We can’t restrict transportation funding to just infrastructure for cars and trucks

The Minnesota Legislature is debating whether our state highway system and the funds that maintain it should serve all Minnesotans regardless of how they travel — or continue to serve just cars and trucks.

For seasoned lawmakers and transportation advocates, the question of highway purposes is not new. It’s been debated in commissions, committees and courtrooms for decades

This ongoing debate centers on these crucial questions: Who is our road system for, and how can we most efficiently invest in a transportation system that serves the diverse ways Minnesotans move today and will move tomorrow?

Minnesota established our current highway funding structure through two key constitutional amendments. First, a 1920s amendment created what’s known as the trunk highway system and established a dedicated funding structure. Later, a 1950s amendment established the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund we see today, directing motor fuel and vehicle registration taxes to fund highway expenses through a constitutional formula. This funding is dedicated to “highway purposes.”  

In the years since, the purpose of highways has been interpreted narrowly to prioritize cars and trucks, failing to address today’s diverse transportation needs. 

State highways comprise more than just big freeways like I-94. They include thoroughfares like Snelling Avenue in St. Paul, Central Avenue in Minneapolis and main streets in smaller communities, and they often serve multiple functions beyond moving vehicles. They are economic corridors, social spaces, and critical connections for people walking, biking, rolling and using transit.

Restricting transportation funding to car and truck infrastructure creates barriers to funding comprehensive projects. When it’s appropriate to build transit, bike or pedestrian elements, those components can require separate funding sources and could lead to misaligned projects. 

For example, MnDOT and Met Council proposed a one-time funding partnership this session where Met Council would loan funds to MnDOT to align a highway project with the F Line bus rapid transit construction along North Metro trunk highways. This coordination would allow simultaneous road repairs with transit investments and bike and pedestrian safety improvements. According to MnDOT, failing to align these projects could cost taxpayers an additional $18 million, create redundant work, and cause two extra years of travel disruptions.

These inefficiencies extend beyond one project, creating a fragmented approach that undercuts the financing and development of a truly multi-modal system that is safe and affordable. Aligning the way we invest could save us significantly in the long run and bring us more efficient investments in all modes of transportation concurrently. 

State Sen. Omar Fateh, DFL-Minneapolis, and Rep. Samantha Sencer-Mura, DFL-Minneapolis, along with Our Streets and other transportation leaders and advocates, are trying to broaden Minnesota’s vision, including language in the Senate transportation bill (SF2438) that would clarify that highway purposes include transit, active transportation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the trunk highway system, which is an important step in realizing our state’s transportation goals. Colorado passed a similar bill in 2013, and MnDOT is largely supportive of this more flexible funding approach. 

Here is what makes this change so impactful: 

It creates a transportation system for everyone 

Our transportation system must serve all Minnesotans and all types of communities equitably. When highways cut through communities, residents deserve safe crossings, transit access and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure regardless of geography, age, ability, race or income. 

In urban and rural areas alike, state highways that double as neighborhood corridors and main streets need designs that support local businesses and community life, not just through-traffic. Mobility is a fundamental right that extends beyond car ownership and can create benefits within and beyond the curbline. 

It makes fiscal sense

In the practical sense, especially given our state’s fiscal outlook, clarifying highway purposes will create a pragmatic, flexible and holistic approach to investing in transportation. Opponents cite maintenance burdens on our existing road system and maintain that “leakage” of funds meant for highways will undercut our ability to maintain roads. 

Minnesota’s continual efforts to add lanes to our road system — we already own the fourth most lane miles of any state in the U.S.— creates a much bigger maintenance burden than what we’re proposing. 

We face a $17.8  billion funding gap for maintenance on our highway system, stagnant traffic fatalities, increasing demand for affordable and sustainable transportation options, and significant uncertainty when it comes to federal money. So, there has never been a more important moment to flexibly invest, allowing us to provide a variety of transportation choices and do more and better with fewer resources.

It’s constitutionally sound

Our constitutional amendments didn’t intend to restrict trunk highway funding to cars alone. They promised to serve communities through any reasonable means of transportation along designated routes. The courts affirmed this broad interpretation in a 1958 case, Minneapolis Gas Co. v Zimmerman, establishing precedent that trunk highway funds can be broadly used to make the most efficient use of highways to serve the public good, not just move cars. 

This multi-modal vision reflected the era’s transportation reality of the past and today, when Minnesotans rely on a variety of ways of getting around. 

This approach acknowledges that highways aren’t just for cars and trucks — they’re critical corridors connecting people to jobs, education, health care and each other through whatever transportation options best meet their needs and circumstances. We should invest in these roads with the same logic in mind. 

Minnesota’s transportation future requires both vision and pragmatism. By defining highway purpose to include all users, we can build a system that better serves our communities, uses taxpayer dollars more efficiently, and honors the original constitutional intent. 

It’s time to resolve this issue and fund a truly multimodal transportation system for all Minnesotans.