Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

[RailBaronYarr]

Not sure if this should go here, but it's a statewide push...

http://m.startribune.com/local/blogs/295020741.html

[twincitizen]

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/03/16 ... on-funding

[mattaudio]

http://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local ... /24871277/

[RailBaronYarr]

Details on the poll that found a majority of MN residents oppose the DFL plan. http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 94401.html

Spoiler, a majority of metro area residents actually support it. How bizarre that the people who'd most benefit from it hate it.

MNGOP will be releasing its proposal today. Interested to see the details & who they choose to pander more to with projects, suburbs or outstate (at least, relative to the DFL plan).

[Silophant]

“I feel that the state should be getting enough money from the tax we’re already paying"

I also dislike it when feeling like something should be true doesn't make it true.

[RailBaronYarr]

GOP plan:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/member ... emid=15345

So much for all the hype they made about not really knowing the number to spend on roads/bridges. They seemed to have settled on a number very close to the DFL plan.

They toss a decent bone to outstate transit, but just $16m for metro area transit. Money to fund all this road work comes by re-directing sales taxes on auto parts/rental vehicles + vehicle lease sales taxes. I'm sure someone will figure out what to cut sometime in the future since that money currently funds existing state programs. Oh, and true to the GOP fiscal conservative mantra, they'll also throw in $1B in general obligation funds plus $228m in general funds.

So, this is what we get. There are no other serious options on the table. The DFL one is the only credible one in my mind (ignoring the size of the road budget) since it doesn't leave a whole bunch of unanswered questions. I literally cannot believe we have the GOP pitching GO bonds while the DFL proposes user fees. Mad times.

[mattaudio]

The other serious option is... nothing passes, and we have a serious discussion about which roads need to become gravel and which bridges need to be removed rather than replaced.

[RailBaronYarr]

Obviously that's an option. And a very realistic one given how far apart the two proposals are. I'm not saying that discussion can't or won't happen. But what are the chances it does? Both parties agreed on a road spending number. Skimming comment sections & chatting with people I know (across the political spectrum), most constituents probably agree with it. I want the discussion to happen, I just have zero faith anyone in power is willing to have that talk.

Side note, https://twitter.com/tomscheck/status/580013799215931392 I'm guessing the GOP plan pulls money directly from the assistance to Met Council to operate our transit system. This would be a huge, HUGE blow.

[phop]

I think it's time for the DFL to stop investing any effort into the transportation funding debate. They might as well hold off until they have a more favorable legislative climate. The GOP proposals have been absolutely terrible. It's hard to imagine coming to any sort of rational consensus that doesn't end up favoring rural MN over MSP.

[Silophant]

At this point I'm having trouble believing anything will get done until another bridge collapses. Just hoping and praying that no one will die when it does.

Also, I'm assuming that the GOP plan to pull the Met Councils' transit money also includes no way for them to make up the money, right? Because screw the city folk?

[mattaudio]

That implies a link between new money and maintenance of existing infrastructure (bridges). That's empirically denied. Instead, we use new money to build new infrastructure, rather than using it to maintain existing infrastructure. It's a shell game.

[HiawathaGuy]

The MN House has a slim majority that will more than likely switch back to DFL in the 2016 election. Not to mention it's pretty clear to see where their fiscal priorities will get the state (see Wisconsin)... (or moreover, see their own debt, still not being handled properly). Sure, they have a voice, and sure, they're going to promote an agenda that works off of TPAW's amazing groundwork of "NO NEW TAXES". But the good people of Minnesota, Strib poll aside, get it, for the most part.
That doesn't work for us (the whole state), if we want to move forward and not be Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, etc.

I am happy that the GOP at least didn't propose a $500 MM plan, so I give them credit for looking out a bit further. But the reality is that if any transportation package is going to pass, the two houses will have to come up with a compromise. It's possible that they won't - but the GOP knows it's walking a very fine line. They only have a majority due to voter apathy, not because there was some major uptick in "NO NEW TAXES"-loving people suddenly voting.

So I'm happy to sit back and watch the politics play out. I hope it achieves something, but if not, then it'll become a great tool for the 2016 races.

I just wish that the media would do a better job of speaking to the elephant in the room regarding the damn surplus... that the GOP changed the law under the TPAW regime, that forbids the forecast from taking inflation into account. Sure, there will be a surplus, but not nearly as much as the headlines promote. It's ludicrous that they are forbidden from reporting what the 'true' forecast is.

[Realstreets]

That implies a link between new money and maintenance of existing infrastructure (bridges). That's empirically denied. Instead, we use new money to build new infrastructure, rather than using it to maintain existing infrastructure. It's a shell game.

What are you defining as new infrastructure? Expansion of the system? Like more lanes?

[RailBaronYarr]

Re: GOP plan's impact on Metro Transit.. http://finance-commerce.com/2015/03/mn- ... t-gas-tax/ (locked)

I got clarification from the author: Metro Transit revenue would remain flat (not counting inflation), and with increased demands on Metro Mobility (which they legally can't reduce funding for) bus service would be cut.

[trigonalmayhem]

Of course because screwing people in the city who actually pay for infrastructure was their platform after all. Maybe they figure if they make it bad enough we'll all give up and shrug and move to exurbs.

[trigonalmayhem]

Also, I'm assuming that the GOP plan to pull the Met Councils' transit money also includes no way for them to make up the money, right? Because screw the city folk?

Exactly. They can't let us pay for our own transit because they need to take that money to widen roads in towns with population 2,100 with a few dozen cars a day. Plus that wouldn't be ideologically pure and we all know that practicality and compromise in politics is a lost cause. You have to do something awful so a more extreme challenger in a primary can't call you weak for compromising.

[Tiller]

I ran across this while reading today's pioneer press:
'Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis and head of the Senate's transportation committee, said that a plan that doesn't have "significant, substantial investments" in metro-area transit "simply can't pass" the Senate.'

It'd be great to see this ring true, and hopefully not in a "no transportation bill until 2016" way.

Online version of the article:
http://www.twincities.com/transportatio ... -not-raise

[David Greene]

I ran across this while reading today's pioneer press:
'Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis and head of the Senate's transportation committee, said that a plan that doesn't have "significant, substantial investments" in metro-area transit "simply can't pass" the Senate.'

It'd be great to see this ring true, and hopefully not in a "no transportation bill until 2016" way.

Dibble is not going to advance a bill without significant transit funding. He worked on transit long before he became a legislator.

[RailBaronYarr]

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/edit ... 24441.html

Strib editorial going a little more in-depth on what the GOP proposal means for Metro Transit.

[twincitizen]

The MN House has a slim majority that will more than likely switch back to DFL in the 2016 election.

I disagree. What happened in 2014, while partially due to low turnout, could be viewed as further shifting of the state's political makeup. The 1st & 2nd ring suburbs are now solidly DFL and outstate areas not part of the Iron Range (or college towns) are more solidly GOP than in the past. Remember, the DFL lost just one race in the metro (Roz Peterson over Will Morgan). The other 10 seats were all in greater MN. I honestly don't see the DFL picking up 10 seats in greater MN in 2016, unless there is an enormous Democratic wave at the national level (i.e. Hillary Clinton vs. Ted Cruz or Rand Paul). Minnesotans won't be voting for a popular incumbent Governor or Senator in 2016. At this point, I think the GOP loses a few seats in 2016, but holds their majority.

Sen. Dibble said that a plan that doesn't have "significant, substantial investments" in metro-area transit "simply can't pass" the Senate.

It'd be great to see this ring true, and hopefully not in a "no transportation bill until 2016" way.

Actually, that'd be until 2017. Budget bills are done in odd-numbered years. I doubt we get anything in the 2016 session but bonding money for specific projects. As I said above, I think the MN House will maintain a slim majority following the 2016 election unless there is a huge Democratic wave at the national level.