Comments on Bernie Lieder summary
_____On a scale of (0), not urgent at all, to (10), most urgent,
transportation revenue be invested where it will do the most to
mobility, irrespective of location, funding source, type of
agency (state, metro, non-metro, county, or city)?
_____(yes or no) Will it be possible with existing governing
structures to cut
across jurisdictional and other barriers and invest limited dollars
projects of highest priority?
_____If not, on a scale of (0), not urgent at all, to (10), most
new, cross-jurisdictional strategic planning be undertaken that
encompasses a ll
major transportation facilities?
(10) (no) (10)
Political considerations are inevitable, but the blatant disregard of
policy integrity by the current MnDOT commissioner have raised
eyebrows among even the most jaded observers. The instantaneous
elevation of the 212 project was probably the most striking. Until
MnDOT is returned to professional management that's never going to
Frenzel (10) (no) (10)
Joe Mansky (7) (no) (10)
As indicated in the narrative, we no longer have a state planning
department that is charged with long-term transportation planning,
which must be multi-jurisdictional by its very nature. And as we
discussed the other day, we also have no capital budgeting process in
Minnesota, which is an integral part of the planning process.
The other issue that you might want to look at in the near future is a
revenue source for transportation operations. Given the fact that we
are likely to be using more fuel-efficient vehicles as the price of
gas increases, the revenue from the gas tax will start to go down (if
it isn't already.) We need a new revenue source to replace the gas tax
as a means to fund our transportation system. Possible alternatives
might include a vehicle fuel-efficiency tax or a carbon tax, which
would both raise revenue and promote energy efficiency or tailpipe
Peter Heegaard (10) (yes)
Ina Erickson (10) (yes)
How many bridges have to fall before we get serious about they safety
of our highways? If they exist, they need to be maintained, or
replaced as needed.
Donna Anderson (6) (no) (10)
Wayne Jennings (7) (no) (8)
These are complicated issues and difficult to sort out, particularly
as several new twists are introduced in this conversation (community
wide planning commission, earmarks, etc). Clearly, we have lacked
transportation leadership in the department. That’s dismaying to me.
I’m glad the transportation bill passed. The roads are a mess, bridges
need repair and congestion is bad. But without leadership and
comprehensive planning, bills are rushed through without nonpartisan
1. Why did the Governor not use line item veto?
2. Why has the press not highlighted the fact that much of the
expenditure sections have little to do with safety let alone bridges?
3. Why have we not focused on the fact that the Hennepin County
portion of the sales tax will pay for the deficit in running the
Hiawatha line? What happens as that deficit increases at a faster rate
than the sales tax increases? What about the deficit on the line from
Big Lake? Where is the discussion on what source pays for the deficit
on the line between Minneapolis and St. Paul?
If we project out these deficits and discover a gap between the growth
in the deficit and the sales tax growth, how fast does that gap grow,
how big will it be, do we have another financial disaster looming ten,
twenty years out?
4. Where is the discussion on how much of the money will pay for soft
costs of various kinds, soft costs that would otherwise not be funded
least of all in this session given our shortfalls in the growth of
revenue versus the growth in costs?
Isn't the issue really a decision on power, if two individuals share a
transportation problem, lack of access to a good road, but one of them
is part of a group of limited size and the other part of a far larger
group, whose problem do we fix?. A letter to the editor recently
complained about high taxes for roads and said that if the writer
wanted to live in an area he deserved to have good roads and all the
bells and whistles and they needed to be provided, he obviously did
not see the contradiction in his argument. This is one of those
situations where the governmental unit may no longer match the
citizenry, which I guess is why we see metro councils or joint powers
boards forming, but the comments in the discussion seem more to be
power rather than need or joint interests.
Item 5, is this consistent with the change, at least from my
perspective, in department heads historically making independent
judgments and recommendations to a having a determined administration
position and I am sticking to it model. That is, the seeming death of
the professional department head position.
Item 9, this issue was apparent at a recent meeting, the roads vs
transit, vs airport, vs prt, or if vs is the wrong term at least the
lack of coordination among and between the various modalities. For
example planning for an expended airport at the same time that light
rail is discussed for the same corridor.
Item 11, just finished driving east so have been on toll roads much of
the trip, why oppose, it is the ultimate user fee, new systems making
paying efficient, it does focus on the actual cost of sprawl and leads
to congestion/time pricing. Is this an appropriate area for the caucus
to look to lead.
Item 13; hopefully the study will look deeper at the total cost of
expansion, value may rise on newly available land but the total costs
to the community and the environment may outweigh this increase.
Tremendously important to have a process and it clearly does not
exist, except in the sense that the legislature, formally or
informally does so, but this is often based on subjective opinions.
Clarence Shallbetter (10) (no) (10)
Scott Halstead (10) (no)
There are outside rating organizations. There should a rating of the
effectivenes of our various agencies. They should be rated based upon
their effectiveness including the funds allocated, leadership to
improve meeting the agency goals, being advocates for their
organization, meeting the needs of the residents for those services.
Goals would be set by the Agency and Governor subject to review by the
legislature and change if approved by veto override.
We need an elected metro council responsible for transportation and
transit in the metro area. The state of Minnesota, DOT and existing
met council has demonstrated that they can't get the job accomplished.
They are posed to proceed with a billion dollar Central Corridor Light
Rail project that will not solve any transit issues in the metro area
because they get the big federal grant. How sad. We need the authority
to impose fees, raise taxes through the election process for those who
live and work in the metro area. The fees and taxes should only be for
new work, not operational, maintenance subsidies for transit fares.
Transit fares should be steadily increased so they cover operational
costs. Parking should no longer be free. We have far too much of storm
water runoff loaded with chemicals that is damaging our water. New
developments end up with storm water ponds that become breeding spots
for harmful insects. We need to wisely manage land and encourage
alternative to single vehicle trips. It is ridiculous to increase the
metro sales tax and use it to operations/transit fares. Users need to
pay!!! See my report that I am attaching. It has some interesting new
info about our application for federal funds for the Central Corridor.
Chuck Slocum (10) (yes) (10)
A lot has to do with the leadership of the MDOT group and its
professional reach with the governor and lawmakers...it seems to me
that the cross-jurisdictional planning should be ongoing, etc. Dick
Braun would be a good source on this topic.
Ed Dirkswager (__) (yes) (0)
Can't fully understand the implications of the terms "most to improve
Bob Brown (10) (3) (10)
It would be a fatal error to do transportation planning without
integrating it with planning in other related areas such as housing,
education, utilities (sewer and water), and natural resources. Opening
new areas to high speed or convenient transportation will immediately
raise demand for housing and that will lead to the need for schools,
utilities, and other government services. Transportation planning
should also be done is such a way as to minimize the opportunity for
speculators to buy up property near proposed major transportation
corridors to turn it over for a fast buck.
(9) (no) (9)
Matt Kane (9) (yes) (___)
First question comment: With the caveat that there will likely be
disagreement among different groups and agencies about how best to
improve mobility. Don’t just focus on reduced congestion because
congestion wanes and then increases with transportation improvements
as the economy grows.
Second question comment: I’m cautiously optimistic, but I understand
Marianne Curry (10) (yes)
1) Give this a ten. However, the degree of urgency for specific
projects should be determined by MNDOT.
2) Yes, if MNDOT does its job under new leadership with a lot of
pressure from the public (Civic Caucus, included). New structures and
new studies are not the answer. They just add costs and cause more
3) Cross-jurisdictional planning is why we have a state department of
transportation. If MNDOT lacks authority to evaluate local, county,
and regional planning, then the authority ought to be expanded. We
don't need another bureaucracy such as a State Planning Agency.
Metropolitan Council has largely failed to work across local
governments without the teeth to direct funding. The structures are in
place. They lack authority to implement. Long range planning is
sometimes a process chasing rainbows when the objectives are not
specific, measurable, and achievable for lack of adequate funding. The
problem is largely that the legislature failed to act for too long in
providing adequate funding for transportation. I believe every
taxpayer who traverses potholes and sits at a standstill on "freeways"
knows that. We must begin to streamline process in this state as
revenues decline and population gets older.
Having been involved in Transportation- Funding, Planning & Lobbying
there is quite a process as you well know going on. Also, at the State
Level there are Area Transportation
Planning organizations-including the Twin Cities Metro Council.
The Metro Council process includes:
The Transportation Policy Plan (TPP)
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The State Metro Systems Plan (TSP)
The Metro Council Planning & Funding Process has this planning and
Goes thru the following steps that are designed to meet Federal
Funding & Program Committee
Technical Advisory Board
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
Transportation Committee of the Metro Council
In addition there is the:
TAB Policy Committee
TAC Planning Committee
Transit Providers Advisory Committee
Central Corridor Management Committee
So- there is no lack of planning, study, recommendations, dicing and
slicing going on
And in addition, there is the competition in the:
Regional Solicitation for Federal Grant Awards.
It would seem to me that you might want to consider having an
interview session with the Chair of the Transportation Advisory Board
to bring there role in this process into the discussion. It would be
interesting to find out how they and/or The Metro Council would be
involved with the provisions in the new Transportation Bill.
While all the meetings are open to the public- unless you “follow the
bouncing ball” one would not have much understanding of how it works.
I spent over 10 years attending and/or participating in the process on
behalf on my employer(s) in moving their proposals thru the process.
As far as getting projects funded- there are several that are ready to
go. I can cite 2 of them that I was involved with-
1) The completion of TH 610 from TH 169 to I-94 in Brooklyn Park &
Completion of that segment would take the pressure off TH-694 in that
east and west bound traffic to and from east metro and St. Paul would
not have to use I-694 as a route to their destination.
2) The so called “Devils” Triangle- TH 169/County 81, 85th Avenue
North in Brooklyn Park. That project was scheduled to start in 2007,
but the funding was pulled away and shifted to the Crosstown Project.
The name “Devils Triangle” speaks for itself as a dangerous and
congested tangle of outdated roadways.
Another comment to Planning & Zoning: Any time a large multi-story
building is built on any of the quadrants located for example on
Highway 100/394- Highway 100/494 or along the 494 Strip in
Bloomington- the cry goes out for funding to “re-design” the
interchanges and approaches to accommodate the resulting congestion.
It seems that until there is some provision for MnDOT and/or the
Regional Planning Agency to control this “self-fulfilling”
prophecy-un-controlled development will continue to impact the highway
and interchange system’s ability to serve the demands –and thereby
demonstrate the need for a remedy.
Lyall Schwarzkopf (10) (no) (10)
Larry Schluter (8) (N) (10)
We have laws and I think limitation in the constitution now on how
money can be allocated which has limited and affected the way we can
best spend the money.