Gov. Mark Dayton, his fellow Democrats and Republicans alike all have spent months raising expectations that a big, bold deal could be struck this year at the Capitol to get more state money flowing for road projects all over Minnesota. Now those hopes are crashing against the complex politics of transportation spending.
Last week Dayton asked lawmakers to raise state taxes on gasoline and driver's license renewals, and boost the state sales tax by half a cent in the seven-county metro area, to raise $11 billion in new money for roads, bridges and public transit projects over the next decade. The state Senate's DFL majority is seeking a similarly large spending injection, as Democrats warn that an increasingly dilapidated transportation infrastructure threatens economic growth.
The governor has said a big transportation spending boost is one of his top two legislative priorities this year. Likewise, Republicans hold a new House majority thanks in part to a crop of candidates who vowed to make road and bridge repairs a bigger spending priority.
"People are still e-mailing me and saying, 'You make sure we get our roads and bridges taken care of,' " said Rep. Peggy Bennett, R-Albert Lea, who unseated a DFLer in a swing district in November. The transportation plan from House Republicans focuses on roads and bridges, but contains a spending boost that is less than a fifth of what Dayton wants on a yearly basis. It has no tax increases, would reach four years into the future rather than 10, and has no money set aside for transit projects, a longtime punching bag for the GOP.
House Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, insists he is optimistic that this legislative session could produce a transportation bill to make both Democrats and Republicans happy. But the final product he envisions sounds nothing like Dayton's ambitious plan, which would lift pump prices by about 16 cents a gallon at the current cost of gas — and more if oil prices rise.
'The public ... is not ready'
Daudt notes that "the last time we raised the gas tax was 2008, and it was 5 cents per gallon, and it was 10 years after the previous increase. Knowing it took 10 years to pass 5 cents, thinking that it's going to take a few months to pass 16 cents is unrealistic. And the public obviously is not ready for that sort of thing."
Dayton has made it clear that a successful transportation deal must establish permanent new money streams for transportation projects. The Republican approach has been more modest, resting largely on using a slice of the projected budget surplus to escalate road and bridge spending over the next four years, freeing more dollars by devising as-yet-unspecified administrative savings at the Department of Transportation, and tapping the state's borrowing capacity to issue construction bonds for more road- and bridge-building.
Those proposals are "slogans, not solutions," Dayton said. "It takes some political courage to tackle this problem, and enact this program, and that's why transportation funding is very difficult to obtain, even when it's urgently needed."