Question 3: To what extent do you intend to support investment in maintaining Minnesota’s highway system and expanding its mass transit system given the age of the state’s highway system, population and business growth, and the mass transit needs of an aging and dispersed population?

MARTY Response to Question 3

Minnesota’s highways are deteriorating, our transit systems, inadequate.

In highway projects give priority to safety and preventive maintenance.

Transit projects-not just metro-should focus on increasing ridership, faster, more convenient service, and serving transit-dependent people. Many seniors are unable to live independently only because they cannot get to the store or doctor. Wise transit policy reduces congestion, avoids multi-billion expenditures for roads, and protects the environment.

Metro sprawl gobbles up 60 acres every day for housing and suburban malls. Our metro population density is one of the lowest in the nation. Let’s stop sprawl now, and recognize our transit cannot copy that of compact European cities. Nevertheless, a thoughtful transit policy can attract riders and reduce congestion and pollution.

Minnesota cannot build enough roads to meet growing congestion, so

I’ll focus here on transit policy. The needs: cleaner vehicles

(smelly diesel buses turn off passengers) faster, more frequent,

dependable service lower fares more routes

Legislation is moving at the capitol to provide $100 million to be matched with $300 million in local and federal funding for a $400 million LRT line from the megamall to Minneapolis via the airport. These federal funds are flexible to meet local needs.

If we have $400 million in new transit funding, let’s invest it wisely. With careful planning, this can double ridership. One airport LRT line cannot double all ridership. I like LRT, but only where it meets our mass transit goals. Do we want:

one LRT corridor or:

four exclusive busways for highspeed, clean-fuel buses, AND fare cuts to 25 cents on all metro buses (fare cuts increase ridership), AND still have $100 million for: transit systems in greater Minnesota, AND clean-fuel buses, AND more routes with more frequent service.

Before we invest $400 million, let’s at least explore the alternatives.