This bill, H.F. No. 2199, introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives by Robbins and Anderson P.E., proposes legislation requiring a cost-benefit analysis for proposed guideway transit projects. Key provisions include:

1. Definitions:

   • "Commissioner" refers to the Commissioner of Transportation.
   • "Project options" include the proposed guideway and alternatives such as bus rapid transit (BRT), regular bus service, and roadway expansion.
   • "Responsible governmental unit" is the government entity responsible for the environmental analysis of the project.

2. Cost-Benefit Analysis Requirements:

   • Before selecting a locally preferred alternative, a responsible governmental unit must conduct a cost-benefit analysis.
   • The analysis must be submitted to the Commissioner of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council within 30 days of completion.
   • The final analysis must be posted on the Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Council's websites.
   • The Commissioner and Metropolitan Council must submit the final report to the Legislative Auditor and relevant legislative committees.

3. Comparison of Alternatives:

   • The analysis must compare at least three alternatives to the guideway project:
     1. Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
     2. Regular Route Bus Service
     3. Road capacity expansion

4. Required Data in the Analysis:

   • Ridership estimates for transit options.
   • Vehicle capacity increases for roadway expansion.
   • Impact on congestion and vehicle volume.
   • Revenue sources (e.g., fares, gas tax, motor vehicle sales tax).
   • Estimated maintenance and capital costs, including responsible funding entities.
   • Economic benefits, such as:
     • New housing/business development.
     • Increased freight movement.
     • Potential supply chain improvements.
   • Construction timeline and impact on local communities.
   • Predicted changes in vehicle accidents.
   • Ability to alter or stop the project after construction begins.
   • Travel time comparisons, including time for waiting/transferring.
   • Impact on vehicle traffic from transit options.
   • Environmental impact, including estimated carbon emissions.

5. Cost Comparison:

   • The analysis must also determine how many miles of BRT, bus service, or congestion mitigation construction could be funded for the same cost as the guideway project.

6. Support and Funding:

   • A responsible governmental unit may request assistance from the Commissioner of Transportation or Metropolitan Council.
   • Assistance may be billed to the responsible unit.

Purpose of the Bill:

This proposal aims to ensure a thorough evaluation of transit expansion projects by comparing costs, benefits, and alternatives before committing state resources to fixed guideway developments.

The bill is currently referred to the Committee on Transportation Finance and Policy for review.