|
At their first meeting following the defeat of the 5
November Sales Tax referendum in the northern part
of Virginia,
members of the Transportation Planning Board (TPB)
started to sing an old, familiar song. According to The
Washington Post, TPB members made it clear that,
in light of the tax vote, they would ask for more
federal money for transportation facilities.
Excuse me? That is just what the federal government did in
the ‘60s, ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s.
During the last four decades of the 20th
century, the federal government kicked in 80 percent
of the capital cost of METRO, among other transport
investments. While the early METRO cost estimates
ballooned to $12 billion, plus or minus, the feds
hung in with their 80 percent share. Some Interstate
money was traded for METRO funding, but the majority
of the federal money was a bonus no other region
received. The justification for this largess was
that much of the demand for mobility in the National
Capital Subregion is created by the activities of
the federal government, its employees, contractors
and petitioners.
The feds provided the METRO
money on the condition that the states and
municipalities would ensure
that land uses around METRO stations evolved so as
to create travel demand that matched the METRO
system capacity.
The municipal and state governments reneged on the deal.
Thirty-five years later, most METRO trains leave
most METRO stations essentially empty. This is a
terrible waste of federal, state and municipal
resources. With the exception of Arlington
County’s
Rosslyn/Ballston Corridor and a station or two in
Montgomery
County,
METRO station area development is wildly out of
balance.
In the federal district and other core jurisdictions, even
those stations areas that aren’t vacant and
underutilized have an imbalance of jobs, housing,
services and recreation. Furthermore, most METRO
platforms are insulated from the places METRO riders
would like to be by long escalators, enclosed ramps,
extensive tunnels, parking garages, parking lots and
highway rights-of-way.
There are bright
spots in METRO station area design but, by and
large, there is a gross mismatch between the
ridership demand generated by land uses around the
stations and the METRO’s system capacity. Station
areas do not yet form cores of balanced villages,
and groups of station areas do not yet constitute
the cores of balanced, Alpha Communities.
This
past action by municipal and state agencies was
unintelligent, and perhaps even illegal. But it’s
history. The question now: Is it productive for
municipal and state office holders to ask for even
more federal money?
No! The reasons are simple: More federal money will only
feed the municipal and state propensity to throw at
cash at congestion and gridlock. More federal money
will only postpone the need to address the core
problem. More federal money, before a comprehensive
strategy is in place, will only postpone a long-term
solution.
Transport congestion and eventual gridlock is not just a problem of
money or more transportation infrastructure.
To paraphrase Wilford Owen:
“There are almost no transportation
facility solutions to access and mobility
dysfunctions: There are only land use solutions.”
If more money is not the answer, what is it?
The answer is a fundamental change in
human settlement patterns and selected
new transport infrastructure.
More money, more roads, more rails, or a
regional authority will not solve the region’s
transport dysfunction. The region must evolve
patterns and densities of land use that create
balanced, Alpha Communities configured in a way that
creates a sustainable New Urban Region. Once
democratic processes have established the desired
future regional settlement pattern, then
the region can focus on what transport facilities to
build.
Selecting which new transportation projects make sense
requires a regional plan that creates a balance
between the travel demand generated by sustainable
settlement patterns and the capacity of the planned
transportation system.
As
you may have noticed, the media, academics and
"business-as-usual" interest groups do not
challenge these facts. They just try to avoid any
discussion of them.
The academics and talking heads that filled the airwaves
and editorial pages during the fall tax debate
agreed with the wisdom of ‘smarter growth.’
However, they observed that municipal and
state governance practitioners have not taken the
actions necessary to support the fundamental change
and the creation of functional human settlement
patterns. These
actions include creating and following a sound
regional plan and establishing effective agencies
and policies to manage growth so there is a balance
between transport system capacity and travel demand.
Of course, these sages-for-hire are right, intelligent
action has not yet been taken.
Why have these actions not yet been taken?
We live in democracy, and fundamental change should be
based on citizen education.
Citizens do not yet understand the dynamics
of pattern and density of land use. Only when they
do will they insist on intelligent alternatives to
‘business-as-usual’ practices that result in
gridlock and stifle prosperity.
Who should be informing the public about the realistic
alternatives? The media, academics and governance
practitioners come to mind. The problem is that all
three groups are fatally conflicted, as evidenced by
the recent sales tax referendum debate.
The Media:
Media outlets have a direct interest in continuing
"business as usual." The conservation/good
government/smarter growth/sustainability interests
do not buy millions of dollars worth of ads for
autos and homes that run week after week. The ads
sell dysfunctional new development projects and
reinforce the myths that drive the unenlightened
consumption.
The Academics:
Many of the academics who are most vocal on the
issue of transport, congestion and settlement
patterns sit in chairs funded by (and named for)
builders and raw land development interests. Others
carry out research for ‘business-as-usual’
interests both public and private. It is natural for
them to seek more chairs and more grants from those
that benefit directly by avoiding fundamental
change.
The Governance
Practitioners:
Governance practitioners, especially the elected
ones, benefit from ‘"usiness-as-usual"
PACs that pump millions into both parties and any
candidate who will repeat their mantra.
While the implementation of past transportation plans in
the National Capital Subregion has not been
exemplary, the solution to avoiding future gridlock
is not more money for more facilities. Based on the
current pattern and density of development, there is
a multi-billion dollar backlog of projects just to
maintain the current level of congestion. Without
changing land use practices, additional funds will
only make matters worse.
The feds should put more money on the table only when state
and local government exhibit a clear understanding
of what makes sense and what does not – and when
the are assurances that municipal and state
interests will live up to their promises.
--
December
9, 2002
|
