Bruce A. Lundeen (10) (10) (10) (7.5) (7.5)
(10) (10) (10)
Lyle Wright (10) (5) (10) (7.5) (10) (10)
Dave Broden (7.5) (10) (7.5) (5) (10) (10)
1. Topic is of value. The interview
provided a good overview but did not provide the desired solid content
or alternatives that need to be addressed in transportation of all
types for MN today and for 20+ years.
2. Further study warranted. Yes,
definitely but the person must focus on the issue, alternatives, risks
and paths forward.
3. Road deficiencies harm economy. This
is easy to say yes to the question, but without some serious detail
making a strong statement would be considered without fact. Is the
problem deteriorating or lack of adequate roads or lack of alternative
transportation or other?
4. Add $12B for roads, bridges. Would
like to say yes, but information was not sufficient to support a
position or even begin to discuss.
5. Existing sources not enough. Some new
or modified form of revenue source must be established and evolved.
This must link user fees with economic benefits and public safety.
6. States must act. State must be the
leader with federal support where federal road and transportation
7. Innovate to reduce traffic. This
approach, although commonly used as a goal, has been discussed for
years and has yielded very little. Bigger thinking and innovation is
8. Tax windfalls to landowners. Need to
have a good rationale why this makes sense. Too often basic public
benefits and public safety, [assessments] for fire and health
services, etc., are not addressed or considered.
Kevin Edberg (7.5) (7.5) (10) (10) (10) (10)
Don Anderson (5) (5) (7.5) (5) (10) (7.5)
4. Add $12B for roads, bridges. This is
the same story for colleges and universities, health facilities, et
al. They all need more financial resources than are currently
available. At the same time people want lower taxes. That is the
David J. Therkelsen (10) (5) (10) (7.5)
(7.5) (7.5) (10) (10)
1. Topic is of value. Much as I believe
depreciation should be recognized as a true cost of doing business, in
any sector of the economy, given the system we have, can't we solve
the issue by making sure bond issues and the projects they fund are
well aligned chronologically? If we sell 30-year bonds for a project
with a 30-year useful life, then 30 years later we should be able to
renew this investment.
8. Tax windfalls to landowners. Local
units of government capture some of value of land appreciation from
these projects; why not the state; perhaps through some form of
"reverse revenue sharing"?
Conrad deFiebre (10) (7.5) (10) (7.5) (10)
(7.5) (10) (10)
2. Further study warranted. Critics of
increasing user fees for roads and bridges make a one-dimensional
argument based on public opposition, but too often fail to rebut the
simple arithmetic Zelle presents. It would be useful to hear any
alternatives they suggest for our undisputed transportation needs.
4. Add $12B for roads, bridges. I
strongly support fully funding the $5 billion gap in money for
maintenance of existing state highways. Anything less would be
profligate and very un-conservative. But do we need another $7 billion
to build new infrastructure that will need maintenance forever after?
Only if a positive return on investment can be proven with honest
budgeting that recognizes depreciation.
8. Tax windfalls to landowners. Also
rail transit stations.
Norm Carpenter (10) (10) (10) (10) (10)
(7.5) (7.5) (10)
7. Innovate to reduce traffic. Need
another TCATS study (Twin Cities Area Transportation Study.) Who is in
those cars and where are they going?
8. Tax windfalls to landowners.
Legislature decided (unfortunately) not to permit the offset of value
to the remainder when MDOT condemns land. Too much bleeding hearts
motivation. Similarly with awards of damages for interrupted business
I was Deputy Attorney General for the State,
representing, inter alia, the Department of Highways (pre-MDOT), in
the late Sixties. Back then good people at the Department were well
aware that the State was building more mileage than it could maintain,
but every legislator wanted a new road. And the Interstate System was
built with 90% free money.
Phil Kinnunen (10) (10) (10) (5) (10) (10)
7. Innovate to reduce traffic.
Self-driving cars are in the future. They will be a novelty for a
while until people realize that if I'm not doing the driving, why do I
need a car and start ridding the bus or train. In metro areas, small
rental cars, motorcycles, bikes that are available at train and bus
stops would make a lot of sense.
8. Tax windfalls to landowners. Just
because a person happens to have land near a new freeway interchange
is not a reason to tax them. Tax them when they start making money
from businesses or when they sell the land.
J. C. Nowicki (7.5) (5) (10) (10) (10) (10)
Bev Bales (na) (na) (na) (na) (na) (na) (na)
The excess the state has should be used for
our roads and bridges. Need folks all over the state to push for this.
We are so very far behind in roads/bridges; how wrong.
Arvonne Fraser (10) (6) (8) (10) (10) (4)
No questions about mass transit here.
Terry Stone (8) (8) (6) (5) (5) (5) (6) (0)
The other side of the value capture coin
requires government entities to reimburse property owners for
diminished property values as a result of government actions.
Diminished property value range[s] from the roar of freeway traffic
that forever destroys the tranquility of backyard activities to zoning
restrictions on private property use. Courts have consistently ruled
that property owners are not entitled to be reimbursed for insidious
regulatory partial takings by government. This would need to change
before government can morally attempt to assess a value to its actions
and charge the property owners for that ostensible enhanced value.
While Zelle is no longer an employee with
any management authority for Jefferson Lines, I would be surprised if
he didnít have a significant financial interest in the company. At
minimum, as Chairman of the Board, he nevertheless has enormous policy
influence and a conflict of interest on state mass transit priorities.
Unattractive stunning conflicts of interest like this are endemic
nonpartisan artifacts of Minnesota government.
Margaret Donahoe (10) (8) (10) (10) (10)
(10) (5) (6)
Robert J. Brown (8) (10) (6) (5) (7) (10)
Support for has always been controlled by
special interests and extremely short-term thinking. Some examples:
The railroads were built into the state constitution; Rails for the
street cars were torn up and now we have a much more expensive
streetcar called light rail; If the highway lobby had not killed
efforts to put a sales tax on gasoline instead of a legislated few
cents per gallon when the state first went into the sales tax
business, the revenue from the gas tax would have increased
substantially; Minnesota officials did not seriously consider Dr.
Andersonís proposal for personal rapid transit(PRT) in the 1970s that
could have put us on the map as a truly innovative community. By the
early 2000s the European Union commissioned a study that involved 12
research organizations, and concluded that PRT would provide future
cities "a highly accessible, user-responsive, environmentally friendly
transport system which offers a sustainable and economic solution";
could "cover its operating costs, and provide a return which could pay
for most, if not all, of its capital costs"; would provide "a level of
service which is superior to that available from conventional public
transport"; would be "well received by the public, both public
transport and car users." The report also concluded that, despite
these advantages, public authorities will not commit to building PRT
because of the risks associated with being the first public
Chuck Lutz (9) (9) (8) (10) (9) (8) (7) (8)
Tom Spitznagle (8) (7) (5) (5) (6) (7) (8)
A key variable in transportation spending is
population growth but there seems to be an assumption that this is an
uncontrolled variable and that increased transportation spending must
correlate to, and be supportive of, a significantly growing
population. Perhaps the stateís political leadership should review
this assumption and decide if population growth is a variable that
needs to be better controlled. The default position is to simply let
transportation costs be driven by whatever growth in population
happens to occur over time in different parts of the state. Not the
optimal approach to plan strategically and financially since it simply
depends on spending an ever-increasing amount on transportation in
response to an uncontrolled variable (i.e., population growth).
Wayne Jennings (8) (8) (7) (9) (8) (10) (6)
Roger A. Wacek (na) (na) (0) (5) (5) (10)
The economy of the future will become more
local on the downslope of peak oil.
Paul and Ruth Hauge (8) (9) (7) (8) (9) (8)
Tom Swain (10) (10) (9) (9) (10) (9) (10) (5)