MINNESOTA HIGH-SPEED RAIL COMMISSION MEETING GOODHUE COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, RED WING MAY 3, 2012 MEETING SUMMARY MEMBERS:

Transcription

1 MINNESOTA HIGH-SPEED RAIL COMMISSION MEETING GOODHUE COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, RED WING MAY 3, 2012 MEETING SUMMARY MEMBERS: Dakota County RRA; Will Branning Ramsey County RRA; Janice Rettman Wabasha County RRA; Rich Hall Washington County RRA; Autumn Lehrke Winona County RRA; Jim Pomeroy City of Cottage Grove; Jen Peterson City of Lake City; Andru Peters City of Red Wing; Michael Schultz *Ex-officio member City of Winona; Jerry Miller *LAPC; Tom Faella *Prairie Island Indian Community; Marc Mogan OTHERS: Ramsey County RRA; Mike Rogers Washington County; Andy Gitzlaff Goodhue County; Ken Bjornstad Washington County; Lyssa Leitner RMS Communications; Jeff Dehler The meeting was called to order at 10:06 a.m. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion to approve was requested. Commissioner Pomeroy moved for approval of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The motion passed. 2. CHECKS AND CLAIMS A motion to approve was requested. Commissioner Branning moved for approval of the Checks and Claims. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The motion passed. 3. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 1, 2012 MEETING A motion to approve was requested. Commissioner Pomeroy moved for approval of the March 3, 2012 minutes. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Schultz. The motion passed. Commissioner Rettman had some questions on the minutes that she said would be more appropriate to discuss during the discussion on outreach materials. 4. OUTREACH MATERIALS Jeff Dehler of RMS Communications walked the commission through the information provided in the agenda packet. He discussed the key messages and the frequently asked questions (FAQs) prior to showing the commission a mock up of a speaker s tool kit. The tool kit included a copy of the annual report, corridor fact sheet, electronic and hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation, FAQs, and key messages. He said that when presentations were given, the tool kit would be an easy take along so that commissioners could be prepared for the 4-1

2 presentation. Jeff noted that as RMS works to schedule further presentations, they will need to know who is willing to give presentations so that resources can be provided to them to insure that they would be successful. Jeff noted that communications have gotten off to a bit of a slow start, but that things were now ramping up and the website had recently been updated to include recent meeting minutes, agendas, and the 2012 commission members. He noted that Robin Smothers of RMS Communications was developing a website inventory to identify additional items for updates. Additionally, staff would be meeting with MnDOT to identify times when the commission could release information regarding key milestones in Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Twin Cities to Milwaukee corridor and the second frequency train study for the Twin Cities to Chicago. Commissioners provided the following comments on the FAQs, Presentation Tool Kit, Fact Sheet, and Key Message documents: Commissioner Lehrke asked why the mileage used on the fact sheet was different and why the construction cost was only to Milwaukee. It was clarified that the mileage between the Twin Cities and Chicago was 417 and between the Twin Cities and Milwaukee was 340. The construction cost was only to Milwaukee because that is what the most recent MnDOT study used as a terminus. Additionally, the highway expansion cost was identified for 328 miles; the length of I-94 from St. Paul to Milwaukee, so that it could be compared to the Twin Cities to Milwaukee rail construction cost. Commissioner Peters added that he has and is willing to give presentations to the public on behalf of the commission. He thought it was important for multiple people to be able to give them so that we wouldn t have to only rely on staff and it would lessen the travel demands on staff. The FAQs should address why we are supporting high-speed rail that is only 110 mph. The public needs to know why the commission isn t advocating for 250 mph. Additionally, there is a need to address how high-speed rail will be funded and that a phased, long-term approach is best so that what is built is what is justified by demand. Inclusion of high-speed rail into the MinnesotaGO program may provide an opportunity to reach a larger audience. Discussion of freight benefits will provide an opportunity to gain more support from rural areas. St. Charles is currently investigating a rail/truck intermodal facility. Stewartville is currently looking at a FedEx distribution center and Albert Lea is working on rail container improvements. The subsidy for high-speed rail needs to be identified along with the level of subsidy. All modes are subsidized, but how do they compare to each other? 4-2

3 Though MnDOT and other studies have stated that high-speed rail covers its operating costs, the commission has taken the approach that high-speed rail will likely still require a subsidy, particularly during its start-up phase. What will the level of ridership be in 2030 compared to the day of opening? Current MnDOT studies only identify future year ridership as the day of opening is not known. As a point of reference, the current daily Empire Builder train provides approximately 150,000 trips a year out of the Twin Cities. Amtrak has stated that a ridership sweet spot is five trains a day. At that point, ridership grows exponentially, not linearly. It is important that the commission support the second train frequency study that MnDOT is currently doing. Funding for this train is very important to future high-speed rail implementation. This study should be completed in late 2012 or early The fact sheet should include additional discussion on the environmental and three-for-one benefit of high-speed rail. This could be accomplished by including the Key Messages with the fact sheet as one double sided handout. There is a need to tout the benefits to Minnesota, not just getting Minnesotans to Chicago. Minnesotans will benefit by having people from Wisconsin and Illinois visit the state. There needs to be a focus on the connection going both ways. There is a need to show the entire Minnesota corridor as a destination for schooling, shopping, tourism, and business. Councilmember Schultz noted that Minnesota is connected to the larger regional economy and this is apparent through the amount of travel between Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois as well as international destinations. Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport was just ranked as the best run airport in the world. We need to emphasize benefits like MSP and high-speed rail to residents and businesses and these modes can work together to connect them to the rest of the region, country, and world. Councilmember Lehrke stated that she hears from constituents that they are concerned with a connection to Chicago because it is Chicago focused for business and Minnesota will just get more people traveling here to collect welfare benefits. She said that the commission needs to work on its message so that the benefit of high-speed rail to Minnesota is also heard. Councilmember Peterson asked how connectivity would be made between the Union Depot and MSP. Mike Rogers stated that an existing bus route made the trip in about 25 minutes. Additionally, as more trains serve the Depot, additional non-stop buses 4-3

4 could be added and timed to meet the arriving/departing trains. Commissioner Rettman provided a number of comments on how the commission could work to get its message out to the public and policy makers. She stated that everyone around the table knows what high-speed rail is and that each one of them could give a presentation to the public on it. The consultant and staff were not needed to give every presentation and that, in her experience, she has found it to be very helpful to have a to-go kit. This kit is very helpful for working with the majority of corridor residents and could be tailored to each commissioner s needs based on their constituency. However, there are still those audiences that will need staff and consultants and the commission should be prepared to have staff or the consultants present to them. She continued to discuss the to-go kit in more detail. The kit should allow commissioners to create expectations of what high-speed rail will mean and how it will impact the towns along the corridor. The presentation is generic and we need something to create more excitement and have information that will allow commissioners to become the champions of the corridor. A couple of ideas presented by her included a raffle and special community items (i.e. Red Wing Boot, Water Ski, hats, pencils, etc.). These things would create excitement while allowing the public to touch and feel the corridor. The to-go kit could be in each community, or with a select number of commissioners. It would provide everything that would be needed to allow commissioners to present/discuss high-speed rail whenever they were at a meeting. She added it could all be put into a suitcase that commissioners could take with them and easily access at any of the meetings that they were already attending within their communities. She noted that this would work for most audiences, but that for some audiences, commissioners could request staff or consultant help. Commissioner Rettman added that having the information available in multiple languages would be beneficial as would contact information for staff so that questions that commissioners couldn t answer could be passed on to staff for their follow-up. Chair Miller stated that he thought the to-go kit was a good idea and a raffle would be a good way to generate excitement. Commissioner Rettman added that the to-go kit needs to make the message exciting, but still keeps the information simple. She added that cost of the materials will need to be identified. She stated that the to-go kit is similar in theory to the banners that were previously printed. The more the commission can have multiple messaging opportunities, the better it will be at getting its message out. Councilmember Peters noted that each commissioner needs to become an advocate for high-speed rail within their communities. He added that a venue he sees as an untapped resource is model railroad shows. This group is already receptive to rail and getting information to them will allow them to distribute it amongst themselves, and whenever he attends a model railroad show he provides information on high-speed rail. He noted that he recently purchased some Northstar coaches that he would be happy to bring to presentations as part of a to-go kit. 4-4

5 Commissioner Rettman noted that everyone is busy and the to-go kit enables them to maximize their time by allowing them to multi-task at meetings. Once it is put together, it doesn t take extra time to grab and organize the materials for a meeting, they are all already in the kit. Commissioner Lehrke said that when the commission is advocating for high-speed rail, the message should ultimately be data driven and the data needs to be able to justify the estimated cost of the project at $2.4 billion. Is the time savings and frequency enough to justify the cost? Chair Miller added that jobs also need to be part of the data. Will the project create jobs and where will it create them? Will the entire corridor benefit? Commissioner Rettman noted that where the jobs are coming from should also be looked at. Does the project have an opportunity to lure back jobs that have moved elsewhere? Chair Miller agreed and added that our region is constantly competing with others and better mobility can be a way to retain and expand our employment base. Discussion turned to how the transportation systems works together and that roads, rail, and air do not operate in a vacuum. It was noted that without improvements to rail, roads would bear a larger burden and would need to be upgraded at a significant cost. Chair Miller felt that the commission should reinforce that high-speed rail isn t the only solution for mobility; instead it is a piece of a larger solution. Being ready to implement it is important so that when the opportunity arises Minnesota can take advantage of it. Councilmember Schultz stated that the country will add forty million people by 2030 and they will all need to be able to move around. There is a need to invest significantly in transportation infrastructure or we will fall behind other regions and countries that are investing more. There is also a need to look to the private sector to identify opportunities where the public and private sector can create a partnership to better the transportation system. Chair Miller polled commission members on their desire to have staff investigate the preparation of a to-go kit. Commissioners felt it was a good idea and directed staff to bring back a mock-up of a to-go kit to the next commission meeting. Staff requested that commissioners provide any additional comments on the Key Messages, FAQs, and the fact sheet should be provided to Mike Rogers by May 11 th. This would allow for their incorporation into a final version. Following the discussion on Key Messages, FAQs, and the fact sheet, Mike Rogers provided a brief update on community presentations. 4-5

6 5. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Andy Gitzlaff provided an update on the state legislative session. The session was scheduled to end on April 30 th ; however, the legislature was still in session and negotiating bills for bonding, taxes, and the Vikings stadium. He noted that there is still significant interest in passing a bonding bill and that it will likely be part of end of the session negotiations. Chair Miller asked how many days remained in the session. Commissioner Peters stated that five days remained. Commissioner Rettman added that this was due to the constitution only allowing 120 session days and that was the limit that was dictating the adjournment, not the constitutional adjournment date Andy provided an update on Congressional activities. The existing transportation bill has been extended via a continuing resolution through June 30, If Congress does not pass a new transportation bill it is likely another continuing resolution will be passed that continues to fund transportation at the existing levels and extends beyond the November elections. He noted that 2013 appropriations bills are moving forward and that the TIGER program is still supported by both parties. It received $500 million in the latest continuing resolution that extended the transportation bill. The extension also included $1.8 billion for rail with $1.4 billion going to Amtrak. Commissioner Rettman noted the current discussion regarding oil pipelines and how pipelines impact property, but do not diversify our fuel supply or lead us to greater multimodality. 6. PASSENGER RAIL UPDATE MnDOT representatives were unable to attend the meeting and the item was tabled until the June meeting. Tom Faella provided a brief update on the status of the Twin Cities to Chicago second train study. He stated that a conference call had been scheduled for earlier in the week but was cancelled due to health issues with Dan Krom. The conference call is expected to be rescheduled shortly. 7. OTHER NEXT MEETING JUNE 7, 2012 Commissioners discussed the possibility of holding the June 7, 2012 meeting at the Union Depot in St. Paul. It was decided that the next meeting would be held at the Union Depot. Staff will provide directions and parking information with the agenda packet. Being there was no further discussion; the meeting was adjourned at 11:46 a.m. 4-6