View
216
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
TWIN CITIES METRO AREA TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
Transportation Funding Advisory CommitteeJune 2012
Metro Area Presentations
2
• Transportation System Overview – Met Council
• Transportation System Funding – Met Council
• Transitway System Funding – CTIB
• Return on Investment – Itasca Group
• Congestion Pricing/MnPASS – MnDOT
Key Messages
3
• Importance of transportation for regional economic vitality
• The metro area significance in state and national context
• Transportation vision: one system, multiple modes working together
• Building/funding a transportation system for the 21st century
Benefits of Transportation Investments
4
• Improved mobility
• Enhanced accessibility to markets and resources
• Accelerated productivity gains
• Increased competitiveness
Minnesota’s Economy is Strong
5
• 5.3 million people (21st of 50 states)
• 2.68 million jobs (18th)
• $55K Median household income (12th)
• $270 billion annual gross domestic product (GDP) (17th)
Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis
For Minnesota to Thrive, Minneapolis-St. Paul Must Thrive
6
• 2.85 million people (54% of the state)
• 1.58 million jobs (62% of the state)
• $64K median household income
• $200 billion annual GDP
• Home to 19 Fortune 500 companies
Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis
Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area is Important Nationally
7
• 16th largest metropolitan area population
• 13th largest metropolitan area GDP
• 15th largest road network (TTI)
• 16th largest transit ridership
• 17th most congested region
Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Transit Database, Texas Transportation Institute
Met Council’s Role in Transportation Planning
8
• Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in conjunction with Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
• Long-Range Transportation Policy Plan
• Regional transit operations
• Transit funding oversight
Met Council’s Role in Shaping Development
9
• Metropolitan development guide
• Regional policy plans: transportation, aviation, parks and water resources
• Regional forecast: population, employment and households
• Local comprehensive plan review
Metropolitan Development Guide
10
• Promotes efficiency and innovation in regional service delivery
• Ensures effective stewardship of resources
• Expands our multimodal transportation system
Metro Area Population Growth
11
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 -
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
2,850,000
3,743,000 Total growth 2010-40: +893,000 (31%)
Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012
Metro Area Employment Growth
12
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 -
500,000.0
1,000,000.0
1,500,000.0
2,000,000.0
2,500,000.0
1,548,000
2,118,000
Total growth 2010-40: +570,000 (37%)
Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012
The Region Will Be Different in 2040
13
• 62% of new households will not have children
• 43% of regional residents will be non-white
• 50% of new households will be one income
• Senior population will more than double
Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012
We Need Flexible Transportation
14
• Growing population means growing demand on the transportation system
• Changing demographics mean changing transportation needs
• Area residents want more options– 40% suggest providing more transit– 20% suggest building better roads
Sources: Met Council Residents Survey, 2007
METRO AREA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OVERVIEW
15
MnDOT/Met Council Partnership
16
• A common vision & priorities:– Efficient use of limited
resources – Preservation of existing system– Congestion management to
preserve mobility – One multi-modal
transportation system
Implementing Our
Shared Vision Together
17
• MnPASS Lanes– I-394– I-35W (UPA project)
• Hiawatha LRT
• Northstar Commuter Rail
• Cedar Avenue BRT
• Central Corridor LRT
Major Regional Trends (1960-2009)
18
• Growing and more decentralized region
• Major increases in transportation demand
• Very large highway capacity expansion investments
• Modest transit capacity expansion investments
Traffic Congestion is Growing
• Total annual delay = 78.5 million hours
• 2011 a.m. Congestion
19Sources: Texas Transportation Institute, 2011 Mobility Report
2011 MnDOT Congestion Report
Traffic Congestion is Growing
• Annual delay per peak commuter = 45 hours
• 2011 p.m. Congestion
20Sources: Texas Transportation Institute, 2011 Mobility Report
2011 MnDOT Congestion Report
We Have Significant Challenges to Regional Mobility• Aging system – need
for preservation • Growing highway
congestion• Over $40 B required
to “solve congestion”• Challenging
transportation finances
21
Improving Mobility A new policy direction
22
• A realistic, innovative, flexible, sustainable and problem-focused investment direction:– Preserve, manage and optimize existing highway
system– Focus on managing traffic congestion– Promote alternatives to driving alone
Improving Mobility Managing Congestion
23
• MnDOT is a national leader in innovative congestion management solutions– 300 miles of bus-only shoulders
– Successful lower-cost/
high-benefit projects
– I-394, 35W MnPASS
(priced) lanes
Improving Mobility Future Congestion Management
24
• Use Active Traffic Management (ATM)
• Construct lower-cost/high-benefit projects
• Expand system of managed (priced) lanes
• Strategically expand capacity
Improving Mobility Future Congestion Management
25
• Optimize highway investments to move largest number of people, not cars
• Invest in transit
• Encourage alternatives to driving alone
• Promote transportation-efficient land use
Vision Beyond the Fiscally Constrained Plan
26
• Highway Vision creates a $4+ billion “reservoir of projects”– Managed Lane Vision $1.5 B
– Lower-Cost/High-Benefit Projects $1-$1.5 B
– ATM Improvements $500 M
– Strategic Capacity Enhancements likely exceed $1 B
Improving MobilityOptimizing freight
27
• “A safe, efficient, high-capacity freight transportation system is essential to the economic well being of the region and the state” (Council Policy Plan)
• Primary metro freight issues:– Freight congestion on highways and
railroads– Volatile fuel costs– Freight safety and security– Aging infrastructure
Improving Mobility Promoting Alternatives: Bikes and Peds
28
• Bicycling shows promise as option for short trips– Bicycling rate is up, yet barriers still exist
• Good pedestrian environment essential to transit success
• Accessibility for persons with disabilities
Improving MobilityLocal + Regional Bike & Ped Systems
29
• Recommendations– Connections to transit– Removal of barriers– Safety improvements– Bike/pedestrian accommodations
on roadways
Improving MobilityAviation System
• MSP International– 33.1 million
passengers– 436,000 take-offs and
landings– 135 non-stop markets
served– 127 gates– 3.2 million sq ft of
terminal space
• Reliever Airports– St. Paul Downtown– Anoka Co-Blaine– Flying Cloud– Crystal– South St. Paul– Airlake– Lake Elmo
30Sources: Metropolitan Airports Commission
Transit: Critical to our 21st Century Transportation System• Provides Mobility Options
• Mitigates Congestion
• Serves Transit-dependent Populations
• Reduces Environmental Impact of Transportation
• Encourages Efficient Land Development Patterns
31
Transit-Oriented Development Examples• Housing• Commercial• Mixed-use• Institutional
32
Transit-Oriented Development Examples• Housing• Commercial• Mixed-use• Institutional
33
Transit System Overview
• Light rail• Commuter rail• Over 200 regular
bus routes• 8 regular route
providers• ADA & Dial-a-ride• Vanpool
34
Transit System Overview2011 Transit Statistics
• 94 million rides• 3.4 million service
hours• 28% fare recovery• $2.94 subsidy per
passengerExpress
14%
Urbal Local67%
Commuter Rail1%
Light Rail12%
Other2%
Suburb Local5%
35
Bus system accounts for 85%of regional ridership
Ridership Trends
36
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
73,343,611 67,171,51
0
80,787,300
85,307,600
88,943,500
94,770,400 88,931,40
091,073,50
093,903,93
6
Annual Transit System Ridership
2005: First full year of
light rail
March - April, 2004: Transit driver strike
2010: First full year of
commuter rail
High gas prices, economic stability = Transit ridership growth
Economic Recession
Beginning of Economic Recovery
Oct 2008: Base fare increase of
$0.25
Performance of the System VariesTransit System Performance (2010 statistics)
37
Service Type Subsidy per Passenger
Productivity (Pass. per
Hour)
Fare Recovery
Urban Local $2.53 37.4 26.6%
Suburban Local $4.58 15.2 17.1%
Express $3.08 34.8 43.9%
Light Rail $1.46 183.0 40.5%
Commuter Rail $18.46 233.6 15.8%
Dial-a-ride/ADA* $21.34 2.3 13.6%
* Required by federal and state law
Our Transit System is Effective
Dallas
Houston
Phoenix
St. Louis
Milwaukee
Pittsburgh
Seattle
Peer Average
Cleveland
Denver
Twin Cities
San Diego
Baltimore
Portland
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
19.419.7
20.623.2
24.525.025.626.126.427.027.3
33.634.1
37.1
2010 Productivity (Passengers per Hour)
38Sources: National Transit Database
Our Transit System is Efficient
Dallas
Houston
Phoenix
St. Louis
Cleveland
Baltimore
Peer Average
Portland
Pittsburgh
Denver
Seattle
Milwaukee
Twin Cities
San Diego
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
13.0%17.9%
18.7%21.7%
22.7%23.2%23.4%
24.3%24.5%
25.5%26.5%
27.4%27.6%
38%
2010 Fare Recovery Percentage
39Sources: National Transit Database
Our Transit System is Cost-Effective
Dallas
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
Houston
Seattle
St. Louis
Cleveland
Phoenix
Peer Average
Denver
Twin Cities
Portland
Milwaukee
San Diego
$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$6.31$4.23$4.19
$3.93$3.93$3.89
$3.83$3.82
$3.67$3.00$3.00
$2.90$2.83
$1.91
2010 Subsidy per Passenger Trip
40Sources: National Transit Database
Peer Region Comparisons
• Twin Cities regional transit system is…– Productive, more so than many systems with
larger light rail systems
– Cost-effective, high fare recovery and productive service results in a lower than average subsidy per passenger
41
Transit: Not Just for Transit-dependent
• Most transit riders are going to/from work or school (80%)
• 2 of 3 transit rider households have an automobile available; higher on rail service
42Sources: Metro Transit Rider Survey, 2010
Park-and-ride Users Come From All Over, Just Like Drivers
• 74% of users live in regular route service area
• 85% of users live in 7-county metro area
• Greater Minnesota population centers
St. Cloud
MankatoRochester
43Sources: Met Council Park-and-ride Survey, 2010
Transit Carries a Significant Portion of People on the Freeways
Transit Riders as a percent of Peak Hour Person Throughput
• I-94 West = 38%• I-394 =
36%• I-35W South =
34%
44Sources: Met Council Ridership and MnDOT
Transit Carries a Significant Portion of People on the Major Arterials
Roadway Use Person Throughput
Cars(95+%)
People in cars
(65-80%)
Buses (<1-5%)
People on buses
(20-35%)
Major arterial impacts ex-amples
45
Transit Riders as a percent of Daily Person Throughput
• Nicollet Ave = 37%
• Lake Street = 19%
• W. Broadway = 28%
Sources: Met Council Ridership and MnDOT AADT
2030 Transit Vision
Double ridership between 2003 and 2030 by:
– Maintaining and expanding the region’s base bus system
– Building a network of rail and bus transitways
– Providing a mix of services by the markets where they are most efficient and effective
46
Goal: Double Transit Ridership
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
20000000
40000000
60000000
80000000
100000000
120000000
140000000
160000000
Bus Rail Ridership Goal
47
Bus System Expansion Plans
48
• Local bus– Increased frequency, span of service,
coverage– Improved quality and speed of service
• Express bus – Increase service on existing routes to meet
demand– Add service to new park & rides
What is a Transitway?• Fast, reliable transit services with an
improved passenger experience on high-demand corridors– Light rail transit (LRT) / busway– Commuter rail– Highway bus rapid transit (BRT)– Arterial BRT
• Promotes transit-oriented development
49
Transitways in the Vision
50
Transitways Status• I-394 MnPASS Lane - Operation
• Hiawatha LRT (Blue Line) – Operation
• Northstar Commuter Rail – Operation
• Cedar Ave BRT (Red Line) – Construction
• Central LRT (Green Line) – Construction
• Southwest LRT (Green Line Ext.) – Design
• I-35W MnPASS/BRT (Orange Line) – Design
51
Arterial BRT Transitways
• 11 study corridors, 95 route miles
• 86,000 daily rides today
• 450,000 people and 460,000 jobs within ½ mile
52
Estimated Travel Time Savings from Arterial BRT
53
Current Arterial BRT0
10
20
30
40
50
60
27 27
185
13
9 Red Light
Boarding
Moving
41 Minutes
58 Minutes
Based on Afternoon Peak Period, Route 18 NB, American Blvd to 5th/Nicollet and Concept Plans
Arterial BRT:17 minutes (29%) faster
18 Buses:
8 trips/houreach direction
18 Buses:
11 trips/hour each direction
Advantages of New Arterial BRT
• Service improvements will help meet growing demand
• With Arterial BRT, corridor ridership will nearly double
2010 2030 with Arterial BRT0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Weekday Ridership
54
Arterial BRT Cost
Vehicles$10M
Engineering $4M
Contingency $3M
Stations and Signals$14M
Average Corridor: $31 Million
• $3-4 million average capital cost per mile
• $3.6 million per year/corridor average operating cost increase– Added service (2030
Service Plans), maintenance of stations and features
– Offset by increased revenue
Arterial BRT
55
METRO AREA TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OVERVIEW
56
Key Funding Messages
57
• Public sector invested $4.8 billion in 2011 on roads and transit
• Complicated funding structure
• Maintaining the transportation system is a large and growing cost
• Not enough resources available to expand for increasing demand and mobility needs
Statewide Road and Transit Funding Sources Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011)
58
Roads82%
Transit18%
Statewide Road and Transit Funding Sources Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011)
59
Gas Tax18%
Vehicle Registration Tax12%
MVST7%
Federal Highway16%
Other Road
1%
Road Property Tax28%
Transit18%
Transit = 18%
Roads = 82%
Statewide Road and Transit Funding Sources Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011)
60
Gas Tax18%
Vehicle Registration Tax12%
MVST7%
Federal Highway16%
Other Road
1%
Road Property Tax28%
Transit Property Tax1.5%
State GF + Bonds1.5%
Sales Tax (CTIB)2%
Fares3% Federal
Transit5%
Transit MVST5%
Transit = 18%
Roads = 82%
Statewide Road and Transit Funding Uses Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011)
61
State Construction16%
State Operations & Other13%
Debt2%
State Patrol2%
DNR/Collections1%
County Roads21%
Township Roads
3%
City Roads24%
Greater MN Transit
2%
Metro Area Transit Operations
8%
Metro Area Transit Capital
3%
New Starts Projects5%
Transit = 18%
Roads = 82%
33%
48%
Metropolitan Road and Transit Funding Sources Total - $2.5 B (Est. 2011)
62
Roads68%
Transit32%
Metropolitan Road and Transit Funding Sources Total - $2.5 B (Est. 2011)
63
Gas Tax15%
Vehicle Registration Tax10%
MVST5%
Federal Highway13%
Road Property Tax25%
Transit Property Tax3%
State GF + Bonds3%
Sales Tax (CTIB)4%
Fares6%
Federal Transit
8%
Transit MVST8%
Transit = 32%
Roads = 68%
Metropolitan Road and Transit Funding Uses Total - $2.5 B (Est. 2011)
64
State Construction14%
State Operations & Other10%
Debt1%
State Patrol2%
DNR/Collections1%
County Roads13%
Township Roads<1%
City Roads27%
Metro Area Transit Operations
16%
Metro Area Transit Capital
6%
New Starts Projects10%
Transit = 32%
Roads = 68%
STIP 2011-14 (in millions)
Traveler Safety $77.9
Preservation $888.7
Mobility Im-provements
$285.3
Regional and Com-
munity Pri-orities $39.7
Right of Way, De-
sign, Project De-
livery $201.6
Planned Investments 2015-20 (in millions)
Traveler Safety $105
Preservation $961.1
Mobility Im-provements
$250.9
Regional and Com-
munity Priorities
$12.6
Right of Way, Design, Project Delivery $180.0
65
Metro Investment Plan 2011-2020
Average: $373 M annualTotal: $1.5 Billion
Average: $252 M annualTotal: $1.5 Billion
Includes bridge bonding authorized in 2008
Major Roadway Project Examples
66
• St. Croix Bridge Replacement - $571-$676 M ($315-371 M Minnesota Share)
• I-35W/TH62 Crosstown - $288 M
• I-494/Hwy 169 Interchange - $125 M
• Lafayette Bridge Replacement - $130 M
• 1-2 projects can equal annual MnDOT metro district funding
MVST53%
State GF9%
Federal3%
Fares28%
CTIB/ Counties5%
Other3%
ExpensesSources
Metro Area Transit Operations2011 Operating Expenses: $384M
Metro Transit Bus63%
LRT7%
Northstar4%
Metro Mobility11%
Dial-
a-Ride2%
Contracted Route3%
Suburban Providers9%
Other2%
67
Transit Operating Funding Issues
68
• Current system preservation– Volatility/uncertainty of MVST revenue– Fare revenue limitations– General fund decline
• Existing funding levels do not allow for system expansion (either bus or rail)
• State share of rail operation uncertain
Forecasted Statewide MVST Revenues
69
'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15380
420
460
500
540
580
620
660
560.3
591
621.2
663.1
605.6 593.8
556.8 537.8 532.3
512.7
441.8 453.1
'2/05 '2/12 Actual
State Fiscal Year
In M
illi
on
s
Transit Capital Spending
70
• $140-$160 M annually (excluding new construction of major transitways)
• Spending primarily for preservation of the system
• Major transitway construction can more than double annual capital spending, i.e. Central Corridor will average $200+ M per year
Uses by Category Uses by Objective
Sources
Transitways73%
Facilities8%
Technology &Equipment
3%
Fleet 16%
Transitways73%
Preserve21%
Expand6%
Federal58%
Regional Borrowing
11%
Other6%
CTIB19%
State6%
Transit with CCLRT and SWLRT2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan: $2.59 B
71
Uses by Category Uses by Objective
Sources
Transitways17%
Facilities24%
Technology &Equipment
10%
Fleet 49%
Transitways16%
Preserve66%
Expand18%
Federal59%
Regional Borrowing
34%
Other2%
State5%
Transit without CCLRT and SWLRT2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan: $824 M
72
Transit Capital Funding Issues
73
• Lack a funding source to expand base bus system
• Regional capital bond fund for preservation dependent on legislative authorization
• Federal funding levels uncertain
• CTIB funds provide for some transitway expansion
• State capital share of transitway funding uncertain
Metro Area Transportation System – In Summary
74
• Transportation system is important for economic development and vitality
• Growing transportation demand and preservation needs
• Region has a vision to develop a multimodal system
• Existing funding levels cannot meet the growing needs
Recommended