HighLight Heading
July 2006
Research Conference Coverage
Politics and freeways: building the Twin Cities interstate system
“Transportation systems cannot be planned, developed, or implemented without contending with the politics in which they are always embedded,” said Patricia Cavanaugh, a research fellow with the State and Local Policy Program at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. She presented her findings from a study of the changing politics and participants in Twin Cities-area interstate decision making since the 1950s. The project, jointly sponsored by CTS and the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA), was advised by an expert committee including former CTS director Richard Braun and former CTS Executive Committee members Peter Fausch and Jim Newland.
Cavanaugh examined seven local cases representing different eras in the history of the interstate program. The era that launched the interstate in the 1950s was a period of great optimism and public support, she said, including backing by Minnesotans for gas tax increases. The protest era of the 1960s and 1970s, in contrast, saw the rise of citizen opposition and environmental advocacy. Citizen advisory committees and other groups emerged to fight freeway expansion, skeptical because of the visible effects of the interstate in other urban communities. The Minnesota Legislature also became more involved in major transportation project decisions during this time. The next—and current—era is known by many as the “era of falling behind.”
Used with permission of Metropolitan Design Center. © Regents of the University of Minnesota
Cavanaugh’s case studies found three areas of political tension. First is the timeframe: major projects take decades, but citizens and elected officials operate under a shorter outlook. Second, DOTs look at a broader geographic area than cities and neighborhoods. Although both views are appropriate, she said, the divergence leads to conflict. The third area—problem definition—is the one with the most potential to alleviate through political means. Citizens may define a problem in terms of social or moral aspects—35W expansion in the late 1980s, for example—while Mn/DOT defines it in terms of reducing congestion. “When you’re trying to solve different problems,” she said, “you’re not even in the same policy debate.” These types of differences were prevalent in the seven cases, she said.
Cavanaugh also touched briefly on historical changes in leadership and funding. In 1981, the surface transportation bill had fewer than 10 earmarks, but recent bills have had several thousand.
The report, Politics and Freeways: Building the Twin Cities Interstate System, is being published by CTS and CURA later this summer.
Following Cavanaugh, Barbara Lukermann of the Humphrey Institute moderated a panel of three local experts who played key roles in the development of the Twin Cities transportation system: Carol Flynn, former state senator; Connie Kozlak, a manager with the Metropolitan Council; and Curt Johnson, principal of Citistates Group and former Met Council chair.
“Today we are spending enormous amounts of money to correct those cost-savings that we chose before,” Flynn began, citing the Crosstown Commons and Wakota Bridge in the southern metro as examples. Flynn also said it isn’t surprising that parochial interests are rewarding for elected officials. “You don’t have to solve a problem to be admired by your voters,” she said. “You can get elected if you play to the fears, anger, and biases of your constituents.” For the future, she hopes officials with a regional outlook and more transportation expertise—including experience in public participation—will be elected.
Kozlak addressed the broader issue of the Met Council’s role in the “new era” of earmarks. “Since ISTEA,” she said, “there has been more emphasis on planning, but on the other hand, the number of earmarks has risen astronomically.” Any project included in a long-range plan must identify the money to build it, she explained, but most earmarks are for projects that “just missed the cut.” Because the council’s plans must be fiscally constrained, she added, “you plan [according] to what you can afford to build, not a vision of what you need.”
Johnson said there is a “crying need” for a better public engagement process. During his service on the Met Council, he said, he held hearings that fulfilled the obligation of the law, but “nearly everyone sensed they were a charade” that minimized public discussion. What’s needed, he said, is a process that respects and informs citizens and engages them before decisions are made.
Johnson said he is also “perplexed at our politics.” Transportation is in a prolonged era of constraint, yet the press and polls don’t frame the problem in terms of real-life choices. The question isn’t whether or not to raise the gas tax, for example, but whether citizens prefer roadway expansion or a certain level of congestion. “Would you rather pay more at the pump,” he asked, “or see an accumulating problem with air quality…and have your kids write a check for the bundle of externalities?”
Johnson also said we no longer seem to care about intergenerational fairness. “If you look back, as [Cavanaugh’s] study helps us do, and you look at the investment of past generations…it makes you wonder. Are we carrying our load now? It appears not.