Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7068
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby mattaudio » February 20th, 2017, 1:22 pm

Dynamically price freeway capacity in the metro, at a price sufficient enough to ensure LOS A.

First make sure any revenue goes to cover maintaining the existing freeway network. Then apply operational surpluses split evenly four ways: 1/4 strategic freeway expansion, 1/4 freeway alternatives (corridor transit development, standard "transit thinking"), 1/4 land use alternatives (investments that reward the short trip rather than the long trip), and 1/4 repairing neighborhoods and corridors harmed by urban freeways (caps, etc).

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2477
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: RE: Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby RailBaronYarr » February 20th, 2017, 3:14 pm

And to that point, that's a real risk of this change. The counties are all thinking of that sweet extra money they can get, but now there's nothing preventing the Legislature from saying the counties need to use this transit funding to pay for the base bus services. In fact, I predict that's exactly what will happen.
I mean, they've been doing that anyway - proposing to keep transit support from the state flat in constant dollars (reducing in real dollars) and in spite of the obvious growth in Metro Mobility and requested/planned SIP. To say that the county sales tax option will cause the GOP to say "fine, do it yourself" ignores that the ask from the DFL to increase to a half or 3/4 cent tax was at least in part response to that existing reality.

Playing the long game, I guess I don't see how that won't be a reality no matter what. I think if we exercise the allowed half-cent tax now and the GOP slowly ratchets down the state operating support, then (hopefully, in a rational world) there'd be political leverage to change the statute limiting that tax to half-cent. And, to be honest, I'm fine with a body as large as Hennepin (or Hennepin and Ramey and whoever else, operating jointly) funding more transit ops ourselves. It's a big enough constituency and all part of the same economic unit. I'm sick of the arguments (and mostly the political strong-arming that follows) of how truck drivers in Roseau are subsidizing my bus ride through the MVST.

To jebr's point, it really is only like 7-8% of MT's operating budget that's covered by general state appropriations. That number would obviously grow if we continue to add service (LRT, aBRT, etc) on top of our existing ones, and yeah MM will continue to suck from the MVST pot. The truth is somewhere between "it'll suck up all the extra sales tax capacity" and "lookit we flush with ca$he."

Finally, it's super shitty that any discussion of alternatives is entirely separate, politically speaking. Sure it'd be great to say that if one lever is pulled (state reducing transit operating support) that we can just have toll more freeways or raise the sales tax more or any other suggestion. But they're all equally (if not more) difficult problems with a mix of state and federal laws preventing them.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4160
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby David Greene » February 21st, 2017, 4:43 pm

If you want to cast blame, cast it towards those who decided aBRT isn't a transitway.
That would be CTIB...
Maybe. The rulemaking isn't entirely clear to me. The law requires that CTIB-funded transitways be part of Met Council's plans. I assume it is Met Council that decides what qualifies as a "transitway." So I'm not sure CTIB is the right target.

Regardless, we have a limited funding pool. When the sales tax was enacted it wasn't even enough to cover the existing planned transitways, much less aBRT in addition. Remember, we were supposed to pass a 1/2 cent tax but it got pared down. There's your bus funding.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4160
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: RE: Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby David Greene » February 21st, 2017, 4:47 pm

To say that the county sales tax option will cause the GOP to say "fine, do it yourself" ignores that the ask from the DFL to increase to a half or 3/4 cent tax was at least in part response to that existing reality.
Not really. Even back in 2008 we knew that 1/4 cent was wholly inadequate. Even 1/2 cent at the time was not enough.

Really we need to get to about one cent sales tax dedicated to transit to be in a comfortable place.

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1331
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby acs » February 21st, 2017, 7:45 pm

Speaking of funding (this could go here or the general funding thread), the citizens's league got together to try and find acceptable funding sources to free up the transit "logjam". They presented their recommendations to the legislature this week.

http://www.startribune.com/citizens-lea ... 414404383/

Some ideas to come out of the contentious process:
--a Two-Tier sales tax based on municipality. Those cities with better transit service pay a higher rate than those cities with minimal service.
--Moving transit funding to a general fund account earmarked for transit
--A half-cent metro sales tax for general transportation combined with a quarter cent for transit
--Something to do with driverless cars and their impact

DanPatchToget
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 130
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby DanPatchToget » February 21st, 2017, 9:46 pm

I like the two-tier tax idea. I'd be willing to pay more and live in an area with good transit rather than paying less but having inadequate transit.

As for autonomous cars, while I do believe dial-a-ride services and lightly used suburban local routes may get the chopping block, the trunk/arterial routes should be safe.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 2661
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: 9Marq

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby Silophant » February 21st, 2017, 10:54 pm

I'm tentatively okay with the two-tier tax, as long as the bar for "better" transit service is pretty low. It wouldn't be workable if it included, say, only Minneapolis and St. Paul proper.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4160
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby David Greene » February 22nd, 2017, 11:07 am

I guess I have a problem with a two-tier tax when we're spending millions on park & rides and things like Marq2 that primarily benefit suburban users while most bus stops in the city don't even have a bench.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


jebr
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 112
Joined: April 9th, 2013, 1:04 am
Location: Roseville

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby jebr » February 22nd, 2017, 11:54 am

I guess it would depend on how exactly "better" transit service is defined. If it's defined as "anything but Metro Mobility and Transit Link" I'd probably be okay with it, as would potentially "has every-30-minute service during midday or has a large park-and-ride in the city." For example, Hastings would be considered part of a taxing district but it receives very little direct benefit from it at this time.

But yeah, if there's large investments in a city, they should be taxed at the higher rate even if their service is peak-only currently.

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 2654
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby Anondson » March 3rd, 2017, 5:59 pm

Vote delayed until Wednesday March 8th.

http://finance-commerce.com/2017/03/tra ... akup-vote/

Vagueperson
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 132
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 7:13 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby Vagueperson » March 3rd, 2017, 7:36 pm

It's interesting to read in there the massive differences between Ramsey County and Hennepin County. I imagine this is due to both their relative size and wealth gaps.

I also noticed this part: "McLaughlin said the half-cent tax would benefit major projects like the $1.8 billion Southwest Light Rail Transit line, the $1.536 billion Bottineau LRT line and the $150 million Orange Line bus rapid transit project."
These high-dollar lines are not Ramsey County projects. So if Ramsey County is able to increase to .5 cent sales tax and focus on funding its own projects, might this help to speed up Gateway, Riverview, Rush, and other aBRT lines?

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 2661
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: 9Marq

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby Silophant » March 3rd, 2017, 7:47 pm

Well, it'd probably speed up Riverview. Like you said, the weird thing about the CTIB is Hennepin is sooo much bigger than the other counties, providing more income than the other four combined. So, Hennepin doubling its tax income lets it fund two LRTs and a BRT, but Ramsey doing the same thing will probably only let it fund a single LRT project and maybe some aBRTs.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5619
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby twincitizen » March 9th, 2017, 8:26 am

CTIB voted to break up. Now each of the 5 counties must vote to disband. It sounds like Dakota County is unhappy with the current deal and is likely to vote against disbanding CTIB until they get a higher payout (which is ironic since they previously voted to leave CTIB and would be able to do so sooner under the breakup scenario).
http://finance-commerce.com/2017/03/tra ... y-objects/
http://www.startribune.com/transit-boar ... 415716844/
The county claims CTIB owes it $29 million, while other CTIB members say the correct amount is $16.5 million.

CTIB Chair Peter McLaughlin, who is also a Hennepin County commissioner, noted that the amount set aside for Dakota County was sweetened in recent days, increasing from $13.3 million to $16.5 million. “It’s time for Dakota County to get off the number they’ve been on for weeks if we’re going to get to an agreement,” he said.
I'm guessing Hennepin and Ramsey Counties will each chip an extra million or so to make Dakota County shut up and take the deal.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1424
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby talindsay » March 9th, 2017, 8:33 am

Given the specific constraints currently in place it *does* make sense for the CTIB to disband, but this is definitely a blow to regionalism. It means that Hennepin and Ramsey will largely be going it alone, occasionally working together on specific projects that benefit both counties but rarely looping in the other metro counties. Regionalism has its faults, and I think urban transit is likely to be better served by the two core counties without the fully-suburban counties being involved, but the idea that the metro area could unite to support metro-area transit was a really nice one. It helped give things such as the Riverview Line credibility that it desperately needs, and it helped strengthen a sense that Washington County really is part of the metro. I'm sorry to see it go, even if the new model (or lack thereof) actually serves Hennepin County better.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5619
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby twincitizen » March 9th, 2017, 8:49 am

Seems like a blow to regionalism on paper maybe, but I'm not what actual setbacks or losses there will be in the real world. We still have the Met Council / Metro Transit that actually engineers, builds, and operates the transit system. The counties are just the funding vehicle for these transitways. Even with CTIB in place, the individual counties were still wholly responsible for pre-project development, alternatives analysis, route & mode selection, etc. CTIB was just an additional (often cumbersome and dysfunctional) layer of government that we don't need. I won't miss the infighting, the fact that CTIB effectively operated in the shadows, etc. County boards already operate without much public awareness or oversight. CTIB took that invisibility a step further (to borderline secrecy), and I don't think we'll miss it at all.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5619
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby twincitizen » March 16th, 2017, 6:25 am

Hennepin County to hold a public hearing on the sales tax increase on Tuesday March 21 at 1:30pm, in the Board Room (A-2400) of the Hennepin County Government Center, 300 S. Sixth St., Minneapolis.

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 319
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby Qhaberl » March 16th, 2017, 8:18 am

I am keeping my fingers crossed, but I really hope that 100% of the funding that Hennepin County generates from the tax increase, will be dedicated to transit, and only transit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5619
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby twincitizen » March 16th, 2017, 8:24 am

That is the main concern, for sure. A secondary concern I'd like to bring before the board is to ensure that the money will be used on Arterial BRT projects, which CTIB refused to do.

I believe the state law that authorizes this 0.5% sales tax requires a specific list of projects to be constructed - that is to say, it can't just be a general fund for the county's transportation budget. I'd like to see that list.

We know the "big three" are on it:
Green Line ext
Blue Line ext
Orange Line

Also, Hennepin County's reported 30% share of Riverview (I assume that's 30% of the local portion, not 30% of the project total)

It will also be used to fund roughly half(?) of the operating costs of all current and future lines. I believe the state currently chips in half of the operating costs of the current LRT lines, though that could certainly be reduced going forward, leaving the counties and Met Council to fully fund operations without state involvement.

So what else?
Penn Ave N aBRT (C Line) and Lake Street aBRT (B Line) are good bets, since they are on Hennepin County roads.
Chicago Fremont (D Line) I am less sure of. It doesn't run on any Hennepin County roads, and is damn expensive (for a bus project) at $77M. I could see Hennepin County contributing something, but not being a major partner in this project.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4160
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby David Greene » March 16th, 2017, 9:40 am

Midtown LRT!

I could imagine the county and city sharing costs on this one. If it interlines with the Green Line extension the county might be willing to pay a higher share.

User avatar
Tiller
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 618
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)

Postby Tiller » March 16th, 2017, 11:17 am

How about Eden Prarie - Uptown - South Loop?


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bptenor and 4 guests