Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities INFORMATION ITEM. DATE: July 12, 2018

Similar documents
ACTION TRANSMITTAL No

Transportation Planning

Chapter 4: Regional Transportation Finance

Study of the Metropolitan Area Fiscal Disparities Program

Business Item No

REGION 7W DESCRIPTION. Demographics

METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SUMMARY BUDGET-BY FUND TYPE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 2007

Twin Cities Minnesota Economic and Business Conditions Report - Third Quarter 2016

Twin Cities Minnesota Economic and Business Conditions Report, Second Quarter 2014

Twin Cities Area Economic and Business Conditions Report Second Quarter 2018

ACTION TRANSMITTAL No

Twin Cities Area Economic and Business Conditions Report Third Quarter 2017

Twin Cities Area Economic and Business Conditions Report - Second Quarter 2015

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND. Update of Previous Planning Work. Plan Development Process. Public Involvement and Review Process

Metropolitan Area Economic and Business Conditions Report First Quarter 2014

Transportation Finance Overview. Presentation Contents

Twin Cities Area Economic and Business Conditions Report Second Quarter 2017

Twin Cities Area Economic and Business Conditions Report Fourth Quarter 2017

Twin Cities Area Economic and Business Conditions Report Fourth Quarter 2014

Twin Cities Area Economic and Business Conditions Report First Quarter 2018

Twin Cities Area Economic and Business Conditions Report First Quarter 2017

Chapter 10 Equity and Environmental Justice

Residential Foreclosures in Minnesota

ACTION TRANSMITTAL No

for higher-income residents to become regular users of transit. In other words, the carsharing connection would provide them with mobility insurance.

A collaboration among: The Distribution of Transportation Costs in the Twin Cities Region

Appendix C-5 Environmental Justice and Title VI Analysis Methodology

Metropolitan Council 2013 Operating Budget and Capital Program

Regional Transit System Return on Investment Assessment. November 30, 2012

Chapter 3: Regional Transportation Finance

Minnesota State Colleges & Universities

METROPOLITAN EMERGENCY SERVICES BOARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR ACTUARIAL SERVICES DUE DATE: MAY 18, 2018

Target Formula Re-evaluation

Financial Statement Audit Year Ended December 31, 2007

Guideway Status Report

Residential Foreclosures in Minnesota

Transportation Finance: An Overview

MINNESOTA BUSINESS SNAPSHOT

SFY 2018 (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018) Annual Report

Minnesota State Colleges Universities. For the year ended June 30, 2011

Technical Appendix. FDOT 2040 Revenue Forecast

House Bill 20 Implementation. House Select Committee on Transportation Planning Tuesday, August 30, 2016, 1:00 P.M. Capitol Extension E2.

2018 Annual Report of the Emerging Entrepreneur Loan Program

8.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Corridors of Commerce DRAFT Scoring and Prioritization Process. Patrick Weidemann Director of Capital Planning and Programming November 1, 2017

10 Financial Analysis

Northeast Minnesota Economic and Business Conditions Report Third Quarter 2015

Transit Financial Activity Review

System Development Charge Methodology

Mass Transit Return on Investment

Disclaimer. This online document has been formatted for two-sided printing.

2017 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND HB 20 IMPLEMENTATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Today s agenda. Itasca Project introduction Transit ROI objectives Results of analysis Comments from business leaders Conclusion

Minnesota Transportation Funding Redistribution ( ) Who Contributes More, Who Receives More?

Residential Homestead Property Tax Burden Report

City of Grand Forks Staff Report

Chapter 7. Future Network and Implementation

Residential Homestead Property Tax Burden Report

2040 Plan Update. Land Use Advisory Committee March 16, 2017

2017 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND HB 20 IMPLEMENTATION

JACKSONVILLE URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM AMENDMENT 1 FISCAL YEAR 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Regional Transit System: Return on Investment Assessment. October 2012

Regional Equity Analysis Of Current Funding (Highway STIP and CIP) Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council

Pasco County, Florida. Multi-Modal Mobility Fee 2018 Update Study

CHAPTER 2: SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

Sports Stadium Funding: A Summary of Actions by the 2006 Legislature

MN Transportation Finance Redistribution Who Contributes More, Who Receives More?

Consortium of MnPALS Libraries FY 2017 PALS User Fees

Transportation Committee

The ROI of increased investment in regional transit. William Schroeer

End-of-Session Update

TEX Rail Fort Worth, Texas Project Development (Rating Assigned November 2012)

Data Book. Wilder Research. Prepared by: Anna Bartholomay, Ryan Evans, Nicole MartinRogers, Ph.D. Information. Insight. Impact.

APPENDIX FOR THE METROPOLITAN LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Forecast of State and Federal Revenues for Statewide and Metropolitan Plans

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metro Budget Overview

Central Minnesota Economic and Business Conditions Report Third Quarter 2016

HRTPO TTAC RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE HB2 PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

Subject: City of St. Louis Park Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Review File No.

Market and Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Phase 2 Metrorail Extension to Loudoun County. Loudoun County April 19, 2011

CHAPTER 1 - URBAN RENEWAL AREA TAXATION

QUALITY TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY

2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

10-Year Capital Highway Investment Plan DRAFT

Facts. Minnesota. Table of Contents. Annual Average Employment by Industry, Minnesota 6. Nonagricultural Employment, Minnesota and United States 7

MELSA BOARD OF TRUSTEES THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2015 Noon - 2:00 P.M. MELSA Office Conference Room 320, 1619 Dayton Avenue, Saint Paul

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS AND BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR THE TOMORROW PLAN SASAKI. From

MINNESOTA. Jurisdictional Realignment Project Phase 1 Report

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2018 AMENDMENT 1

Central Minnesota Economic and Business Conditions Report Second Quarter 2016

NORTHERN VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM

Southeast Minnesota Economic and Business Conditions Report Third Quarter 2017

Prioritizing Transportation Projects. Presentation Travis Gaede

Central Minnesota Economic and Business Conditions Report Fourth Quarter 2015

UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM

Southwest Minnesota Economic and Business Conditions Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Hillsborough County Population and Employment Projections and Allocations DECEMBER 2017

GREATER TWIN CITIES UNITED WAY. Financial Statements. December 31, 2015 and (With Independent Auditors Report Thereon)

Community Development Committee

2017 Transportation Finance Legislation

Transcription:

Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities DATE: July 12, 2018 TO: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: INFORMATION ITEM TAC Planning Committee Steve Peterson, Highway Planning and TAB/TAC Process Manager David Burns, Senior Planner 6516021887) Geographic Balance in the Regional Solicitation The issue of geographic balance, fair share, and spreading the funds around the region is a topic that many Metropolitan Planning Organizations MPOs) throughout the country are exploring with respect to distribution of federal transportation funds. As such, TAB asked Council staff to explore alternative approaches to consider geographic balance in the Regional Solicitation. Geographic balance is not currently used to score projects. Rather, TAB has used it when weighing various funding options or to evaluate funding decisions made over time. In the past, regional balance has been measured by the amount of funding awarded within each county relative to its proportionate share of the region s population e.g., Anoka County has 11% of the region s population and would expect around 11% of the federal funding, over time). However, this approach may be an overlysimplistic way to assess regional balance. Counties represent large areas that tend to be heterogenous in population density and other characteristics e.g., Medina and Minneapolis are vastly different, but both are in Hennepin County). Understanding commute patterns, job/recreation centers, and congestion can all play a role in analyzing geographic balance. There is probably no limit to the number of ways that geographic balance can be assessed, but analyzing investments solely based on where people live does not fully capture the regional nature of travel patterns. For example, an investment made in Bloomington, may also benefit Dakota County residents using the improved roadway to get to work or shopping centers. Figures 13 present three alternative approaches to measuring geographic balance of projects selected in the last several funding cycles 20032016 Regional Solicitations). It is important to analyze geographic balance with a large enough sample size of projects, since there is some level of variance within each individual funding cycle. The final two figures Figures 4 and 5) portray the regional nature of two recently funded projects. The following is a brief summary of the maps: 1. Figure 1Uses the county boundary as the unit of measurement relative to population, jobs, and vehicle miles travelled VMT). 2. Figure 2Shows funding by Thrive MSP 2040assigned community designations i.e., land uses) relative to population and jobs. 3. Figure 3 Using major roadways as the dividing lines, splits the region into four quadrants to weigh relative funding, population, and job levels. 390 North Robert St., St. Paul, Minnesota 551011805 651) 6021000 Fax 651) 6021739

4. Figure 4Depicts the origin of trips passing through one of the funded 2016 Regional Solicitation projects, the Kellogg Bridge, which is adjacent to the RiverCenter in downtown Saint Paul. 5. Figure 5Represents the origin of trips passing through one of the funded 2016 Regional Solicitation projects, Snelling Avenue just north of Rosedale Mall in Roseville. Over the coming months, TAB and its technical committees should consider how to determine what constitutes adequate geographic balance and whether any information not shown in these maps can and should be provided. Page 2

Figure 1: Location of Awarded 2003 2016 Regional Solicitation Funded Projects by County County 20032016 Vehicle Population % Jobs % Federal Dollars % Travelled % Anoka #4 10%) #4 11%) #4 7%) #4 13%) Carver #7 5%) #7 3%) #7 2%) #7 5%) Dakota #3 12%) #3 14%) #3 11%) #2 17%) Hennepin #1 43%) #1 41%) #1 53%) #1 34%) Ramsey #2 17%) #2 18%) #2 19%) #3 14%) Scott #6 7%) #6 5%) #6 3%) #6 8%) Washington #5 7%) #5 8%) #5 5%) #5 10)% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Notes: # = Rank Notes: Years used in the table 20032016) indicate the year of the project selection. Funds from 20032016 will be expended in approximately 20072021. Federal Funding refers to Regional Solicitation funds only and includes funds for all three modal categories Roadways, Transit/Travel Demand Management, and Bicycle/Pedestrian). Data for population and employment based on Metropolitan Council 2016 estimates. Approximately $200 million of Regional Solicitation funds are awarded every two years by the Transportation Advisory Board TAB). County County Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott 20032013 Federal Funding % Washington 20142016 Federal Funding % Anoka #4 11%) #5 6%) Carver #7 6%) #7 3%) Dakota #3 13%) #3 9%) Hennepin #1 38%) #1 53%) Ramsey #2 18%) #2 16%) Scott #6 7%) #4 8%) Washington #5 8%) #6 5%) Total 100% 100% Note: A major restructuring of the Regional Solicitation took place prior to the 2014 funding cycle. 20032016 Projects s AMinor Arterials County Boundary ANOKA 35 10 WASHINGTON 10 RAMSEY «55 HENNEPIN «36 12 12 394 «7 CARVER 212 «13 DAKOTA SCOTT 52 6/29/2018

Figure 2: Location of Awarded 2013 2016 Regional Solicitation Funded Projects by Land Use Designation Region 20032016 Federal Dollars % Population % Jobs % Urban Center/Urban 47% 43% 53% Suburban 23% 25% 23% Suburban Edge/Emerging Suburban Edge 22% 26% 18% Rural/Rural Center 8% 6% 6% Total 100% 100% 100% Notes: Years used in the table 20032016) indicate the year of the project selection. Funds from 20032016 will be expended in approximately 20072021. Federal Funding refers to Regional Solicitation funds only and includes funds for all three modal categories Roadways, Transit/Travel Demand Management, and Bicycle/Pedestrian). Data for population and employment based on Metropolitan Council 2016 estimates. Approximately $200 million of Regional Solicitation funds are awarded every two years by the Transportation Advisory Board TAB). Designation Summary Urban Center/Urban Note: A major restructuring of the Regional Solicitation took place prior to the 2014 funding cycle. Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designations Urban Center/Urban Suburban Suburban Edge/Emerging Suburban Edge Rural/Rural Center 20032013 Federal Dollars % 20032016 Projects 20142016 Federal Dollars % 42% 57% Suburban 22% 24% Suburban Edge/Emerging 26% 13% Suburban Edge Rural/Rural Center 10% 6% Total 100% 100% AMinor Arterials «7 35 10 10 «55 «36 12 12 394 212 «13 52 6/29/2018

Figure 3: Location of Awarded 2003 2016 Regional Solicitation Funded Projects by Quadrant of the Region Region Notes: Years used in the table 20032016) indicate the year of the project selection. Funds from 20032016 will be expended in approximately 20072021. Federal Funding refers to Regional Solicitation funds only and includes funds for all three modal categories Roadways, Transit/Travel Demand Management, and Bicycle/Pedestrian). Data for population and employment based on Metropolitan Council 2016 estimates. Approximately $200 million of Regional Solicitation funds are awarded every two years by the Transportation Advisory Board TAB). Region 20032016 Federal Dollars % 20032013 Federal Dollars % Note: A major restructuring of the Regional Solicitation took place prior to the 2014 funding cycle. 20142016 Federal Dollars % Northwest 25% 34% Northeast 21% 15% Southeast 29% 23% Southwest 25% 28% Total 100% 100% Population % Jobs % Northwest 28% 25% 28% Northeast 19% 23% 22% Southeast 27% 22% 21% Southwest 26% 30% 29% Total 100% 100% 100% «7 35 10 10 «55 «36 12 12 394 212 «13 52 Northwest 20032016 Projects Northeast Southeast Southwest AMinor Arterials 6/29/2018

Figure 4: 2016 Regional Solicitation Origin of Traffic: Snelling Avenue in Roseville Proportion of Traffic 12.8% 35 ANOKA 10 Notes: Percentages are based LocationBased Service Data for Select Months in 2016 and 2017. Data is for weekdays MF) and all times of day. Source: StreetLight Insight, Inc. Greater than 0% Project Location 12 «55 RAMSEY «36 169 HENNEPIN 12 394 10 WASHINGTON «7 A Minor Arterials County Boundary CARVER 212 SCOTT DAKOTA 52 6/6/2018

Figure 5: 2016 Regional Solicitation Origin of Traffic: Kellogg Blvd Bridge in St. Paul Proportion of Traffic 20.5% 35 ANOKA 10 Greater than 0% Notes: Percentages are based LocationBased Service Data for Select Months in 2016 and 2017. Data is for weekdays MF) and all times of day. Source: StreetLight Insight, Inc. Project Location A Minor Arterials «7 12 «55 «36 HENNEPIN 12 394 10 RAMSEY WASHINGTON County Boundary CARVER 212 SCOTT DAKOTA 52 6/6/2018