I would like a little more emphasis on integrating transportation modes, i.e. walking or biking to small, frequent buses that connect to transport hubs for express buses or light rail. Transportation planning should also be integrated with land use planning for in-fill redevelopment.

The first sentence of the vision starts out great, but then loses focus with eight separate bullets that are not woven together into a cohesive vision statement. The added categorization into Quality of Life, Environmental Health, and Economic Competitiveness has me confused as to what is the vision for Minnesota's transportation. Do the three categories differ in importance than the bullets? Are the five that are categorized differ from the three that are not?

The addition of examples in What This Means also has me confused. Are these policies, or examples of potential policies? These are important statements, but I am not sure how they fit with the rest of the document as currently written.

I agree with the guiding principles. They are good foundations for the future of our transportation system.

As a guiding principle, "Compatibility with national and international systems" will be important in the next 50 years, but is not mentioned in the vision.  Consider compatibility of: MBUF or VII systems; freight systems and linkages compatible with intermodal infrastructure investments in other parts of the world; interstate high speed rail that will require special tracks; new transportation fuels such as electric plug-in or liquified natural gas; heavy haul route continuity; passenger connections between air, rail and transit; freight connections between truck, rail, water, air and origins/destinations.  These are all compatibility issues for the future that will be different from the past.

I believe the implication of "zero deaths or serious injuries" due to transportation is unrealistic.  The vision is lofty, which is what it should aspire to.  However, I would be concerned about chasing an outcome of "zero deaths or serious injuries" in lieu of more attainable results.  In short, I think it stands out from the other implications and could be a distraction.

I disagree with previous comments on overbuilding.  I believe that Minnesota is falling behind in our competitive advantage at the regional, national and international level through lack of investment in infrastructure.  I recommend a goal of increasing our current economic competitiveness through benchmarking ourselves to other cities and states nationally and internationally.  Our infrastructure investments should be exceeding those of similar levels.  I also recommend a detailed analysis on the economic impact our infrastructure has on both existing and future companies.  We must provide our businesses and residents with an econonic advantage; we should invest to retain and add new companies.  The business community should have a strong voice in the plan.  If it is anticipated that alternative methods of transportation such as LRT, BRT or other methods are needed to increase our competitive advantage, we should identify corridors now and acquire right of way now to reduce future construction costs and provide increased competitiveness at minimal cost.  Let's leave behind a better Minnesota.

I agree with concerns of overbuilding. The system now is not maintainable do to size.  Partnering is fine, if it can be accomplished without the creation of another level of committees etc.There are already too many meetings held just to meet the mandates.

The vision does not address the importance of maintaining our rural envionment as rural or mention anything about compensation to people whose places of peaceful living may become no longer peaceful-rural or not.  This should be addressed in your plan, that those who own property that will be disturbed by future change should be not only adequately, but very well compensated for any disturbance due to the changes or the giving up of their peaceful environment- being provided acceptable property in the area that has not been disturbed or compensation that will provide an equal size home, comparable yard area, business site, or farm land acres to which they have been accustomed or working  as an income source and also being provided the labor of moving without cost if such a decision is made.

If the 50-year Vision is to set the stage for planning, for each challenge/opportunity I think we need to have a range of possible outcomes and assign an estimate of probability.  For example, in 50 years it is possible that: we will revert the Mississippi to a more natural state with no barge traffic (10%); we will have about the same amount of barge traffic as now (50%); we will have a significantly greater amount of barge traffic (20%); we will have the same infrastructure but very little barge traffic (20%). 

While I'm sure this will be controversial, I like that the plan also acknowledges that some parts of our transportation system will be trimmed while others will grow. We do have a very large road system given our state's population. I hope this leads to debate about what parts of the system are cost effective and equitable.

Lou - MnDOT is planning to engage the legislature later this fall to help ensure buy in to the vision.  They're still figuring out what that looks like, but likely will start with staffers and then the transportation committees.  

Thomas - very thoughtful comments.  I'll make sure MnDOT sees them (if they haven't already!).  You make a great point about the difference between minimizing environmental impact and improvement.