Talking about the transportation of tomorrow
Posted on April 19th, 2007 – 6:05 AMBy Roadguy
The public meeting that Roadguy attended yesterday had an official name so boring that he won’t mention it here, for he fears that it might put even his most alert readers to sleep. But the room was full of interesting ideas and Important People (a Bush Cabinet member led the proceedings), so read on to learn about policies that might affect you, an appearance by a canine, and some mighty cute traffic cones.
Upon arrival at the meeting, Roadguy was introduced to a MnDOT employee named Kevin, who said oh, you’re the blog guy! Kevin looked like he could pass for a bouncer, and Roadguy is always a little nervous when people he’s never met have heard of him, but fortunately, Kevin was very helpful — when I mentioned that I might take some photos, for example, he encouraged me not to step beyond the serious-looking guys with the earpieces near the front of the room. Good point; Roadguy loves to travel, but he has no desire to see Gitmo.
Created by Congress, the commission at the front of the room is informally known as the “transportation for tomorrow” commission. Several of its members were in Minneapolis all day to gather information about our region, and this particular hearing sought recommendations for a new national transportation policy. Five regional bigwigs were on hand, and here’s a sampling of their thoughts:
Carol Molnau (1), Minnesota’s lieutenant governor and transportation commissioner, told the commission that “the gas tax will never keep up” — more efficient vehicles and alternative fuels have reduced its revenue-generating power, and to replace it, she favors a mileage-based user fee that would keep track of how much a vehicle is driven. (A news story on Oregon’s test of such a system is here.)
The transportation chiefs of North Dakota (2) and South Dakota (3), meanwhile, made the case that revenue generators such as toll roads and public-private partnerships weren’t going to work in their states; you can’t have congestion pricing when you don’t have congestion. Their roads are taking a beating from things like increased ethanol production, which brings lots of trucks to rural two-lane highways, and they noted that, because of poor air service and limited or no rail service, their states are very road-dependent.
Peter Bell (4) of the Met Council and Peter McLaughlin (5) of the Hennepin County Board argued for a streamlining of federal bureaucracy so that transportation projects can get approved more quickly, with less second-guessing, because delays raise costs. As one member of the federal commission put it, “It takes 14 years to deliver a project, and that’s ‘on time.’”
The speakers were also generally opposed to earmarks, which were viewed as disruptive to the funding process. And there was much extolling of Minnesota’s success stories, from the light-rail line to the use of shoulder lanes to keep buses moving during rush hour.
After the hearing, there was a break, and as we were leaving the room, we were asked to take all bags with us, which raised Roadguy’s eyebrows a bit. The conference room was inside the McNamara Alumni Center on the East Bank campus of the University of Minnesota, where, unbeknownst to us at the time, there was a bomb scare. Our 5-minute break stretched to 45 minutes and included a visit by a bomb-sniffing dog from the airport police:
The longer break gave Kevin enough time to introduce me to Carol Molnau and a few other Important People, though Mary Peters, the U.S. transportation secretary, didn’t seem to be hanging around in the lobby with everyone else — I think the earpiece guys were making sure she was safe.
She was indeed safe, and once she was able to reconvene her commission, the topic was congestion reduction, with a focus on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). She called the recent fix on Highway 100 “commendable,” and she and her fellow commission members listened as a new crop of speakers urged more funding for systems such as adaptive traffic signals. (Oakland County, Michigan, was mentioned as a model; click here to see what they’re up to.)
The ITS panel wrapped up pretty quickly because of its delayed start, and when it ended, it was time for Roadguy to get going. He hated to leave the hearings behind, though, because the conference room had a couple of cool transportation-y features. There were nifty little red/yellow/green desktop stoplights that kept panelists from going on too long:
Wouldn’t those be handy at certain family gatherings? There were also mini traffic cones on the carpeting to keep people from tripping over a cable:
Roadguy resisted grabbing the cones and mini-stoplight and slipping them into his bag, and he headed back out into the real world. Within minutes, he promptly encountered disruptive road construction…
… challenging pedestrian crossings:
… and scads of rush-hour congestion on aging highways:
In other words, the “transportation for tomorrow” folks and other officials have their work cut out for them.
If you didn’t get a chance to attend the hearings but would like to submit your thoughts to the commission, click here; to submit your thoughts to Roadguy, click on the comments below.
20 Responses to "Talking about the transportation of tomorrow"
This is what people around here need, and our governor needs to listen. He says he supports efforts to curb Global Warming, but only supports the Northstar Rail project. What about the rest of the carbon emitting cars on the road. The alternative fuels, make a tiny dent in the problem, compared to taking the car off the road altogether, not to mention how that would ease traffic congestion. Oh, yes…that’s right. Our congestion is already down according to last week’s report. The guv and Molnau say they believe that. What commuter believes that? Projects here are way behind reasonable progress. Listen to this report by WCCO:
http://www.wcco.com/video/?id=26014@wcco.dayport.com
Those mini traffic cones are awesome. Did you snag one?
It reminds me of the Seinfeld where Kramer gets his hands on a roll of CAUTION tape and while in Jerry’s apartment, he drops an egg on the floor and blocks it off with the tape and four glasses around the circumference of the mess.
Oops, the video link I included doesn’t work on every computer. It was linking to WCCO’s “Reality Check: Traffic Congestion” that aired last night. Here is the text version:
http://wcco.com/realitycheck/local_story_109083201.html
Some of my thoughts:
- The gas tax won’t keep up. Well DUH. When the guy running your administration refuses to raise it…Now it’s true that we’re being more fuel-efficient. That’s good! But congestion pricing seems a far-off fantasy to me. What’s going to be done NOW? We don’t have a lot of options and our transportation commissioner is covering her hears and singing, “blah, blah, blah…I don’t hear you, I don’t hear you…”
- Intelligent Transportation Systems in the context of a “commendable” Hwy 100 “fix.” Reminds me of the AFLAC commercial with Yogi Berra where the duck just stares for a couple of seconds and walks out the door trying to shake the brain freeze in his head.
- Both Peters are right on that the federal project approval process is way too long. It has serious problems with the way metrics are used to systematically kill transit projects. The FTA is no friend of transit. Oberstar is going to hold oversight hearings about these problems. This is the reason earmarks happen in the first place. Congress is constantly looking at fixing problems caused by FTA project rejections (and probably roads too but I don’t know much about that).
“she favors a mileage-based user fee that would keep track of how much a vehicle is driven.” What a joke. I always thought “conservatives” were against Big Brother watching your every move.
The Asphalt Institute gave away those mini traffic cones at a conference I went to several years ago. They also gave out mini traffic barrels.
Points of clarification: Secretary Peters was not praising the Hwy. 100 fix as an ITS solution; that came in a moment of discussing more general fixes — sorry about that.
And proponents of the mileage-based systems are saying that the devices won’t keep track of where a car is or when (though the proponents seem to be having a bit of a hard time getting everyone to believe it).
Roadguy. You forgot to tell them I called you a hero!!
There is a website where people can provide their own comments/ideas/suggestions to the commission.
It is at
Suz, it is laughable. But, scary to wonder what kind of people sit around and figure out ways to stick it to people who are buying fuel efficient cars.
I wish I knew about this, I would have attended.
“she favors a mileage-based user fee that would keep track of how much a vehicle is driven.”
This sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Why would they want to create a new system & bureaucracy for collecting a new tax, rather than just changing the gas tax we already have? Does the Pawlenty admin somehow think that constituents who don’t want the gas tax increased would prefer this other tax instead? Its pure idiocy.
>Its pure idiocy.
————–
What do expect from the Pawlenty administration? At least they’re consistent. 
A mileage based user fee will never work. What about traveling salespeople who drive out of state most of the time? What about trucks registered here but driven elsewhere? What about people who will register cars with their relatives addresses in other states to avoid paying such taxes.
If they don’t keep track of where the miles are driven, and then tax anyone who comes across the MN state lines with out of state vehicles it just won’t work. Period. Not to mention it will kill the trucking industry in MN, they’ll all register vehicles elsewhere to avoid such a ludicrous tax.
Maybe I’m not understanding the complexities of such an ingenious idea, or maybe it really is just as stupid as it sounds.
Never going to work. Stupid idea.
I did mention the hearings twice in the past week or so, but you might have missed it amid my copious prose. I was a little surprised that it was basically all suits in attendance during the time I was there, but as others have said, a lot of these events are during the day, so it can be hard for the ordinary working public to attend. Fortunately, in the Internet era, there are alternative ways to get info and give input.
The mileage based user fee… Isn’t that basically what a TOLL ROAD does, but with a lot less complexity?
LESS TALK MORE WALK.
Roadguy, this is amazing. When did you become a reporter not just a blogger/copy editor? 
Roadguy, did you ask Molnau what credentials she had to justify her lofty position as transpotation secretary? I think you, Froggie or heck, basically anyone posting here have a better understanding of things.
Morg: her “credentials” are basically her being on the House Transportation Committee when she was a representative.
As for the meeting, I’d have liked to attend, but had the other-half in tow after she flew in (MSP has hugely changed in the 10 years since I was last there).
A mileage-tax is basically the ultimate form of a user fee: you pay for the mileage you drive. Problem is figuring out how to set it up. I think it could be doable on a national level without requiring “big brother technology”, but not at the state/local level.
Gas tax: this plus registration fees based on WEIGHT (and not car value) is the next best thing, and what we should stick with for now.
Registration fees based on weight and not car value, that’s brilliant! I am also for throwing in yearly salary to calculate registration fees. Let those making over 100k as an individual foot the bill. They don’t need more toys.
Yearly salary muddys the waters too much. The reason I suggest fees based on vehicle weight is because there’s a direct correlation between a vehicle’s weight, the vehicle’s tire-contact with the ground, and the amount of stress that vehicle puts on the pavement, and bridges in particular.
Why should someone who makes over 100K and drives 5K miles a year foot the bill for those driving 10-20K miles per year and making less? Who’s doing more damage to the roads?
