editorials

It's fair to think of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's state capital improvements proposal for the coming legislative session as his post-bridge collapse bonding bill -- because, clearly, he does.

Pawlenty asked Monday that the Legislature put nearly 40 percent of a $965 million bonding bill into transportation -- and a whopping $225 million into the replacement of 600 city, county and township bridges. That's more than three times the amount of bridge money local jurisdictions requested and four times more than any previous bonding bill has spent on bridge replacement.

The Republican governor termed his proposal for "historic" spending on bridges a timely and appropriate "renewed commitment," in the wake of the fallen Interstate 35W span. That it may be. No one is arguing that the 600 bridges included in the proposal don't need to be replaced. However, it seems unlikely that local governments are equipped to come up with the matching dollars the plan would require.

It may be that Pawlenty wants the bonding bill -- which has a good chance to pass -- to emphasize transportation because prospects for accord on a transportation funding bill are not good. In response to that notion, Minnesotans should put him and the Legislature on notice: A one-shot spurt of bridge construction, paid for over the next 20 years, is no substitute for a permanent, ongoing increase in spending on roads, bridges and transit. Ending the 20-year drought in transportation funding increases ought to rank alongside the bonding bill as the 2008 Legislature's twin must-do priorities.

Even Pawlenty appeared to acknowledge Monday that his bridge proposal could shrink. He said that he included only a "placeholder" of $70 million for the Central Corridor light-rail line, when $140 million is needed this session for the project to stay on schedule. He's waiting for an accord among the stakeholders on the line's design. When the design is set, real funding for that train will be required, and that likely will mean less for bridges.

So will the Legislature's desire to do better by higher education than Pawlenty's proposal does. He offered the University of Minnesota about 55 percent of its bonding request; MnSCU, whose request he said was "completely out of control," about 45 percent.

University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks' response pointed out something that's becoming increasingly evident: The transportation impasse at the Capitol is distorting decisions affecting other aspects of this state's shared life. The lack of a transportation funding plan, and Pawlenty's move to make up for it by putting transportation at the fore in his bonding bill, "is now clearly reducing investment in other areas of the state's infrastructure, including higher education," Bruininks said.

One more example: regional projects. Only one, the long-delayed Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center ice arena expansion, made Pawlenty's cut. "It's called taking care of more important things first," Pawlenty said of the more than $1 billion in other regional projects that he spurned. The Legislature shouldn't be so quick to assume that regional building plans aren't important to the whole state.

The very size of Pawlenty's proposal -- at $965 million, the maximum allowed under the state's traditional debt service guideline -- signals his desire for early and easy agreement with the Legislature on a bonding bill. That desire should be matched on all sides. Minnesota's shaky economy could use the stimulus that would come from putting thousands of construction workers on the job by late spring. "Early is good," Pawlenty said. Legislators should agree, and prepare to send him a bill by March 15.