An Innovative Approach to Communicating Complex Funding Issues Chad Edwards & Elizabeth Whitaker May 18, 2009 TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference Houston, Texas

May Background: Regional Perspective 4 th Largest Metropolitan Area in the US –Larger than 9 states in land area 12 th Largest Metropolitan Economy in the World –Represents 34% of state’s economy 6.5 Million Persons in 2008 –Larger than 34 states in population –Expected to increase to 9 million persons by 2030

May Background: Transit Service Serviced by 3 Transit Authorities –Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) –Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) –The Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) Service Area Gaps –Includes largest city in US not serviced by public transportation: Arlington, TX Population 360, (Projected) NOT Serviced by Transit 44%56%

May Background: Transit Initiatives Effort –“Regional Rail Corridor Study” (RRCS) –Survey of transit acceptance with 75% of respondents supporting an increase in sales tax for transit purposes Effort –“Regional Transit Initiative” (RTI) –Bills introduced during legislative session that would increase sales tax for transit purposes –Bills failed to pass Effort –“Rail North Texas” (RNT) –Interested parties across the region focused efforts, identified new corridors, revenue sources, and potential implementation strategies –The Texas Local Option Transportation Act (TLOTA) was introduced during the legislative session

May CapitalO&MTotal Total Cost (2008$) $4,700$875$5,575 Total Cost (Over Time) $8,163$1,430$9,593 Annualized Cost $389$68$457

May How Do We Pay for It? Previous efforts only focused on sales tax at 0.5% and 1.0% During effort, a variety of sources and rates were considered by local elected officials –Sales Tax –Gas Sales Tax –Vehicle Registration Fee –Local Option Gas Tax –VMT Tax –New Resident Impact Fee –Motor Vehicle Sales Tax –Federal Funds –Property Tax –Drivers License Fee –4a/4b Retirement –TIF Districts –Toll Concession Payments –Gas Well Revenues –Parking Fees –Public Private Partnership ALL SOURCES WERE CONSIDERED!

May Evolution of Revenue Tool The NEED –Policy officials needed order of magnitude for various revenue sources –A better way to test scenarios and produce results was needed –Evaluate numerous requests –Provide ability to replicate tests quickly The OUTCOME –A user friendly tool that could quickly evaluate numerous funding options –A revenue tool that married cost and revenue aspects and also provided an interactive platform to test scenarios First effort provided elected officials with staff developed “test” scenarios of funding options

May Evolution of Revenue Tool: The Basics Developed in Microsoft Excel 2003 Utilized data that is widely available Utilized basic calculations using fixed base data Separate files were used to generate cost and revenue estimates Planning Tool that functions like a financial model UTILIZED SOFTWARE EVERYONE HAS & DATA ANYONE CAN GET Examples of Data TypesExample of Sources PopulationCensus, Statewide Data Center, MPO, COG, etc. Motor Fuel ConsumptionFHWA State Highway Statistics Registered VehiclesState DOT, FHWA Sales Tax RevenuesState Comptroller Property Tax Revenues/ValuesState Comptroller; Local Appraisal District InflationBureau of Labor Statistics

May Evolution of Revenue Tool Add Trigger for Sale of Bonds Add Interest Calculation Charted Revenue and Staging Add Debt Service Calculation Explore Staging Scenarios Expand Timeline from 20 to 40 yrs Add Cost Calculation Manually Calculate Revenue by County Developed Basic Tool Combine all County Files into One Determined Incremental Rates Option for O&M vs. Capital Costs Create Tables and Graphs Add Clarifying Comments Add Collection Geography Functions Added to Revenue Tool Functions that will Enhance Revenue Tool

May Revenue Tool Process User Defined: 1. Collection Geography 2. Revenue Sources 3. Revenue Rates Assumptions & Calculations Results Potential Revenue for Rail North Texas Potential Revenue for the Transportation Infrastructure Fund Total Potential Revenue Results Do Not Represent Actual Revenue Tool Used to Show an Order of Magnitude Results Do Not Account for Diversions, Commitments, or Administrative Costs Worksheet Administrators Can Easily Test Alternative Cost & Baseline Assumption Scenarios – This Ability is Not Given to End Users 9 Revenue Sources Dollars & Percentages by Region by County by Corridor

May Demonstration

May Annual Revenue Target: $457 Rail North Texas Revenue: $458 Transportation Infrastructure Fund: $477 Total: $935 Sales Tax Gas Sales Tax Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Vehicle Reg. Fee Local Option Gas Tax VMT Tax New Resident Impact Fee Transportation Property Tax Local Subsidy Option Rate 1/2 cent $20$100 % to Capital 82%100% % to O&M18%0% Demonstration Results

May Other Potential Uses for Tool –Gauge revenue streams at planning level –Determine voter sensitivity for additional funding sources –Basic Metropolitan Transportation Plan financial planning/forecasting –Teaching tool

May Lessons Learned 1.Communication is good 2.Don’t underestimate the resourcefulness of your staff 3.A little goes a long way 4.Innovation leads to success 5.Put it all out there

May Questions? Chad Edwards Program Manager Elizabeth Whitaker Transportation Planner III