If we're going to make progress in divided government, we have to realize that no side is going to have it all their way. And we each have to settle for a half a loaf or two-thirds of a loaf, rather than trying to hold on for the whole loaf. And another way of saying that is not letting our view of the perfect get in the way of the good.
— Gov. Tim Pawlenty, speaking about the 2007 Legislative session
The state of Minnesota is about 20 years behind on our transportation infrastructure.
— A statement echoed by all three parties since at least 2003
Yesterday, the Metropolitan Council released its annual survey of Twin Cities metro residents. Respondents identified transportation as the region's top problem (37%). The Star Tribune has a summary report.
That top spot can't be attributed just to heightened awareness of the issue in the wake of the I-35W bridge collapse and tussles over funding for transportation. Transportation has ranked at the top of residents' concerns since the 2000-01 survey.
But it's enlightening to go back even further — the Met Council survey began in 1982 — and consider why the issue has made such a dramatic ascent.
Except for a brief spike in 1988, transportation as a number-one concern bubbled under 10% until 1995 when it began to climb rapidly (click to enlarge chart). By 2000, it had surpassed perennial worry over crime. When top three concerns are tallied, transportation also outstripped crime in 2006.
20 Years Behind, a forthcoming study by Growth & Justice policy fellow for Infrastructure & Economic Development Matt Kane, looks at some of the data underlying that shift over a period that covers years under Republican, Democratic and Independent governors, from Rudy Perpich to Arne Carlson to Jesse Ventura to Tim Pawlenty.
It quantifies what happens when the state continually settles for half a loaf or less in funding transportation. Looking at state government spending on highways alone, Matt found it:
has not kept pace with increases in inflation and vehicle miles traveled on Minnesota’s roads, leaving a cumulative gap of $13.89 billion in highway spending over the full period compared to 1986 expenditures adjusted for inflation and vehicle miles traveled. State spending on highways did out pace inflation alone, but adjusting for the increases in both inflation vehicle miles traveled is important in comparing the situation now to the comparable situation 20 years ago.
On the revenues side, the State of Minnesota’s dollars for highways and bridges, including federal funds, would have amounted to an additional $12.64 billion over the 20-year period if revenues each year had stayed even with the adjusted 1986 levels.
This failure to keep up — and to enact transit and smart growth policies that reduce driving — has consequences that inevitably show up in residents' perceptions. Congestion and related delays increase. And road conditions deteriorate due to deferred maintenance.
The summary of the Met Council's report [Download.pdf] noted "Transportation was more dominant as an issue in the suburbs and rural areas than in the central cities, where crime was of greatest concern." And, I'd add, where more compact development and transit make transportation less of an immediate issue.
It's also important to note that population growth and sprawl will continue to increase demand, while delaying work increases the costs of both new construction and repairs. Thus, the problems compound as each new half loaf of funding is applied.
The Star Tribune story on the survey highlighted that 74 percent of respondents said light-rail transit is a very important or moderately important project to undertake. If you only read the story, you might think that shows a high priority for light rail. Yet in the Met Council's summary, that response also ranks next-to-last in importance among Met Council programs. In fact, programs related to transportation, transit, light rail and smart growth all scored relatively lower in importance.
Does that difference in priorities reflect a meaningful gap? Are citizens identifying the issue but not so ready to support solutions that cost more money?
With the "bakers" starting to assemble at the state capitol to consider transportation funding proposals, we'll soon see.
— Charlie Quimby
Comments