"I think there's a misconception that that was the goal – revenue,” says MnPass Administrator Nick Thompson. “That's never been our goal."

A proposal to expand the MnPass program currently in use on 394 to other areas may not have a lot of support as it is currently losing over $1,200 per day.

The proposal is to add a MnPass lane on a six mile stretch of 35W, between 494 and Highway 13. The nine-month-old MnPass will lose $450,000 in its first year of operation, and currently loses $1,232 each day.

"I think there's a misconception that that was the goal – revenue,” says MnPass Administrator Nick Thompson. “That's never been our goal."

Thompson says the program’s goal was instead to reduce traffic congestion. Officials at Minnesota’s Regional Traffic Management Center in Roseville say MnPass has reduced congestion on an eight-mile stretch of 394 by half.

The officials also admit the $450,000 loss is $1.2 million short of projections.

"All our objectives - except for kind of our revenue goals - are being met,” said Thompson.

MnPass has had twice as many users as projected, with 9,300 in total. Drivers pay $1.50 per week to lease a small white transponder that is placed on a vehicle’s windshield. Tolls are then deducted from the users’ account, from a low of 25 cents to $8.

David Strom of the Minnesota Taxpayers League says the program’s pricing does not reflect demand. "It's clearly overpriced, because there's not enough cars on that yet," he said.

Strom says the program should be more affordable and should be expanded to all major metro freeways.

"Whatever money we get from the tolls pales in comparison to just getting cars off the normal two lanes that people aren't paying for and freeing up traffic space for everybody,” Strom said.

MnPass will start a major new marketing campaign next month to increase drivers and revenue.

I think I take it as "Money is not the point". Background checks are a step to having the public defend itself. Which is priceless.

Mark Olson, my local congressman, (until we recently moved), believes that we shouldn't have to pay for the "Permit to Carry", either.

Another interesting issue is whether a $100 fee for a permit to carry unfairly discriminates against those lacking the funds to pay for the permit.

Great man... anyone invite him to a CCRN meeting?