Twin Cities Metro Area Transportation system

Report
TWIN CITIES METRO
AREA TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
Transportation Funding Advisory Committee
June 2012
Metro Area Presentations
•
Transportation System Overview – Met Council
•
Transportation System Funding – Met Council
•
Transitway System Funding – CTIB
•
Return on Investment – Itasca Group
•
Congestion Pricing/MnPASS – MnDOT
2
Key Messages
•
•
•
•
Importance of transportation for regional
economic vitality
The metro area significance in state and national
context
Transportation vision: one system, multiple
modes working together
Building/funding a transportation system for the
21st century
3
Benefits of
Transportation
Investments
• Improved mobility
• Enhanced accessibility to markets and
•
•
resources
Accelerated productivity gains
Increased competitiveness
4
Minnesota’s Economy is Strong
• 5.3 million people (21st of 50 states)
• 2.68 million jobs (18th)
• $55K Median household income (12th)
• $270 billion annual gross domestic product
(GDP) (17th)
Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis
5
For Minnesota to Thrive,
Minneapolis-St. Paul Must Thrive
• 2.85 million people (54% of the state)
• 1.58 million jobs (62% of the state)
• $64K median household income
• $200 billion annual GDP
• Home to 19 Fortune 500 companies
Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis
6
Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area
is Important Nationally
• 16th largest metropolitan area population
• 13th largest metropolitan area GDP
• 15th largest road network (TTI)
• 16th largest transit ridership
• 17th most congested region
Sources: US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
National Transit Database, Texas Transportation Institute
7
Met Council’s Role in
Transportation Planning
• Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
in conjunction with Transportation
Advisory Board (TAB)
• Long-Range Transportation Policy Plan
• Regional transit operations
• Transit funding oversight
8
Met Council’s Role
in Shaping Development
• Metropolitan development guide
• Regional policy plans: transportation,
aviation, parks and water resources
• Regional forecast: population, employment
and households
• Local comprehensive plan review
9
Metropolitan Development Guide
• Promotes efficiency and
innovation in regional service
delivery
• Ensures effective stewardship
of resources
• Expands our multimodal
transportation system
10
Metro Area Population Growth
Total growth 2010-40: +893,000 (31%)
3,743,000
Millions
4
2,850,000
3
2
1
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012
2030
2040
11
Metro Area Employment Growth
Total growth 2010-40: +570,000 (37%)
2.5
2,118,000
Millions
2.0
1,548,000
1.5
1.0
0.5
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012
2030
2040
12
The Region Will Be Different in 2040
•
62% of new households will not have children
•
43% of regional residents will be non-white
•
50% of new households will
be one income
•
Senior population will
more than double
Sources: Met Council Regional Forecasts, 2012
13
We Need Flexible Transportation
•
Growing population means growing demand on
the transportation system
•
Changing demographics mean changing
transportation needs
•
Area residents want more options
– 40% suggest providing more transit
– 20% suggest building better roads
Sources: Met Council Residents Survey, 2007
14
METRO AREA
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
OVERVIEW
15
MnDOT/Met Council Partnership
• A common vision & priorities:
– Efficient use of limited
resources
– Preservation of existing system
– Congestion management to
preserve mobility
– One multi-modal
transportation system
16
Implementing Our
Shared Vision
Together
•
MnPASS Lanes
– I-394
– I-35W (UPA project)
•
•
•
•
Hiawatha LRT
Northstar Commuter Rail
Cedar Avenue BRT
Central Corridor LRT
17
Major Regional Trends (1960-2009)
• Growing and more decentralized region
• Major increases in transportation demand
• Very large highway capacity expansion
investments
• Modest transit capacity expansion
investments
18
Traffic Congestion is Growing
• Total annual delay
= 78.5 million
hours
• 2011 a.m.
Congestion
Sources: Texas Transportation Institute, 2011 Mobility Report
2011 MnDOT Congestion Report
19
Traffic Congestion is Growing
• Annual delay per
peak commuter =
45 hours
• 2011 p.m.
Congestion
Sources: Texas Transportation Institute, 2011 Mobility Report
2011 MnDOT Congestion Report
20
We Have Significant Challenges
to Regional Mobility
•
•
•
•
Aging system – need
for preservation
Growing highway
congestion
Over $40 B required
to “solve congestion”
Challenging
transportation
finances
21
Improving Mobility
A new policy direction
• A realistic, innovative, flexible, sustainable
and problem-focused investment direction:
– Preserve, manage and optimize existing highway
system
– Focus on managing traffic congestion
– Promote alternatives to driving alone
22
Improving Mobility
Managing Congestion
• MnDOT is a national leader in innovative
congestion management solutions
– 300 miles of bus-only shoulders
– Successful lower-cost/
high-benefit projects
– I-394, 35W MnPASS
(priced) lanes
23
Improving Mobility
Future Congestion Management
•
Use Active Traffic Management (ATM)
•
Construct lower-cost/high-benefit projects
•
Expand system of managed
(priced) lanes
•
Strategically expand capacity
24
Improving Mobility
Future Congestion Management
• Optimize highway investments to move
largest number of people, not cars
• Invest in transit
• Encourage alternatives to driving alone
• Promote transportation-efficient land use
25
Vision Beyond the Fiscally
Constrained Plan
• Highway Vision creates a $4+ billion
“reservoir of projects”
– Managed Lane Vision $1.5 B
– Lower-Cost/High-Benefit Projects $1-$1.5 B
– ATM Improvements $500 M
– Strategic Capacity Enhancements likely
exceed $1 B
26
Improving Mobility
Optimizing freight
•
•
“A safe, efficient, high-capacity
freight transportation system is
essential to the economic well
being of the region and the
state” (Council Policy Plan)
Primary metro freight issues:
– Freight congestion on highways
and railroads
– Volatile fuel costs
– Freight safety and security
– Aging infrastructure
27
Improving Mobility
Promoting Alternatives: Bikes and Peds
• Bicycling shows promise as option for
short trips
– Bicycling rate is up, yet barriers still exist
• Good pedestrian environment essential to
transit success
• Accessibility for persons with disabilities
28
Improving Mobility
Local + Regional Bike & Ped Systems
• Recommendations
– Connections to transit
– Removal of barriers
– Safety improvements
– Bike/pedestrian accommodations
on roadways
29
Improving Mobility
Aviation System
• MSP International
– 33.1 million
passengers
– 436,000 take-offs and
landings
– 135 non-stop markets
served
– 127 gates
– 3.2 million sq ft of
terminal space
• Reliever Airports
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
St. Paul Downtown
Anoka Co-Blaine
Flying Cloud
Crystal
South St. Paul
Airlake
Lake Elmo
Sources: Metropolitan Airports Commission
30
Transit: Critical to our 21st
Century Transportation System
•
Provides Mobility Options
•
Mitigates Congestion
•
Serves Transit-dependent Populations
•
Reduces Environmental Impact of
Transportation
•
Encourages Efficient Land
Development Patterns
31
Transit-Oriented Development
Examples
•
•
•
•
Housing
Commercial
Mixed-use
Institutional
32
Transit-Oriented Development
Examples
•
•
•
•
Housing
Commercial
Mixed-use
Institutional
33
Transit System Overview
• Light rail
• Commuter rail
• Over 200 regular
•
•
•
bus routes
8 regular route
providers
ADA & Dial-a-ride
Vanpool
34
Transit System Overview
2011 Transit Statistics
•
•
•
•
94 million rides
3.4 million service
hours
28% fare recovery
$2.94 subsidy per
passenger
Commuter
Rail
1%
Urbal
Local
67%
Light
Rail
12%
Other
2%
Express
14%
Suburb
Local
4%
Bus system accounts for 85%
of regional ridership
35
Ridership Trends
Millions
Annual Transit System Ridership
100
80
60
81
73
85
95
89
89
91
94
2009
2010
2011
67
40
20
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
High gas prices, economic stability
= Transit ridership growth
March - April,
2004: Transit
driver strike
2005:
First full
year of
light rail
Economic
Recession
Oct 2008: Base
fare increase of
$0.25
Beginning of
Economic Recovery
2010: First
full year of
commuter rail
36
Performance of the System Varies
Transit System Performance (2010 statistics)
Service Type
Subsidy per
Passenger
Urban Local
$2.53
Productivity
(Pass. per
Hour)
37.4
Fare
Recovery
Suburban Local
$4.58
15.2
17.1%
Express
$3.08
34.8
43.9%
Light Rail
$1.46
183.0
40.5%
Commuter Rail
$18.46
233.6
15.8%
Dial-a-ride/ADA*
$21.34
2.3
13.6%
26.6%
* Required by federal and state law
37
Our Transit System is Effective
2010 Productivity (Passengers per Hour)
37.1
Portland
Baltimore
San Diego
Twin Cities
Denver
Cleveland
Peer Average
Seattle
Pittsburgh
Milwaukee
St. Louis
Phoenix
Houston
Dallas
34.1
33.6
27.3
27.0
26.4
26.1
25.6
25.0
24.5
23.2
20.6
19.7
19.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sources: National Transit Database
30
35
40
38
Our Transit System is Efficient
2010 Fare Recovery Percentage
38%
San Diego
Twin Cities
Milwaukee
Seattle
Denver
Pittsburgh
Portland
Peer Average
Baltimore
Cleveland
St. Louis
Phoenix
Houston
Dallas
27.6%
27.4%
26.5%
25.5%
24.5%
24.3%
23.4%
23.2%
22.7%
21.7%
18.7%
17.9%
13.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Sources: National Transit Database
30%
35%
40%
39
Our Transit System is Cost-Effective
2010 Subsidy per Passenger Trip
$1.91
San Diego
Milwaukee
Portland
Twin Cities
Denver
Peer Average
Phoenix
Cleveland
St. Louis
Seattle
Houston
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Dallas
$0.00
$2.83
$2.90
$3.00
$3.00
$3.67
$3.82
$3.83
$3.89
$3.93
$3.93
$4.19
$4.23
$6.31
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
Sources: National Transit Database
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
40
Peer Region Comparisons
• Twin Cities regional transit system is…
– Productive, more so than many systems with
larger light rail systems
– Cost-effective, high fare recovery and
productive service results in a lower than
average subsidy per passenger
41
Transit: Not Just for Transit-dependent
• Most transit riders are
going to/from work or
school (80%)
• 2 of 3 transit rider
households have an
automobile available;
higher on rail service
Sources: Metro Transit Rider Survey, 2010
42
Park-and-ride Users Come From All
Over, Just Like Drivers
•
•
•
74% of users live in
regular route service
area
85% of users live in 7county metro area
Greater Minnesota
population centers
St. Cloud
Mankato
Rochester
Sources: Met Council Park-and-ride Survey, 2010
43
Transit Carries a Significant Portion
of People on the Freeways
Transit Riders as a
percent of Peak Hour
Person Throughput
• I-94 West
= 38%
• I-394
= 36%
• I-35W South = 34%
Sources: Met Council Ridership and MnDOT
44
Transit Carries a Significant Portion
of People on the Major Arterials
Transit Riders as a
percent of Daily
Person Throughput
• Nicollet Ave = 37%
• Lake Street = 19%
• W. Broadway = 28%
Major arterial impacts
examples
Buses
(<1-5%)
Cars
(95+%)
Roadway
Use
People
on
buses
(20-35%)
People
in cars
(6580%)
Person
Throughput
Sources: Met Council Ridership and MnDOT AADT
45
2030 Transit Vision
Double ridership between 2003 and 2030 by:
– Maintaining and expanding the region’s base
bus system
– Building a network of rail and bus transitways
– Providing a mix of services by the markets
where they are most efficient and effective
46
Millions
Goal: Double Transit Ridership
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2002
2006
2010
Bus
2014
Rail
2018
2022
2026
2030
Ridership Goal
47
Bus System
Expansion Plans
• Local bus
– Increased frequency, span of service,
coverage
– Improved quality and speed of service
• Express bus
– Increase service on existing routes to meet
demand
– Add service to new park & rides
48
What is a Transitway?
• Fast, reliable transit services with an
improved passenger experience on highdemand corridors
– Light rail transit (LRT) / busway
– Commuter rail
– Highway bus rapid transit (BRT)
– Arterial BRT
• Promotes transit-oriented development
49
Transitways
in the Vision
50
Transitways Status
•
•
•
I-394 MnPASS Lane - Operation
Hiawatha LRT (Blue Line) – Operation
Northstar Commuter Rail – Operation
•
•
Cedar Ave BRT (Red Line) – Construction
Central LRT (Green Line) – Construction
•
•
Southwest LRT (Green Line Ext.) – Design
I-35W MnPASS/BRT (Orange Line) – Design
51
Arterial BRT Transitways
• 11 study
corridors, 95
route miles
• 86,000 daily rides
today
• 450,000 people
and 460,000 jobs
within ½ mile
52
Estimated Travel Time Savings
from Arterial BRT
60
58 Minutes
50
13
41 Minutes
40
9
5
18
30
20
10
0
Arterial BRT:
17 minutes (29%) faster
Red
Light
Boarding
27
27
18 Buses:
18 Buses:
8 trips/hour
11 trips/hour
each direction
each direction
Current
Moving
Arterial BRT
Based on Afternoon Peak Period, Route 18 NB, American Blvd to
5th/Nicollet and Concept Plans
53
Advantages of New Arterial BRT
Weekday Ridership
• Service improvements
will help meet growing
demand
140,000
120,000
100,000
• With Arterial BRT,
corridor ridership will
nearly double
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2010
2030 with
Arterial BRT
54
Arterial BRT Cost
Arterial BRT
•
$3-4 million average
capital cost per mile
•
$3.6 million per
year/corridor average
operating cost increase
Average Corridor: $31 Million
Contingency $3M
Engineering $4M
Vehicles
$10M
Stations and Signals
$14M
– Added service (2030
Service Plans),
maintenance of stations
and features
– Offset by increased
revenue
55
METRO AREA
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
OVERVIEW
56
Key Funding Messages
• Public sector invested $4.8 billion
in 2011 on roads and transit
• Complicated funding structure
• Maintaining the transportation
system is a large and growing cost
• Not enough resources available to
expand for increasing demand and
mobility needs
57
Statewide Road and Transit Funding
Sources
Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011)
Transit
18%
Roads
82%
58
Statewide Road and Transit Funding
Sources
Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011)
Transit
18%
Gas Tax
18%
Vehicle Registration
Tax
12%
Road Property Tax
28%
MVST
7%
Transit = 18%
Roads = 82%
Other
Road
1%
Federal Highway
16%
59
Statewide Road and Transit Funding
Sources
Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011)
Sales Tax (CTIB)
2%
State GF + Bonds
1.5%
Fares
Transit
3% Federal
MVST
Transit 5%
5%
Gas Tax
18%
Transit Property Tax
1.5%
Vehicle Registration
Tax
12%
Road Property Tax
28%
MVST
7%
Transit = 18%
Roads = 82%
Other
Road
1%
Federal Highway
16%
60
Statewide Road and Transit Funding
Uses
Total - $4.8 Billion (Est. 2011)
Metro Area Transit New Starts Projects
5%
Capital
3%
Metro Area Transit
Operations
8%
State Construction
Greater MN
16%
Transit
2%
State Operations &
Other
13%
48%
Transit = 18%
Roads = 82%
City
Roads
24%
33%
Debt
2%
State Patrol
2%
DNR/Collections
1%
Township
Roads
3%
County
Roads
21%
61
Metropolitan Road and Transit
Funding Sources
Total - $2.5 B (Est. 2011)
Transit
32%
Roads
68%
62
Metropolitan Road and Transit
Funding Sources
Total - $2.5 B (Est. 2011)
Federal
Transit
8%
Transit
MVST
8%
Gas Tax
15%
Fares
6%
Sales Tax (CTIB)
4%
Vehicle
Registration Tax
10%
State GF + Bonds
3%
MVST
5%
Federal Highway
13%
Transit Property Tax
3%
Transit = 32%
Road Property Tax
25%
Roads = 68%
63
Metropolitan Road and Transit
Funding Uses
Total - $2.5 B (Est. 2011)
Metro Area Transit
Capital
6%
New Starts
Projects
10%
State Operations
& Other
10%
Metro Area Transit
Operations
16%
Transit = 32%
Roads = 68%
State Construction
14%
City
Roads
27%
Debt
1%
State Patrol
2%
DNR/Collections
1%
County
Roads
13%
Township
Roads
<1%
64
Metro Investment Plan 2011-2020
STIP 2011-14
(in millions)
Regional and
Community
Priorities
$39.7
Traveler
Safety
$77.9
Right of Way,
Design,
Project
Delivery
$201.6
Regional and
Community Right of Way,
Traveler
Design,
Priorities
Safety
Project
$12.6
$105
Delivery
$180.0
Mobility
Improvements
, $250.9
Mobility
Improvements
, $285.3
Includes
bridge
bonding
authorized
in 2008
Planned Investments
2015-20 (in millions)
Preservation,
$888.7
Average: $373 M annual
Total: $1.5 Billion
Preservation,
$961.1
Average: $252 M annual
Total: $1.5 Billion
65
Major Roadway Project Examples
• St. Croix Bridge Replacement - $571-$676
•
•
•
M ($315-371 M Minnesota Share)
I-35W/TH62 Crosstown - $288 M
I-494/Hwy 169 Interchange - $125 M
Lafayette Bridge Replacement - $130 M
• 1-2 projects can equal annual MnDOT
metro district funding
66
Metro Area Transit Operations
2011 Operating Expenses: $384M
Sources
Expenses
MVST
52%
Other
3%
Metro
Transit
Bus
63%
Other
2%
CTIB/
Counties
5%
Fares
28%
State
GF
9%
Federal
3%
Suburban
Providers
9%
Contracted
Route
3%
Dial-a-Ride
2%
Metro
LRT
Mobility
Northstar 7%
10%
4%
67
Transit Operating Funding
Issues
• Current system preservation
– Volatility/uncertainty of MVST revenue
– Fare revenue limitations
– General fund decline
• Existing funding levels do not allow for
•
system expansion (either bus or rail)
State share of rail operation uncertain
68
Forecasted Statewide MVST Revenues
660
663.1
621.2
620
591.0
In Millions
580
605.6
593.8
540
560.3
556.8
537.8 532.3
500
512.7
460
441.8
420
380
'03
'04
'05
'06
'2/05
'07
453.1
'08 '09 '10 '11
State Fiscal Year
'2/12
'12
'13
'14
'15
Actual
69
Transit Capital Spending
•
$140-$160 M annually (excluding new construction
of major transitways)
•
•
Spending primarily for preservation of the
system
Major transitway construction can more than
double annual capital spending, i.e. Central Corridor
will average $200+ M per year
70
Transit with CCLRT and SWLRT
2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan: $2.59 B
Uses by Category
Transitways
73%
Uses by Objective
Facilities
8%
Transitways
73%
Technology &
Equipment
3%
Fleet
16%
Sources
Preserve
21%
State
6%
Federal
58%
Expand
6%
CTIB
19%
Other
6%
Regional
Borrowing
11%
71
Transit without CCLRT and SWLRT
2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan: $824 M
Uses by Category
Uses by Objective
Facilities
24%
Transitways
17%
Transitways
16%
Preserve
66%
Technology &
Equipment
10%
Expand
18%
Sources
Fleet
49%
State
5%
Other
2%
Federal
59%
Regional
Borrowing
34%
72
Transit Capital Funding Issues
•
•
•
•
•
Lack a funding source to expand base bus
system
Regional capital bond fund for preservation
dependent on legislative authorization
Federal funding levels uncertain
CTIB funds provide for some transitway
expansion
State capital share of transitway funding
uncertain
73
Metro Area Transportation
System – In Summary
•
•
•
•
Transportation system is important for economic
development and vitality
Growing transportation demand and
preservation needs
Region has a vision to develop a multimodal
system
Existing funding levels cannot meet the growing
needs
74

similar documents