_7.8 average_____ 1. On a scale of (0)
most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, what is
your view on claims that the federal government lacks a stated
national purpose in its surface transportation
2. On a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most
agreement, what is your view on whether the state government--as
distinguished from the federal government--should be responsible for
establishing priorities on which transportation projects should be
_6.5 average _____ 3. On a scale of (0)
most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, what is
your view on whether the federal government should continue to pay a
substantial share of capital expenses for transportation?
_6.7 average _____
4. On a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most
agreement, what is your view on whether operating expenses for
transportation should be paid for by the states, not the federal
John Milton (7) (3) (10) (0)
It seems obvious that Gov. Pawlenty is more interested in his no-taxes
image than taking leadership on this issue. That is a huge
disadvantage for Minnesota when compared with states that have
stronger leaders on transportation.
Robert J. Brown (10) (8) (5) (5)
I think that there should be a federal-state partnership in sharing
both capital and operating expenses. If the feds just provide capital
funds they create a problem for the state in that the long term
maintenance costs can overwhelm the states for projects that they
might not have undertaken without the pressure of “free money” from
Donald H. Anderson (10) (4) (6) (4)
The way the fractured transportation situation is today, I don't what
the answer will be. Are we too fragmented with special interests to
ever come up with a solution?
David Broden (8) (7) (5) (7)
Question 1: The lack of a federal focus statement seems to be very
clear and something that is definitely needed vs. what appears to be a
strategy based on the lastest trend topic or simply perhaps based on
public opinion polls. One downside risk of a strongly stated federal
policy is that a transportation policy could be viewed as a first set
toward a national economic and industrial policy and planning
effort--this should not be the result. We need a national goal for
transportation but not a plan and control that will essential dictate
what the free market and industry can and will do given the investment
incentives and opportunity.
Question 2: There must be a clear distinction between interstate
commerce and intrastate commerce in the planning and implementation of
all types of transportation. The federal government should ensure
movement of people and products that relate to interstate commerce and
safety, defense etc.--but the state must have the authoity to set
standards and the approach within the state as long the objectives for
interstate commerce are met. There should be a good balance of inter
and intra guidelines and purpose etc.
Question 3: There needs to be a continuing partnership between the
feds and the states. States need more flexibility on how and which
projects. The Feds need to ensure that interstate commerce flow to
Question 4: The operating expense should be paid for by the user
levels of government. If however the mode of transportation in
consideration has been dictated by another unit or it is clearly shown
that the mode of transportation has a national purpose then with a
well defined criteria the fund could be jointly provided.
Steve Alderson (5) (10) (2) (5)
I still feel that too little understanding exists about the role
played by long range planning in the state and regional transportation
organizations within Minnesota. Take the TAB and Metro Council. They
have a forty year plus history of regional planning and fund
allocation in a framework intended from the beginning to be
cooperative. Their legislative directives have not changed. They have
been given some competition by the legislature.
There has been considerable staff continuity for thirty years. None of
the topics that are brought up in your interviews are new and few
transit or highway proposals being discussed today have not been on
the table in the past. The result is that when new money appears there
is a ready list of potential applications, projects so forth. Orski
tells you the result. There is continual modal competition for the
dollars and highway and transit interests are never going to agree.
You might as well ask the Germans to endorse the French.
The real problem is operations and maintenance. The interstates were
paid for with federal dollars but keeping them in good condition is a
local or state responsibility. You can argue that we bought too much
concrete in the first place to keep up with it. I fear that the
current situation will go the same way. To that extent you are right
when you say there is not a federal mission. With reduced funding
levels for the past decade, MN/DOT had come to understand that they
needed to manage expectations. Now that Uncle Sam has opened the
coffers again, I am concerned that we will not have the
conservationist frame of mind we should have. The good news is that
500 million plus or minus is not very much money and so may not cause
too much damage.
Again please talk to someone who has looked at what projects have been
built in the past ten years and why and were they good ideas or no?
Start with the two recently completed Regional Principal Arterials
Hwys. 212 and 610. What do they represent in terms of planning/funding
decisions? What have they or will they achieve?
Glenn Dorfman (10) (10) (5) (10)
Fred Senn (10) (5) (5) (8)
A lot of people - from Tom Friedman to the President of the huge
dealer group AutoNation to "Click and Clack" on NPR advocate a higher
federal tax on gasoline as a way of curbing demand raising funds for
transportation. Did that idea come up?
Bob White (5) (8) (6) (6)
Joe Mansky (7) (5) (10) (10)
I wonder if the federal government also has an interest in getting as
much of our transportation system off of petroleum-based fuels as
possible and make a switch toward electrification, which relies on
indigenous fuel sources, if for no other reason but to limit our
exposure to problems overseas and address the balance of trade
Scott Halstead (10) (10) (0) (10)
Question 1: The federal government should limit its fund raising and
responsibility to the U.S. and Interstate Highway System, Rail and Air
system. State and local government should be entirely responsible
state and local highway systems and all local transit systems.
Ques;tion 3: Absolutely not
Question 4: Operating expenses should be paid by fares and state and
Bill Frenzel (10) (10) (10) (5)
Question 1: The only discernable nat’l purpose is re-election of the
Question 2: Until, and unless, the feds have a purpose, states should
set own priorities.
Question 3: If the feds are collecting the taxes, they ought to pay.
Question 4: Since feds are allegedly underfunding capital costs, what
would they use to underwrite the fare box? Should further debase the
Ray Schmitz (9) (5) (9) (9)
Question 2: In the same way there is interstate commerce vs intrastate
there should be systems designed to facilitate both. I want to take a
high speed train to Washington, but also a good bus or rail link to
Mpls. and they should not be dependent on each other.
Question 3: For interstate systems yes, local no.
Question 4: Same as above.
Will Branning (0) (5) (10) (10)
Conrad deFiebre (8) (9) (10) (5)
Question 1: Orski's right about drift after the interstate system's
completion. But it's unfair to say there's no national purpose at all
in federal transportation policy. Smart improvements in all modes
contribute to mobility, efficiency and economic strength, which is the
point of all this. Even most earmarks contribute in some fashion.
Question 2: Unlike all politics, not all transportation assets are
local. Most are, though. States and local governments should have the
biggest planning role in most cases, but a federal hand is also needed
to ensure efficient links across our vast nation.
Question 3: What do we mean by substantial? 80-20 for roads and
bridges? 50-50 for transit? That's the current regime.
Question 4: What do we mean by operating expenses? Just transit? Or
maintenance costs of roads and bridges, too?
Bert Press (5) (10) (10) (0)
Lyall Schwarzkopf (8) (10)(7) (6)
Chris Brazelton (5) (6) (8) (4)
I agree that we need to coordinate planning for transportation needs,
with criteria based on many factors, including traffic/usage, cost
effectiveness including construction and ongoing maintenance and
environmental concerns. Repairs need to be tiered based on clear
criteria, keeping politics out of the process as much as realistically
Question 1: Not enough information to make an informed judgment.
Question 2: There needs to be clear goals when it comes to interstate
transportation, passenger as well as freight, set at the federal
level, but the states have a clear role for
determining intrastate needs.
Question 3: Would like to review alternatives more.
Question 4: As much as possible operating expenses should be paid by
users, and beyond that, the ratio would depend on whose goals are
Carolyn Ring (8) (5) (5) (5)
Question 2: States should have priority on state roads and some U. S.
Highways, but inter-states are another story.
Question 3: As Mr. Orski pointed out, there too often is no provision
for ongoing upkeep at the federal level.
Question 4: This has the same inherent problems as in question 3, with
no funds after the initial ones.
Hans Sandbo (9) (8) (2.5) (7.5)
Question 3: We need some coordination at the Federal level but
"special interest" spending by strong persons in congress can take
important spending away from
states that have weaker persons in congress.
Question 4: We would be a little closer to the deciders and there
would be more of them representing broader interests.
Ray Ayotte (10) (10) (5) (_)
Bill Heegaard (10)( 5) (5) (10)
Shari Prest (7) (8) (7) (5)