Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.A.2. Comment of Metropolitan Council Update of Transportation Policy Plan (TPP)i3. A•J~ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director RE: Comment on Metropolitan Council Update of Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010 INTRODUCTION: ~n September, the Metropolitan Council issued a proposed update to the regional TPP. Public comment will be taken on the TPP until 5 p.m. on October 7, 2010. Because the TPP is the document which, in many ways, determines what transportation and transit projects can compete for funding, staff believes that it is important that the City of Shakopee comment on the draft and request that it be modified significantly before it is adopted. The TPP in its current form ignores the need for roadway and transit capacity investments that would serve not only the City of Shakopee, but residents and businesses on either side of the Minnesota River. This need for these capacity investments is highlighted by the regional impacts of both the current flooding and Spring flooding of the Minnesota, which has closed a significant portion of the north-south transportation network from U.S. 169 to Scott CR 25 in Belle Plaine. ALTERNATIVES: Offer and pass a motion directing staff to submit the attached comment letter as presented to the Metropolitan Council by the October 7th deadline. Offer and pass a motion directing staff to submit the attached comment letter with revisions to the Metropolitan Council by the October 7th deadline. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY GOALS: This item relates to Goal B. Positively manage the challenges and opportunities presented by growth, development and change, and D. Maintain, improve and create strong partnerships with other public and private sector entities, to the extent that modification of the TPP in the manner requested will assist the Metropolitan Council and cities and counties on both sides of the Minnesota River in the Region in acting as partners in future transportation investments. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion directing staff to submit the attached comment letter, either as presented or as revised, to the Metropolitan Council by the October 7th deadline. _ ~~ y.~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director TPP rpt_10052010 October 5, 2010 Peter Bell, Chair Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities 390 Robert St. N. St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Chair Bell: on behalf of the Shakopee City Council, I express our appreciation for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed 2010 update of the Transportation Policy Plan (TPP). We offer these comments because the TPP has significant impacts for transportation investment within the Region, and believe that the TPP must take account of needed investments in the entire Region. Like the Metropolitan CounciljMetro Transit, the City of Shakopee shares in the role of transportation provider within the Region. Our City has played a significant role in the development of a portion of the regional highway system (U.S. Hwy. 169 and the Bloomington Ferry Bridge), a provider of express bus and local circulator transit service, and provider of local roads. We see the impacts of our (state, region, local) decisions on the traveling public. We understand how interdependent we and the region are in our actions. For all these reasons, our City is actively involved in transportation committees and coalitions throughout the region and beyond. We support the importance of multi-modal system and believe that transportation alternatives have to be provided to our entire citizenry. Having said that, we are highly concerned about several policies in this draft plan, which we believe do not serve the purposes outlined above. A Vision for the Future of Transportation in the Region? We understand that The TPP update has largely been developed with the principles enunciated in the Council-Mn/DOT developed Metropolitan Highway System Investment Study (MHSIS) in mind, and as a result asserts that it is a fiscally constrained plan. The City of Shakopee has significant concerns that a TPP that fails to provide a complete vision for transportation in the future is inadequate, and inconsistent with the Metropolitan Council's own approach to regional land use. Under the Land Planning Act, the Metropolitan Council requires cities and counties in the Region to provide an extensive long range comprehensive plan that will accommodate the population, household and job growth that the Metropolitan Council projects for them. In order to be able to accommodate the projected growth, there must be sufficient infrastructure available, including transportation and transit investments. Under the proposed TPP update those investments would not be made either in highway improvements or transit investment. We believe that this will force communities in the Region on either side of the Minnesota to have to re-think whether the population, household, employment and affordable housing projections contained in the recently completed 2030 comprehensive plans are reasonable. CC/0921_2010/TPP_10052014 are funded first, leaving whatever is left for highway expansion. For transit, a much different approach is taken. The Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) is the principal source for transit operating funds, and has declined by roughly a third from 2003 until today. Yet even though the major funding source for transit operations has declined, the plan assumes that operating funding will be found to fund several new transitways, an expanded base bus system and an express bus network. These two approaches, again, yield very different results. The transit plan is shown to expand substantially while the highway system expands very little. It would seem that in a truly fiscally constrained plan, transit operating funding for new service would have to come from reprioritizing existing funding, something that occurred with the beginning of Northstar service. In addition, at least with respect to bus based transit, significant investments may be needed in, highways to accommodate the additional service called for in the transit portion of the plan. The question of apparently unconstrained funding for transit (especially new LRT and commuter rail) is in conflict with policy 15h which requires operating funding being identified before transitway investment is made. Another issue is the question of financial balance to this plan that results from the two different approaches to estimating future funding. The Highway plan assumes about $520 million for new congestion mitigation projects from 2015 to 2030. The Transit section of the plan assumes somewhere between $4,6 billion and $5.5 billion of funding for transit expansion. This is a policy choice that Mn/DOT and the Metropolitan Council are making to favor a mode that carries 5% of the trips in the region over a mode that carries over 90% of the trips that occurs as a result of how they choose to estimate future revenues. One alternative would be to estimate future revenues for both systems the same way. Another policy choice would be to reprioritize funds (CMAQ state bonds, etc) from transit to highways to provide more opportunities to expand highway funding. Major Projects vs. Small Projects One of the results of the so-called low cost/high benefit approach in handling the question of fiscal constraint is that major projects are forgone in favor of smaller projects with smaller benefits. Locations that cause major problems for thousands of travelers every day are not resolved in favor of tweaks to the system. 1n contrast to the approach taken relative to highways, the Transit section of the TPP assumes that a number of very large projects will be constructed (principally light rail transit) as well as lower cost projects (bus rapid transit, base bus system expansion}. It does so because it assumes that additional resources will be secured beyond those that are currently available or can reasonably be anticipated to be available. By doing so, the TPP assumes the major highway infrastructure projects that have helped reduce congestion and improve safety according to Mn/DOT's own data are not worthy of investment. Projects such as the Wakota Bridge, "Un-Weave the Weave;' TH 212, I-494 (west), TH 169/CH 81 and the Crosstown have provided tremendous relief to the commuters that use them everyday. Yet, this new funding approach would ensure that projects like these would not occur. The TPP Update Lacks Regional Balance CC/0921 2010/TPP 10052010 3 There are issues of regional balance both in the Highway and in the Transit sections. When one looks at the map of Low Cost/High Benefit Projects, there is only one project south of I-394/1-94 between now and 2030. (See Fig 6-33 below) Of the 29 projects, five total were for areas south of the I-394/1-94 line. The flooding of the Minnesota that has occurred twice 2010 has demonstrated that there are major impacts to the regional system (not to mention the regional economy), and that as a result system and capacity improvements are needed. As a result, in 2A better regional balance needs to be found before the TPP is adopted. Regional Balance -Transit The Center of the Twin Cities region is downtown Minneapolis. This is despite the fact that our ring- road (often referred to as the beltway), I-494/694, goes around both downtown Minneapolis and downtown St Paul. On the following map, one can see that the southern equivalent of I-35E is TH169. Each is roughly equidistant from downtown Minneapolis. Yet, even though this is true, the two roads are not treated equally with respect to transit planning in the TPP. The map below shows express bus service with transit advantages. From this map, one can see that I-35E has this service all along its length while TH169 does not, even though it more directly serves downtown Minneapolis. TH169 should be identified as needing express bus service with transit advantages along its full length. This issue is even more pronounced when one looks at the role that is conceived of for TH169 on the Transitways map. I-35E north of downtown St Paul is identified as a transitway while TH169 is not, even though TH169 serves an employment center (downtown Minneapolis) that is twice the size of the employment center served by I-35E (downtown St Paul). CC/0921_2010/TPP_10052010 4 It is clear that TH169 should be designated as a roadway that should be developed as a transitway, similar to I-35E. This will provide persons on the western side of the region the travel benefits expected to be provided to persons on the east side of the region. CC/0921 2010/TPP 10052010 5 ~~~~. F~ Tranci tMravc Canptebe r CansEnw6an l FiwlOesignlPreGmEngineering '~ a a:u:r-~~~„ ; rtighwa~reRTrccnr~u,terRail ~~ +~. t}erzbpasArieriat6RT ~~ ~ p ~~;~ ~wunoT pna~ i rigp~ 5pe~ ana Iastcriy wasasng~ ~ aienr®!ec '~.. i- m c ~~urr ~ ~ ~,~ ~~ z S k,~ rn ar, ra _ac Ciu:~ ~.sw a 7e f,{a-:l:~i~ --~~Aile3 5 5:. -10 Re~ana12D30 TRANS PORTA710N Peiicy Prrrn Abandonment of River Crossings DRAFT 8-23-14 page 1~8 ~ ~~~ c~cxjo ~~ l ~, Jtii~ r t0 ~~ ~ t` The Twin Cities Region is bounded or impacted by a number of significant rivers and one large lake, which create barriers to development, transportation and commerce in the Region. When this happens, development is "pushed" to other parts of the Region, or even outside the Region. The Region is developing to the north (and to the north of the Region), in part because of the lack of river crossings to the south. The result is that development is pushing out further and further, increasing VMT, increasing travel and ultimately, increasing the cost of providing highway and transit capacity. It is more cost- effective to provide adequate bridge capacity to the south than it is to expand further and further to the north. Yet this appears to be the first regional plan that abandons the addition of new river crossings or additional capacity on existing crossings except for a token amount of money for right-of-way preservation. As has been amply demonstrated in the spring and fall of 2010, with the Region heavily dependent on these crossings, and with the Region projecting significant population, household and employment growth in the southwestern part of the region, there should be a stronger discussion in the TPP on the need for new Minnesota River crossings and crossing capacity, and planning that reflects contemplated future investment in those crossings and capacity. CC/0921 2010/TPP_10052010 6 :~... ~ i w ._.... ".'7 There is a comment in the plan that there should be a reassessment of the new Minnesota River Crossing. It is not clear what this means as the Region just spent seven years evaluating and preparing an EIS for right-of-way preservation. This work has shown that this is amuch-needed river crossing. Similarly, if there is to be no expansion of river crossing capacity with a new bridge, there needs to be in the TPP a discussion of whether TH169, I-35W, TH101/CH 101 and TH 41 can meet growing needs. If this doesn't happen, then there needs to be a discussion of the impacts on travel if development doesn't occur south of the river but much further out in other parts of the region. Improvements Inside 494f 694 and Outside 494j694 The approach to funding (constrained for highways, unconstrained for transit in some areas) and the focus on low cost/high benefit small highway projects means that most of the spending in this plan occurs within the so-called Beltway (commonly used to describe the I-495/1-694 ring) and not beyond it. virtually all the transit money is for projects within the" beltway" as is much of the highway money. Yet much of the future population growth is projected outside the beltway, using roadways and bridges that have no contemplated capacity expansion in the TPP. It seems a more reasonable approach to use the urbanized area as a definition of where improvements are made instead of the road system, the need to focus beyond the beltway is even more pronounced. It is a clear policy choice to improve transportation in locations that have congestion today rather than ensuring that developing areas do not have these same problems. An alternative would be to focus more on expanding the capacity of the highway system in developing areas rather than focus the vast majority of funding in the "beltway." For example, rather than focusing all the transit funding on light rail and base bus system expansion in the core, funding could be shifted to more commuter bus and commuter rail service in the developing portions of the Region. Another alternative that should. be considered in the TPP is extending the managed lanes further. For example, the managed lane on I-35W should be extended to Northfield and to include the U.S. 169 corridor through the City of Shakopee. In addition, the identified needs for interchanges in developing areas versus the developed parts of the Region should be revised. The TPP states that outside of the beltway, interchanges should not be of a frequency then less then 2 miles. Inside the beltway, they can be less than that due to existing development and the grid system. Yet, most communities have already studied interchange issues and existing plans address the individual needs of different locations. To make a blanket system standard of 2-mile spacing regarding interchanges that is not based on need, on location, connectivity, functional class and good transportation planning is not useful for the Region or the cities and counties within the Region. The TPP contains a statement that indicates interchanges should be funded by any benefiting property owners. Yet it is clear that the transportation system is a "system" and all persons within the Region benefit from improvements to the system. It is inappropriate to burden property owners who are primarily in the developing portions of the region with these costs when individuals beyond these narrowly defined locations also benefit. It also seems inappropriate to "tax" developing areas while much of the rest of the Region was able to develop using general tax revenues. Further, it is inappropriate to treat the two modes, highways and transit, so differently. If it is appropriate to charge benefitting property owners for interchanges, shouldn't benefitting property owners also pay for transit projects such as light rail, commuter rail lines and bus rapid transit? CC/0921 2010/TPP 10052010 7 The TPP acknowledges that transit can be a powerful force for reshaping land use. Yet it focuses almost all of its transit funding into areas that are already developed. This clearly implies significant re- development, which is very costly. This approach is not well-balanced. The Metropolitan Council has for years sought to have cities in the Region develop at densities that could support transit. To accomplish this objective, it would make more sense to refocus some of this effort into providing real transit alternatives into developing areas and providing incentives for more compact, long-term sustainable land use. The TPP should show more expansion of commuter rail, managed lanes and express service from and into developing areas. It should also look at land use changes that could increase ridership to make these alternatives more successful. If these land use changes can be identified, they can be built into local land use plans to ensure the success of these projects. This integration of land use and transit is critical because much of the housing that needs to be developed in the next 20 years will be to house elderly baby boomers. Spreading this housing over a wide geographic area will make it difficult to provide these individuals with needed services. Instead, it makes more sense to increase transit investment into developing areas and provide an incentive to create clustered, higher density development where they can receive needed services at a lower cost. Highway Projects Do Provide Congestion Relief in the Region Throughout the TPP, statements are made that highway improvements do not relieve congestion. Yet Mn/DOT's own congestion analysis shows that highway projects do relieve congestion. For example, the improvements made on I-94 N to remove the lane drop have clearly improved traffic flow and reduced congestion. Clearly and logically, congestion can be improved with highway projects. Moreover, improvements to highways are often needed to accommodate transit modes. We are not contending that highway projects will do away with congestion. Indeed, it is reasonable to expect that over time increases in travel and population will result in congestion issues somewhere in the Region. It needs to be kept in mind that highway (and for that matter transit) projects are not built to provide capacity infinitely into the future. It still makes sense to do highway improvements that create benefits for many years. Local Comprehensive Plans Guiding Regional Plan In the Twin Cities Region, regional planning is always an on-going discussion between cities and counties and the Metropolitan Council. Local comprehensive plans are to be in conformance with the regional growth management plans and, especially when the local plans have been reviewed and accepted for implementation by the Metropolitan Council, the regional plans should take account of, and not be inconsistent with those local plans reviewed and accepted by the Metropolitan Council. It was our City's understanding that the local comprehensive plans were to be completed in conformance with the Region's current plan, and that the next regional TPP update would reflect changes within the accepted local comprehensive plans. Our city partnered with Scott County and Mn/DOT on a functional class study for the CH 17/TH 13 corridor. This study was done in conjunction with Mn/DOT (funding and technical work) and Met Council staff participation. Scott County's 2030 plan identifies the "future [north-south principal arterial "in Scott County as CH 17/TH 13 beginning at U.S. 169 in Shakopee, yet the TPP makes no acknowledgment of that designation that was accepted by the Metropolitan Council in the County's 2030 plan update. The functional class map should be updated to show CSAH 21 as the current principal arterial not CSAH 18 as it will be completed next year. The CC/0921 2010/TPP 10052010 8 future principal arterial functional class map should show CSAH 17jTH 13 from TH 169 to TH 19 and CH 42 from CSAH 18 to CSAH 17. These two corridors are consistent with the Region's planning guidelines. Use of RALF Funds The policy plan states that "the Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund will be used to preserve right-of- way for the highway projects consistent with this update of the TPP. Yet this plan includes very little need for right-of-way acquisition given that only low cost projects are included for highways. It would make more sense to expand the definition of the usage of this fund to include acquisition for right-of- waythat can be used to improve highway capacity, i.e. including transit projects that directly affect highways. This would let developing areas set aside sites for future transit needs before the costs escalate, similar to highways. Role of the Suburban Transit Providers in the Region Recently, the Star Tribune has reported increasing tension between the Metropolitan Council and suburban transit providers, including the City of Shakopee. Much of this stems from insistence by Metropolitan Council staff and officials that suburban services are too high in cost. Rather than being a costly burden, the suburban transit providers have shown themselves to be innovators in the Region {coach buses, strategically-placed park and rides, use of small buses, quality trip to attract non- traditional riders, etc). The suburban transit providers have been very successful at competitive processes and securing federal funding. The result is that they have grown their ridership substantially faster than Metro Transit. In Scott County, when the Metropolitan Council in 2001 informed the cities and county that it would not be undertaking transit planning for Scott County our city and others, along with the County undertook a study that led in 2005 to the Scott County Unified Transit Management Plan (UTMP); established a Transit Review Board and Transit Review Team that have met monthly since it was formed; established expanded commuter service (BlueXpress) in 1997 that has grown ridership dramatically; transitioned dial-a-ride within the entire county to Scott County; and identified and constructed two {one under construction} very cost effective park and ride facilities, neither of which has enclosed buildings on site. Yet the Metropolitan Council has taken steps and is taking steps in the TPP which reduce the independence of these innovators. For example, Strategy 14e would put the Metropolitan Council in charge of decisions about fleet and faculty investment, rather than each organization. Likewise, 14c states that the Council will prepare the regional investment strategy rather than letting each organization determine its own priorities. These policy statements should be removed and instead replaced with a statement that the region supports the suburban transit model and the competition and innovation that results. This approach, having more than one organization innovating and competing, will provide better results than one large bureaucracy serving the whole region and the policy plan should support this approach. Conclusion The Shakopee City Council would suggest an immediate stop to the process of adopting the current draft TPP Update until the appropriate leve{ of debate at the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and input from local agencies can be evaluated, their comments and questions answered, and the TPP modified to CC/0921 2010/TPP 10052010 9 adequately address the legitimate comments communicated in this letter. The modifications that should be made to the TPP Update include; • Revising the entire document so that it provides a real vision for balanced highway and transit development throughout the Region for the long-term; • Revising the entire document so that it consistently describes. potential fiscal constraints for both highways and transit, but which does not base the TPP on these constraints for either. Instead the reality of fiscal constraint should be used by the Metropolitan Council and local governments on aday-to-day and year-to year basis for making specific funding investments; • The TPP should be revised to reflect the long-range planning that was accepted in local 2030 comprehensive plans. For Shakopee specifically, and Scott County generally, this includes reinstating plans for new river crossings and increased capacity for existing river crossings serving cities and counties on both sides of the Minnesota River within the Region. • Revising the TPP to eliminate the 2-mile spacing standard for interchanges on the regional system outside the so-called beltway. Instead the TPP should acknowledge the need to evaluate interchanges based on location, need, connectivity and other factors. • Revising the TPP to eliminate the requirement that interchanges that will be located largely in developing areas be paid for by adjoining properties. This requirement ignores that they are part of a regional system and benefit the region, and thus the cost should be borne as it historically has been. In the alternative, if the Metropolitan Council insists on this policy, then the same approach should be taken to assessing property owners for the costs of major new transit projects. • The TPP should be revised so that it leaves behind the antiquated notion of only making investments within the so-tailed beltway. Much of the existing urbanized area of the Region is already outside the beltway, and deserves transportation and transit investments as well. Perhaps more importantly, if the Metropolitan Council is serious about the notion that growth will continue to occur in developing areas like Shakopee and Scott County, then the TPP must be refocused so that investments can be made to accommodate the projected growth. Failure to do so will inevitably lead to a reassessment of those growth projections on the local level. • The TPP should expand the definition of the usage of RALF funds to include acquisition of right- of-way that can be used to improve highway capacity, i.e. including transit projects that directly affect highways. This would let developing areas set aside sites for future transit needs before the costs escalate, similar to highways. • The TPP should be revised to acknowledge the important roles that the suburban providers have played as innovators, and should further be revised to return more discretion to them to make service and management decisions related to the services they do or may in the future operate. Sincerely, John J. Schmitt, Mayor City of Shakopee Cc: Craig Peterson, Metropolitan Council Barbara Marschall, Scott County Bd. of Commissioners. Senator Claire Robling, Representative Mike Beard Scott McBride, Metro District Engineer Lynn Clarkowski, Metro Area Engineer CC/0921 2010/TPP 10052010 10