1 / 27

The Transportation Funding Gap

The Transportation Funding Gap. This is what you have heard. Twenty Year Funding Needs to Achieve Desired Outcomes ($ billions). Twenty Year Funding Needs to Achieve Desired Outcomes (20 Year Needs in $ billions) AFG = Annual Funding Gap.

susane
Download Presentation

The Transportation Funding Gap

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Transportation Funding Gap This is what you have heard.

  2. Twenty Year Funding Needs to Achieve Desired Outcomes($ billions)

  3. Twenty Year Funding Needs to Achieve Desired Outcomes(20 Year Needs in $ billions) AFG = Annual Funding Gap

  4. An Illustration of Various Transportation Funding Mechanisms and Projected Revenue Generating Capacity

  5. Motor Fuels Tax

  6. Motor Vehicle Registration Fees

  7. Motor Vehicle Sales Tax

  8. Sales Tax

  9. Alternative Transportation Financing

  10. Transportation Improvement Districts

  11. Anticipated Outcomes for Status Quo Scenario: State Highways • Interstates maintained at MAP-21 target • Principal arterials become 16% poor (1,300 miles) • Minor arterials become 42% poor (2,800 miles) by 2032 • Bridge condition is well under performance targets with 76% of bridges in good or satisfactory condition and 20% of bridges (647 bridges) in poor condition • Safety investments remain at current levels, traffic fatalities continue to decline • Metro congestion increases and reliability decreases systemwide, reliability and throughput increase at spot locations • Inter-regional corridors have limited delays, performance on a handful of major corridors continues to decline • Little money available for expansion, regional and local priorities, economic development, etc

  12. Anticipated Outcomes for Maintaining Current Performance Scenario: State Highways • Interstates maintained at MAP-21 target • Principal arterials become 6% poor by 2032 (454 miles) • Minor arterials become 11% poor by 2032 (741 miles) • Bridges at or near current performance targets • Traffic fatalities continue to decrease • Metro congestion increases slightly systemwide, reliability improves on future MnPASS corridors and at congestion management and safety HROI project locations • IRCs continue to meet performance target • Modest amount available for expansion, regional and local priorities, economic development, etc

  13. World Class/Economically Competitive System Scenario: State Highways • Interstates maintained at MAP-21 target • Principal arterials improve to less than 2% poor by 2032 (151 miles in poor condition) • Minor arterials improve to less than 3% poor by 2032 (202 miles in poor condition) • Bridge conditions meet targets of less than 2% poor and greater than 84% good and satisfactory • Safety investments remain at current levels, MnDOT meets Toward Zero Deaths fatality targets in future years • With capacity investments, metro congestion remains stable, reliability improves on MnPASS corridors and at HROI locations • Modest amount available for expansion, regional and local priorities, economic development, etc

  14. Greater Minnesota Transit Anticipated Outcomes • Maintaining current performance • Annual hours of service remain at projected 2013 level of 1.23 million hours • Some revenue is reserved from 2013 to 2022, then spent to maintain service as inflationary costs exceed revenue • Economically competitive/World class • Minnesota Statutes §174.24 • Meet 80% of transit needs by July 1, 2015 • Meet 90% of transit needs by July 1, 2025

  15. Freight RailAnticipated Outcomes • Rail Grade Crossing Improvement • Public cost share is 25% • Performance goal of 50% crossings with gates & signals = 2250 of 4500 crossings vs. 1500 (33%) currently • Assumes $250K per crossing for gates & signals • Assumes useful life of signal system is 25 years • Selected needs as identified in 2010 MN Statewide Rail Plan. • Statewide short line railroad track and structure upgrades to handle Class 1 286,000 lb. rail cars • Economic development projects include rail-served business parks, intermodal container, transload, etc

  16. Ports and Waterways Anticipated Outcomes • Port upgrades include reconstructing dock walls, warehouse rehabilitation, improving road and rail access, limited dredging, loading equipment, etc. • Appropriations over past five years have totaled $7.5 million = $1.5 million/year • Assumes twenty year needs of $90 million based on average annual needs as identified by the state’s port authorities

  17. Statewide AirportAnticipated Outcomes • Current System Maintained • Eliminates runway and taxiway extensions • No new airports • Funding priorities: safety, mobility, financial, operations, preservation • No new navigation (NextGEN) deployment • Economically Competitive/World Class

  18. Passenger Rail Anticipated Outcomes • Full build out of Phase 1 projects as a statewide system over twenty-year timeframe: • Twin Cities to Chicago -110 mph service • Twin Cities to Duluth -110 mph service • Twin Cities to Rochester -150 plus mph service • Twin Cities to St. Cloud, Moorhead -up to 90mph service • Twin Cities to Mankato -up to 90mph service • Twin Cities to Eau Claire -up to 90 mph service • 20-year capital cost estimate $4B - $5.1B for priority passenger and share freight rail improvements if built as a system, built as a series of individual unrelated projects the 20-yr. estimate is $4.5B - $5.7B. • Outcomes: • Between 4.1 to 6 million annual riders. • Annual operating subsidies of $41m - $95m are based on a farebox recovery of approximately 71% -49%. • Shared freight and passenger rail improvements • Best case scenario in terms of operations cost • Interstate/intrastate Pass. rail connection to economic centers • 2009 $26m in State G.O. Bonds • Phase 1 State Rail Plan projects implemented

  19. Metropolitan Area Transit Scenario 1 – Status Quo • Continue to operate the transit system that exists today and finish Central LRT and Cedar Stage 1 • System includes: • Existing bus and Metro Mobility service levels • Mandatory Metro Mobility (ADA) service increases • Hiawatha LRT • Northstar Commuter Rail • Central LRT starting in 2014 • Cedar Ave BRT Stage 1 starting in 2013

  20. Metropolitan Area Transit Anticipated Outcomes for Status Quo Scenario • Increased fares • Reduced service • Reduced ridership • Does not address growing demand • Service quality and customer satisfaction reduced

  21. Metropolitan Area Transit Scenario 2 – Maintain Current Performance • Regional growth requires more transit investments to maintain current mobility levels • System includes: • Scenario 1 service levels • Bus service expansion (0.5% growth / year) • Southwest LRT (SWLRT) • I-35W South BRT • Cedar Ave BRT Stage 2 • Three Arterial BRT corridors

  22. Metropolitan Area Transit Anticipated Outcomes for Maintaining Performance Scenario Expected Outcomes: • Positive results for residents • Addresses growing transit demand and makes progress toward doubling ridership by 2030 • New connections between home, school, work and entertainment • Positive results for businesses • Transit spurs economic development • Solid infrastructure attracts jobs & development

  23. Metropolitan Area TransitScenario 3 – Economic Competitiveness • Improved mobility levels for residents and businesses and enhanced regional economic competitiveness • System includes (conceptual example): • Scenario 1 and 2 service levels • Bus service expansion (1.0% total growth/year over status quo) • Two additional LRT (after SWLRT) • Six additional Arterial BRT corridors • Three additional Highway BRT/Managed Lane corridorsScenario 3 based on the transit vision in the Council's 2030 Transportation Policy Plan and the Program of Projects

  24. Metropolitan Area Transit Anticipated Outcomes for Economic Competitiveness Scenario • Positive results for residents • Addresses more growth in demand and doubling of ridership by 2030 • Significantly better connections between home, school, work and entertainment • Faster, cheaper transportation options that are safe and environmentally-friendly • Positive results for business • Additional 500,000 employees will have access to jobs via transit • Freight and logistics savings • Investments compete well with similar investments in peer regions • Positive result for all taxpayers: A return on investment (ROI) between $6.6 and $10.1 billion to 2030

  25. Metropolitan Area TransitScenario 4 – World Class • Accelerated transit investment program, sustained beyond 2030 • A more robust, balanced and comprehensive regional transit system • System includes (conceptual example): • Scenario 1, 2, and 3 service levels • Bus service expansion (1.5% total growth/year over status quo) • Three additional Arterial BRT corridors • Two additional rail lines • Two additional Highway BRT/Managed Lane corridors • Six streetcar lines

  26. Metropolitan Area Transit Anticipated Outcomes for World Class Scenario • Positive results for residents • Significantly address growth in demand and more than double ridership by 2030 • Extensive connections between home, school, work and entertainment • Additional faster, cheaper transportation options that are safe and environmentally-friendly • Positive results for business • Additional employees will have access to jobs via transit • Additional freight and logistics savings • Position the region to surpass investments in peer regions and further enhance regional competitiveness • Positive result for all taxpayers: an ROI between $10.7 and $16.5 billion in 2030

  27. Metropolitan Area Transit Summary • Scenario 1: results in service cuts and less mobility and leaves this region falling behind peers and losing competitiveness • Scenario 2: brings the region in line with existing conditions of competing peer regions • Scenarios 3 and 4: make the region competitive with peers and provide opportunities to attract additional investment

More Related