Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4740
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby David Greene » June 16th, 2016, 3:15 pm

If the cities have a problem with it, they'll lobby the county. They usually have pretty good relationships.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6155
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby twincitizen » June 16th, 2016, 4:27 pm

David Greene wrote:If the cities have a problem with it, they'll lobby the county. They usually have pretty good relationships.
Very good point. I could definitely see the mayors of Burnsville and Eagan stepping up to fight this withdrawl idea. Both are very pro-regional, pro Met Council, etc type of people and both are long-tenured, very respected mayors in their respective cities (as far as I can tell)

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6155
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby twincitizen » June 20th, 2016, 1:10 pm

I hope this article is unlocked: http://finance-commerce.com/2016/06/dak ... t-of-ctib/

It explains the situation much more completely than previous articles did.

A couple snippets:
Much of the county’s transportation needs fall into areas that likely wouldn’t be funded by CTIB, like the $500 million in highway improvements over the next 15 years the county has identified and local east-west transit connections, Gaylord said.

A county board committee decided in committee last week that balance could be achieved better by shedding its CTIB membership. The change could allow the county to eventually swap the quarter-cent CTIB sales tax in favor of a county-specific tax for transportation projects, Gaylord said.
So yeah, they want out of CTIB so they can get that .5% sales tax and spend big $ on road expansion.
Once the group officially votes on the matter next week, they’ll still remain part of the board for three years. In 2019, Dakota County will need to pay back its portion of any remaining debt that had been incurred by CTIB during their eight-year membership. That cost will come to about $12.9 million
So I guess we'll see how the final vote shakes out. Per my previous post, I'm actually a little surprised we haven't at least seen a letter to the editor from the mayors of Eagan and/or Burnsville, urging them to stay in. In addition to the pro-regional stances of the aforementioned mayors, I'd guess that neither Eagan or Burnsville figure to be big beneficiaries of the proposed road spending. That seems likely to be slanted to the further outlying areas of the county.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby RailBaronYarr » June 21st, 2016, 8:59 am

To your last paragraph, I agree more money is in the outlying areas. Major improvements to roads in Apple Valley, Rosemount, Farmington, and Lakeville, along with I-35 expansion and entrance ramp upgrades to interchanges (similar to County Road 70 at I-35 about a decade ago). The latter ones also line up with Scott County's plans for upgrading their east-west connections to major highways.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7859
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby mattaudio » June 21st, 2016, 9:17 am

Isn't it time for a full freeway beltway south of the river, from Hwy 212/169 to Hwy 61 via I-35 and Hwy 52? Maybe WisDOT could fund an extension northward through Pierce County to I-94.

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1337
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby xandrex » June 21st, 2016, 12:37 pm

It's official. Only one lone dissenter.

http://www.startribune.com/dakota-count ... 383828141/

jebr
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 170
Joined: April 9th, 2013, 1:04 am
Location: St. Paul (Hamline-Midway)

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby jebr » June 21st, 2016, 12:54 pm

For practical purposes, what does this mean? I assume the Red Line would still have to be coordinated into the regional system much like any other opt-out bus system. Is Dakota County's funding enough to make a substantial difference in project timelines?

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1553
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby HiawathaGuy » June 21st, 2016, 1:34 pm

acs wrote:And they're gone.
http://www.startribune.com/dakota-count ... 383828141/
I think we can safely say that 2016 is the day our regional transit system died. It was a good 12 year run guys. Lets just go back to building some more freeways to nowhere and call it good.
Not a little melodramatic, VERY melodramatic. I think the 2008 CTIB creation from a veto override was always a bandaid fix. I would think that when the Legislature (whether during a special session - because the GOP is fearful of losing their asses this fall, due to downticket anger or next year with the DFL controlling both chambers) will create a new way of managing the funds from increased transit taxes - whether directly through Met Council, or another governance board.

Regional transit/growth planning hasn't died. Even if nothing changes, not having Dakota County part of the CTIB doesn't really matter much for the urban core.

mullen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 986
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 7:02 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby mullen » June 22nd, 2016, 6:21 am

then how can we say we have a regional system if these counties just drop out. so yes, it has or is dying.

the lack of comprehensive funding mechanism is killing transit planning here. this counties board was a band aid I agree. it doesn't have the dollars or overall power to operate fully independently and it needs to keep going back to the state. this is it's major negative.

we had two legislative sessions where transit advocates had full legislative control to put into place real transportation reforms. we got nothing out of the DFL for two years. lots of talk but the can was kicked down the road. and so here we are.

the DFL power players at the legislature are to blame for the current mess.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7859
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby mattaudio » June 22nd, 2016, 7:55 am

We had a regional system before CTIB and we'll have one after CTIB. Enough with the melodrama. Have people been to other cities? Where you can't even transfer from one agency to the other (Bart > Caltrain, CTA > Metra, etc) -- even with the opt-outs, we have unification in terms of scheduling, numbering, fare collection, etc. We have it pretty good.

And if this means more money for Hennepin and Ramsey to do its own thing, that's gravy. Why don't we all disolve and go to the 0.5% tax? SWLRT, Bottineau, Greenway LRT, Riverview LRT, etc should all be possible with that 0.5% tax.

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1378
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby acs » June 22nd, 2016, 8:20 am

mattaudio wrote:And if this means more money for Hennepin and Ramsey to do its own thing, that's gravy. Why don't we all disolve and go to the 0.5% tax? SWLRT, Bottineau, Greenway LRT, Riverview LRT, etc should all be possible with that 0.5% tax.
I've said this before but no, that's not what will happen. SW and Bottineau were fundable under the current .25% tax in 5 counties (assuming the state paid their share and we could get federal funding, so they are dead), but everything after that was a pipe dream unless they got at least a .5% tax bump in 5 counties. That's the case that has been made since 2 years ago by all parties involved. Hence, the funding stand-off in the legislature. There is no way a .5% total tax in just two counties (that we can only hope will be 100% directed to transit) can fund everything past that, including midtown and an ABRT build-out faster than one per 3 years. I hope you really like the aLine because aBRT is all we're getting for a long time.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7859
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby mattaudio » June 22nd, 2016, 8:43 am

Hennepin County was 55% of CTIB revenues at 0.25% sales tax. If Hennepin goes it alone and can levy a 0.5% sales tax per current state law, it generates more revenue per year than the entire CTIB. Q.E.D.

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1378
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby acs » June 22nd, 2016, 8:58 am

Great! Fantastic you can do math. Now, how do you expect to fund anything after BLRT? Go ahead and blow up the CTIB just to make you feel good and maybe (big if) Hennepin comes out about where it would be under the current CTIB. Yeah, Hennepin can potentially fund the CTIB projects already planned under their current taxing authority, but that get you nowhere after that. Plus, that funding amount still relies on the state contributing 10%, which as we've seen isn't a given. Oh, and a lot of the planned transit projects are in Hennepin too, so don't expect outside help once you've blown up the only regional funding mechanism we had.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7859
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby mattaudio » June 22nd, 2016, 9:08 am

Let's see...
- No $10 million CTIB grants to fund freeway interchanges in Rural Ramsey.
- No $50 million rebuilds of Dakota County stroads under the guise of transit
- No needless rebuilding of the Kellogg Bridge in St. Paul for "Gold Line LRT On Rubber Tires We Swear"

I'd say that future sounds mighty fine.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6155
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby twincitizen » June 22nd, 2016, 9:10 am

Another F&C article, this time getting some good quotes out of Anoka County Commissioner Matt Look (and CTIB board member and Chair of Anoka County Railroad Authority): http://finance-commerce.com/2016/06/dak ... -the-road/

He says he knows the votes are there on the Anoka County board to leave, but it's solely up to him as chair of ACRRA whether to bring that motion forward. He does not intend to at this time, but he would in an instant if CTIB tries to take on more debt (which they have been planning to do, AFAIK, if we do not see a sales tax increase). Taking on more debt (bonding against future sales tax revenue) is the only way CTIB could possibly fund the Green Line and Blue Line extensions near-simultaneously over the next 5-7 years.
But the concerns are different in Anoka County, which contributes roughly $10.6 million annually to the CTIB fund. The county gets its investments back each year, Look said, adding that officials have been diligent in negotiating to ensure a return on investment. One of the primary concerns that could prompt an Anoka County exit stems from new debt CTIB could incur in the coming years, which would need to be paid off by its member counties. CTIB is a local funding partner on two new light rail lines (Southwest and Bottineau) and several bus rapid transit routes in the pipeline, most of which will not directly benefit Anoka County residents, Look said.
I agree with mattaudio, if CTIB dies and Hennepin County can get a .5% sales tax instead under existing law, that's probably the only way we're going to get Southwest and Bottineau built. I wouldn't worry too much about Hennepin County trying to spend that "new" .5% sales tax money on roads (as they could do under existing legislation), particularly since they have two light rail lines to build first. I would worry about Ramsey County...despite the urban nature of the county, I don't think the current county commissioners have a transit-first majority mindset.

Sidebar: I could totally see Ramsey & Washington Counties doing a joint-powers authority, given the cross-county projects on the table: Gateway BRT, Red Rock BRT to Newport/Cottage Grove (screw Hastings...way too far away)

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6155
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby twincitizen » June 22nd, 2016, 9:28 am

Getting back to the meat of this Dakota County issue for a minute: In combination with the lack of a bonding bill this year, the Orange Line is in serious jeopardy at the moment. I don't doubt for a second that it will get built, but I'd guess it is at least at risk of being delayed right now. Like the worst that could happen is that it gets truncated at 98th Street in Bloomington. One on hand, that would mean fewer cars taken off 35W river crossing. But on the other hand, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper for Metro Transit/CTIB to operate if they don't have to go to Dakota County. It's still a very valid project without crossing the river, as long as the FTA is still on board.

QuietBlue
Rice Park
Posts: 470
Joined: September 14th, 2012, 8:50 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby QuietBlue » June 22nd, 2016, 10:57 am

The Orange Line currently makes more sense north of the river than it does south of it. Burnsville already has pretty good bus service to downtown via the express buses anyway, and even though they have express buses too, I'm not sure how much demand there would be for the Orange Line in Lakeville yet.

Ultimately, I don't think the regional system will be that hurt by this, and the CTIB may be replaced by a better solution anyway.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6155
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby twincitizen » September 18th, 2016, 9:55 am


mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2792
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby mulad » September 18th, 2016, 10:01 am

I was pretty surprised by the comment about potentially not funding Red Rock corridor (likely BRT at this point) due to this -- It runs mostly in Ramsey and Washington counties, and would only cross over to Dakota County to reach Hastings. That strengthens a feeling that regional leaders are more concerned about the endpoints of transit corridors rather than where they go along the way.

intercomnut
Rice Park
Posts: 404
Joined: April 23rd, 2015, 1:04 pm

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby intercomnut » September 18th, 2016, 11:44 am

mulad wrote:I was pretty surprised by the comment about potentially not funding Red Rock corridor (likely BRT at this point) due to this -- It runs mostly in Ramsey and Washington counties, and would only cross over to Dakota County to reach Hastings. That strengthens a feeling that regional leaders are more concerned about the endpoints of transit corridors rather than where they go along the way.
I think it's more about having to make tough choices about which projects to fund. Remember that CTIB is losing 13% of their funding because of Dakota county, so they need to make cuts. How do you decide which projects to cut? And how to you make it look good politically? Pick one that ends in Dakota County and cut it. Then blame Dakota County for it.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests