Judging by the unanimous vote of support from the city council last month, Minneapolis officials are excited about a possible new $200 million streetcar line that would run from Lake Street and Nicollet Avenue near downtown to Northeast Minneapolis, a kind of feeder to the Hiawatha Light Rail. St. Paul isn’t as far along in its planning, but city officials here too are talking about streetcars in upbeat, hopeful terms.
One group is feeling left out, and that’s the Metropolitan Council.
In a two-page letter last Friday to Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, Met Council Chair Sue Haigh reminded Rybak (and St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman too, who was CC’d on it) that there are limited sources of funding out there for new public transit construction, and it wouldn’t be prudent to have Minneapolis compete with the Met Council’s own initiatives for money.
The Met Council has a transportation policy plan (TPP) that gets updated every three or four years. The last plan, which outlines in general terms what transit lines will be built where and when, was published in 2010, and it doesn’t mention streetcars, which are like trolleys that operate with traffic instead of in their own dedicated right-of-way.
That’s a big deal, especially if Minneapolis and St. Paul plan to approach the Met Council, the state, the feds, or regional bodies such as the Counties Transit Improvement Board for funding. Minneapolis thinks it can get a fair amount — but certainly not all — of the money to launch its $200 million line from property owners along the route, but that still leaves more than $100 million in construction costs unaccounted for. Rybak has said he’ll announce a funding plan before the end of the year.
A new version of the Met Council’s “TPP” plan will be available for comment in 2014, so input is due to the Met Council pretty much right now.
Haigh, in Friday’s letter, spelled out it out like this: “Because your project is proceeding more quickly than the next TPP, I feel it is important to proactively establish lines of communication and provide guidance on this project.”
Among Haigh’s concerns, she’s wondering if the Minneapolis streetcar line would be aimed at increasing ridership or just mimicking the bus ridership that already exists along the route and making the corridor more attractive to developers. Different pots of money fund transportation initiatives and economic development programs, so Minneapolis (and eventually St. Paul) is going to have to choose wisely in how it markets streetcars to those who hold the cash box.
Haigh, again: “A project pursued primarily for development outcomes should be funded locally and should not compete with other priorities for federal and state transportation funds.”
The Met Council has been fairly specific about what projects and what types of projects it’s interested in pursuing — such as initiatives that combine transit and housing, especially affordable worker housing. The TPP also establishes a light hierarchy in terms of which projects will be prioritized first, though much depends upon how studies, funding and planning roll out within the communities the transit lines will serve.
“The TPP does certainly have a plan and an order,” said Meredith Salsbery, a spokeswoman for the Met Council, in an interview on Monday. “It’s something we work with CTIB (the Counties Transit Improvement Board) on. It’s not necessarily crystal clear. It depends mostly on the progress of the plan at the local level. … Some projects move faster than others.”
Here’s Chair Haigh’s letter to Rybak, which was CC’d to Coleman:
July 12, 2013
Mayor R.T. Rybak
350 S. 5th St., Room 331
Minneapolis, MN 55415Dear Mayor Rybak,
The City of Minneapolis is in the process of breaking new ground for the region’s transit system through its study of streetcar alternatives, in particular through the Nicollet-Central Transit Alternative Study. The City has also taken the remarkable step of developing and seeking legislative authorization for a value capture funding source to help fund this project. Given the City’s active pursuit of a first-of-its kind modern streetcar project, I thought it would be helpful and prudent to outline the Metropolitan Council’s perspective on future development of this transit mode and regional investment.
The Council’s current Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) is nearly silent on streetcars as a mode of transit in the region, except for a reference to Council-local government collaboration to determine when and where a streetcar project might be appropriate. The TPP also states that projects that show a positive, significant, and cost-effective transportation benefit might be funded with local, regional and federal transportation funds but a project pursued primarily for development outcomes should be funded locally and should not compete with other priorities for federal and state transportation funds. With numerous transit corridors identified for future investment, the demand for transit capital and operating funding greatly exceeds current funding.
Both transportation and economic development serve an important role in helping the region grow in an efficient, connected manner and provide justification for investment. I understand that project justification for the Nicollet-Central streetcar is still under discussion by technical staff and policymakers as part of the Nicollet-Central Transit Alternatives Study. It will be important for the project justification to be well developed and vetted prior to it coming forward to the Council for consideration.
Work is just now beginning on the next regional TPP. We hope that the City of Minneapolis will play an active role in the development of the plan, allowing us to have a more robust regional discussion about the potential for developing streetcars as a transit option.
Because your project is proceeding more quickly than the next TPP, I feel it is important to proactively establish lines of communication and provide guidance on this project.
Collaboration: Critical to the success of any project of this magnitude is collaboration between the
Council and local units of government. In particular, if this project someday comes to fruition, we view it as critical that it be integrated into the existing transit system, regardless of how it is funded or which agency leads the implementation. It is necessary to include potential funding partners and other stakeholders (Hennepin County, MnDOT, Counties Transit Improvement Board) in this collaborative effort. It is also important for the City to understand that streetcars merit a regional discussion that results in a regional policy. As you are aware, the City of St. Paul is also actively studying a modern streetcar system and potentially looking to the region for policy guidance.Funding: As our TPP states, funding for a project like this may be different depending on whether the
project’s primary function is additional transportation benefits or development outcomes. At this point,
both scenarios lack a clear funding strategy, such as those that have been used for light rail projects. The Council anticipates that with any Locally Preferred Alternative forwarded for Council consideration, the City will also provide a funding plan that addresses both capital and operating costs and is consistent with the project’s primary function. The Council, the Counties Transit Improvement Board and the City should all be at the table when this funding plan is developed. The City should understand that if a streetcar does not provide a significant transportation benefit, the Council may not be able to prioritize the region’s limited transit funding for a project without a significant local contribution to both capital and operating costs. The Council also appreciates the City’s efforts to support additional funding for transit that may expand the flexibility to include streetcar. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): If the Council formally takes a position favorable to streetcars
at some future point, the Council and the City of Minneapolis should seek to enter into a formal
memorandum of understanding regarding the funding, design, construction, operation and maintenance
of the proposed streetcar line. While it is ideal for the Council to formally take a position on streetcar as a transit mode and on the prioritization of the many competing regional projects prior to entering into such a memorandum, we recognize that we may need to be flexible and utilize short term, limited scope
memorandums between the time a Locally Preferred Alternative is adopted and the time the Council
takes a formal position on street cars.As you move through the Nicollet-Central Study and seek to recommend a Locally Preferred Alternative, I
encourage the City to remain in regular contact with the Council.Cole Hiniker (cole.hiniker@metc.state.mn.us or 651-602-1748) will function as your primary staff liaison.
This is an exciting possibility for our region and while there are many unresolved elements, the Council welcomes Minneapolis as an active partner in the effort to expand transit options in the metro region.Warmest regards,
Susan Haigh
Chair
CC:
Counties Transit Improvement Board
Mayor Chris Coleman, City of Saint Paul
Commissioner Peter McLaughlin, Hennepin County
Commissioner Charlie Zelle, Minnesota Department of Transportation