1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to transit; requiring a cost-benefit analysis for proposed guideways;
1.3 requiring a report; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter
1.4 473.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. [473.4487] GUIDEWAY COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
1.7 Subdivision 1.Definitions.(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have
1.8the meanings given.
1.9 (b) "Commissioner" means the commissioner of transportation.
1.10 (c) "Project options" means the proposed guideway and each alternative identified
1.11pursuant to subdivision 2, paragraph (b).
1.12 (d) "Responsible governmental unit" means the unit of government responsible for the
1.13environmental analysis of the project.
1.14 Subd. 2.Analysis required.(a) Prior to the selection of a locally preferred alternative,
1.15the responsible governmental unit must perform a cost-benefit analysis as described by this
1.16section. The responsible governmental unit must submit the analysis to the commissioner
1.17and the Metropolitan Council within 30 days of completing the analysis. The commissioner
1.18must post the final analysis on the Department of Transportation's website. The chair of the
1.19Metropolitan Council must post the final analysis on the council's website. The commissioner
1.20and the council must jointly submit a copy of the final report to the legislative auditor and
1.21to the chairs and ranking minority members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction
1.22over transportation finance and policy.
1Section 1.
REVISOR KRB/DG 25-0061011/21/24
State of Minnesota
This Document can be made available
in alternative formats upon request
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H. F. No. 272
NINETY-FOURTH SESSION
Authored by Anderson, P. E.; Robbins; Myers; Schwartz and Johnson, W.,01/23/2025
The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Transportation Finance and Policy 2.1 (b) The responsible governmental unit must determine alternatives that would serve
2.2substantially the same area as the proposed guideway but would provide service in a different
2.3manner. At a minimum, the alternatives must include an arterial bus rapid transit line, a
2.4regular route bus service line, and a nontransit option that expands capacity of the road.
2.5 (c) At a minimum, the analysis must include the following information:
2.6 (1) for guideway and busway project options, the estimated ridership numbers;
2.7 (2) for the capacity expansion option, the number of additional vehicles accommodated
2.8by the expansion;
2.9 (3) for each project option, an estimate of the increase or decrease of the number of
2.10vehicles on the road;
2.11 (4) the amount of revenue derived from or attributable to each project option, including
2.12but not limited to fares, tax on gasoline, and motor vehicle sales tax;
2.13 (5) for each project option, the estimated ongoing maintenance costs, which entity will
2.14pay for the costs, and the percentage of the costs to be paid by each entity;
2.15 (6) for each project option, the estimated future capital costs, which entity will pay for
2.16the costs, and the percentage of the costs to be paid by each entity;
2.17 (7) the estimated economic benefit attributable to each project option, including but not
2.18limited to new or expanded housing units or businesses, increased freight movement, and
2.19reduction of supply chain issues;
2.20 (8) for each project option, the estimated timeline for construction, road closures, and
2.21detours and an estimate on how that timeline affects the surrounding areas;
2.22 (9) for each project option, an estimate of whether vehicle collisions will increase or
2.23decrease due to a change in the projected number of vehicles on the road;
2.24 (10) for each project option, an analysis of whether each project option could be altered
2.25or stopped once construction is started and the estimated costs related to alteration or
2.26stopping;
2.27 (11) for each project option, travel time along the route from end to end and for various
2.28points of interest in between, including time spent waiting for transit, changing modes of
2.29transportation, and other time spent directly related to travel but not inside of a vehicle;
2.30 (12) for busway and guideway project options, how travel time for vehicles would be
2.31affected by any estimated reduction in vehicle traffic; and
2Section 1.
REVISOR KRB/DG 25-0061011/21/24 3.1 (13) for each project option, the estimated increase or decrease in carbon emissions or
3.2other environmental pollutants.
3.3 (d) The analysis must also determine how many miles of arterial bus rapid transit, regular
3.4route bus service, or congestion mitigation construction could be funded for the amount
3.5proposed to be spent on the guideway.
3.6 (e) A responsible governmental unit may request assistance from the commissioner or
3.7the Metropolitan Council. The commissioner or the Metropolitan Council must provide the
3.8requested assistance and may bill the responsible governmental unit for reasonable expenses
3.9incurred in providing the assistance.
3.10 EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION.This section is effective the day following
3.11final enactment and applies to all guideways seeking state or federal funding on or after
3.12that date, except this section does not apply to the Gold Line bus rapid transit project. This
3.13section applies in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and
3.14Washington.
3.15 Sec. 2. GUIDEWAY COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; TRANSITION.
3.16 (a) This section applies to a guideway for which a locally preferred alternative has been
3.17selected prior to the effective date of this section but is not in revenue operation on the
3.18effective date of this section, except this section does not apply to the Gold Line bus rapid
3.19transit project.
3.20 (b) For each guideway subject to this section, the commissioner of transportation and
3.21the Metropolitan Council must perform a cost-benefit analysis as required by Minnesota
3.22Statutes, section 473.4487, subdivision 2, paragraphs (b), (c), and (d). Within 30 days of
3.23completing a cost-benefit analysis required by this section, the commissioner must post the
3.24final analysis on the Department of Transportation's website and the Metropolitan Council
3.25must post the final analysis on the council's website. The commissioner and the council
3.26must jointly submit a copy of the final report to the legislative auditor and to the chairs and
3.27ranking minority members of legislative committees with jurisdiction over transportation
3.28finance and policy.
3.29 EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION.This section is effective the day following
3.30final enactment and applies in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey,
3.31Scott, and Washington.
3Sec. 2.
REVISOR KRB/DG 25-0061011/21/24