We give praise today to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for its 50-year vision for transportation in the state, and we make a recommendation.

Not enough organizations think long term these days. For two or three centuries colonists and countrymen in North America would dream in terms of the big picture. They would consider what this land would be like a century in advance.

These days, Americans seem obsessed with the immediate present and the next quarterly report, rather than a long-term scope. We aren’t thinking of what we are leaving for our children and our children’s children nearly enough. In fact, we are going backward in many areas, leaving the next generations worse off.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation’s 50-year vision is called “Minnesota Go: Crafting a Transportation Vision for Generations” and the process for crafting it has been remarkably open to the public. And it still is. People can comment on the existing draft up to Oct. 21.

The draft is looking great so far. We particularly like that it shows the people of Minnesota want to plan for a future with alternate forms of transportation besides simply motor vehicles.

One of the vision points says this: “Reliable and affordable transit options for people who cannot or choose not to operate a personal vehicle.” And another says: “Connected options to walk and bike for everyone choosing active forms of transportation.”

But the vision balances those needs with the importance of motorized transportation to the economy, which we also see as key: “Waterways, rail, transitways, roads, airports and pipelines strategically located to enable critical connections for Minnesota’s businesses and communities.”

The vision says this, too: “An integrated network of streets, roads and highways collectively support freight, mass transit, personal vehicles and non-motorized transportation.”

And it cautions against overbuilding, which is a point we have made concerning the network of underused gravel roads Minnesota has. The public seems more willing to close a school than it is to close a gravel road with no one living on it.

Here is that section of the vision: “Consider and minimize long-term obligations — don’t overbuild. The scale of the system should reflect and respect the surrounding physical and social context of the facility. The transportation system should affordably contribute to the overall quality of life and prosperity of the state.”

The section on challenges facing transportation rightly mentions the need to provide for electricity for cars, but there is one area we find disagreement with. It is the section on urbanization that says, “The suburbs are likely to see increases in population as well as changes in basic community design as activity nodes or town centers develop and suburbs seek to differentiate from each other.”

It’s true that suburbs will seek to differentiate from each other, but the section puts too much emphasis on suburbs as the future.

Many demographers in America, even the state demographer, have projected young families wanting to live in regional centers like Albert Lea, Austin and Owatonna. In Albert Lea, our elementary student population already is growing. Regional centers are places with a good sense of community and neighborliness that suburbs lack. These places possess shorter commutes and less expensive lifestyles than suburbs. Yet regional centers still have a variety of restaurants, stores and entertainment options that families want.

These all are quality-of-life factors for parents working longer hours and wanting to spend more time with their children. It’s going to be a lot easier to, for example, be a coach on your child’s sports team in Albert Lea than, say, Eden Prairie, all while holding down a 55-hour-a-week salary position.

MnDOT would be wise to consider the growth of regional centers in Greater Minnesota in its section on urbanization.