Editorial: Don't get distracted by bridge/rail dispute

Best response to the tragedy is passing a transportation bill.

Last update: August 18, 2007 - 5:11 PM

Whether or not a replacement bridge over the Mississippi River in downtown Minneapolis should be sturdy enough to support a future light-rail line is an intriguing question and a good political sideshow. But it must not distract from the main public-policy response to the catastrophic failure of the previous bridge. And that is:

• The need to acknowledge that, whatever the collapse's specific cause, Minnesota has allowed its transportation infrastructure to deteriorate to a level that threatens the safety of the public and the future of the economy.

• The need to comprehensively repair what's crumbling and start building and funding a transportation system compatible with market demand and the new global realities of energy insecurity and climate change.

While no person or political party can yet be blamed for the tragedy of 18 days ago, Minnesotans would do well to remember the shock of the moment best captured in the words of Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who lives only blocks from the disaster scene: "A bridge in America just shouldn't fall down."

For Minnesota to have become a national emblem for infrastructure failure should deeply embarrass this state's elected officials and policymakers. They should move quickly to come up with a mechanism for funding the state's transportation needs.

Instead, the emphasis has shifted in recent days to the replacement bridge: How fast can it be built? Should it be built strong enough and wide enough to support light-rail trains? How much extra would that cost the state? Would it delay the project inordinately by incurring additional environmental review? Would it lessen the value of the $250 million federal emergency authorization to help rebuild the bridge?

Answers aren't yet complete. But Gov. Tim Pawlenty said on Friday that a new bridge strong enough to carry trains might be possible without triggering a new environmental review and the resulting delay. Bob McFarlin, the Minnesota Department of Transportation's deputy commissioner, said the agency will soon announce a cost estimate and emphasized that the state would have to pay for adding light-rail capacity.

Until those facts are known, no final decision should be rendered. What is clear, however, is that routing the Central Corridor light-rail line across a new bridge doesn't work. Changing its route would eliminate a critical West Bank station at the University of Minnesota, attract fewer riders and add time and distance to the line. That, in turn, would lower the project's federal rating and risk its funding.

If a future rail line were projected for the Interstate Hwy. 35W corridor, a stronger bridge would make sense. But no such line is projected. Instead of obsessing on the replacement bridge, officials should focus on passing a comprehensive transportation bill that repairs bridges and actually pays for the new roads and transit lines that the state has needed for so long.

Comment on this story | Be the first to comment | Hide reader comments

New ideas for the public sector

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME to create a more efficient Minnesota. Facing large budget deficits at the state, county and local levels, Minnesotans are seeing with new clarity that the public sector must adapt to new economic realities. Only the smartest, most strategic reinvention will ensure that our tax dollars are spent on the best programs and services. Read more

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS