The Metropolitan Council announced their Transportation Plan through 2030. The overall thrust is that there is not nearly enough money to build all the infrastructure requested in the next few decades (price tag of $40 Billion)-and that we’ll have to live with what we have, with a budget estimated at $900 million to mitigate congestion. Here the press release: http://www.metrocouncil.org/news/2010/news_689.htm
If you go to their website, you can view the plan. It has a short overview that will give you the highlights. We are still reviewing the overall plan which you can find here: http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2010/index.htm
Out initial reaction is that hard times force all of us to focus on taking care of what we already have-and planning more prudently for the future. That can be a good thing. But we also want to point out that infrastruture is a core function of government. How much are we are spending on non-core items to the detriment of our infrastructure, which supports economic growth?
MPR has a short article-but no real analysis- about what was left in the plan for things such as light rail (which has proven to be a very expensive proposition for taxpayers): http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/11/10/met-council-report/
We know that there is big money pouring into rail projects (Central Corrider, Hiawatha Line,, Northstar, et. al.) right now and suspect there is plenty of money left in the 2030 Plan for additional rail (e.g. Southwest Corrider). What would transportation look like if we had spent all the rail money on traditional infrastructure-like adding lanes to 494 and 694? What would the 2030 Plan look like if we stuck to cars and buses?
Citizen Oberstar: Minnesota is not France
The Strib reports that Monsieur Oberstar has returned from France, only to berate backward fellow Americans:
“Oberstar said he had just returned from a five-day vacation in France with his wife. He lamented the stagnant direction U.S. transportation policy seems to be headed in Washington in light of French trains that quickly speed residents and tourists to even small towns in the countryside cheaply and efficiently.” http://www.startribune.com/politics/108564274.html
We cannot help observe that if Representative Oberstar had spent more time in Minnesota-and less time in France and his home in Maryland, he might realize that what works for Europe, does not work for Minnesota. Minnesota is not France, and the United States is not Europe. But you have to live off the Amtrak corridor and outside of the Beltway to know that.
Oberstar is saying he is staying in the transportation game-and would work with Minnesota’s new governor to secure funding that other Midwest governors are saying they’ll reject in favor of traditional transit (road and bridges for cars and buses). We welcome a vigorous debate on these pages about the future of transportation, and note that the Met Council has trimmed its own long term plan, though it left plenty of dollars in the budget for rail projects that are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. What would happen if rail dollars were spent on traditional transit instead?
Here is the WSJ on what new Midwest governors were saying about high-speed rail just after the election: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509004575592950988005216.html