urbanMSP

This is general thread for the CTIB. I believe we had one on the old site, but I couldn't find one here. Anyway...

Recently, news broke that Governor Dayton and the DFL legislature will consider an increased sales tax, to fund transit. The quoted amount is 0.5%. Does anyone know if this would be added to the CTIB's 0.25% levy (increasing it to 0.75%), or would this be a separate tax that will go elsewhere? I haven't been able to find this planning document myself.

If this did all go to the CTIB, it would, I believe, give the Twin Cities one of the highest dedicated transit taxes in the country. Perhaps some fraction of this proposed tax increase will have to be dedicated to highway funding in order to make it politically palatable enough to the general public.

In a perfect world, I'd like to see these monies partitioned into a metro tax dedicated solely to Twin Cities transit (say, 0.5%), and some statewide tax to fund intercity rail projects (say, 0.125% to make the state sales tax an even 7%).

Great, now if they'd decrease those property taxes by half percent...

Scott county is considering a 1/2 cent sales tax to fund transportation/transit projects (as allowed now, since they didn't join the Counties Transit Improvement Board group or whatever that's called). They've created an online forum to gather public comment, and its about what you'd expect from a group of Scott County internet users. http://www.co.scott.mn.us/CountyGov/Spe ... /home.aspx

They are authorized to levy 1/4 cent, not 1/2. I assume this was put up because of the Move MN proposal brought up this session.

I'll have to read the statute (passed in 2013), but I believe it was that counties outside of the 5-county CTIB are now allowed to now add up to .5% sales tax. This is in addition to the minuscule wheelage tax increase and it is not dedicated to transit funding, unlike CTIB. Unsure if it must be dedicated to transportation, but I'm guessing so.


IDEA:
Forget MoveMN, we need to disband CTIB immediately and allow Hennepin & Ramsey Counties to increase from the current .25% to .5% (dedicated to transit of course). Anoka County's current board would be inclined to drop the tax entirely (if they're even allowed to do so, given ongoing commitments for Northstar operations). Washington & Dakota would maybe increase to .5%, maybe stick with the .25%, depending on how badly they want stuff. There would probably have to be some stronger language for the metro counties that want to build fixed-guideway transit, so they couldn't build a line and then walk away from O&M costs down the line, dumping it on the Met Council's general fund.

I'll have to read the statute (passed in 2013), but I believe it was that counties outside of the 5-county CTIB are now allowed to now add up to .5% sales tax. This is in addition to the minuscule wheelage tax increase and it is not dedicated to transit funding, unlike CTIB. Unsure if it must be dedicated to transportation, but I'm guessing so.

Ah, I had forgotten about that aspect of the statute. Thanks for the clarification.

As for CTIB, it does serve a useful purpose as keeper of the transit vision. One of the reasons CTIB was created is that the Met Council is so fickle and dependent on who is Governor. CTIB can be committed to a vision longer than the Met Council. This was born out of experiences like having Peter Bell come to the legislature and testify against fuding for his own transit agency.

Incidentally, Met Council as the MPO is really a historical accident as they were granfathered in. Generally, the feds require MPO members to be elected officials. The TAB (the most powerful public works body no one knows about) also helps reconcile things so that Met Council can remain the MPO in the eyes of the feds. CTIB is actually closer to the federal model than the Met Council.

But I agree that our transit governance is a mess. There are lots of proposals out there to address it but I have yet to hear one that really strikes me as a good solution.

Now that Central Corridor is done, do we need CTIB?

Bottineau and Southwest are fully within Hennepin County.

Ramsey County is free to negotiate with Washington over Gateway, as it certainly seems like the political will is in there on both sides.

Met Council can handle future freeway BRT planning. It's not ideal that the counties hold the purse strings, but it's not the end of the world either.

With Central Corridor complete, I just don't see what Hennepin County has to gain by pooling with the other 4. Hennepin is by far the largest contributor to CTIB. Going it alone with a .25% tax increase would almost certainly get Bottineau done sooner. Southwest has gotten so expensive that it will be *read my lips* impossible to concurrently fund any other large transit projects with the existing .25% tax.

Honestly, the biggest incentive to keeping CTIB seems to be stroking Peter McLaughlin's ego.

CTIB still needs to pay operating subsidies and debt service on the Central Corridor, and the two new line extensions (plus the existing Hiawatha) being entirely in Hennepin county seems like evidence that Hennepin is getting its money's worth (at least relatively speaking). Why should Gateway have to be done some other way?

And yes, the tax needs to be increased.

http://finance-commerce.com/2014/10/110 ... build-out/

CTIB newz

http://www.metrocouncil.org/Council-Mee ... jects.aspx

CTIB Program update includes new map featuring new transitways in future. For example: North Central, NE Diagonal.

I'm not sure that's any different than what previous CTIB documents have shown, is it? This document from a year ago had the same ones in the North Central, 35W North, and NE diagonal highway BRT.

Maybe someone more in the know (or who has read through some of their meeting minutes) can explain how transitways was defined as to not include aBRT from a funding perspective? Or even how they settled on these particular lines as the ones to invest in (for example, Midtown Greenway rail is not on here).

I'm not sure that's any different than what previous CTIB documents have shown, is it? This document from a year ago had the same ones in the North Central, 35W North, and NE diagonal highway BRT.

Maybe someone more in the know (or who has read through some of their meeting minutes) can explain how transitways was defined as to not include aBRT from a funding perspective? Or even how they settled on these particular lines as the ones to invest in (for example, Midtown Greenway rail is not on here).

I believe that aBRT was lumped in with "local bus service" so it fell outside of the CTIB scope. In a way, this makes me happy, even though CTIB money would probably move this along more quickly. I think that the baseline reasoning was that no dedicated (or shared with limits) ROW is used.

Midtown Greenway rail has never appeared in actual CTIB documents that I am aware of. The two modes studied were aBRT on Lake (see above) and "streetcar" in the rail trench. Streetcars are only being pursued by cities (not CTIB or Metro Transit). This should be considered connecting LRT infrastructure, but is not officially considered as that. The streets.mn blog and forum folks talk about it so much that we we tend to forget that no official documents (that I know of) actually call it out as LRT.

CTIB Program update includes new map featuring new transitways in future. For example: North Central, NE Diagonal.

There's a Red Line extension?

Good money after bad.

This conversation should probably be continued (or has already taken place) in the Red Line thread, but Dakota County has been continually working on next phase plans for the Red Line. All near term investments are infill stations, not extensions further south. It won't be "extended" (to Lakeville) any time soon.

We actually have a dedicated CTIB thread too. This thread should really just be for current events and happenings, route changes, etc. Basically discussing existing bus and train service (including shelters, signage, apps, etc.) along with other stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

http://www.metrocouncil.org/Council-Mee ... jects.aspx

CTIB Program update includes new map featuring new transitways in future. For example: North Central, NE Diagonal.

I don't like the look of the financials. Bond proceeds shoot up between 2017-2025, and then post-2025 debt service takes up what used to go to capital grants. #raisethesalestax

Whether you like the look of it or not, that was always the plan. The fact that there's so much in the reserves right now is a reflection of SWLRT taking longer to move into construction than planned, but the assumption has always been that captial expenditures would be bonded.

It's actually pretty impressive how many projects they'll be able to milk out of the modest CTIB sales tax bump.

Dakota County considering leaving CTIB.
http://www.startribune.com/dakota-count ... 382948191/

What happens to the Red and Orange Lines then?

If they left, they would still be on the hook for any money they have already committed to, which of course includes capital projects and their share of any outstanding bonds. Not sure about operating subsidies, but I'm guessing it doesn't include those. Of course, a CTIB with no Dakota county could choose not to pay the operating subsidy.

I don't think the Red Line would be affected much, if at all. Dakota County/MVTA already operates it, receiving operating grants from CTIB. Looking ahead, once their 3-year "CTIB pullout clause" expires, they would gain control of the .25% tax revenues from CTIB. I assume they would then self-fund Red Line operations (and expansions).

Orange Line could get a little more complicated. Metro Transit is the operator. Dakota County (via their CTIB capital funds) is making a small capital contribution to build out the 1.5 stations in Burnsville. I do not know what portion of the operating dollars are planned to come from Dakota (I assume the vast majority will come from Hennepin). Even if Dakota were to fully leave CTIB in 3+ years, Orange Line will be built out and damn near ready to operate (by late 2019, god willing). I have to assume that Metro Transit would just negotiate with Dakota for their (small) share of operating dollars, just as they would today with Dakota in CTIB.

So they can get their county's CTIB revenue, without actually being in CTIB?
If that's the case, why doesn't Hennepin pull out of CTIB, then have more money to spend on Hennepin?