The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-02-26 Meeting PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, February 26, 2004 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room I. Approve Minutes from January 20, 2004 II. Back Ground a. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) Mission & Organization b. 2004 AMM Policy Positions - Transportation c. Minnesota Transportation Alliance (MTA) — Transportation Primer d. MTA — January Legislative Update III. Pedestrian / Capital Improvement Plan Information a. Pedestrian / Bicycle Facilities — 1999 Transportation Plan b. Future Sidewalk Financing Policy c. Municipal State Aid Sidewalk Study d. City Council Requests* e. Public Works — Roadway CW IV. Edina Traffic Task Force Report V. Edina Traffic Task Force Minority Report VI. Workshop Session — 9:00-11:00 AM, March 6th, 2004, City Hall — Community Room VII. Other Governmental Activities* VIII. Adjournment * Note: No attachment included. G:/infrastructure/streets/traffic/transportation commission/agenda January 20, 2004 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Agenda Item II.a Page 1 of 1 AMM Mission To serve as the primary representative of the collective interests of all metropolitan cities on metropolitan and statewide issues with unique metropolitan significance. AMM Organization The AMM is a service and lobby organization for cities in the metropolitan area. Membership is open to cities in the seven county metropolitan area that are members of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC). Current membership includes about half of the eligible cities, but these cities contain about ninety percent of the metropolitan population. The AMM is governed by a Board of Directors composed of local officials from member cities. It includes the President, Vice President, Past President and 16 directors serving staggered two-year terms. Board members are elected at the general membership meeting in May. Each class of city must be represented on the Board and the distribution of directors is geographically consistent with city membership. Each member city has one vote in matters of administration, organization and general operation. The Board of Directors meets monthly to guide the general organization operations and to direct staff. The staff consists of an Executive Director, Director of Legislative Affairs, Government Relations Specialist, and an Administrative Assistant. The AMM is affiliated with the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) but neither duplicates nor competes with the LMC. The AMM has a separate, distinct mission. The primary difference between the LMC and the AMM is the A_MM's involvement with the Metropolitan Council and metropolitan issues. The LMC has no involvement with metropolitan type issues; the AMM constantly monitors the Council and its activities, alerts member cities of pending decisions or actions, and reacts as appropriate to protect the metropolitan cities' interests. The AMM is the only organization for cities that monitors the Metropolitan Council and other metropolitan agencies such as the Regional Parks and Open Space Commission and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The AMM has been successful through the years in influencing Metropolitan Council policy decisions. Metropolitan agencies leaders look first to the AMM for city input. http://vvvvvv.amm145.org/about_us/mission.htm 2/11/2004 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item II.b AMM's 2004 Policy Positions: (V) Transportation A. Transportation Funding B. Metropolitan Transportation Referendum C. Regional Transit System D. Transit Operating Subsidies E. Road Access Fee F. Transportation Utility G. Highway Turnbacks & Funding H. '3C Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role I. Red Light Cameras J. Airport Noise Mitigation K. Cities Under 5,000 Population L. County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula M. Municipal Input (Consent) for Trunk Highways Transportation & General Legislation Committee V-A Transportation Funding The AMM strongly supports increased funding for transit and highways, both of which are a critical need in the metropolitan area. In addition, funding for mass transit, including transit ways, light rail or heavy rail in existing corridors, should be dedicated in a manner consistent with current highway funding. Funds allocated to the metropolitan area should be flexible so that the most efficient and cost effective transportation solution may be chosen and the main metropolitan problem (congestion relief) can be addressed. The AMM supports a constitutional amendment dedicating the motor vehicle sales tax and/or other revenue source to a new Surface Transportation Multimodal Fund from which an appropriate amount is allocated to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund to replace the auto license tab fee reduction of 2000, and the remaining amount to be used for transit and/or highway needs as priority dictates. The AMM supports a general gas tax increase, gas tax indexing, and adequate funding for transit. All non-transportation programs should be funded from sources other than currently dedicated transportation funds. http://www.amm145.org/policies/transpolicy.htm 2/11/2004 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Page 2 of 5 V-B Metropolitan Transportation Referendum The AMM supports a metropolitan area referendum for an additional half-cent or full-cent sales tax to support major highway and transit needs in the metropolitan area, with the caveat that current state funding sources, amounts and percentages for the metropolitan area are maintained. Additional major funding is needed for the metropolitan transportation system over and above current sources and levels. This is due to projected population increases totalling nearly one million by 2030, congestion approaching grid lock, and the significantly greater cost of road construction in the metro area versus rural areas. V-C Regional Transit System The Twin Cities metropolitan area needs a multi-modal regional transit system that serves both commuters and the transit-dependent. The transit system should be composed of a mix of HOV lanes, express and regular route bus service, exclusive transit ways, light rail transit and commuter rail corridors designed to connect residential, employment, retail and entertainment centers. The system should be regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure routes of service that correspond to the region's changing travel patterns. In order to slow the growth in congestion and provide regional residents and visitors with a realistic alternative to the automobile, the regional transit system needs a funding source that is both stable and capable of growing with the region. The AMM is opposed to legislative directives that constrain the ability of metropolitan transit providers to provide a full range of transit services, including reverse-commute routes, suburb-to-suburb routes, transit hub feeder services or new, experimental services that may show a low rate of operating cost recovery from the fare box. V-D Transit Operating Subsidies The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is now expanding to include rail transit and dedicated busways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this system should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of individual cities and counties should not be singled out to fund the operation of specific transit lines or routes of service within this regional system. http://www.amm145.org/policies/transpolicy.htm 2/11/2004 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Page 3 of 5 V-E Road Access Fee In order to fairly provide for major street improvements of primary benefit to a particular subdivision development but not directly assessable and to allocate cost so that new growth pays its fair share, the legislature should authorize cities to establish, at their option, a road development access charge to be collected at the time that subdivisions are approved and/or at the time building permits are issued similar to park dedication fees. V-F Transportation Utility The AMM supports legislation to authorize cities to establish a transportation utility for street construction and reconstruction of aging infrastructure, similar to the existing storm water utility, so that costs of improved facilities can be more fairly charged to the users rather than the general population as a whole. V-G Highway Turnbacks Sr Funding The AMM supports jurisdictional reassignment or turnback of roads on a phased basis using functional classification and other appropriate criteria subject to a corresponding mechanism for adequate funding of roadway improvements and continuing maintenance. Cities do not have the financial capacity, other than significant property tax increases, to absorb the additional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing municipal turnback fund is not adequate based on contemplated turnbacks. V-H IC' Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role The AMM supports continuation of the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), a' majority of local elected officials membership on the TAB itself and the TAB process, which was developed to meet federal requirements for designation of the Metropolitan Council as the Metropolitan Planning Organization that is responsible for the continuous, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds among metropolitan area projects. This process requirement was reinforced by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the 1998 Transportation http://www.amm145.org/policies/transpolicy.htm 2/11/2004 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Page 4 of 5 Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). V-I Red Light Cameras The AMM requests legislative action authorizing utilization of motion imaging recording system technology for governmental units, including cities, on streets and highways to assist in the promotion of safety and traffic law enforcement. The technology has been proven and is currently used for law enforcement by numerous states, municipalities and other countries. At a minimum, the state should authorize a pilot project or projects on municipal streets in the metropolitan area. V-J Airport Noise Mitigation AMM supports noise abatement programs and expenditures designed to minimize the impacts of MAC-operated facilities on neighboring communities. The Metropolitan Airports Commission should determine the design and geographic reach of these programs only after a thorough public input process that considers the priorities and concerns of the impacted cities and their residents. The MAC and state should seek long-term solutions to fund the full mitigation package as adopted in 1996 for all homes in the 64-60 DNL impact area. Noise abatement efforts should be paid for by fees and charges collected from airport users, as well as state and federal funds. V-K Cities Under 5,000 Population Currently cities under 5,000 population receive no state funding or MSA funds for collector or arterial streets regardless of traffic volume, origination and/or destination. Current CSAH distribution to metropolitan counties is inadequate to provide for the needs of smaller cities in the metropolitan area. Criteria such as the number of average daily trips should be established in a small city local road improvement program for funding qualification and a distribution method devised. Possible funding sources include the five- percent set-aside account in the Highway User Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal accounts and/or state general fund. V-L County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula http://www.amm145.org/policies/transpolicy.htm 2/11/2004 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Page 5 of 5 The AMM supports modification of the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) distribution formula to more fairly account for total vehicle miles traveled on metropolitan county CSAH funded roads. Although only 10% of the CSAH roads are in the metro area they account for nearly 50% of the vehicle miles traveled. The metro counties receive less than 20% of the CSAH distribution and have instituted city cost participation, whereby cities are now forced to pay up to 45% of a CSAH road project cost in some areas. V-M Municipal Input (Consent) for Trunk Highways The previous municipal consent statute for trunk highways was unclear, allowed multiple sign-off times including just prior to bid letting and allowed project delay. MnDOT never invoked an appeal. The current statute, as totally re-written in 2001, provides for MnDOT to submit detailed plans with city cost estimates at a point one and a half to two years prior to bid letting, at which time public hearings are held for citizen/business/municipal input. If MnDOT does not concur with requested changes, MnDOT may appeal. Currently, that process would take a maximum of three and a half months and the results of the appeal board are binding on both the city and MnDOT. The AMM opposes any change to the current statute that would allow MnDOT to totally disregard the appeal board ruling for state trunk highways. The result of such a change would significantly minimize MnDOT's desire or need to negotiate in good faith with the city for appropriate project access and alignment. Plus it would make the public hearing and appeal process meaningless. http://www.amm145.org/policies/transpolicy.htm 2/11/2004 The Minnesota Transportation Alliance Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item II.c Agenda Item II.d The Minnesota Transportation Allianc( THE MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION Since 1893 Highways * Rail * Transit * Waterways * A HOME Home Become a Member Publications Legislative Action Become an Advocate Upcoming Meetings and Events The Minnesota Transportation Alliance has been advocating for transportati( nearly 110 years! Our mission: To coordinate and educate diverse groups statewide to effectively advocate for a safe, efficient transportation system for everyone. The Minnesota Transportation Alliance is a member-based not-for-profit coa groups, businesses, labor and local governments concerned about surface transportation in Minnesota, including highways, bridges, streets and interm( connections to transit, trucks, railroads, barges, ships and airports. The Allis believes that an effective transportation system is essential for Minnesota's ( competitiveness, social development and quality of life. It is critical that this transportation system be multi-modal and integrated and have long-range, a transportation funding. The Alliance is committed to taking a leadership role in addressing statewidE transportation issues. It will carry out this role by placing a high value on bui coalitions, maintaining a diverse membership and providing objective inform, Transportation Links Contact Us Visit our Interested in becoming an Alliance Sponsor? Call us at 651.659.0804 http://www.transportationalliance.com/ 2/11/2004 Transportation In Minnesota: What You Need to Know M A TRANSIIPORtTATIOlt MD* Mill Prepared by The Minnesota Transportation Alliance www.transportationalliance.com (651) 659-0804 INDEX I. THE ROLE OF TRANSPORTATION IN OUR STATE'S ECONOMY 2 II. MINNESOTA'S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 3 A. Moving People 3 1. Roads and Bridges 3 2. Transit 4 3. Air Travel 6 B. Moving Goods 6 1. Trucks 6 2. Freight Rail 7 3. Ports and Waterways 7 III. THE PROBLEM 7 IV. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING 10 A. Highways and Bridges 10 1. Constitutional Distribution of Funds 11 2. Statutory Distribution of Funds 12 3. Road and Bridge Funding Outside Dedicated State Funds 13 B. Transit Funding 15 V. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROPOSALS 17 A. Legislative Action/Inaction 17 B. The Magnitude of the Problem 18 C. A Transportation System for the 21st Century 19 D. The 2002 Legislative Session 21 E. Looking Toward the 2003 Legislative Session 22 1 "Today, transportation is an essential component of health care, education, employment, recreation, culture, maintenance of ties with family and friends... Transportation is what enables individuals to become participating, contributing members of society and what enables communities to work..."- Patricia Waller, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute L The Role of Transportation in Our State's Economy Mobility is critical to maintaining a healthy state economy. The movement of people and goods is fundamental to any kind of economic activity. Goods need to get to markets in order to be sold, workers need to get their jobs, customers need to be able to access markets and service providers. Transportation is the link that allows people to participate in the economy. It's analogous to the arteries in a human body. Arteries keep blood flowing and keep the body healthy. Clogged arteries (or arterials) can kill the state's economy just as they can lead to the demise of a human body. Businesses can't afford to have products or workers stuck in traffic. Today, the average Twin Cities driver wastes over 35 hours and over $1000 per year in traffic jams according to the Texas Transportation Institute's latest national mobility study. This is the "congestion tax" that Minnesota residents are currently paying. Investing in the state's transportation infrastructure will improve the state's economy by enhancing our mobility. In addition, transportation spending means increased economic activity and jobs. According to the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), transportation construction is a $160 billion per year U.S. industry employing 2.2 million Americans. Every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure generates more than $2 billion in economic activity throughout the economy, creating approximately 35,000-42,000 jobs. A 1999 Cambridge Systematics Study found that each $10 million invested in operating public transit yields $32 million in increased sales. Safety, a critical concern, is directly tied to transportation investments. Consider these statistics: • Each year in Minnesota about 600 people are killed and nearly 50,000 are injured in traffic accidents. • Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for persons age 1-34. • Traffic accidents cost the State of Minnesota an estimated $1.6 billion annually according to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. • With over 70% of total deaths occurring on rural roadways, it's pretty clear that improvements in roadways can make a big difference in the death toll from accidents. Transportation, along with education is one of the few duties of state government specifically prescribed in the State's Constitution. Chapter 14 of the State Constitution goes into great detail about how the state's highway funding system is to work. Building roads, bridges, dams, railroads and other transportation infrastructure represents a clear governmental responsibility. The bottom line is that a strong transportation system allows people to participate in their communities and the economy. From increased highway capacity that improves the flow of goods to market to public transit systems that allow seniors to live at home rather than in costly nursing homes, transportation keeps the state's economy strong and provides a high quality of life for its residents. 2 IL Minnesota's Transportation System Moving people and goods throughout the state requires a variety of modes and different types of infrastructure. We have a history of segmenting our transportation system and viewing each mode separately, and yet all the modes work together to form a system that works. Because of the impact of the transportation system on development, planners are now focusing more on particular corridors and thinking about what the best modes of transportation for a particular corridor may be and then how economic development and housing plans fit in with the plans for transportation. When making decisions about funding transportation projects, we need to look at the whole picture and consider the implications for development in the area. A. Moving People One of the primary functions of the transportation is, of course, moving people. People need to get to jobs, medical appointments, business meetings and conferences, events, tourist destinations, and family functions. Transportation is the glue that holds us together and either inhibits or enhances our quality of life. Currently, people rely on roads and bridges to drive to their destinations, air service to travel to other cities, or public transportation in the form of buses. With the Hiawatha Light Rail line scheduled to begin service in 2003, passenger rail will be another option for people to use. 1. Roads and Bridges Minnesota has approximately 131,000 miles of public roads. These roads are owned and operated by the state, counties, cities and townships. The table below lists each of the different roadway systems in Minnesota and provides information on the distribution of mileage and travel demand. This table is useful in comparing available funding and current needs among the different systems. Distribution of Mileage and Traffic, by Roadway System System 2000 Total Roadway Mileage Percent of Total 2000 Lane Miles Percent of Total 1999 Vehicle Miles Traveled (millions) Percent of Total Interstate/ State Trunk Highways 11,934 8.8% 28,977 10.5% 30,503 (18,872 TH) 59.8% (37% TH) County State Aid Highways 30,345 22.5% 61,591 22.2% 11,040 21.6% County Roads 15,054 11.1% 30,132 10.9% 1,029 2.0% Municipal State Aid Roads 2,696 2.0% 6,089 2.2% 4,018 7.9% Municipal Streets 15,567 11.6% 31,195 11.3% 3,308 6.5% Township and Others 59,481 44.0% 118,976 42.9% 1,106 2.2% Source: Mn/DOT State Aid for Local Transportation Group and Office of Traffic Engineering 3 The Interstate Highway System program, begun in the 1950s under the leadership of President Eisenhower, provided our state with substantial federal funding to build our major interstate freeways. That program was completed in the 1980s and the state now has the responsibility to maintain its portion of the interstate freeway system. Along with the Interstate System, the state's Trunk Highway System (created under Article 14 of the Minnesota Constitution) is under the management of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). MnDOT is responsible for constructing and maintaining the state's Trunk Highway System which contains the most heavily traveled roadways in the state. Counties are responsible for two systems of roadways: county state aid roads and county roads. Counties designate a portion of the roadways in their county to be part of the County State Aid Highway System (CSAH). This system of more heavily traveled roads is also created in Article 14 of the state's Constitution. The CSAH system receives funding from the Highway Trust Fund. The county road system is funded entirely through local property tax dollars. Most counties identify a specific levy for road and bridge purposes. The county road system consists of approximately 15,000 miles of roadway, 95 percent of which are in Greater Minnesota. The county road system is funded entirely through local property tax dollars. Most counties identify a specific levy for road and bridge purposes. Hennepin and Ramsey counties fund their county road system through the county general fund. Municipalities are also responsible for two systems of roadways: Municipal State Aid streets (MSA) and municipal streets. Like the counties, cities designate more heavily traveled streets as Municipal State Aid streets and municipalities receive state funding from the Highway Trust Fund for their MSA systems. However, not all cities are eligible for MSA funding. The state's Constitution limits MSA mileage to cities with a population of 5,000 or more. Townships also have jurisdiction over roadways in Minnesota. In fact, township roads are the largest class of roads in Minnesota and these roads are almost entirely in Greater Minnesota. Township roads are funded through local property tax dollars. Townships receive a small portion of their funding from the Highway Trust Fund. 2. Transit Greater Minnesota Bus Systems Transit in Minnesota consists exclusively of bus systems to date. MnDOT's office of Transit administers the state's Public Transit Assistance Program which funds bus service in the 80 counties outside the metropolitan area. In Greater Minnesota, bus service has a significant impact on local economies. Bus service is critical for many businesses in Greater Minnesota who are seeking workers for job openings. In addition, bus service brings people to shopping and other needed services. Without bus systems jobs would go unfilled and businesses would not be able to get as many customers in the door, constraining economic growth. Bus service also allows elderly people and people with disabilities to remain active and independent. Bus service brings people to medical appointments and other important destinations so they may not need to live in a nursing home or other assisted living setting. With nursing home care at about 4 $35,000 to $40,000 per year, bus service is a cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars. In 2000, Greater Minnesota transit provided almost 9 million rides. Bus systems in Greater Minnesota vary greatly from regular route bus service in larger urban areas such as St. Cloud and Duluth to Dial-A-Ride service in very rural areas that runs infrequently. For most residents in Greater Minnesota bus service is limited and is not able to meet the demand for service. While the majority of legislative districts have at least some public transit service, currently, 14 counties in Greater Minnesota do not have countywide service and 7 counties have no public transit at all. taxes being paid under the transit levy. Legislation allowed some communities to "opt-out" of the regional transit system and form their own community-based transit programs. These community-based programs were funded through transit property taxes generated within the community. However, as part of the property tax reform package passed during the 2001 Legislative Session, the authority for levying a transit property tax for operating purposes was revoked. Replacement revenue was provided through a shift of dollars from the revenue generated by the sales tax on motor vehicles. Communities may still levy a local tax to pay for transit capital expenses. Metropolitan Transit Bus Service The Metropolitan Council is responsible for administering transit programs in the seven- county metropolitan area. The Council's major transit activities include: developing and implementing transit policies and plans, administering contracts with public and private providers of transit services, conducting transit service needs For most residents in Greater Minnesota bus service is limited and is not able to meet the demand for service. assessments, operating the region's regular route service (Metro Transit), overseeing the operation of Metro Mobility (the regional paratransit service for people with disabilities) and promoting travel demand management and Minnesota Rideshare. In addition to Metro Transit and Metro Mobility, the Council provides financial assistance to a number of other services in the metropolitan area including small urban and rural paratransit systems, private operators of regular route systems and the suburban or "opt-out" systems. Opt-out transit systems were created in 1980 in response to concerns on the part of some suburban communities that the regional transit system was not supplying services commensurate with the level of property In 2000, metropolitan transit systems provided around 80 million rides. The Metropolitan Council projects that the population in the metropolitan area will increase by about 500,000 people by 2020, putting more pressure on the transit system. The Council has developed a plan entitled, "Transit 2020" to address the growing needs and has set a goal of doubling the current bus system over the next 20 years. • Passenger Rail The Hiawatha Light Rail line is scheduled to begin operating in 2003. This LRT line will run between downtown Minneapolis, the Mall of America and the International Airport along the Hiawatha corridor. Ridership is projected to be 19,300 per day in 2004 and 24,800 per day by 2020. Approximately half of the funding for the project came from the Federal Transit Administration, with the other half coming from the State of Minnesota, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority, and a federal grant for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality. The project is being built by MnDOT and will be operated by the Metropolitan Council. Proposals have been studied to construct "heavy" passenger rail lines such as the Northstar Commuter Rail line, a passenger 5 rail system that would take advantage of existing freight rail track to move people along the 194 corridor up to and perhaps beyond St. Cloud. This 82 mile corridor would run from Downtown Minneapolis along Trunk Highway 47 and 10 and is expected to carry 9,594 passengers per day upon opening and 10,829 by the year 2020. The line would have intermodal connections to bus transit and the Hiawatha Light Rail line. Proponents have worked to obtain state funding for this project to match federal funding that could be made available for this project but have not been successful to date. Other commuter rail lines under consideration are: the Red Rock Commuter Rail line, a 30 mile corridor from Hastings to Minneapolis through St. Paul along Trunk Highways 10 and 61; and the Rush Line, an 80 mile corridor extending from St. Paul through Rush City to Hinckley in Pine County. In addition to LRT and Commuter Rail, a Midwest High Speed Rail line is under consideration. This high speed line encompasses a 525 mile corridor from the Twin Cities to Chicago. The Minnesota portion of the line includes 130 miles in southeastern Minnesota from La Crescent to St. Paul. The plan for this system envisions the use of 3,000 miles of existing rail and the operation of a hub and spoke passenger rail system using trains operating at speeds up to 100 miles per hour. Nine Midwest states are involved in the project: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. This system could provide an alternative to air travel for Midwest travelers. 3. Air Travel There are over 13 million enplanements annually in Minnesota. Although most of these occur at the Minneapolis International Airport, Greater Minnesota also hosts commercial air service for travelers. Commercial flights are provided by major airlines through their commuter network. Scheduled service is available out of Bemidji, Brainerd, Chisholm-Hibbing, Duluth, Ely, Grand Rapids, International Falls, Rochester, St. Cloud and Thief River Falls. In addition, smaller airports handle cargo and private airplanes. In all, there are nearly 150 existing and planned airports identified in the Minnesota State System of Airports. MnDOT's Office of Aeronautics promotes general and commercial aviation including aircraft registration, airport development, aviation system planning, aviation education and government aircraft services. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) operates the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and six reliever airports. Created by the Minnesota Legislature in 1943, the MAC consists of 14 commissioners and a chairman. The MAC reports directly to the Legislature and the Governor. The Commission seeks to ensure safety and provide service and convenience to the flying public while maintaining financial strength and environmental protection. The MAC does not receive any funds from state or local taxes. The 2000 operating revenue of more than $150 million is derived entirely from user fees including facility rents, concession charges, parking fees and landing fees. B. Moving Goods 1. Trucks Truck transportation is essential to every goods-moving industry in Minnesota. Trucks deliver freight for 9,184 manufacturing companies, supply goods to 28,356 retail stores and stock 1,162 wholesale trade companies. Trucks supply goods to over 3,000 agriculture-related businesses and transport the produce and 6 products to market. Trucks carry 88% of all manufactured freight transported in Minnesota. The trucking industry also employs many Minnesota residents. In 1999, 196,645 people in Minnesota — or one out of every 11 workers — were employed in trucking occupations. 2. Freight Rail Minnesota's rail system consists of four major carriers known as Class I which operate on 2857 miles of rail lines in Minnesota. The Class I railroads (over $256.4 Million Annual Gross Operating Revenue) are: • Burlington Northern Santa Fe (1605 miles) • Union Pacific Railroad (503 miles) • CP Rail System (705 miles) • Canadian National Railways (44 miles) There are also six Class II carriers that total 856 miles. The Class II railroads (between $20.5-$256.4 Million Annual Gross Operating Revenue) that operate in Minnesota are: • Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (277 miles) • Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway (212 miles) • I & M Rail Link (196 miles) • Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Railroad, owned by Canadian National (155 miles) • Wisconsin Central (23 miles) • Red River Valley & Western Railroad (2 miles) Thirteen Class III carriers operate over 764 miles of line in Minnesota. There are 14 Class III railroads (less than $20.5 Million Annual Gross Operating Revenue). As of January 1, 2002, a total of 26 railroads, including 3 private lines that do not provide commercial freight service, operate on 4,544 miles of rail line in Minnesota. 3. Ports and Waterways Minnesota is served by two waterway systems: an inland river waterway and the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway. The Mississippi River system stretches over 231 miles in Minnesota. The river system supports 5 port areas (St. Paul, Savage, Winona, Minneapolis, Red Wing) whose combined 2001 transported tonnage was over 14 million tons. Minnesota's largest river tonnage commodities are agricultural products, namely corn, soybeans and wheat. Minnesota agriculture ships over 60% of its total agricultural exports down the Mississippi River. Minnesota has 4 ports (Duluth/Superior, Two Harbors, Taconite Harbor and Silver Bay) on Lake Superior whose combined transported tonnage in 2001 was 58.6 million tons. The taconite industry accounts for 54% of the annual total tonnage transported on Lake Superior. Minnesota benefits from waterway transportation because it is a low cost means of shipping bulk commodities over long distance. Shippers are also able to utilize this mode and save transportation costs when shipping freight that is not as time sensitive as some other freight commodities. III. THE PROBLEM Today we face a real transportation crisis. Years of neglecting to increase revenue to meet the need have left a backlog of projects that continue to languish. Congestion has become a serious problem for commuters, for businesses trying to get products through the metropolitan area and for the quality of life in Minnesota. In addition, the lack of investment in rural roadways has left too many two-lane highways that can't handle the growth, leaving dangerous conditions where too many people have lost their lives in traffic accidents. 7 Figure 2: Metro Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled and Population, 1970 Vehicle Miles Traveled 80,000,000 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Podulation 3,500,000 — 3,000,000 2020 — 2,500,000 — 2,000,000 — 1,500,000 — 1,000,000 — 500,000 Many highways in Greater Minnesota need improvements to reduce the safety risk and save lives. Safety is a critical issue for trunk highways 14, 8, 52, 55, and 7. Too many lives have been lost on these highways already and we can simply no longer ignore the problem. According to the Department of Public Safety, as of the end of the 2001 calendar year: • There were 98,984 traffic crashes • 568 people died • 42,223 people were injured in those crashes In addition, the total economic loss from 2001 traffic crashes in Minnesota was $1,619,010,900. As anyone who lives in Minnesota can tell you, transportation needs are growing dramatically. Congestion has become a real headache for both commuters and business owners. • The Texas Transportation Institute's annual report assessing highway congestion conditions in major metropolitan areas found that the Twin Cities area is tied with Atlanta for second place in the growth of congestion. • Minnesota commuters traveling during rush hour lose an average of 54 hours per year and lose over $1000 annually in lost time and wasted fuel. • 65% of freeway travel in the Twin Cities now occurs under congested conditions. • The number of freeway miles traveled daily • in the Twin Cities has grown by almost 30% from 1.8 million in 1990 to more than 2.4 million today. • Over that same period, the state has added only 75 miles of new freeway lanes. MnDOT engineers anticipate that congestion in urban areas will continue to increase, resulting in reduced travel speeds and longer commute times. Specific examples include: • Travel speeds on 1-94 between the Twin Cities and St. Cloud will eventually decrease to 55 mph. • Speeds on Highway 10 through Elk River will decrease by 9 mph. Speeds on Highway 169 between Rogers and Zimmerman will decrease by 12 mph. Changing demographics and land use development patterns in the state over the last 20 years have contributed substantially to increasing travel demands in Minnesota. These demands have far outpaced population growth and have led to a rapid depletion in the supply of roadway capacity, both in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and along roadways in Greater Minnesota. 8 Figure 21: Number and Deck Area of Local Bridges, By Age Group Number of Bridges —4—Deck Area (x 1,000 sq. ft.) 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Pre-1930 1930s 1940s 950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Decade Constructed These demands will only increase in the future. Projections indicate that the population of the Twin Cities will increase by one million residents in the next 20 years. Vehicle miles traveled will increase by 30% as two million additional vehicle trips are made per day. Traffic delay as a percentage of total travel time is expected to double from 1995 to 2020. Today there are more than 550,000 Minnesota residents who are 55 years and older. This population is expected to be about 750,000 in 2015. Yet, seven counties in Minnesota have transit service only in major cities while another seven have no transit service at all. Bridge needs are also growing. There remains a backlog of deficient state and local bridges across the state. We also face a "bubble" of additional deficient bridges in the near future as bridges built in the 1970s reach the end of their useful lives and need to be replaced. Given the lack of action by the legislature in 2002, MnDOT recently announced that it will need to defer or drop 163 transportation projects. The projects, valued at $1.6 billion, had been scheduled to begin between 2003 and 2012. MnDOT indicated that deferral was the only option because funding remains flat while the cost of construction and land continues to escalate. In fact, inflation rates for highway projects have risen 40 percent since the mid-1990s. Another lane is needed on our 494/694 "beltway" and currently that is not scheduled to be completed until after 2012. A new Highway 212 alignment has been in the works for the last 20 years and is not scheduled to begin construction until 2012. The project to separate I-35E and 1-694 commons area in Maplewood will face a three-year delay to 2008. The reconstruction and improvements on Highway 52 north of Rochester to St. Paul and Highway 14 between Rochester and Waseca will now be delayed by two years. A one-year delay is planned for widening parts of Highway 371 between Little Falls and Brainerd, a heavily traveled tourism route. The money simply is not available to get these projects done in a timely manner. The delays in construction will cost the state $360 million in inflation. On top of that, there will be an increase in cost to purchase land for new and expanded right- of-way. MnDOT recently announced that it will need to defer or drop 163 transportation projects. 9 License Tab Fees $466.4M General Fund Approp. $161.5M Gas Tax Revenue $608.4M 95% t. 5% County State Aid Highway Fund (CSAH) $60M Flexible Highway Account $32.5M Township Roads and Bridges $28.2M We often talk about the $1 billion/year transportation need. How did we get to that estimate? In 2001, the Transportation Policy Institute examined information available from MnDOT and other government sources to determine the level of need that exists. According to studies of road and bridge needs, the state needs to invest an additional $785 million for reconstruction and some capacity additions, while a study of transit needs indicates that an additional $189.4 million is needed. This adds up to $974.4 million or close to that $1 billion mark. When we compare to the needs to likely resources, you can see that the needs are significant and finding ways to meet these needs will not be easy. IV. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING A. Highways & Bridges Understanding how the current transportation funding system works is critical for decision makers who want to deal with this problem responsibly. For the FY2002-2003 biennium, an appropriation of $2,088,554,000 was made from the Trunk Highway Fund for state highways and bridges. The Trunk Highway Fund receives 62 percent of the revenue from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund also known as the Highway Trust Fund. Highway Funding in Minnesota FY2001 Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (HUTDF) $1214M Federal Aid $391M Driver's License Revenue $22.1M I Other $73.4M i7 Trunk Highway Fund $1236.5M County State Aid Highway Fund $327.6M Municipal State Aid Highway Fund $117.6M 62% 29% 9% 10 1. Constitutional Distribution of Funds Funding for Minnesota's Highway System comes mainly from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (HUTDF) established in Article 14 of the state's Constitution. Under Article 14, revenues from the state's motor fuel tax (gas tax) and motor vehicle registration tax (license tab fees) are dedicated and must be deposited in the HUTDF. Further, the Constitution requires that the money in the fund be used for "highway purposes" only. The Constitution also allows 5 percent of the total HUTDF revenues to be allocated "off the top" and apportioned among the three funds (trunk highway, county state aid and municipal state aid) according to a statutory formula that the legislature may establish and may change only once every six years. Article 14 provides a distribution formula for the remaining 95 percent of the revenue in the HUTDF or Highway Trust Fund: • 62% to the Trunk Highway Fund • 29% to the County State Aid (CSAH) fund • 9% to the Municipal State Aid (MSA) street fund for those cities with a population over 5,000. Many people mistakenly believe that revenue from the state's motor fuels tax is deposited into the state's General Fund and is used for general state purposes. It is not. All of the revenue has to be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, this funding cannot be used for transit or any other transportation mode other than highways and bridges. Another common misperception is that all of the revenue from the sales tax on motor vehicles (MVST) is dedicated to transportation. The state's Constitution does not dedicate this revenue to transportation, although the argument has been made for many years that the revenue from this sales tax is very similar to the motor vehicle registration tax and is basically another "user fee" that should be dedicated to transportation. Attempts have been made over the years to place a question on the ballot amending the state's Constitution to require that revenue from the motor vehicle sales tax also be deposited into the HUTDF. While these attempts were not successful, a statutory transfer of revenue from the MVST was passed by the Legislature in 1981. This legislation provided for a phased-in transfer of a percentage of revenues from the MVST to the HUTDF and to a new Transit Assistance Fund. Because the revenue from the MVST is not constitutionally dedicated to the HUTDF, the dollars do not have the same restriction on how they are spent and may be used for transit funding. While the original goal was to have 100 percent of the MVST transferred by 1990, the recession of the 1980s led to a reduction and eventual repeal of this transfer of MVST dollars from the General Fund. History of MVST Transfers Fiscal Year Original % to be Transferred Actual % Transferred 1984 25% 0% 1985 25% 25% 1986 50% 0% 1987 50% 0% 1988 75% 5% 1989 75% 25% 1990 100% 35% 1991 100% 30% 1992 and thereafter 100% 0% Source: Amy Vennewitz, Transportation Funding and Minnesota's Vehicle Registration Tax, February 9, 2000 11 • 53.5% Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (HUTDF) 95% 5% 62% 29% 9% 50% Population 50% Needs 10% Equal Municipal State Aid (MSA) Flexible Highway Account 46.5% Township Roads and Bridges County State Aid Fund (CSAH) • 10% Vehicle Registration 30% Mileage 50% Needs Trunk Highway Fund County State Aid Fund (CSAH) From 1991 to 2000, revenue from the MVST was deposited in the General Fund. During the 2000 Legislative Session, revenue from the MVST was transferred from the General Fund to the HUTDF after Governor Jesse Ventura proposed that the motor vehicle registration tax (license tab fees) be reduced significantly. Revenue to replace the dollars lost from the license tab fee cut came from a portion (32%) of the revenue generated by the motor vehicle sales tax 2. Statutory Distribution of Funds In addition to the funding distribution formula set out in the Minnesota Constitution, the legislature determines the distribution formulas for the County State Aid Fund (CSAH) and the Municipal State Aid Fund (MSA). Approximately $823,443 was appropriated from the CSAH fund for the FY2002- 2003 biennium while an appropriation of $216,296 was made from the MSA fund. The following chart shows the current statutory distribution of these funds: CSAH AND MSA DISTRIBUTION FORMULAS The intent of the state aid programs is to ensure that a secondary road system is adequately maintained so that all people in Minnesota have reasonable mobility and goods can be moved efficiently. The CSAH system is not fully paid for by state aid. Federal aid contributes to the system and county levies make up the rest of the funding. The current statutory distribution apportions the CASH funds: • 10% to all counties • 30% according to each county's proportional share • 10% based on each county's proportional of county state aid lane miles share of vehicle registrations • 50% on the basis on "needs." Need is defined as the cost of construction required to reconstruct all CSAH miles to meet full state aid design standards. 12 These preliminary apportionments are then adjusted by a Screening Board comprised of county highway engineers. During the 1996 Legislative Session, the formula was changed so that the mileage distribution is based on lane-miles rather than center-line miles. With a distribution formula that was created in 1957, ...the formula does not respond well concerns have arisen over the last 10-15 years about I to rapid change. whether or not the formula can keep up with changing demographics and provide adequate funding for quickly growing areas of the state. The factors in the formula do ensure that the funding distribution will change over time, but the formula does not respond well to rapid change. The current statutory distribution formula for municipal state aid (MSA) funds is: • 50% based on each eligible city's population • 50% based on each eligible city's needs 3. Road and Bridge Funding Outside Dedicated State Funds Although dedicated funding sources cannot be cut by the legislature during economic downturns or used for other purposes, they can also make it more difficult to obtain additional funding. Roads and bridges have long benefited from a stable, predictable source of funding in order to maintain an uninterrupted flow of projects. At the same time, legislatures have not always felt the need to deal with transportation funding because there is a dedicated trust fund for highways and bridges. With the lack of action to increase the rate of the taxes going into the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, the Fund has basically become a maintenance and preservation fund. With the division of resources throughout the state as prescribed by the state's Constitution, it becomes very difficult for any one MnDOT district to obtain enough funds to build large, expansion projects exclusively with dedicated funds. The state has looked to funding options outside of the current dedicated funds in order to find additional funding, or funding for specific purposes. Federal Funding Minnesota receives federal funds under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This is the transportation funding authorization legislation that sets the funding targets for a six-year timeframe. Funds are then appropriated each year to the states through the federal appropriations bills using the authorizing legislation to help determine the funding levels. TEA-21 builds on the substantial changes made to the federal funding program developed under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). ISTEA changed the way federal funding is distributed by increasing the involvement of local units of government and transit agencies in working with MnDOT to determine the priorities for spending federal dollars. ISTEA also allowed for "flexible" use of federal funds so that funds previously dedicated to highways could be used for transit capital and other transportation modes. TEA-21 maintains the programs established under ISTEA, dividing federal funding among: the National Highway System (3700 miles in Minnesota), the Surface Transportation Program (STP), bridge replacement and reconstruction, transit assistance programs, congestion mitigation and air quality programs (CMAQ), transportation enhancement programs and metropolitan planning organizations. Federal funding, which comes from the federal motor fuels tax, is distributed within the state through Area Transportation Partnerships (ATPs). The state is divided into eight regions, each with its own ATP, that are similar in geography to MnDOT's eight construction districts. Representatives from cities and counties, MnDOT, transit agencies and regional planning organizations serve on ATPs and work to prioritize transportation projects for each district. 13 Under TEA-21, all states, including Minnesota, are guaranteed a minimum share of the federal motor fuels tax revenue they collect and send to the federal government. In addition to the minimum guarantee, states receive formula funds, funds for high priority projects and allocated funds. TEA-21 will expire in FFY2003 and Congress will be working on its reauthorization. Bonding Road and bridge projects have also benefited from two types of bond funding: trunk highway bonds and transportation bonds. Trunk highway bond revenues may only be used for road and bridge construction on the trunk highway system. Payment of interest on these bonds must be paid out of the Trunk Highway Fund. MnDOT generally has found it more cost-effective to pay for construction costs with the current revenue in the Trunk Highway Fund rather than incurring debt; however, this view seems to be changing as construction inflation and right-of-way cost escalation continue to grow. Transportation bonds are backed by general fund revenues and are usually included in the capital bonding bill passed by the Legislature in even-year sessions. These bonds are used for such purposes as local bridge construction and the state rail rehabilitation program and may not be used on the Trunk Highway System. Transportation Revolving Loan Fund The federal government established a State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program in 1995 through the National Highway System Designation Act. A SIB is a state or multi-state fund that can be used by eligible borrowers to finance eligible transportation projects. Minnesota's SIB, known as the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TRLF), was established in 1997. The TRLF operates much like a commercial bank providing low interest loans to cities, counties, and other governmental entities for eligible transportation projects. When the loans are repaid, the funds are returned to the TRLF and used to finance additional transportation projects. The TRLF is an innovative finance tool that can be used to finance transportation projects that may not get financed through traditional transportation funding methods. The TRLF's benefits include: • Faster project completion resulting in cost- savings and improved transportation systems. • A variety of low-cost financing options. • The ability to fund additional projects as loans are repaid. • The attraction of new types of dollars for transportation use. • The generation of additional dollars for transportation purposes through leveraging. Local Road Improvement Program While not currently in existence, a Local Road Improvement Program has been proposed and discussed at the Legislature as a way to provide additional funds for important roadways that do not benefit from the current funding structure. The program would provide capital funding for the reconstruction and expansion of roadways that increase the capacity of the existing transportation systems to move people and goods. The program would focus primarily on: • Reconstruction of rural market arteries or farm-to-market connections • State aid roadways; reconstruction of state aid roads to add capacity or provide congestion relief • Support of local road improvements related to trunk highway reconstruction. 14 B. Transit Funding Transit systems in Minnesota receive their funding from a combination of fares, state general fund revenue, federal funding and local property taxes. The goal has been for fares to generate about one-third of the transit budget, with state, federal and local dollars making up the rest of the budget. This is a goal that has generally been met in the metropolitan area. In Greater Minnesota, the state requires a "local match" which can include all fare and service contract revenue, local tax levies and transfers from public funds. This local match varies from about 35 percent of total operating costs for smaller systems to 50 percent for large urbanized systems. 0 Sate cf Mrracia Prnual Rdget cf $25,000,033,033 o AMA Trarsit arigst $173,000,000 During the 2001 Legislative Session, Greater Minnesota transit received a total operating budget of $36,699,000 for the FY2002-2003 biennium while Metropolitan Area Transit received a total of $136,202,000 for operations. The total general fund appropriation for transit for the biennium was $172,901,000, out of a projected general fund budget of about $25,000,000,000. Transit funding for Metropolitan Area Transit continues to lag behind other larger cities. Transit in the Twin Cities area receives substantially less funding from state and local governments than peer transit systems. Transit Spending Per Capita Twin Cities Cincinnati Denver Average Baltimore Houston Cleveland Pittsburgh Portland Seattle $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 15 Most of the transit systems in other peer metropolitan areas rely on a local sales tax that is dedicated to transit. Sources of Funding for Public Transit in Peer Cities Region (Transit Organization) Local Sales Tax Other Sources Atlanta (MARTA) 1 cent Baltimore (MTA) State: Motor vehicle fuel tax, registration and administrative fees, corporate income tax Cleveland (RTA) 1 cent Local government contributions Dallas (DART) 1 cent Denver (RTA) 6/10 cent Houston (METRO) 1 cent Minneapolis/St. Paul (Metro Transit) Property tax and state funding Pittsburgh (PA Transit) State dedicated tax: (car rentals, leases, magazines, car sales, tires, public utility realty taxes) city dollars, general fund Portland, OR (Tri-Met) Regional payroll tax of 0.62% St. Louis (Bi-State Development) Y4 to 1/2 cent San Diego (MTS and others) 1/4 cent State Transit Assistance Fund San Jose (VTA) 1/2 cent Y4 cent state sales tax Seattle (METRO) 8/10 cent Source: Transit for Livable Communities Under TEA-21, Minnesota receives transit funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). These funds are allocated to the states on a formula basis for a number of programs including capital assistance, metropolitan planning, urbanized area operating and capital assistance, elderly and persons with disabilities programs, nonurbanized area formula program, transit planning and research program and rural transit providers. MnDOT is the designated recipient of federal funds for Greater Minnesota transit and the Metropolitan Council is the recipient of federal funds in the metropolitan area. Starting in the mid-1990s, Congress significantly reduced the amount of funding for transit operating assistance with a plan to ultimately eliminate operating assistance altogether. Today, only a small portion of transit operating dollars come from the 16 federal government leaving the state to make up for this loss of funding. The state has used General Obligation bonds to pay for some transit capital expenses, most notably, the state issued $100 million in state bonds to help pay for the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit line. State G.O. bonds can be used for transit capital projects such as bus garages, however, the purchase of new or replacement buses is not an eligible expense. The state has used money from the general fund to cover the cost of new buses. V. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROPOSALS While transportation was pretty much ignored during the 1980s and 1990s — viewed as boring, complicated and not a high priority with the public — today transportation has moved front and center. Poll after poll shows Minnesotans rank transportation high on the list of issues the legislature should address. D In a Poll conducted in January and February 2002 by Decision Resources of 626 Twin Cities metro-area likely voters (11-county metro: Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Washington, Dakota, Carver, Scott, Wright, Chisago, Isanti and Sherburne), more than 2/3 (70%) supported putting a referendum on the ballot pertaining to an increase in sales tax dedicated to highway improvements and public transit. • Further, 55% respondents in the 11 county metro-area indicated that given the opportunity to vote, they would support increasing the sales tax by one half percent, whereas 38% said they would not support it. • Ninety-one percent of metro-area Minnesotans consider congestion during weekday rush hours to be a serious issue. In fact, 52% of respondents think it is a very serious issue. • Fifty-eight percent would support an additional $15 billion of funding over the next 5 to 10 years for highway transit improvements to reduce traffic congestion. D Star Tribune Minnesota Poll taken February 23- 27, 2000 of 1,021 adults statewide found that 78% of state residents support building more highways and improving existing ones. Of respondents, 69% support commuter train service, 62% support more lanes for buses and 57% back construction of light rail in the Twin Cities. 45% said roads should be the top priority for public funds, while 4 in 10 view transit improvements as the number one priority for funding, D Metro State University Survey: 31% of metro area respondents to the Civic Confidence Survey said congestion is the area's most serious problem, while 15% cited crime. Of suburban respondents, 42% said congestion was their top concern, compared with 14% for crime. MnDOT Statewide Poll 89% of respondents in a survey conducted between October 25 and December 31, 2000 said that reducing traffic congestion should be a top priority for the Minnesota Legislature. More than 90% of respondents believed that traffic volume is growing throughout the state and that congestion is getting worse. 79% of metro residents said traffic congestion had changed in the past five year. 57% felt providing transportation ...reducing traffic congestion should be a top priority for the Minnesota Legislature. alternatives such as light rail or commuter rail should be a long-term priority. 66% find that the added stress associated with traffic congestion is more difficult to deal with than the added time of a commute. A. Legislative Action/Inaction As the transportation problem has become one that can no longer be ignored, elected officials and administrators have joined the public in expressing concern over the current state of our transportation system. The Ventura administration proposed a long-term funding plan that provided additional funding for roads and transit. However, that proposal was not supported by the Legislature during the 2000 Legislative Session. The Governor's proposal involved increasing the state's motor fuel tax and transferring revenue from the motor vehicle sales tax from the general fund to transportation funding. 17 Rather than support the Governor's funding plan, the 2000 transportation funding bill authorized a one-time allocation of $459 million for transportation projects from the state's general fund budget surplus. The Legislature directed MnDOT to spend the money by end of June, 2003. MnDOT reports that $240 million of this appropriation has been contracted or spent to date and $209 million will be contracted by June 30, 2003. MnDOT's current investment strategy focuses on the "Moving Minnesota" plan. Moving Minnesota is10-year investment strategy that focuses on three basic initiatives: Advantages for transit, Bottleneck removal and Corridor connections. These are the ABC's of the Department's investment plan. • Increasing transit advantages over driving alone, including a significant increase in Twin Cities bus service, light rail, commuter rail and busway transit connection and transit service to all Minnesota counties will provide travel options Minnesotans want and need. • Removing bottlenecks is a critical, cost- effective way to improve mobility and safety on urban highways and bridges. • Improving and protecting the important highway connections between Minnesota's regional trade centers will enhance the competitiveness and economic vitality of the state. B. The Magnitude of the Problem After so many years of inaction or minimal action on the part of elected leaders, (the state's gas tax has not been increased since 1988) the transportation system has become choked and is clearly not able to meet the growing needs. While population, vehicle miles traveled and economic development have grown, transportation revenues have remained relatively flat. The bottom line is that it will take an investment of $1 billion each year for the next 10 years to address the unmet needs. Minnesota Roadways, Bridges, Transit Summary of Estimated Annual Unmet Need by System Roadways and Bridges Estimated Annualized Unmet Need Trunk Highways $605 million CSAH $52.4 million MSA $20.8 million County Roads and Bridges $50.0 million City Roads and Bridges $27.6 million Township Roads & Bridges $29.2 million Subtotal $785 million Transit Operating and Capital (Immediate Need) $76 million Operating (Long-term) $110 million Capital (Long-term) $77 million Subtotal $263 million TOTAL Estimated Annual Needs $1,048 million Source: 2001 Road Transportation Needs Assessment Study and Transit Needs Report, Transportation Policy Institute 18 > Given the magnitude of the problem, the inability of the current Highway User Tax Distribution fund to pay for the backlog of projects, and the serious General Fund budget shortfall, the only practical way to address the transportation problem is to raise additional revenue. > While the efficient use of transportation dollars is always a concern and certainly can be improved upon, the magnitude of the problem is such that simply changing the way MnDOT does business will not solve the problem. > In addition, with the state facing a serious budget shortfall of over $2 billion, legislators will have an extremely difficult time trying to find money within the existing state budget to deal with the transportation problems we face. A combination of funding options will be needed in a transportation funding package that addresses the needs for all modes of transportation. C. A Transportation System for the 21st Century Elected leaders in Minnesota will need to expand and improve upon the existing transportation system if the state is to continue to grow and maintain a strong economy. In determining how best to provide the resources needed, state lawmakers should consider how to address these three areas for all modes of transportation: • Maintaining and preserving the state taxpayers' investment in the current transportation system; • Funding the backlog of projects that are ready to go (design work, environmental analysis etc. complete) and could easily be completed if additional money were available; • Providing long-term funding for the kind of transportation system we will need to accommodate 1 million more residents by 2020. A number of options for generating additional transportation revenue have been put forward over the years. The basic options for dealing with this problem are: Motor Fuel Taxes > Gas Tax Increase — Revenue from the state's gas tax is constitutionally dedicated to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund and an increase in the gas tax would provide additional revenue for both state and local roads. The state's gas tax has not been increased since 1988. Today's 20 cent per gallon gas tax is only worth about 13 cents in purchasing power due to inflation. Each 1 cent increase in the gas tax raises approximately $151 million in revenue. > Indexing of Gas Tax — Indexing the state's gas tax would mean that the gas tax would be increased to reflect increases in inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Again this option would provide additional revenue to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund and could be designated as a source of revenue to pay the interest on additional Trunk Highway bonding. Motor Vehicle Taxes > Increase the Motor Vehicle Registration Tax (License Tab Fees) — During the 2000 Legislative Session, license tab fees were significantly reduced, leaving a hole in the Highway User Tax Distribution fund of approximately $170 million/year. This hole was filled by transferring a portion (32%) of the revenue from the motor vehicle sales tax to the HUTDF. This transfer is statutory, therefore, future legislatures could lower this amount. An increase in the license tab fees would provide additional revenue for the HUTDF that is constitutionally dedicated and therefore would not be at risk of being reduced in the future. Options 19 include raising the rate or changing the current depreciation schedule so that the value of vehicles does not drop so quickly. D Mileage Tax — As alternative fuels for motor vehicles become more prevalent, discussions have been taking place about the need to replace the current motor fuels tax to ensure continued stable funding for transportation. One option would be to tax drivers based on the number of miles they travel regardless of the vehicle or fuel used. This would be a true "user fee" with advanced technology allowing the state to track the number of miles driven. However, this proposal is one that would have problems if adopted by Minnesota alone and would probably need to be a national policy. Sales Taxes D Dedicate Sales Tax on Motor Vehicles (MVST) to Transportation — As discussed earlier, the Legislature has already transferred 32 percent of the revenue from the motor vehicle sales tax to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund to replace lost funding from the license tab fee revenue and has transferred 22 percent of the MVST to transit assistance with an additional 2 percent scheduled to be transferred in 2004. While the intent of the legislature appears to be that these transfers from the General Fund should be permanent, future legislatures can change this. A number of bills have been put forward in recent years dedicating 100 percent of MVST to transportation. The Finance Depai tment's November, 2000 economic forecast reports that the sales tax on motor vehicles will generate $536 million in FY 2001. With 56 percent of MVST already statutorily dedicated to transportation, transferring the remaining 44 percent to transportation would mean a loss of about $235 million to the General Fund. Another related option for raising revenue would be to increase the sales tax on motor vehicles while transferring all or some portion of the revenue to transportation. > Metropolitan Area Sales Tax - Numerous proposals have been considered that would increase the general sales tax rate in the metropolitan area with the additional revenue generated dedicated to transportation. Some proposals have dedicated the revenue exclusively for transit funding in the metropolitan area. This is a common transit funding source for peer metropolitan areas and provides revenue that is not restricted in terms of how it may be used by the state's Constitution. During the 2002 Legislative Session, legislation was considered that would have increased the general sales tax in the metropolitan area by Y2 cent with the additional revenue dedicated to road and transit projects. > Statewide Sales Tax - Similar to the proposal to increase the sales tax in the metropolitan area, an increase in the general sales tax statewide could be implemented with the additional revenue generated dedicated to funding transportation projects around the state. > Sales tax on gasoline- Minnesota's general sales tax of 6.5% does not apply to sales of motor fuels. Some states apply their sales tax in addition to their gas taxes, and others allow local jurisdictions to levy sales taxes on motor fuels. Minnesota could expand the existing sales tax base to include sales of motor fuels. The principal reason for applying the sales tax to motor fuels rather than increasing the gas tax is that sales tax revenues may accrue to the General Fund or to another fund designated by the Legislature rather than to the HUTDF, providing more flexibility in how the funds could be spent. The 6.5% sales tax applied to motor fuels would raise approximately $292 million per year (assuming 3 billion gallons sold at $1.50 per gallon). The merits of applying the sales tax to motor fuels purchases are much the same as the merits of a gas tax increase. The sales tax has one structural advantage — sales tax revenues increase with the rate of inflation while gas tax revenues do not. 20 Constitutional Changes* *Changes to the state's Constitution require the approval of a majority of the voters. The legislature would need to approve the placing of language on the ballot to make the change and the voters would have to approve it. > Re-define "Highway Purpose" - The state's Constitution does not clearly define "highway purpose." Arguments have been made over the years as to whether or not the funding of other modes of transportation could be considered a "highway purpose" or whether or not the funding of the State Highway Patrol (which is funded out of the Trunk Highway Fund) fits the definition of a highway purpose. The courts have interpreted this language to mean the maintenance, preservation and construction of roads and bridges. Amending the state's Constitution to redefine this term would provide more flexibility in how dollars in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund could be spent. At the national level, federal gas tax dollars are used for both highways and transit. Similarly, the state could change the Constitution so that the motor fuel tax or registration tax could be used for other purposes. > Allow General Obligation Bonds to be Used for Highway Construction — Another restriction contained in the state's Constitution is one that prohibits the use of General Obligation bonds for state highway construction. G.O. bonds may be used for local road and bridge projects. While Trunk Highway bonds are available for state road construction projects, the debt service on these bonds must be paid out of the Trunk Highway Fund. Given that the Trunk Highway Fund is already underfunded, this would add another burden unless a new revenue sources were provided to pay the debt service. With General Obligation bonds, that problem would be avoided. Highway-Based Revenue Sources > Road Pricing or Congestion Pricing — This is an idea that has been used in other states whereby drivers are charged for their use of a particular roadway. Congestion pricing strategies are similar to toll facilities but focus on reducing congestion by discouraging drivers from using highways during peak times by charging a fee for the use of the road within certain timeframes. This idea has been discussed in Minnesota, but has not been well received by the public. Other Revenue Sources > Increased use of Trunk Highway bonds - Another option that has received more attention in the last few years is more aggressive use of Trunk Highway bonds. The rationale behind the proposal is that providing larger sums of capital up-front saves inflation costs and lowers the overall price of highway construction projects. The state saves money by avoiding increases such as right of way cost escalation and inflation increases on materials and labor by providing needed funding all at once rather than over the course of many years. D. The 2002 Legislative Session During the 2002 Legislative Session, transportation funding received more attention than it had it previous years thanks in large part to public concern over the issue. In addition, the transportation community was more organized, with business leaders joining in support of a funding package to relieve the problems many business owners face over the lack of mobility. Both the House and Senate passed transportation funding packages that advanced to a conference committee where members from both bodies 21 attempted to work out the differences a pass a final transportation funding package. However, a compromise could not be agreed upon by a majority of House and Senate conferees and therefore the session ended with no additional revenue for transportation While the 2002 Legislature failed to provide additional revenue to meet highway needs, transit funding was cut significantly. Greater Minnesota Transit's administrative budget was cut by $400,000 while Metro Transit operations was cut by $2.7 million. This means Metro Transit will need to cut over 30 bus routes. Rather than helping to solve the problem, this action simply makes the problem worse. The result will be a loss in bus ridership and more congestion on commuter routes. The proposals passed by the House and Senate to provide additional transportation revenue are summarized below: House Transportation Funding Proposal > Major Projects Account established > Bond sale authorization - $750 million in Trunk Highway bonds Senate Transportation Funding Proposal > Multimodal transportation fund established > Transfer of 10.8% of MVST to multimodal fund > Change in CSAH formula for new revenue from gas tax increase > 6 cent gas tax increase > Trunk Highway bonds issued - $1 billion over 10 years > 1/2 cent sales tax increase in metropolitan area to be deposited in Metropolitan Transportation Fund. Revenue in fund split 25% to Metropolitan Council for transit capital and 75% to MnDOT for highways. This tax increase is subject to a referendum. In addition to the proposals supported by the House and Senate, the Minnesota Transportation Coalition, an organization comprised of businesses, local chambers of commerce, labor, the highway construction industry, and transit and environmental groups, supported a compromise position between the House and Senate versions: Minnesota Transportation Coalition > Increase gas tax — 5 cent increase starting in FY2004, of which 3 cents would be used to pay debt financing on $150 million in Trunk Highway bonds for four years. > Change current transfer of 32 percent of MVST to Highway User Tax Distribution Fund to: o 23.75% transferred to HUTDF in FY04 and FY05 o 8.25% of MVST transferred to Multimodal Fund in FY04 and FY05 > Transfer of MVST to transportation would increase each year so that by FY2008, 100 percent of MVST would be transferred to transportation E. Looking Toward the 2003 Legislative Session Clearly, a transportation funding package needs to be passed and signed into law by the Governor in 2003. While the exact proposal will need to be developed in light of the circumstances and priorities of the state next year, the transportation community has reached a general consensus that the following funding principles should guide the legislature's work next session: Provide a balanced, long-term funding package that provides ongoing funding for both roads and transit; Include an increase in the motor fuels tax to provide additional revenue for the HUTDF; Consider a change in the depreciation schedule by which license tab fees are calculated to increase revenue into the HUTDF; Provide a stable, ongoing revenue source for transit operating assistance; • Maintain and consider expanding current MVST funding dedicated to transportation; • Increase the amount of bonding revenue used for transportation projects. 22 ALLIH111L MEMBERSHIP LEGISLATIVE UPDATE January 26, 2004 Page 1 of 2 lialk THE MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION Senator Steve Murphy Named Chair of Senate Transportation Committee Other committee changes part of Senate reorganization With new leadership in the Minnesota Senate, changes are also being made in the area of committees and committee chairs. The election of Dean Johnson (DFL-Willmar) to Senate Majority Leader left vacant the position of Senate Transportation Policy and Budget Division Chair. The DFL caucus has decided to fill that position by naming Senator Steve Murphy (DFL-Red Wing) Chair of the committee. Other changes were made that create new committees and newly appointed committee chairs: Senator Chuck Wiger (DFL-North St. Paul) to Elections Senator Linda Higgins (DFL-Minneapolis) to State and Local Government Operations Senator Jim Vickerman (DFL-Tracy) Agriculture and Gaming Senator John Hottinger (DFL-Mankato) Early Childhood Education Senator Linda Scheid (DFL-Brooklyn Park) Commerce Senator Ellen Anderson (DFL-St. Paul) Utilities Senator Murphy was first elected to the Senate in 1992. His district includes parts of Wabasha, Goodhue and Winona Counties. Senator Murphy has served on the Transportation Committee in the Senate for a number of years and served as Vice Chair of the committee during Senator Carol Flynn's tenure as Chair. Federal Transportation News FY2004 Transportation Appropriations Bill Sent to President The U.S. Senate passed the conference committee report previously passed in the House of Representatives on January 22nd. The bill now goes to the President for his signature. This long-awaited bill increases transportation investment levels and provides a number of earmarks for transportation projects in Minnesota. The bill provides $33.6 billion for highways, $3.4 billion for airport construction, and $7.3 billion for transit. Earmarks for Minnesota: • $75 million for Hiawatha Corridor Light Rail • $5.75 million for Northstar Commuter Rail • $4.4 million for Metro Transit • $3.75 million to complete Hwy. 610 between 1-94 and I-35W • $3 million for Northwest Bus Corridor in Hennepin County • $3 million for Lyndale Avenue Bridge spanning I- 494 in Richfield • $2.5 million for improvements at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport • $2 million for Stage Three Levee in Stillwater • $2 million for Phalen Boulevard in St. Paul • $2 million for Minnesota Valley Regional Rail Authority to upgrade track • $2 million for runway extension at Anoka County/Blaine Airport • $2 million for new busway for Cedar Avenue Transitways • $1.7 million for Central Corridor bus or rail link connecting St. Paul, Minneapolis and U of M • $1.2 million for Minnesota Guidestar system • $1.2 million for Hennepin County Community Works • $1 million for Falls to Falls Corridor in northern Minnesota • $1 million for 34th Street Corridor in Moorhead • $1 million for construction at Willmar Municipal Airport • $750,000 for Union Depot hub in St. Paul • $750,000 for Northwest Quadrant Project in St. Anthony • $700,000 to construct portions of Hwy. 212 and build an intersection at County Road 134 • $500,000 for Metropolitan Council's Job Access program • $500,000 for highway improvement near Cannon Falls • $300,000 for Hwy. 241 in St. Michael • $100,000 to replace three St. Cloud transit buses Page 2 Action Planned for TEA-21 Reauthorization With Congress back in session, leaders are working to make some progress on a new 6-year transportation authorization bill. The Senate Finance Committee is scheduled to act January 28th on a highway and transit program financing package for the Senate TEA-21 reauthorization bill (S1072). The Senate is expected to begin debating the bill February 2" with the goal of passing the bill by February 14th . The Senate plans to fund its bill at the FY2004 Senate Budget Resolution level of $311 billion ($255 billion for highways and $56 billion for transit), although details are still not available on how the committee plans to fund the package. The Senate Environment and Public Works leadership announced that their reauthorization plan would guarantee a 10 percent increase in federal highway authorization for all states and ensure a 95 percent return on Highway Trust Fund contributions to all states by 2009. The bill would authorize apportionments of $227 billion to the states and provide $28 billion in non-formula authorizations. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in tentatively planning on taking up its $375 billion reauthorization bill February 3-4. The measure could then be brought to the House floor during the second week of February. Some staffers believe that a goal of having a bill off the House floor by March 15th is a more realistic timetable. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has not decided on exactly how the bill will be funded and has not determined how individual highway and transit project earmarks will be handled in the bill. They could be inserted at the committee markup or added to the bill on the floor or included in the final conference committee report. The Bush Administration will release its FY2005 budget proposal February 2" which would include any modifications for the Administration's $247 billion SAFETEA bill. Mineta Tells Mayors Bush Administration Opposed to Funding Increase Options In a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta stated that the Bush Administration "will oppose virtually all of the plans floated to finance a bigger [reauthorization] bill." Mineta reportedly told the group that the Bush Administration's $247 billion SAFETEA proposal would be "the largest investment in highway and transit in the history of this great country." The president has laid out some principles for any reauthorization bill: no increase in gasoline taxes, no long-term bonding, and no impact on the deficit in the general fund. Senate Reauthorization Bill Expected to Include Ethanol Title Senate staff is reportedly ready to offer the ethanol title contained in the energy bill as an amendment to the highway and transit reauthorization bill that is expected to be on the Senate floor in February. The energy bill has stalled over the issue of a liability waiver for the gasoline additive MTBE. The ethanol title would guarantee that purchasers of ethanol will pay the full gas tax, making the Highway Trust Fund whole. The Highway Trust Fund changes, including the 2.5 cents transfer and the elimination of the partial exemption for ethanol-blended fuels would add approximately $830 million annually to the highway account revenues between FY2004 and FY2009. In addition, the 5.2 cents per gallon ethanol incentive would be changed to a credit against federal income tax which would come out of the general fund rather than the Highway Trust Fund. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this would add just over $1.6 billion annually to the highway account. THE MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE • 525 Park St., Ste. 105 Saint Paul, MN 55103 PHONE: 651/659-0804 • FAX: 651/659-9009 • E-MAIL: mdonahoe@transportationalliance.com Agenda Item III.a SRF No. 0983117 INTERSTATE 494 CITY OF ELOOMVAFITON CDY Of BLOOMINGTON INTERSTATE 494 A _ CaNOE Sr Lot_As j=Jj& .T i. As 6 t MINNESOTA vn 1 < BENTON AVE I - — r L --A — I (71 W. 60TH ST. W. byte St (61 W. 76TH ST. 111 01•11 - BLVD. EDINA IND. W. TIM ST. 1 mile 0 .25 .5 scale Exisdog — Concrete Sidewalk — Existing Sidewalk — Existing Park Pathway Proposed State-Aid Sidewalk Proposed — School-Business Sidewalk Proposed Corridors on Hennepin County System CITY OF HOPKINS 1 -1 -- I I .. Oot ( - --, o . 1 ON I 1 0 i ( MALEY AVE c 'C/ \ n n , ' I , IN TE RLACHEN BLVD, Al \ (11 h -W.EBTIEREL__ Figure 10 March 1999 Pedestrian! Bicycle Faci ities City of Edina Transportation Plan , \-:;---....;/ • 'irn l '6 ) Agenda Item III.b FUTURE SIDEWALK FINANCING POLICY CITY OF EDINA INTRODUCTION: The City of Edina is experiencing a need to review the financing of future sidewalks and pathways through-out the City. This need came about from recent requests for sidewalks along Maple Road and from Edina School District. This report covers a very aggressive future sidewalk plan and will be included in this year's City Comprehensive Plan. The following describes the thought-process and potential funding mechanisms for these future sidewalks and pathways. PURPOSE: Determine preliminary costs to install sidewalks and pathways within the City. Analyze potential financing policy to fund sidewalks. PROCESS: All sidewalk requests are and will continue to be "petition initiated" with the exception of State-Aid reconstruction routes. PROPOSED SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS: Currently sidewalks and pathways follow many collector and arterial streets within the City. City staff analyzed the existing pedestrian ways using the following criteria to propose new sidewalks and pathways: • Identify all existing sidewalks within the City. • Identify all retail business walking zones within the City. • Identify all park walking zones within the City. • Identify all public schools walking zones within the City. • Identify all public transit facilities within the City. • Identify all proposed State-Aid funded sidewalks. Edina School District currently uses a 0.7 mile walking zone policy for elementary schools and 1 mile walking zone for middle and senior high schools. Staff also used the 0.7 mile radius walking zones for all retail business centers, parks, and public elementary schools along with the one mile walking zone radius for middle and senior high schools. Sidewalks and pathways are proposed for both regional type loops and for destination type walks. The regional loops would allow a pedestrian to circle any one of the four quadrants of the City; typically these routes are found along State-Aid Streets. The destination type walks would allow a person living within any of the above walking zones to access these destinations from their residences. Sidewalks and pathways within the City are divided into the following four categories: State-Aid sidewalks and pathways are located adjacent to Municipal State- Aid Streets (MSAS) and are funded from MSAS funds. School Zone sidewalks and pathways are identified by the City and Edina School District and are located within the identified school walking zones. Page 1 09/18/98 Destination Zone sidewalks and pathways are typically located along roadways that are geographically a link between two existing systems and adjacent to a roadway that carries over 750 vehicles per day. Local / Low Volume Street Zone sidewalks and pathways are any sidewalks or pathways that do not meet any of the above definitions. FINANCING: Financing of the proposed sidewalks can be separated into four categories: 1. State-Aid Costs that cover any proposed sidewalk located adjacent to a State- Aid designated roadway. 2. Public School Zone Costs that will be split between City funds, School funds, and Special Property Assessments. 3. Destination Zone Costs that will be split between City funds and Special Property Assessments. 4. Local / Low Volume Street Zone Costs will be financed through Special Property Assessments. Special property assessment policy will be reviewed per each individual project. The City Council will have the discretion to order a project assessed on a per adjacent lot basis, per local area assessment, or a combination of both. City staff recommends the following percentages be used for financing these sidewalks and pathways. The Edina School District staff was given this information last July along with a proposed sidewalk - pathway map. However, due to the individual school Site Councils schedules City staff has not received their comments. STATE-AID COSTS ENTITY STATE-AID PERCENT OF COST 100 SCHOOL ZONE COSTS ENTITY PERCENT OF COST CITY 25 SCHOOL 25 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 50 DESTINATION ZONE COSTS ENTITY PERCENT OF COST CITY 25 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 75 LOCAL / LOW VOLUME STREET ZONE COSTS ENTITY PERCENT OF COST SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 100 Page 2 09/18/98 These percentages would translate into the following costs: ENTITY TOTAL COST 10-YR AVERAGE STATE-AID $2,261,000.00 $226,000.00 CITY $495,000.00 $50,000.00 SCHOOL $250,000.00 $25,000.00 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $1,114,000.00 $111,000.00 TOTAL $4120,000.00 $412,000.00 CONCLUSION: The City sidewalk funding policy entails a cost split for any proposed sidewalk that is located on a street with Average Daily Traffic of over 750 vehicles within the City. Any proposed sidewalk located on a State-Aid route will be financed through State-Aid financing. Any proposed sidewalk located within a public school walking zone will have a cost split between the Residences, School, and City. Page 3 09/18/98 0 25 100 , C.311 City of Edina Transportation Plan Figure 10 March 1999 Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Agenda Item III.c MUNICIPAL STATE AID SIDEWALK STUDY CITY OF EDINA Municipal State Aid Sidewalk Study February 14, 2003 (Revised January 27, 2004) PURPOSE: HISTORY: This report analyzes the adopted City of Edina Pedestrian / Bicycle Facilities, the existing Municipal State Aid (MSA) Sidewalk System, the missing MSA sidewalk segments, and proposed construction of the missing sidewalk segments. The City of Edina currently has over 32 miles of MSA and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) sidewalks. Many of the sidewalks and pathways in the City were constructed with adjacent developments and are missing critical sidewalk segments. The Edina City Council requested staff to analyze the missing segments along the MSA and CSAH roadways. The Comprehensive Sidewalk / Pathway Plan was updated in 1999 as part of the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan update, see plan below. This plan includes all existing sidewalks along with proposed MSA/CSAH sidewalks and also proposed local roadway sidewalks. City of Edina Missing Municipal State Aid Sidewalks lea"rAfrif ...vais a %am LI [ j 4114 Municipal State Aid Sidewalk Study February 14, 2003 (Revised January 27, 2004) Page 2 PROPOSED MSA SIDEWALKS: The proposed sidewalks provide safe pedestrian travel along roadways that cannot accommodate the mixing of pedestrian and vehicular movements. The proposed sidewalk system will add approximately 12 miles of sidewalks to the existing system. Many of these segments will require extensive boulevard work to construct the sidewalk or pathway; these sidewalks will also transverse many residential boulevards. The map below indicates the existing system and proposed MSA/CSAH sidewalks. Existing Bituminous Sidewalk Proposed State-Aid Sidewalk Existing Concrete Side,yalk Municipal State Aid Sheet Existing Park Pathway WE January, 2004 Figure 2: MISSING MUNICIPAL SIDEWALK SEGMENTS PrcexcedStre-AllSilewak AtISIRet 2:13? 2D3 City of Edina Proposed Municipal State Aid Sidewalks Programmed in Capital Improvement Program WE EigNe e dig Dept Jai 2004 1494 T;pe of Sidewalk OP PrognimmedYeer a 151 g a ttmliols 2E04 ktIgColcret Sklewsk 2DS IstIg Pak 2D5 Municipal State Aid Sidewalk Study February 14, 2003 (Revised January 27, 2004) Page 3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: A portion of the proposed sidewalk system can be constructed with programmed roadway projects as listed in the adopted 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), see Figure 3 below. The City's adopted Sidewalk Financing Policy requires initiation of sidewalks to be resident petition driven. However, the City Council may want staff to plan construction on some of the MSA/CSAH segments prior to receiving petitions. Fiqure 3: PROGRAMMED MSA SIDEWALKS Municipal State Aid Sidewalk Study February 14, 2003 (Revised January 27, 2004) Page 4 COSTS & FEASIBLITY: 2004-2008 MSA FUNDING: Staff has prepared a draft CIP for the non-programmed segments of the MSA/CSAH sidewalk system; see attached CIP. Average costs to construct all of the proposed MSA sidewalks is approximately $928,000 per year for the next six years; with the current level of MSA funding this is not feasible. The current CIP appropriates $110,000 to $ 50,000 a year for MSA sidewalks. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 BEGINNING BALANCE 2,835,540 1,559,540 986,540 980,540 1,057,540 YEAR EXPENDITURE 2,276,000 1,573,000 1,006,000 923,000 1,100,000 ENDING BALANCE 559,540 (13,460) (19,460) 57,540 (42,460) MSA FUNDING WITH PROPOSED SIDEWALKS: 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008 BEGINNING BALANCE 2,835,540 1,364,540 496,540 1,005,540 (367,460) YEAR EXPENDITURE 2,471,000 1,868,000 1,491,000 2,373,000 2,965,000 ENDING BALANCE 364,540 (503,460) (994,460) (1,367,460) (3,332,460) *This includes the potential Federal funding under the Transportation Enhancement Program. This program is competitive and is administered by the Metropolitan Council. MUNICIPAL STATE-AID SIDEWALK SYSTEM FULL BUILD 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Line No. PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 PUBLIC WORKS: MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECTS TOTAL COST TOTAL COST TOTAL COST TOTAL COST TOTAL COST 1 West 70th Street (@ Arneson Acres) $ 80,000.00 2 Hansen Road (Benton Ave to RR) $ 75,000.00 3 Wooddale Avenue (Garrison Ln to W 56th St) $ 225,000.00 4 West 62nd Street (W RD to France) $ 100,000.00 5 West 58th Street (Concord to France) $ 225,000.00 6 Blake Road (Lake Ridge to Interlachen) $ 200,000.00 7 Tracy Avenue (W RD to TH62) $ 60,000.00 8 Interlachen Blvd - Blake Rd (Vernon Ave to Hopkins) $ 1,500,000.00 9 Valley View Road (Benton to Wooddale) $ 160,000.00 10 Benton Ave (Hansen to TH100) $ 150,000.00 11 West 66th Street (Rdigedale to TH100) $ 110,000.00 12 West 54th Street (Wooddale to France) $ 150,000.00 13 Valley View Road (TH169 to Gleason) $ 375,000.00 14 Lincoln Drive (@ VanValkenburg Park) $ 80,000.00 15 Edina Industrial Boulevard (Bush Lake to Metro) $ 225,000.00 16 Minnesota Drive (Parklawn to France) $ 100,000.00 17 France Avenue (Minnesota to W 54th St) $ 825,000.00 TOTAL COSTS $ 305,000 $ 375,000 $ 545,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,915,000 Page 1 Agenda Item III.e Capital Improvement Program City of Edina, MN PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT 2004 ti mi 2008 Department Project# Priority 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Public Works Mill & Overlay: Benton Ave. (Hansen - Hwy 100) PW-00-004 0 90,000 90,000 Mill & Overlay: Dewey Hill Road (Gleason-Cahill) PW-00-005 0 51,000 51,000 Reconstruct: Valley View Rd (Wooddale - 64th ST) PW-00-008 0 1,480,000 1,480,000 Mill & Overlay: Valley Lane (Tracy - 66th) PW-00-009 0 160,000 160,000 Mill & Overlay: Vernon (Lincoln/London - Gleason) PW-00-010 0 78,000 78,000 Mill & Overlay: W. 50th St. (TH 100- Wooddale) PW-00-011 0 130,000 130,000 Reconstruct: 44th Ave. (TH 100 - France) PW-00-012 0 400,000 400,000 Mill & Overlay: Brookside (Interlachen - RR) PW-00-013 0 38,000 38,000 Reconstruct: Wooddale (Valley View-Tower Ave.) PW-00-014 0 520,000 520,000 Concrete Rehab: Tracy Ave. (Vernon - 1H62) PW-00-015 0 300,000 300,000 Concrete Rehab: W. 70th St. (TH100 - France) PW-00-017 0 283,000 283,000 Mill & Overlay: Wooddale Ave. (Tower- 50th St.) PW-00-018 0 130,000 130,000 ghborhood Street Recon. Program PW-00-026 0 1,800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 13,800,000 Street Lighting Highlands Area PW-00-027 0 50,000 50,000 Browndale Bridge PW-00-028 0 80,000 320,000 400,000 56th Street Bridge PW-00-029 0 250,000 250,000 Sidewalks/Pathways (MSA) PW-00-030 0 110,000 80,000 60,000 50,000 50,000 350,000 Sidewalks/Pathways: City Costs PW-00-031 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Concrete Rehab: Parklawn Ave. (France to W 77) PW-00-074 0 300,000 300,000 Reconstruct: W 70th St. & Metro Blvd. PW-01-010 0 150,000 350,000 500,000 Reconstruct: W. 62nd St. (Oaklawn - France) PW-01-011 0 300,000 300,000 Reconstruct: W. 54th St. (Wooddale to France) PW-01-012 0 600,000 600,000 Mill & Overlay: Eden Ave. (Vernon to Arcadia) PW-01-013 0 18,000 18,000 Mill & Overlay: Gleason Rd. (Valley View to TH62) PW-01-014 0 120,000 120,000 Reconstruct: W. 58th St. (Concord to France) PW-02-001 0 550,000 200,000 750,000 Reconstruct: Concord Ave (VVRD to Southview Ln) PW-02-002 0 500,000 500,000 Reconstruct: Southview Ln (TH100 to Concord) PW-02-003 0 400,000 400,000 Landscaping: W 54th St at Minnehaha Creek PW-02-005 0 65,000 65,000 Signals: W 50th St & Dale Ave PW-03-002 0 250,000 250,000 Mill & Overlay: Blake Rd (Vernon to Interlachen) PW-03-003 0 180,000 180,000 Mill & Overlay: Olinger Blvd (Vernon to Tracy) PW-03-004 0 170,000 170,000 Reconstruct: W 58th St (France to Xerxes) PW-03-005 0 200,000 200,000 Overlay: Eden Ave (Willson to W 50th) PW-03-006 0 30,000 30,000 Mi i a Overlay: W 50th St (Wooddale to France) PW-03-007 0 140,000 140,000 ,. Department Project# Priority 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Public Works Total 4,725,000 5,229,000 4,596,000 4,233,000 4,500,000 23,283,000 GRAND TOTAL 4,725,000 5,229,000 4,596,000 4,233,000 4,500,000 !3,283,000 MUNICIPAL STATE-AID SYSTEM 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Line No. PROJECT DESCRIPTION CIP No. FY 2003 2003 1 muting FY 2004 2004 ft ncling FY 2005 2005 funding FY 2006 2006 funding FY 2007 2007 funding FY 2008 1 2008 funding PUBLIC WORKS: MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECTS TOTAL COST MSAS ASS ESS M'T TOTAL COST MSAS ASSESSM'T TOTAL COST MSAS ASSES SMT TOTAL COST MSAS ASSESSIA'T TOTAL COST MSAS ASSESSM'T TOTAL COST 5 200,000.00 S 1,230,000.00 $ 1,430,000 1 MSAS 1 ASSESSM'T S 200,000.00 $ 1,230,000.00 $ 1,430,000 1 $ - 1 Reconstruct 77th Street (Parklawn - Hwy 100) 00-PW-001 2 Reconstruct 78th Street (Gleason - Soo Line RR) 00-PW-002 3 New: 78th Street (Braemar Frontage Road) 00-PW-003 4 Mill & Chmday:Benton Ave. (Hansen - Hwy 100) 00-PW-004 $ 34,000.00 $ 34,000.00 5 Mill & Overlay: Dewey Hill Road (Gleason-Cahill) 00-PW-005 $ 51,000.00 $ 51,000.00 6 Mill & Oveday: Valley View (TH100- Wooddale) 00-PW-007 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 7 ReconsbutValley View Rd (Wooddale - 65th St) 00-PW-008 $ 1,480,000.00 $ 1,180,000.00 $ 300,000.00 8 Mill & Overlay: Valley Lane (Tracy - 661h) 00-PW-009 $ 43,000.00 $ 43,000.00 9 Mill & Overlay: Vernon (Lincoln Dr. - Gleason) 00-PW-010 $ 78,000.00 $ 78,000.00 10 Mill 8, Overlay: W. 50th St (TH 100- France) 00-PW-011 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 11 Reconstruct 44th Ave. (TH 100- France) 00-PW-012 $ 400,000.00 $ 320,000.00 S 80,000.00 12 Mill & Overlay: Brookside (Interlachen - RR) 00-PW-013 $ 38,000.00 $ 38,000.00 13 Reconstruct Wooddale (Valley View-Tower Ave.) 00-PW-014 $ 480,000.00 S 384,000.00 $ 96,000.00 14 Concrete Rehab:Tracy Ave. (Vernon -1H62) 00-PW-015 $ 252,000.00 S 172,000.00 $ 80,000.00 15 Concrete Rehab: W. 70th St. (TH100 - France) 00-PW-017 $ 283,000.00 $ 203,000.00 $ 80,000.00 16 Mill & Overlay: Wooddale Ave. (Tower - 50th St) 00-PW-018 $ 54,000.00 $ 54,000.00 17 Signals: Computer Ave @ 77th St 00-PW-019 18 Signals: Edinborough Way @765 St 00-PW-020 $ 210,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 105,000.00 19 Signals: Gleason @ W. 78th St 00-PW-021 20 Signals: Parklawn @ 77th St 00-PW-022 21 Signals: Vernon @ Gleason 00-PW-023 22 Signals: Rehab: W. 77th St @ TH 100 00-PW-024 23 Signals, Rehab: TH 62 @ France Ave. 00-PW-025 $ 1,200,000.00 3 270,000.00 $ 930,000.00 24 Sidewalks/Pathways (MSA) 00-PW-030 $ 305,000.00 S 305,000.00 $ 305,000.00 $ 305,000.00 $ 375,000.00 $ 375,000.00 $ 545,000.00 $ 545,000.00 $ 1,506000.00 it#64144/4g4/4/4 25 Reconstruct Valley View Rd & TH62 00-PW-073 26 Concrete Rehab: Parklavm Ave. (France to W 77) 00-PW-074 300,000.00 S 240,000.00 $ 60,000.00 27 Signals: W 76th St & Yodc Ave 01-PW-005 $ 290,000.00 $ 290,000.00 28 Pedistrian Bridge - Valley Lane & W Rd 01-PW-008 $ 18,000.00 S 18,000.00 29 Reconstruct West 70th St & Metro Blvd. 01-PW-010 $ 500,000.00 5 420,000.00 $ 80,000.00 30 Reconstruct W. 62nd St (Oaklawn - France) 01-PW-011 $ 320,000.00 $ 264,000.00 $ 56,000.00 31 Mill & Overlay: Eden Ave. (Vernon to Arcadia) 01-PW-013 $ 18,000.00 5 18,000.00 32 Mill & Overlay: Gleason Rd. (Valley View to TH62) 01-PW-014 $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00 33 Reconstruct W. 58th St (Concord to France) 02-PW-001 $ 550,000-00 $ 440,000.00 5 110,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 50,000.00 34 Reconstruct Concord Ave (WRD to Southview Ln) 02-PW-002 $ 500,000.00 $ 400,000.00 S 100,000.00 35 Reconstruct Southview Ln (TH100 to Concord) 02-PW-003 $ 300,000.00 $ 340,000.00 5 60,000.00 36 Mill & Overlay: Blake Rd (lnterlachen to Hopkins) 02-PW-004 $ 120,000.00 S 120,000.00 TOTAL COSTS $ 2,600,000 $ 1,505,000 $ 1,095,000 $ 2,800,000 $ 2,324,000 $ 476,000 $ 1,620,000 $ 1,374,000 $ 246,000 $ 1,591,000 $ 1,501,000 $ 190,000 $ 2,283,000 $ 2,103,000 $ 180,000 1267439.29 BEGINNING BALANCE YEAR EXPENDITURE 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 $ 2,558,540 $ 2,053,540 $ 729,540 $ 355,540 $ (145,460) $ (1 248 460) $ 1,505,000 $ 2,324,000 $ 1,374,000 $ 1,501,000 $ 2,103,000 $ 1 ,430 ,000 ENDING BALANCE $ 1,053,540 $ (270,460) $ (644,460) $ (1,145,460) $ (2,248,460) $ (2,678,460) Page 1 Agenda Item IV City of Edina Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations May 6, 2003 Edina City Council action taken on May 6th, 2003: • Accepted Report. • Adopted Frame Work for looking at issues. • Requested staff to suggest composition of potential adhoc committee. Note: Council has not adopted Issue Areas Agenda Item V Edina Local Traffic Task Force Minority Report As a member of the Edina Local Traffic Task Force, present at all but one meeting, I did not vote for the Task Force's Findings and Recommendations report due to concerns about the Task Force process, through which this report was developed. Please find here a minority report, submitted for public record. My concerns focus on three areas of the Task Force process: • The process was rushed • The process was directed by a small group • Information requested was not provided My concerns also focus on language in the report that is misleading. The process was rushed The Task Force had seven meetings or approximately two hours each. The first three meetings were used to educate Task Force members about road classifications. The final two meeting were spent discussing the report. This left two meetings—or about four hours —to focus on local traffic issues. Six traffic issue areas were identified when ten were asked for, not because the group could not identify more, but because we ran out of time at that meeting. I raised the issue in an email to staff (with the chair and facilitator copied) of getting public comment on traffic issues. This issue was then presented to the group in the form of a conclusion: there was no need to seek public comment; the City Council could do that if they were interested. A list of issues/questions task force members raised that they wanted to be looked at was kept. As issues were addressed they were crossed off the list. Although the report had been written and finalized, at the final meeting, four issues had been crossed off the list and 12 had not been addressed. The process was directed The Task Force did not meet the objectives outlined by the City Council. We did not explicitly discuss or agree to not meeting the objectives. Rather, we followed a process laid out for us. 1 The group was allowed to consider information presented by staff and Task Force members based on their personal experiences. Additional requested information was not provided (see below). Formal consensus was, as a rule, not sought until sometime in the second to last meet- ing, after the report had been written. The recommendations and findings in the report were in a large part provided to the Task Force. They appeared in the report, in some cases, before they had even been discussed and, in other cases, before a consensus had been arrived at. As one Task Force member said, "I guess they're our recommendations because they're in the report. If we approve the report, then they're our recommendations." Investigation and more complete discussion of traffic issues was discouraged. I raised the issue in a meeting that the findings and recommendations were based on assump- tions and needed more study and was told (to paraphrase), "I don't think we need to do an engineering study of every traffic issue—that's beyond our expertise and not what we're called to do." Several times when Task Force members brought up ideas, the facilitator labeled them "solutions" and said we were not qualified to come up with solutions. Requested information was not provided I requested a list of traffic concerns the city had received calls about from citizens (speeding, needing stop signs, high volume, etc.). I was told the information existed, but was not provided it. I requested more information about plans for the Browndale bridge. Staff gave a verbal overview, but time was not provided to discuss the options and their impact on traffic in the neighborhood. Language in the report is misleading The Task Force report is fundamentally misleading in that the criteria for looking at traffic issues and the findings and recommendations were, for the most part, provided to the task force and consensus was not actively sought. The report also does not indicate what the task force did not do that a reasonable person could assume was done: • We did not meet the objectives outlined by the City Council • We, as a group, did not direct the process. • We did not consider public input. • We did not discuss or identify the impact of the recommendations. 2 The report says the Task Force studied and investigated traffic issues in Edina. Readers can reasonably assume from these words that we engaged in a more active and thor- ough process of looking at local traffic issues. These words are misleading. In May, the City Council accepted the report and adopted the framework for looking at traffic issues in Edina. A copy of the report has been given to members or the Traffic and Transportation Commission. It is my hope that they will take the points raised here into consideration when considering the Task Force's Finding and Recommendations. My thanks to the Council for giving me the opportunity to serve on this task force. My thanks also to fellow task force members for their sincere participation in the process and to City staff. All prove that Edina is a great place to live because of the people who live here and work on our behalf. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Janovy January 30, 2004 3