Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 2810
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: 9Marq

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Silophant » March 20th, 2017, 11:08 am

We do. Most of my extended family is in southwestern MN, so I visit fairly often. Lotta paved township and county roads serving two or three farmsites, getting maybe 10-20 vehicles a day.

EOst
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1956
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby EOst » March 20th, 2017, 11:19 am

LakeCharles wrote:
March 20th, 2017, 10:44 am
Michigan, for comparison, is 12% larger in size and 80% larger population, yet has 40,000 fewer miles of paved road than we do.
Michigan is actually 29% smaller than Minnesota by land area. Not a lot of roads on Lake Michigan.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4416
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby David Greene » March 20th, 2017, 11:30 am

Not sure I would use Michigan as a benchmark. I believe there are still dirt roads in Ann Arbor which is just crazy.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4416
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby David Greene » March 20th, 2017, 11:34 am

RailBaronYarr wrote:
March 20th, 2017, 10:29 am
- Per lane mile: Outstate $3,634, Metro $11,405
This is a great statistic for transit advocates! Lately I have been somewhat successfully using the frame with Greater MN people that because highways are *so* expensive to construct in the metro, increasing the spending on transit in the metro would free up road dollars for Greater MN. Not doing a metro road project saves 3x dollars than not doing a rural project saves. If rural MN wants roads they should enthusiastically support metro transit.

There's a common interest here that can allow us to make progress.

EOst
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1956
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby EOst » March 20th, 2017, 11:36 am

David Greene wrote:
March 20th, 2017, 11:30 am
Not sure I would use Michigan as a benchmark. I believe there are still dirt roads in Ann Arbor which is just crazy.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9828294 ... 312!8i6656

;)

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4416
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby David Greene » March 20th, 2017, 11:57 am

Interesting. Although in my defense, that's a pretty edge-case kind of deal. In Ann Arbor, a fairly major connecting road (Glazier Way) was only paved as I was finishing up school about 13 years ago. To counter that, though, a lot of it had to do with neighborhood opposition.

I just checked satellite images and it looks like the other road I was thinking of is now paved since adjacent lots were redeveloped.

Anyway, it was really odd to live in a well-developed town with a major connecting road made of dirt.

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 2817
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Anondson » March 20th, 2017, 12:19 pm

Fwiw, there are a couple dirt roads left in Edina (near Brookside and W 44th). The residents like them...

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2566
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby RailBaronYarr » March 20th, 2017, 12:52 pm

I'm really not sure that telling folks outstate that spending $150m of the state's general fund on SWLRT will mean they'll get a 3:1 boost in road spending dollar for dollar. I'm not even sure I believe that building SWLRT will mean a net reduction in that spending amount for MnDOT in the metro area. Some, maybe, but what, a 5-10% reduction? As an outstate resident, it'd be pretty easy to make the case that their tax dollars (MVST share that goes toward operating mostly MT service, income/state property/sales taxes that could be used as discretionary funds for either transit capital/operating or roads programs a la Corridors of Commerce) would be better spent on outstate roads directly rather than hoping some convoluted process results in more MnDOT money for outstate.

Vagueperson
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 173
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 7:13 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Vagueperson » March 21st, 2017, 7:13 am

So if the governor were to get his .5 cent sales tax increase for transit in the seven county metro region, would that be in addition to a county-level sales tax increase when CTIB is disbanded?

http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2 ... tion-plan/

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5736
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby twincitizen » March 21st, 2017, 9:08 am

I think the Governor's proposal is
A. the same thing he's been proposing for 6 years.
B. dead in the water, so it's largely irrelevant

If we manage to pull off this CTIB breakup & 0.25% increase, that is probably the best we can do for several years.

If we could somehow secure another 0.25% increase from the legislature (to 0.75% total), it will very likely come with the "trade-off" that the state no longer fund 50% of light rail operations. If the GOP was capable of being reasonable and negotiating in good faith, they would take that trade off. So they won't.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4416
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby David Greene » March 21st, 2017, 10:44 am

RailBaronYarr wrote:
March 20th, 2017, 12:52 pm
I'm really not sure that telling folks outstate that spending $150m of the state's general fund on SWLRT will mean they'll get a 3:1 boost in road spending dollar for dollar. I'm not even sure I believe that building SWLRT will mean a net reduction in that spending amount for MnDOT in the metro area.
How much does a lane-mile of metro freeway cost? The highway 100 expansion was $60 million for less than 1.5 miles, or about 3 lane-miles (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy100slp/). It seems like if we avoid or significantly delay even one or two lanes of expansion on 212, Crosstown, 169, 100, etc. it would more than cover the $150 million. Maybe not 3x but I think it's reasonable to discuss this kind of tradeoff with rural Minnesotans.

User avatar
Tiller
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 664
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Tiller » March 21st, 2017, 10:49 am

Next time the DFL is fully in charge (which will prolly take at least a decade) we really need to just take a wrecking ball to the issue and do something like give the Met Council a 2 cent transit sales tax. Assuming neutral redistricting, does anyone have any idea if growth in the metro and stagnation outstate will have progressed far enough for the 2020 census/redistricting to tilt things back towards the DFL?

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 387
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Qhaberl » March 21st, 2017, 11:11 am

I know this is been said before, but I will say it again. The DFL had the chance to increase transit funding when they last had control of both chambers. Unfortunately they were thinking more about being reelected than helping the metropolitan area. Just my thoughts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4416
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby David Greene » March 21st, 2017, 11:46 am

And they got clobbered in the election anyway.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5736
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby twincitizen » March 21st, 2017, 1:59 pm

Well, Dayton (and all statewide officials) got re-elected, but the DFL lost the House in a low turnout election that was pretty bad for Democrats nationally. But I completely agree with the above - not passing the gas tax & sales tax increase in the House in the 13-14 looks terrible in retrospect. Blame Paul Thissen I guess...he either refused to push his caucus on the gas tax or felt he didn't have the votes. The senate overwhelmingly passed a gas tax increase and 0.5% increase for transit in the 7 metro counties. Dayton, for some reason, is still pushing that identical proposal even though the status quo around transit funding have shifted or are about to change (CTIB breakup in the 5 counties, Scott County having instituted a 0.5% tax, etc.) Hennepin and Ramsey will get their increase (without legislative approval) as soon as they renegotiate Dakota County's payout. An across the board 7-county sales tax increase no longer makes any damn sense. I'd honestly prefer that Dayton and the legislature just left transit funding alone this biennium. GOP meddling can only make things worse than the status quo (or soon to be slightly improved status quo, post CTIB). That said, I'm glad Dayton is still pushing the gas tax - even though it has zero chance with the GOP. It's the only option that makes any damn sense for funding roads (in the near term...in the longer term we'll need a combination of gas taxes and mileage taxes)

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 387
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Qhaberl » March 21st, 2017, 2:32 pm

I agree with everything post number 635 said. My concern is still that Hennepin county will not dedicate 100% of the sales tax revenue to transit. I am worried that once again, transit will end up getting screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 387
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Qhaberl » March 21st, 2017, 3:20 pm

An argument/question I have for post number 635 is: if my understanding is correct, Metro transit cannot use the sales tax for general operating costs. At least not the sales tax that would be collected by the individual counties. If that is indeed true, and given the fact that metro transit is facing and $80 million operating shortfall, then we are going to need some funding from somewhere else. Otherwise metro transit is going to have to continue to cut certain bus routes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LakeCharles
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 672
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby LakeCharles » March 28th, 2017, 7:30 am

House transportation bill would cut more than 20% of the state funding for Metro Transit. It would eliminate $112 million of Metro Transit funding coming from the MVST over the next two years. In the article it appears that Metro Transit gets $273 million per year.

http://www.startribune.com/proposed-tra ... 7250303/#1

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 387
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Qhaberl » March 28th, 2017, 7:41 am

Just another good example of why we need to get state funding out of transit. Relying on those, in my opinion, clueless idiots in the legislature, is bound to cause the demise of metro transit. Come on! Metro transit is already facing and $80 million deficit. How clueless do you have to be. Ignorant people annoy the crap out of me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 387
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Qhaberl » March 28th, 2017, 7:42 am

Thank God we have Governor Dayton! It is a pretty safe bet that he will not sign something like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 6 guests