OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR O L A STATE OF MINNESOTA Evaluation Report Summary / January 2011 Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region Major Findings: Key Recommendations: The Twin Cities region’s transit The Legislature should restructure the system has performed well on most Metropolitan Council so that it has a measures of efficiency, effectiveness, mix of appointed and elected Council and impact in comparison with 11 peer members, all serving staggered terms. regions. Given the current structure of the However, the governance of transit in Metropolitan Council, we do not the Twin Cities region is complex and recommend eliminating other fraught with distrust, and coordination organizations involved with transit, among the many transit organizations such as the Counties Transit The region has in the region has been difficult. Improvement Board or the made significant Transportation Advisory Board. The Metropolitan Council’s role as the advances in regional transit planner has been We do not recommend eliminating the transit in recent hampered by how members are suburban transit providers, although years, but the appointed; as a result of its structure, there are opportunities for some region’s transit the Council lacks adequate credibility consolidation. governance and accountability among structure is far stakeholders. The Metropolitan Council should coordinate with stakeholders to from ideal. Additionally, there is no agreed-upon prioritize potential transitways for set of priorities for transitway future development based on the needs development in the Twin Cities region, of the region. and existing Minnesota law prohibits consideration of all potential The Legislature should amend transitways in the region. Minnesota law and allow consideration of the Dan Patch corridor. Scarce resources for transit are likely to become scarcer as the state The Legislature should not commit confronts a significant budget deficit. capital funds to transitway development projects without ensuring The Metropolitan Council and that operating revenues for the first suburban transit providers have five to ten years have been identified. disagreed over the allocation of “supplemental” Motor Vehicle Sales The Legislature should explicitly give Tax revenue in the region, increasing the Metropolitan Council authority to the distrust and tension between these allocate the “supplemental” revenue groups. for transit in the region generated by the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax. Room 140 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155‐1603 • Tel: 651‐296‐4708 • Fax: 651‐296‐4712 E‐mail: [email protected] • Web Site: www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us • Through Minnesota Relay: 1‐800‐627‐3529 or 7‐1‐1 2 GOVERNANCE OF TRANSIT IN THE TWIN CITIES REGION Report Summary region’s transit system performed better than most of its peers on efficiency Transit in the Twin Cities region includes measures, including subsidy per several transit types, or “modes.” Our passenger and operating costs per evaluation included four modes of transit: passenger. The Twin Cities region also regular-route bus service, light rail transit, compared favorably when evaluating commuter rail, and bus rapid transit.1 service-use measures, such as passengers The transit The Twin Cities region has recently per hour and passenger miles per mile of system in the added two modes of transit, bus rapid service. Twin Cities transit and commuter rail, and is region performed developing two new light rail lines. Our evaluation focused on governance of transit in the region. We considered the well relative to 11 Nevertheless, in 2009, regular-route bus service provided close to 90 percent of governance of transit to include: peer regions the transit rides in the region. Metro (1) planning for and identifying potential around the Transit, a division within the corridors for new transit; (2) developing country. Metropolitan Council, is the primary and building transitways, including provider of transit in the region and conducting analyses to determine optimal operates bus, light rail, and commuter rail routes and transit modes; (3) providing services. Suburban providers offer bus transit; (4) generating revenue for transit, service to 12 communities in the Twin typically through imposing a levy or tax Cities metropolitan area. or collecting passenger fares; (5) allocating revenue for transit; and Several organizations have transit (6) measuring the performance of transit. responsibilities in the region, including the Metropolitan Council, the Governance of transit in the Twin Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), Cities region is complex and made the Counties Transit Improvement Board more difficult by the uneasy (CTIB), county regional railroad relationships among the various authorities, and suburban transit organizations involved with transit in providers. Many of these organizations the region. were created to address perceived local Each transit organization serves a distinct transit needs. The structure of transit but somewhat overlapping role for transit governance in the region has changed in the region. Each organization can several times since the Council was operate independently to some extent but created in 1967 and has gone through However, the also must coordinate with others in the periods of fragmentation and region’s region. The complexity of the system consolidation. governance makes it difficult to know which structure has In 2009, providers spent almost $319 organization is accountable for which created challenges million on transit operations in the Twin transit responsibility. Cities region. Since 2004, the region has and conflicts. There is significant distrust between the spent more than $1.7 billion on transit Met Council and the other transit capital expenditures. organizations in the Twin Cities region. When compared with 11 peer regions This distrust makes coordination among around the country, transit in the Twin the organizations difficult. The strongest Cities region performed favorably.2 For example is the relationship between the example, in 2008, the Twin Cities Met Council and the suburban transit providers. In interviews we had with suburban transit providers and Council 1 Our evaluation does not address dial-a-ride service, such as Transit Link and Metro staff, and during joint meetings with Mobility. representatives from the two 2 The 11 peer regions are: Baltimore, Cleveland, organizations, the conflict and distrust Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, between these two groups were evident. Portland, St. Louis, San Diego, Seattle, and Tampa. SUMMARY 3 The relationship between the Met Council members are appointed, local elected and the Counties Transit Improvement officials often question the legitimacy of Board is also strained. For example, the Council decisions. Coordination two organizations disagree over the among the many definition of “transitway,” which has led Transit resources have been transit to tension regarding CTIB’s funding unpredictable. priorities. organizations Transit providers spent almost $319 involved in Coordination among transit million in 2009 on transit operations in governance is organizations in the region is time the region. Motor Vehicle Sales Tax difficult. consuming and inefficient. (MVST) revenues are the largest source of operating funds for transit in the Twin The suburban transit providers and Metro Cities region. However, these revenues Transit coordinate their services have not grown as projected. The state’s effectively. However, coordination May 2007 projections anticipated that between the Met Council and the more than $169 million of MVST suburban providers has required revenues would be allocated to transit in significant time and energy from both the Twin Cities region in fiscal year Council and suburban provider staff, even 2010; instead, $140.7 million was though the suburban providers represent allocated to transit in the region. only about 6 percent of all rides in the region. The suburban providers and the Minnesota statutes do not identify how Council have had innumerable staff and “supplemental” Motor Vehicle Sales committee meetings, required approvals, Tax revenue should be allocated for e-mails, and shared letters. Staff on both transit in the region. sides of this relationship think the In 2006, Minnesota voters passed a coordination efforts are inefficient and constitutional amendment to allocate time consuming, and the lack of trust additional Motor Vehicle Sales Tax between these two groups makes it revenue to transit. However, the difficult to reach agreement on many Legislature has not clarified how this transit-related issues. funding, known as “supplemental” Coordination between the Council and MVST revenue, should be allocated CTIB is also time consuming. Having within the region. Staff from the both bodies make decisions about transit suburban transit providers told us that investments in the region leads to overlap they had expected to receive a formula- A central and requires additional coordination. based portion of the new funds. Instead, the Met Council created a procedure to governance issue The Metropolitan Council’s structure distribute the supplemental MVST funds has been the has created a lack of credibility among based on regional priorities. Metropolitan many stakeholders and transit Council’s lack of organizations in the region. There is no agreed-upon set of priorities for transit in the region, and credibility with The Met Council’s