urbanMSP

Who knows about this campaign? Specifically what their proposal is for dedicated ped/bike funding. From the website:

Move MN proposes increasing the current sales tax by ¾ cent, applying the sales tax in all seven counties and using a small portion of the tax to fund safe and accessible bike and pedestrian connections in the metro.

And:

By allocating $16 million in the flexible federal funding from the Surface Transportation Program that MnDOT receives each year, we can afford to invest in bike and pedestrian infrastructure throughout the state.

So does this mean only $16 million?

So their sales tax increase ought to produce a little more than $300 million per annum in new funds, bringing the dedicated transportation sales tax to 1 cent, or ~$400m. I don't know anything about their proposals or plans but that sounds really helpful to me.

I'm just a little confused. For the entire state, $16 million is a drop in the bucket. I know it's not a state project but the midtown greenway cost $36 million.

It's interesting how something like 90% of their facebook ads directly or indirectly promise roadway expansion. "You have a bad commute from Prior Lake to Plymouth? We'll fix that!"

To be fair, the car-lover demographic is probably least likely to support a tax increase, so it would make the most sense to target them.

The car-lover demographic is also least likely to believe the system they depend on is heavily subsidized, which is why they wouldn't support a tax increase. It's why congestion tolls, gas tax increases, etc are so unpopular - most are unwilling to pay for the chosen transportation habits (but then have no problem asking for more capacity when commutes start to clog up).

Completely agree. Same goes for their heavily subsidized suburban land use choices. But back to transportation. Maybe we need a UrbanMSP poll on Move-MN. I'm still undecided but honestly don't know that much. While any additional funding would be welcomed, in an ideal world I'd rather that money come from motorized transportation funding streams.

Completely agree. Same goes for their heavily subsidized suburban land use choices. But back to transportation. Maybe we need a UrbanMSP poll on Move-MN. I'm still undecided but honestly don't know that much. While any additional funding would be welcomed, in an ideal world I'd rather that money come from motorized transportation funding streams.

If its anything like past proposals (and I suspect it is), roads would be funded with a gas tax increase (this time a wholesale tax rather than a tax at the pump, I believe) and transit/bike/ped would be funded with a metro sales tax.

A sales tax for transit is a very reasonable idea. It's used all over the country.

Personally, I don't think I'm going to get that involved in the fight this year because a) I don't think it's going anywhere and b) given the behavior of some of our electeds around SWLRT I'm hesitant to give them more money without assurances (read: law) that the money will be spent to improve equity and our infrastructure investment won't be dictated by rich white people.

Podcast #60 – The Pros (and Cons) of the Move MN Bill
https://streets.mn/2014/03/10/podcast-60 ... e-mn-bill/

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.p ... n_number=0

That is the actual bill if anyone wants to look at it.

I don't like the specificity of Article 3, Sect. 1, subd. 6. They lay out specifically, in state law, the transitway corridors for development.

Well, it's not an exclusive list, it's just saying that the tax has to fund those specific projects. It doesn't say how much it has to fund them, and it also doesn't (as far as I can tell) preclude them from funding other projects, in addition to those already planned. I wonder if it's there to keep the counties that aren't Hennepin and Ramsey from exclusively funding monumentally sized park & ride ramps?

Well, it's not an exclusive list, it's just saying that the tax has to fund those specific projects. It doesn't say how much it has to fund them, and it also doesn't (as far as I can tell) preclude them from funding other projects, in addition to those already planned. I wonder if it's there to keep the counties that aren't Hennepin and Ramsey from exclusively funding monumentally sized park & ride ramps?

Hmm, given the way the CTIB allocates votes (by the average of percentage of population and percentage of tax revenue) I don't see Scott, Carver, and Washington counties combined having enough sway to get anything passed. In fact, Hennepin can get its way all the time if it gets either Ramsey or both Dakota and Anoka to side with it. A motion carries with 60% of the vote allocation.

Okay, I obviously skimmed, but I don't think I saw any language in there about how gas tax/fuel wholesale sales tax should be prioritized. It would be really great if there was some semi-strong language tying funds to maintenance and operations of existing roads, prioritized by surrounding land-uses (or something). As it stands, this extra money could be spent on all new roads, interchanges, etc, completely defeating the purpose.

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... tical-will

Highlight:

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, which provided critical support when taxes were last raised for transportation, is sitting on the sidelines this year. “A lot of businesses are still grappling with the tax increases they saw last year,” says Bentley Graves, a transportation policy specialist for the chamber.

The Chamber has a transportation policy specialist named Bentley, and this is fantastic.

A quick google search reveals so much...

Well I learned this is pretty much dead this session, thank you Dayton. Lets hope the GOP doesn't take the House in the fall.

Sigh. I mean, no question he's better than the disaster Emmer would have been, but I'd really like to vote against him. Seems like all he does is shuts down good ideas from the legislature.

I'm content with the fact that Dayton, Bakk are not interested in moving MoveMN forward. Now if we can just stop the massive subsidy of auto-dependent suburban sprawl and return money to cities and counties to make decisions in their own interest, we'd have a much more efficient system with more progressive outcomes.