Voters to choose: Transit or services?

09/30/2006

Needed road upgrades depend on passage of the transportation amendment, but critics say it will cost the general fund $300 million.

Laurie Blake,
Star Tribune
Last update: September 30, 2006 – 12:15 AM

With commuters flocking to buses across the metro area, and the Hiawatha light rail crammed with 1 million passengers last month, transit advocates say the public is demanding more ways to ride.

Planners have mapped out an ambitious network of new rail lines, bus routes and park-and-ride lots that could double ridership by 2020.

Those plans all hinge on the $100 million or more per year that would flow to transit if voters approve a constitutional amendment Nov. 7. If voters reject the change, transit officials predict, service will be reduced, not expanded.

“If it doesn’t happen, we know what the impacts are—and those are cuts,” said Len Simich, chief executive officer of Southwest Metro Transit, serving Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhassen.

The proposed constitutional amendment would require that all revenue from the state’s existing vehicle sales tax be spent only on roads and transit. Nearly half of that money, amounting to tens of millions of dollars, now goes into the general fund to balance the state budget.

Opponents say the amendment will create a $300 million annual hole in the general fund, which pays for schools, health care and other priorities.

Some worry that highways will be shortchanged because the amendment guarantees that “at least 40 percent” of the vehicle sales tax revenue would go to transit—and says only that not more than 60 percent would go to roads.

For transit advocates, the amendment is a must-win measure. It would give public transit the kind of dedicated revenue that roads have had in the gas tax for more than 50 years, said Barb Thoman of Transit for Livable Communities, a nonprofit group.

What it would buy

The new money would help pay for the Northstar commuter rail line; the Central Corridor light rail between Minneapolis and St. Paul; three busways; 30 new bus routes, and 13 new and 11 expanded park-and-ride lots.

The Metropolitan Council, the metro area’s transit planning agency, won’t give specifics on what will happen if the amendment fails, saying it prefers to hope for the best. But council plans predict long-term transit budget deficits and service cuts are in store if voters don’t approve the change. Funding for the Central Corridor, in particular, would be in doubt.

“This is a very serious time for transit,” said Beverley Miller, director of Minnesota Valley Transit.

The popularity of public transit is rising in the Twin Cities and across the nation. This year, bus patronage is up 20 percent in Maple Grove, 13 percent in Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhassen and 10 percent in the southern suburbs. In August, Metro Transit reported the highest monthly total in 23 years.

Passing the amendment will be critical to keep ridership growing, Miller said.

“People are really engaged because of the price of gas, and once they find their way to transit most stay if you are able to provide the service,” she said. The question she hears most often from riders is: “Why can’t you add service? Don’t you see that there are people standing?”

The constitutional question has been put before voters because Gov. Tim Pawlenty and legislators have been unable to agree on another way to increase spending for transportation. Legislators passed a gas tax increase. Pawlenty vetoed it.

Advocates are counting on voters to make the connection between standing-room-only buses and the ballot question.

“The moment we pass this constitutional amendment, we have the local match to match hundreds of millions in federal money,” said Rep. Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul.

But if that extra $300 million a year goes to roads and transit instead of the state’s general fund, that will leave less money for education, health care and other state needs.

Teachers union opposes it

That is why Education Minnesota, the statewide teachers union, opposes the amendment. “We absolutely believe that transportation is underfunded and that more needs to be done,” said president Judy Schaubach. “But we are also seeing what is happening in education and health and human services, which are also struggling.”

The product of last-minute lawmaking, the constitutional amendment is written in complex and confusing language that says “at least 40 percent” of the money would go to transit and “not more than 60 percent” would go to roads. Opponents say that leaves no minimum guarantee for roads.

“We are very concerned that with this proposal, a large amount could go to transit,” said Chris Radatz, public policy director for the Minnesota Farm Bureau. Transit needs more money, but better highways and bridges are the Farm Bureau’s first priority, he said.

The Civic Caucus, a nonpartisan group that is joined by former Govs. Arne Carlson and Wendell Anderson, also urges voters to reject the amendment, saying it won’t provide enough money to meet public expectations.

“The amendment is unnecessary,” the group said, because the governor and legislators could accomplish the same thing by passing laws.

Transit advocate John DeWitt said that is what makes passage of the amendment so important.

“It’s very critical because of the failure of our Legislature and our governor to address the issue.”