While I can certainly appreciate John Bray’s commitment to his former employer, much has changed since it was called the Minnesota Highway Department, I know. I used to work for them as well.
Perhaps the biggest change was to recognize that its mission went beyond providing pavement for the efficient movement of motor vehicles. The origins in fact are traceable to early bicyclists who not only led the lobby but funded early efforts, the automobile followed in their tracks.
So now that the costs of building and maintenance have risen dramatically, much in part to the high cost of building to automobile and truck standards, we have reached a point of decision.
First it should be understood that taxes and fees related to motor vehicle use fall well short of actually funding the system—by most estimates such revenues constitute somewhere around a third of the actual cost—most of the supporting revenue comes from non vehicular sources including local and state general funds.
So it is with concern that I read that the retired engineer suggests limiting any expenditures for moving the system into the future, to be exclusively for motor vehicle concerns: nothing for bicycling, nada for transit, zero for Safe Routes to School, zip for Complete Streets, streetscapes, scenic byways, parking, roadside beautification, historical concerns, decorative lighting and even central planning.
My concern is that the result would be a road system nobody would like to use, and one that further ignores the real mission, which is transportation. Even nationally the attention has switched to a multi-modal approach as the least expensive overall, and most efficient to meet the needs of future travel.
Jerry Hiniker
Grand Marais
Leave a Reply