Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

[twincitizen]

Back in 2011-2012, Republicans proposed even more severe cuts to bus service funding, but Dayton was able to stave that off all by himself (GOP controlled both House and Senate). With the Senate in DFL control this year, there will be no cuts to regular route bus funding. Even if we get no funding increase (sales tax or otherwise), there will be no cuts to state's portion of Metro Transit funding. I'm reasonably confident of that.

It would be great if we could get a long-term commitment from the legislature to fund the buildout of the aBRT network, but it also doesn't seem like the end of the world if we have to secure bonding money as those lines are planned one-by-one. It would be really nice to get a pot of money today to at least have funding to plan and engineer the rest of the system though.

[Tiller]

there will be no cuts to state's portion of Metro Transit funding.

This. Cutting transit funding is basically a nonstarter. We'll probably get at least a 1/4 cent raise in the sales tax. The legislators I've spoken to have all been pretty confident about it.

[trigonalmayhem]

That's good, but even keeping things the same is effectively a cut since more and more people are using service that remains at the same level of funding and continues to degrade in quality. It's not like it magically gets cheaper to carry more and more people who are riding transit. Maybe they don't cut frequency, but on time service declines. Maybe they don't raise fares but the bus fleet gets older and more expensive to maintain. For a region expanding in both population and economy it's unacceptable to not grow the already behind transit system with it.

[Tiller]

That's good, but even keeping things the same is effectively a cut since more and more people are using service that remains at the same level of funding and continues to degrade in quality. It's not like it magically gets cheaper to carry more and more people who are riding transit. Maybe they don't cut frequency, but on time service declines. Maybe they don't raise fares but the bus fleet gets older and more expensive to maintain. For a region expanding in both population and economy it's unacceptable to not grow the already behind transit system with it.

That's not entirely true. An expanding population/economy also means that our current sales tax will bring in more funding. We certainly need to dedicate more funding to transit though.

Another nugget that hasn't been mentioned here yet is that even the house republicans' budget funds SWLRT.

[David Greene]

there will be no cuts to state's portion of Metro Transit funding.

This. Cutting transit funding is basically a nonstarter. We'll probably get at least a 1/4 cent raise in the sales tax. The legislators I've spoken to have all been pretty confident about it.

I don't see a sales tax happening at all. Any idea why they're confident about it? The House will never go along.

[MinnMonkey]

I have seen this happen several times in the past. The GOP always propose cutting Metro Transit, then Metro Transit says we will need to cut service by xx%. Each time, service in the core pretty much goes untouched, and ultimately improves the next cycle.

As much as I would like to see more funding for transit, I am not overly concerned about this bill passing in its current form, or the effects it will have on the core.

[twincitizen]

Another nugget that hasn't been mentioned here yet is that even the house republicans' budget funds SWLRT.

Can you back that up? I saw a "nugget" in a news story that they weren't blocking or stopping SWLRT, but without any sales tax increase - Bottineau and any other lines will effectively be killed. CTIB's budget has to pick up way more operating costs, therefore unable to do any expansion beyond SW. Ramsey & Washington might be able to squeak Gateway/Gold Line along under the existing sales tax receipts.

So they aren't blocking it, but I highly doubt they have a line item for funding the state's 10% share. CTIB and Met Council have already been scheming ways to creatively fund that portion anyways (bonding against future revenues, etc.) Unless Rep. Loon of Eden Prairie is incredibly influential, I really truly doubt that they'd actually commit funding to SWLRT, rather than "not block it".

And I agree with David - there is no way Republicans sign off on a sales tax increase, even if just a .25% in just the 5 CTIB counties. Perhaps as a "compromise" negotiation we can get the increase in only Hennepin & Ramsey??

[VAStationDude]

When was the last time service improved thanks to increases in state aid? It seems like at least ten years ago. Green Line ctib operating funds allowed 16, 50 & 94 money to go towards different routes.

[RailBaronYarr]

I think the frustration isn't that the House plan will ever pass (current funding situation/rules would remain in place with no comprehensive transpo bill, right?). We know the DFL/Dayton would rather nothing happen than the cuts to MT the GOP proposes. My frustration is seeing just how anti-urban this session has been, and wondering if there's any hope whatsoever for improvement in the next decade. The conservative rhetoric has has always been "buses not trains," but here we are with them specifically calling out cuts to trains (or blocking ZipRail, etc), but also consciously making cuts to the bus service while hamstringing any efforts to roll out modest aBRT lines (the type of thing they should begrudgingly support).

I guess my worry is: unless the DFL gains back full control of gov/house/senate, there is seemingly no chance of negotiation on the transit front.

[David Greene]

IThe conservative rhetoric has has always been "buses not trains," but here we are with them specifically calling out cuts to trains (or blocking ZipRail, etc), but also consciously making cuts to the bus service while hamstringing any efforts to roll out modest aBRT lines (the type of thing they should begrudgingly support).

I see that as progress. They called their own bluff. Now it is clear to everyone that their supposed support for buses is a smokescreen. It's good to have clear lines drawn - makes it easier to organize. Of course their desire to cut buses is probably a positive for them in some rural areas of the state.

II guess my worry is: unless the DFL gains back full control of gov/house/senate, there is seemingly no chance of negotiation on the transit front.

I think that's true as long as Republicans keep nominating anti-urban candidates. But remember that the DFL has its share of anti-urban folks too. One of the big things we need to shift is to have the suburban political leaders of all parties align with the core cities instead of the exurbs/rural areas. Their fates are tied much more to the former than the latter. That commentary from suburban mayors is a good start but there are a lot more suburban mayors than just those 10.

[RailBaronYarr]

^Re your last point, didn't just one DFL House rep vote in support of their transpo bill? I'm not disagreeing that maybe there are some anti-urban leaning DFLers out there, but they all seemed willing to follow party logic in their vote when it counted regarding transportation funding. If roads were all that mattered to them (& their constituents), they would have supported this, no?

[HiawathaGuy]

I guess my worry is: unless the DFL gains back full control of gov/house/senate, there is seemingly no chance of negotiation on the transit front.

The change in leadership may not be as fast as we'd like - but it's important to understand that the GOP House majority that happened this year was due to voter apathy, not some uprising of anti-urban revolt. Sure, the GOP has done the better job monopolizing on those fears/misconceptions of out state areas - but no one can deny that without a thriving urban core, out state Minnesota will suffer, fast.

The Metro area is well ahead of many other areas, but the extreme fractions of the GOP (locally & nationally) are playing havoc on 'normal' legislation. Look at Wisconsin, Kansas, Indiana, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, etc. Things that are completely crazy are racing ahead and becoming law without much thought. I'm a firm believer in this will eventually result in the pendulum swinging back. It's already starting to happen in Wisconsin...

The good people of Minnesota do not like 'head-in-the-sand' politicians. The vast majority understand that investing back into this state is the best for everyone - and excluding and cutting (in times of great abundance), don't make sense.

I am confident that Dayton and Bakk will be able to negotiate things wisely. Perhaps they'll give on some other things to have the House get enough votes for a transit sales tax increase... who knows. But the GOP plan, as passed, is not going to happen on their watches.

I do believe that if the GOP continues this trend in Minnesota - they will easily lose the House in the next election.

[twincitizen]

DFL needs to win back 5 seats for a tie. Likely need to win 7 or more seats to pass a metro sales tax or gas tax increase. It's far from guaranteed by any means. Even though 2016 is a Presidential election year, I think turnout will run lower than 2008 or 2012 due to some general apathy towards Hilary Clinton (though she will win, obviously). Even if that were not the case and it turns out to be a huge Democratic wave election, I'm not sure exactly which Republican held seats in MN could be seen as vulnerable... Some of the 2014 election was simply "balancing" from 2012's DFL wave (fallout from state shutdown, unpopular constitutional amendments, etc.) I follow this stuff pretty closely and I'm honestly not sure there are more than 5 winnable seats out there right now. Perhaps one or two more in the 2nd ring suburbs? (the flippy floppy Will Morgan-Roz Peterson seat + one other?). The rest will have to come from greater MN. Where are those 3-5 House seats that are even vulnerable?

[xandrex]

Sure, the GOP has done the better job monopolizing on those fears/misconceptions of out state areas - but no one can deny that without a thriving urban core, out state Minnesota will suffer, fast.

I know plenty of folks from Greater Minnesota who are actually quite happy to deny that reality.

The "metro suck" mantra—that is, the thought that MSP is siphoning money away from the rest of the state—is a very, very real thing.

[MNdible]

Yes, and even people from outstate who don't hate Minneapolis (my parents, for example) still believe that the rest of the state is subsidizing it.

[David Greene]

^Re your last point, didn't just one DFL House rep vote in support of their transpo bill? I'm not disagreeing that maybe there are some anti-urban leaning DFLers out there, but they all seemed willing to follow party logic in their vote when it counted regarding transportation funding. If roads were all that mattered to them (& their constituents), they would have supported this, no?

It's easier to hold your caucus together when you're in the minority. Remember what happened last year when the DFL controlled everything? There's a reason no transportation bill passed.

[twincitizen]

1. In which the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce questions some of the funding assumptions in the Governor's 2012 "TFAC" Report and we urbanists probably agree with them on some level: http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2 ... d-funding/

[Note: we still hate the CoC for not supporting any transit funding increase or even modest gas tax increase. Good to see them push back on those wildly high road funding numbers though]

2. This looks at the federal transportation funding picture, but ends with a couple paragraphs focused on Minnesota: http://finance-commerce.com/2015/04/sta ... nt-stalls/

[RailBaronYarr]

Hm, I'd argue they're not saying the need for new roads and lane miles isn't there, just that it can be done with less money if you assume lower inflation rates (and, that the % of roads in acceptable condition would be higher given lower inflation rates on costs). I guess I can't really say with any confidence if they're right or not. The report also calls into question the validity of Metro Transit funding needs based on using constant 2015 dollar estimates and lack of hard definition of what "economic competitiveness" means. Interesting read, though.

[Wedgeguy]

Yes, and even people from outstate who don't hate Minneapolis (my parents, for example) still believe that the rest of the state is subsidizing it.

Same are the people in Mississippi think that the people in the NE get most of the money, when in fact it is the NE that are subsidizing a majority of the southern states with taxes dollars take from them to give to the south who refuse to tax enough to pay for their services that are subsidized by the healthier states. Minnesota is one of those states that get back less than we pay in.

[MNdible]

Speaking of people who wrongly think they're subsidizing something that's actually subsidizing them...

The formula devised by Dibble divided that lease revenue among metro counties based on their population but treated Ramsey County as 50 percent of its population and Hennepin County as 25 percent of its population to preserve more money for the less populous metro counties.