The upcoming clash in May about spending is inevitable. Glance at the last two Sundays of the Star Tribune and you see a preview of the arguments.
But is there a way to avoid this deadlock by consciously preparing now for a "grand compromise": more money for the issues that matter most to Minnesotans — but only with meaningful reforms and innovations.
I've been criticized in the past for making "innovate-first-then 'invest'" arguments — and for skepticism about equating spending with "investing." But the status quo isn't sufficient on our most important policy items, and there simply isn't much evidence that spending more money — on its own — will have much of a difference in long-term outcomes. This is a fun discussion and it makes for great panel discussions and parlor games, but let's jump into specific opportunities — not philosophical arguments.
Let's talk about innovating and investing in transportation.
Transportation, more than perhaps any issue except health care, is viscerally experienced by Minnesotans. And, more than any other issue, the behavior of these citizens matters in changing outcomes (reducing congestion, increasing safety, etc.). Transportation concerns cut across geographic and party lines, even though it often pits Greater Minnesota against the Metro.
And it's hard to argue that we don't need to spend more money. I'm embarrassed by the quality of I-94 and I-35 every time I drive to Minneapolis or to Duluth. There is consensus that we need to spend significant sums of money improving the quality and capacity of roads in Minnesota, even with the passage of the referendum last fall.
But we also have a chance to actually reduce congestion through congestion pricing — becoming a leader in policy innovations again. The U.S. DOT is looking for an aggressive response to congestion through tolling, transit, telecommuting and technology.
Recent articles in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal highlight "congestion pricing" — what we are doing with the MNPASS lane on I-394 — and how this approach is actually reducing congestion, not just slowing its growth. And in every community where it’s been implemented, initial public hesitation and opposition dropped when they see the results and realize that they now have a choice available when they want to use it.
Tyler Duvall, the U.S. DOT's Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, was here two weeks ago at a summit on road pricing sponsored by the Citizens League, the Humphrey Institute and the Center for Transportation Studies. The U.S. DOT has at least $130 million in funding available for communities that are well-positioned to demonstrate how increased use of congestion pricing is part of an integrated transportation and transit plan to reduce congestion.
This is us!
We clearly need to find ways to pay (more) for road expansions in the metro area — but let's combine these efforts with a real innovation: mandatory use of congestion pricing when it's feasible. This is a very cost-effective approach that might free up resources for other transportation issues.
Let's put together an innovative partnership between the legislature and the Governor's office and DOT to support this. (Many legislative leaders are excited about the availability of these funds.)
Let's recognize the practical — not just the political — reasons to invest and to innovate on the issues that matter most to Minnesotans.
But is there a way to avoid this deadlock by consciously preparing now for a "grand compromise": more money for the issues that matter most to Minnesotans — but only with meaningful reforms and innovations.
I've been criticized in the past for making "innovate-first-then 'invest'" arguments — and for skepticism about equating spending with "investing." But the status quo isn't sufficient on our most important policy items, and there simply isn't much evidence that spending more money — on its own — will have much of a difference in long-term outcomes. This is a fun discussion and it makes for great panel discussions and parlor games, but let's jump into specific opportunities — not philosophical arguments.
Let's talk about innovating and investing in transportation.
Transportation, more than perhaps any issue except health care, is viscerally experienced by Minnesotans. And, more than any other issue, the behavior of these citizens matters in changing outcomes (reducing congestion, increasing safety, etc.). Transportation concerns cut across geographic and party lines, even though it often pits Greater Minnesota against the Metro.
And it's hard to argue that we don't need to spend more money. I'm embarrassed by the quality of I-94 and I-35 every time I drive to Minneapolis or to Duluth. There is consensus that we need to spend significant sums of money improving the quality and capacity of roads in Minnesota, even with the passage of the referendum last fall.
But we also have a chance to actually reduce congestion through congestion pricing — becoming a leader in policy innovations again. The U.S. DOT is looking for an aggressive response to congestion through tolling, transit, telecommuting and technology.
Recent articles in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal highlight "congestion pricing" — what we are doing with the MNPASS lane on I-394 — and how this approach is actually reducing congestion, not just slowing its growth. And in every community where it’s been implemented, initial public hesitation and opposition dropped when they see the results and realize that they now have a choice available when they want to use it.
Tyler Duvall, the U.S. DOT's Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, was here two weeks ago at a summit on road pricing sponsored by the Citizens League, the Humphrey Institute and the Center for Transportation Studies. The U.S. DOT has at least $130 million in funding available for communities that are well-positioned to demonstrate how increased use of congestion pricing is part of an integrated transportation and transit plan to reduce congestion.
This is us!
We clearly need to find ways to pay (more) for road expansions in the metro area — but let's combine these efforts with a real innovation: mandatory use of congestion pricing when it's feasible. This is a very cost-effective approach that might free up resources for other transportation issues.
Let's put together an innovative partnership between the legislature and the Governor's office and DOT to support this. (Many legislative leaders are excited about the availability of these funds.)
Let's recognize the practical — not just the political — reasons to invest and to innovate on the issues that matter most to Minnesotans.