The Questions:

_9.0 average_____ 1.  On a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, what is your view on the need for an integrated, comprehensive transportation budget to balance road and rail improvements together? 

_8.1 average_____ 2.  On a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, what is your view on whether responsibility for preparing an integrated, comprehensive transportation budget should be vested in the office of Governor, with mandatory involvement by the State Legislature? 

_8.8 average_____ 3.  On a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, what is your view on whether federal dollars should be distributed consistent with a state-adopted, integrated, comprehensive transportation budget?

Bill Hamm (2) (5) (2)

Question 1. Metro folks are desperate to get rail included at an equal rate so they can force the whole state to pay for a rail system that will never turn a profit. I want highway funding totally separate from your precious rail in every way possible. This proposal strongly demonstrates a central planning model that will again divide and conquere rural Minnesota and keep us and our roads effectively on the bottom of the list forever.

Question 2:  The proof is in the pudding and I don't see any pudding yet. Don't ask me to support such a proposal until I see some solid legislative language here, way too much pie in the sky far too little detail. Mandating bi-partisanship out of the present polarization is unrealistic and naïve.

Question 3.  Federal highway dollars should not be misappropriated for metro rail. I have never used your rail system and probably never will yet those behind this are desperately trying to tap rural pockets to fund this outrageously antiquated mode when monorail or pneumatic tubes would have been far more long term cost efficient. Old "Union Labor intensive" thinking not efficiency in cost or system thinking. The Federal earmarking has been a way to force our metro neighbors to help get some of our projects done. I don’t' want any committee appointed to speak for me. I want my representation chosen by northern elected officials not the party in power.

David Dillon (10) (10) (10)

Kudos.  As an old anti-earmark campaigner, this does my heart good.  Who could possible be opposed to an integrated and comprehensive approach?  And, you are quite right about leadership being the necessary key ingredient.  Finally, thanks for the nod to the importance of innovation, I think you could even say “such as PRT” in section E paragraph 5.

When you are done, let me know if I can help promote the change needed.

Roy Thompson (10) (9) (7)

Eric Schubert (10) (10) (10)

Charles Lutz (9) (9) (9)

Jim Abeler (5) (4) (5)

David Broden (10) (10) (10)

Question 1: Transportation must be one of the central topic forces in government and clearly need to be integrated across the considerations for jobs, education, environment, public safety etc. Further the rural vs. urban balance must be maintained and strengthened. Only with authority for planning and implementation at the state level and linking the various key elements within state planning and objectives can a transportation plan serving the people of Minnesota, the jobs of Minnesota, industry, and enabling effective education, and ensuring public safety be realized. 

Question 2:  The plan must be placed at a point of executive leadership and authority. The governor offers that capability and has the authority to provide the focus, the direction, and bring together the various departments and functions to a common purpose. As this new leadership action evolves the challenge will be how the legislature will fulfill its mandatory role to action on the integrated plan that the governor will establish without messing it up with "state legislature ear marks"--the governor leadership should help to break this trend. 

Question 3:  There are many reasons for the transportation funds from the federal government to be planned and distributed according to the state plan. If the state plan is done well it will have balanced the need and thus will have captured any priorities that are real and may have been in directed federal funds. Second all too often the federal dollars have a  "tail" that is not stated and for which the state must later pick up the bill. This may be matching or complementary funds or operational costs for systems or routes put in place with federal capital dollars. With limited dollars the state must be able to balance and define its priorities etc. There is however the area of interstate commerce where the Federal funds should by some mechanism have the ability to go to a specific purpose that meets that criteria or is required specifically for public safety actions. 

Jim Keller (10) (10) (8)

Without question it will be a very daunting task to create and recreate an overall transportation policy; the pressures will obviously be political and parochial, but none- the-less I fully agree that a less than perfect plan is much better than no plan at all. I believe this concept deserves serious consideration._I believe we are often bribed into poor decisions with federal dollars - one obvious result in the past has been new construction at the expense of maintaining existing investment.

Connie Morrison (10) (10) (10)

This is an excellent report.  It's been some time since I've been involved in transportation policy, and I like to think that some of these ideas were in play then, but certainly there is a need for a better integrated plan that eliminates policy by politics.  Thanks for all the work.  

John Milton (10) (_) (10)

On question No 2, I just don't trust Gov Pawlenty.  He's not willing to support a shared sacrifice in these difficult times.  His ideological no taxes shows either insane political ambition or religious disorientation.  If the governor were Andersen, Anderson, Quie, Perpich, Carlson, or Ventura I would answer this question differently.  Until Pawlenty goes away, we're just stuck in MN with declining education, healthcare, transportation, et. al.

Al Quie (10) (10) (10)

Government services will always bring out special interests. Reorganization of government structure is necessary from time to time and now in transportation again. When I became Governor, the Highway Department had been changed into the Department of Transportation and given other modes of transportation responsibilities. It did not work because Commissioners were not respected by the old highway milieu in the Department. Therefore, I picked Dick Braun who had excellent highway credentials and respect, but had gone on to study planning and got respect from the other transportation areas. The moral of this story is the success in reorganization is dependent on the caliber of the Governor's choice of Commissioner whose vision and people skills can make a consolidated department work. You have brought forth excellent ideas but simple principles are necessary, like, 1) the governor deals with only one person in all transportation budgeting and planning and that person must already be respected in the broad field for his/her knowledge, integrity and conflict resolution. 2) the legislature should depend on a new bipartisan joint committee of only members who have the same qualities as the commissioner.

Set value principles like: a. the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area is the center of the state; b. the most important transportation concerns are within the metro area and to and from all cities that will be over 100,000 population in 10 years. People can come together on simple, basic value principles. Without it they begin right off fighting for their own interests which reorganization structure by itself cannot solve.

You can see I am in agreement with your first two recommendations. Not #3, any permanent group of stake-holders like number three gives those on the board the impression of power. Those with the power to raise revenue, set policy, plan and expedite need both accountability to the voters and independence from special interests. I do like #4 but agree it will be most difficult. The principle though should be raise as much revenue from the users as possible. I wish it all came from user fees (taxes) and low income people could get transportation stamps like (food stamps) financed by general revenue.

Clarence Shallbetter (10) (10) (10)

Bright Dornblaser (10) (10) (10)

Excellent report.  However, not clear what political and other processes will lead to acceptance by the many stakeholders needed to implement it.  I worry about option 4.  No confidence the Governor and legislature would use the funds for comprehensive  transportation, especially in the probable absence of political will to obtain needed additional revenues.  (Probably need to be less cynical and more optimistic).

Marianne Curry (10) (10) (10)

What we have today is a dazzling Christmas tree laden with wishful thinking from every local government, private or public interest in the transportation industry all seeking earmarks to capital fund their pet projects.  There will never be enough money to build, let alone maintain, these multiple systems.  It is irresponsible to continue down this path.  The Governor's job as the Chief Executive is to set forth the vision, the rationale and the priorities in both capital and maintenance costs, then propose the means by which a rational system at least cost (including least subsidy), highest efficiency can be built and maintained.  The state plan must focus on a few clearly stated objectives, not the laundry list we now have to please all beggars.  Our failure to accomplish the foregoing will result in huge expenditures and no "system".  Local governments seeking federal earmarks that bypass a rational state plan just adds to the knee jerk confusion caused by lack of state executive leadership and coordination. 

Joe Mansky (10) (10) (10)
Question 2:  In a technical sense, this is already happening as a part of the adoption of the state budget. What needs to happen is a unified transportation budget, covering all modes in an integrated fashion, that is presented to the legislature as such.

Question 3:  I am of the view that we should not be spending any of the federal funds in the absence of a plan to do so that is consistent with the unified transportation budget. (Hence the value of state long-range planning.)

Conrad deFiebre (5) (5) (5)

I have trouble going in this direction because I wonder how integrated and comprehensive statewide transportation planning can be, especially when funding shortfalls force us to decide which roads will be properly maintained and which won’t. Would a comprehensive plan dictate which potholes on city streets can be fixed? On the other hand, it makes sense to plan major new highway and rail projects in light of each other to minimize duplication of capacity while also easing congestion.

Kent Elkund (10) (9) (10)

Robert J. Brown (9) (10) (10)

Question 1:  I think there should be an integrated transportation plan and budget, including air and water transportation for both people and goods. The policies should be reviewed annually as new modes of transportation may be developed (I am still holding out hope for PRT) and as old modes become cost ineffective and/or environmentally more unfriendly.

Tom Swain (10) (6) (7)

Lyall Schwarzkopf (10) (8) (10)

Your question # 3 is very important, but the federal congress needs to make that decision and today we are talking about the State of Minnesota.    Overall I believe the statement is way to long.  We repeat the same arguments in many different parts of the statement.  Specifically, D 3 at the beginning of the statement is confusing and needs to be rewritten.  E 1 gets into us telling the legislator and the governor how to raise new taxes for transportation.  I thought the purpose of the statement was to try to get someone in charge of state transportation and not suggest new taxes.  The other recommendations at the end of the statement should be held for another day and another statement.

Bill Frenzel (10) (10) (10)

Chuck Slocum (10) (10) (10)

 This is very good policy work.  The major messages, as reflected above, should be made forcefully evident to the reader. 

Joe Lampe (10) (10) (10)

My friend educated me on transportation funding and priority setting. He says there should be no federal earmarks. Federal transportation funds should come to the states
as a lump sum. The states will do a much better job of setting priorities and sorting out how and where to spend the money. Many fewer projects with low cost/benefit ratios would be funded. The present system largely eliminates public input on spending choices. It's an insider's game of relationships, power, lobbying, campaign contributions, political legacies, etc. I've attended some "public involvement" sessions on LRT projects, and they are a farce -- just federal check off requirements -- the project decisions have already been made by Met Council and MnDOT. Transportation spending should be based on the largest number of people's needs being met, the largest number of resulting trip miles per dollar spent, and the greatest congestion reduction per dollar spent.

Matt Kane

--On p. 7, you note “[t]he need to bring raw materials to business and goods to markets, so essential for the state’s economy, might be receiving lower priority in favor of the more popular need of moving people.”  Agreed, and freight is critical.  But keep in mind that as our economy has moved away from good manufacturing to services, the physical movement of materials and goods constitutes only one element of the economic equation.  The movement of people is in and of itself an economic issue, for service provision and, for that matter, even in a manufacturing environment, where the ability of high-end engineers to reach their workplace in the metro area may be at least as important as getting steel to a plant.

--The federal push for greater decision-making by metro area governments responded to a recognized problem with putting all the power at the state level.  Too often, state-level decisions were underplaying metro concerns.  (Even now, funding allocations depend heavily on lane miles rather than vehicle miles, meaning that a road with few travelers may be weighted the same as a road with many travelers, at least for part of the funding allocation.)  As it stands, Congress looks to be ready to increase the decision-making power at the metro level.  This may make your focus on the state a bit problematic, given the importance of federal funding.  I understand your point about federal decisions driving state and local action. Likely to happen here.  But again, there are reasons that federal policy has moved in that direction.

--Good points about system expansion in light of maintenance and upkeep needs for what we have already.

--Still think you’re overplaying your hand when it comes to federal earmarks.  Yes, an 80 percent federal match (or more) can drive decisions, but most of those decisions aren’t earmarks.

--Most of my other stuff (and some of what I’ve listed here) ties back to comments I submitted in January for the earlier draft.

 Donald H. Anderson (10) (7) (8)

A monumental report on a very difficult subject

Wayne Jennings (10) (8) (10)

Dan Loritz (10) (10) (10)

Bert Press (10) (10) (10)

Donna Anderson (10) (6) (8)

Scott Halstead (10) (0) (10)

I favor an Elected Transportation Officer at the Attorney General Level that is responsible for all air, water and ground transportation activities.  No general funds would be utilized.  The Minnesota Department of Transportation would be responsible for all planning, operation, and maintenance functions.

Jon Olson (0) (0) (5)