Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

[Realstreets]

The long term effects of not securing additional revenue is that the legislature will continue to use bond money for specific projects (written into the legislation) which 9/10 are unnecessary expansion projects like two-four lane conversions and the St Croix bridge. Not only are we expanding the system while ignoring maintenance, we're doing it using debt. This is extremely inefficient. Borderline insane, financially speaking.

[MNdible]

Taken in isolation, there's nothing insane about using bonding to pay for long term capital projects. Indeed, that's exactly what bonding should be used for.

Also, there's a lot of talk about maintenance, but in many cases, the maintenance that needs to be done on a 50 year old freeway overpass is to accept that it's lived out its useful life expectancy and needs to be replaced.

[RailBaronYarr]

Taken in isolation, there's nothing insane about using bonding to pay for long term capital projects. Indeed, that's exactly what bonding should be used for.

You're right. Problem is we issue general obligation bonds rather than revenue bonds with the user-fees as the income source to pay them back. I won't go so far as to say user fees from a specific road necessarily have to cover the bond/maintenance costs tied to it, but it should at least be a guide, no? In any case, MnDOT isn't forced to pay what might be higher bond rates thanks to lending criteria that look at the risk of the revenue sources not covering total obligations because the state is putting the full faith and credit of MN taxpayers behind what is supposedly a user-pay system (MVST, gas tax, etc).

[Anondson]

House member from western Hennepin county defends Republican proposal in letter to editor.

http://sailor.mnsun.com/2015/04/03/long ... forefront/

[MNdible]

...behind what is supposedly a user-pay system...

Not sure exactly where the idea came from that roads need to pay for themselves. Just because there are user fees dedicated to something doesn't mean that they need to cover all of its cost. I don't hold public transportation to that standard -- fares cover only a fraction of overall costs, and that's fine, because transportation is an important public good. Other capital expenses that I don't expect to self fund include schools, university buildings, and state parks.

[FISHMANPET]

Yeah but the system is sold as a user-pay system. I don't that's really a fact that's up for debate, and I have to wonder if you're just being deliberately obtuse by posting that. Like, whether or not it should be is certainly a debate that can be had, but I think it's pretty evident that it was setup as a user-pay system, the users of it believe it to be a user-pay system, and the GOP propaganda treats it as a user-pay system.

[Tiller]

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.

While there was a rural/urban 'shift' last election, it was limited in scope, and because of the GOP's campaign strategy of playing up the rural/urban divide. Even if there was a (minor) structural shift last election, the ~20% swing in turnout between off-year and presidential elections will bury it come 2016. The DFL also only needs 6 seats to regain an absolute majority, not 10 (though a larger margin is always helpful).

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.

*and hopefully not in a "no transportation bill until after 2016" way. (guess I missed a word, not sure how to edit the post)

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.

House democrats thought the exact same thing leading up to the last election (from speaking with my rep, Tim Mahoney, afterwards): The GOP would gain some seats, but the DFL would maintain a slim majority.

There's something poetic to that~

[RailBaronYarr]

Yeah but the system is sold as a user-pay system. I don't that's really a fact that's up for debate, and I have to wonder if you're just being deliberately obtuse by posting that. Like, whether or not it should be is certainly a debate that can be had, but I think it's pretty evident that it was setup as a user-pay system, the users of it believe it to be a user-pay system, and the GOP propaganda treats it as a user-pay system.

This is my thought as well. I obviously agree there are many publicly-provided goods that I don't expect to pay for themselves. Even in the transportation sector. But when there's something gov't provides that has the means to collect direct user fees efficiently and the system we're talking about is the most damaging to the environment/public health of all known transpo options (to say nothing of the luxury it implies due to the costs borne by users in owning/operating the vehicle), it shouldn't be too difficult to ask it to pay close to (or above) its costs.

I try not to be some Euro-fetishist here, but the German model seems pretty damn good to me. Road users pay for all the road costs, an amount above and beyond as a pseudo- carbon tax, and then a little extra to subsidize the construction/operation of transit and regional rail (which, is far far less of a subsidy than here in the US as % of ops costs). Families spend less on transportation, the environment is cleaner, low-income people have substantially better access to jobs and amenities. Seems like a win on all fronts to me.

[froggie]

Germany also has a population density to support that. Most of the US doesn't.

By comparison, Germany's population density (583/sq mi) is almost 9 times that of Minnesota (67/sq mi). There are only 5 states that equal or exceed Germany's density: NJ, RI, MA, CT, and MD.

Now, that said, the 7-county metro probably could do so...average density in the 7-county metro (even factoring the emptiness of Scott and Carver Counties) is just under 1000/sq mi. But it'd be a tough sell in the Legislature.

[Tiller]

Germany also has a population density to support that. Most of the US doesn't.

By comparison, Germany's population density (583/sq mi) is almost 9 times that of Minnesota (67/sq mi). There are only 5 states that equal or exceed Germany's density: NJ, RI, MA, CT, and MD.

Now, that said, the 7-county metro probably could do so...average density in the 7-county metro (even factoring the emptiness of Scott and Carver Counties) is just under 1000/sq mi. But it'd be a tough sell in the Legislature.

In addition to considering population density, productivity is another important factor. Two countries, with all else equal, would be able to reasonably afford differing amounts of infrastructure if one was more productive than the other (using whatever metric one prefers).

Combining the two would suggest looking at a measure of economic output per land area, which, while giving similar results to just looking at population density, indicates we can/should do more.

[xandrex]

Now, that said, the 7-county metro probably could do so...average density in the 7-county metro (even factoring the emptiness of Scott and Carver Counties) is just under 1000/sq mi. But it'd be a tough sell in the Legislature.

And even if you could do it in the metro, who in the 7-county area would be interested in paying full freight for their transpo costs on top of subsidizing the rest of the state (which the metro inevitably would).

[RailBaronYarr]

Just an FYI, the MNGOP plan passed in the House transportation committee yesterday (passing along to Ways & Means). Ron Erhardt was the only DFLer voting yes, so 13-8. David Montgomery (PiPress) tweeted something about them adding in language forcing Metro transit to get fare evasion under control.

Anyway, this bill has no chance in the Senate, and given how transit-hostile the GOP has been this term I can't see anything happening in transpo this session.

[RailBaronYarr]

Can't edit. Found this. I had no appetite to scour the legislation myself to confirm but this finally confirms the details on what the House transpo bill does to transit: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sessio ... oryID=5702

Funding for transit planning and operations would be reined in under fiscal and policy provisions in the bill, including the proposed phasing-out of roughly $20 million in General Fund appropriations to the Metropolitan Council for transit operations; a requirement that would force all light-rail transit operating costs not covered by operating revenue and federal funds to come from non-state sources; and, a requirement that specific planning phases of transitway projects that include express bus or rail components receive legislative assent.

[acs]

The Republicans have no reason to even attempt compromise, they know if nothing happens they win by default. SWLRT doesn't move forward without another $100m from the state, Metro Transit service upgrades don't get funded, aBRT only happens 1 line every 2 years or whenever they can cobble funding together, and all the other corridors under study right now are just useless lines on the map that won't happen until 2030. Meanwhile, 494 will expand, 610 will expand, I-94 will be 3 lanes all the way out to Albertville, a freeway level bridge will get built to Wisconsin, and US 10 and 52 will be progressively upgraded to freeways as local governments get their beloved interchanges built without paying for them. Yeah, we're going to have serious maintenance issues just maintaining what we have now, but nobody including MNDOT cares about that until another bridge falls down.

[mattaudio]

How do Republicans win by default? They are the ones who want new freeway welfare with "other people's money" to put it in their terms. So, no money for road expansion. Problem solved.

[HiawathaGuy]

I really see Republicants stonewalling of transit money as something that will inherently come back to bite them. They are so short-sighted with regards to policy, it's astounding. The good people of Minnesota don't much care for that type of governing - especially not now when it's pretty clear the DFL policies at the State Capital are really setting an example nation-wide.

When the GOP attempted to do "what they thought was best" back in 2012, they lost severely.
I truly think that the millennials and empty nesters who are looking to the core cities for a place that provides them with affordable and easy transit options, failure to invest in that, will be decidedly felt at the polls.

This isn't Wisconsin, the people of Minnesota don't expect to get things for free, and we certainly know that you get what you pay for. Failure to invest wisely in both roads and transit don't benefit anyone.

I have faith that things can still be ironed out, a little give and take from both chambers. It's a lot of posturing, and a necessary and annoying aspect of politics. But the Senate will never allow the House to gut transit funding, so it's going to be interesting to see what pieces of the chess mass are used to win over the majority.

[acs]

How do Republicans win by default? They are the ones who want new freeway welfare with "other people's money" to put it in their terms. So, no money for road expansion. Problem solved.

That's exactly what is already happening though, so if their transportation proposal passed it would only make things worse. All those freeway expansions I mentioned are already "funded" using subsidies and debt like you described. Meanwhile the maintenance needs throughout the state will go unmet, because in their infinite wisdom MNDOT decided to prioritize expansion in their latest state highway plan over maintenance until they can find more money, which now isn't likely to happen.

[VacantLuxuries]

Because of my career, I won't be able to stay in Minneapolis long term regardless. But if the Republicans get their way, I definitely won't be letting state pride hold me back and will be pushing to get to New York within 2-3 years as opposed to just 'within a decade.'

This plan is a disaster for the state, and the worst thing is that some of the Republicans have to know that and don't care.

[twincitizen]

GOP bill curbs transit
http://finance-commerce.com/2015/04/hou ... f-transit/

[trigonalmayhem]

Seriously if we end up in a situation where they have to make service cuts I really hope they disproportionately affect suburban commuter routes. But this whole debacle is putting me in the same boat as VacantLuxuries above where it makes me want to leave this state sooner rather than later now that my career is going well. I have skills I can take almost anywhere that are in demand and this kind of childish asshattery in place of legislating really makes me want to be somewhere else.