Last
week, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine provided a little more
of his plan to solve Virginia’s transportation
“crisis.” He promised more detail later.
His
plan includes (1) appropriating $625 million of the
current budget surplus for transportation projects,
(2) establishing a dedicated, long-term source of
transportation funding, (3) protecting earmarked
transportation funds from diversion to
non-transportation programs, (4) finding a new
leader to run the Virginia Department of
Transportation, (5) linking land use and
transportation planning, (6) requiring
traffic-impact statements before local zoning
decisions are made, (7) authorizing local
governments to reject rezoning requests if the
proposed development would overwhelm the existing
transportation network, (8) enacting legislation
creating transferable development rights, (9)
channeling new development to existing
infrastructure and (10) directing the Intermodal
Office under the Secretary of Transportation to
identify and promote better connections between
roads, rail, transit, ports and airports.
Even
in combination, these proposals will have little
beneficial impact in the long run.
Kaine
himself has said that simply spending more money for
new roads isn’t a solution. Appropriating $625
million may appear to be a small step in the right
direction, but it will discourage private solutions
and commit us to more of the same growth.
A
dedicated source of public funding for
transportation has been the dream of politicians and
bureaucrats. The last thing we need is a government
program on automatic pilot, spending tax dollars
without due regard to an ever-changing economy that
rewards flexibility.
It
may be heretical to question the idea of insulating
earmarked transportation funds from diversions to
other programs, but we can’t foresee what future
crisis would warrant the use of some of these
earmarked funds. There is political mileage to be
made from this proposal, but it is poor public
policy.
Linking
land use planning and transportation planning has
the appeal of logic, but it ignores the fact that
the two are already linked. The problem is that
responsibility for results is not clearly defined
and accompanied by adequate authority to carry out
plans.
Virtually
every local government currently requires
traffic-impact analyses before acting on zoning
requests. VDOT actively participates with localities
in the zoning process. Responsibility for the
secondary road system is split between VDOT and
counties throughout most of the Commonwealth. This
leaves neither truly accountable.
Kaine’s
idea of allowing localities to reject zoning
requests if transportation systems would be
overwhelmed will have the effect of increasing
leap-frog developments, as some counties reject new
development and push it off on their neighbors.
One
item worth pursuing is the establishment of
transferable development rights, but the concept
will deliver far less than its proponents assume.
For instance, if there is little interest in
farming, TDRs will do little more than increase the
amount of idle land while driving up the price of
the remainder.
Channeling
development toward existing infrastructure is
predicated on a misconception about growth. In
recent decades, economic factors have driven
development in ways that planners did not
anticipate. The recent explosion of job-creating
economic activity in Fairfax County, for example,
would have been stifled by this proposed channeling
policy.
Finally,
the vain belief that a government bureaucracy —
the State’s Intermodal Office — could devise a
better interface between transportation modes than
the private sector can shows how misguided our
elected officials are. Only those who assume great
financial risk in pursuit of profit will find and
deliver the innovations needed to produce effective
interconnections.
Contrary
to popular wisdom, the persistence of congestion is
not caused by excesses of the market. The
major culprit is unwise government policy. Kaine
proposes more government when the solution is surely
just the opposite.
--
January 30, 2006
|