Should local governments take on more responsibility for building and maintaining secondary roads? That’s the debate now emerging from the GOP transportation plan — and it’s precisely the debate we should be having, although it would be helpful to re-frame the controversy in more constructive terms than the blame mongering we hear now.
Key Northern Virginia leaders don’t like the GOP plan. Reports the Washington Times:
“Northern Virginia is getting [shortchanged] right now,” said Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart, a Republican. “It produces 40 percent of revenue and receives only 17 percent of highway construction funds. We need the state to step up and take care of its responsibility.”
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly, a Democrat, agreed. “Right now, this bill is not workable. It’s a wholesale transfer of responsibility from the state to the localities. That is how they get around not raising taxes.”
Stewart and Connolly raise legitimate issues: If the state transfers responsibility for building and maintaining secondary roads, it also should transfer sufficient resources to do the job.
But let’s step back and ask the bigger question: Which level of government is the most appropriate for administering the construction and maintenance of local roads — local government or state government? The answer is self-evident: Local government should take responsibility for local roads. That’s the way it works in the vast majority of states, that’s the way it works with Virginia cities, and that’s the way it works in two Virginia counties: Arlington and Henrico.
It’s called aligning transportation and land use planning. The reason that urbanizing counties should take over local roads is that they are responsible already for land use decisions, zoning codes and subdivision approvals, all of which affect the location and intensity of traffic. Local officials also have a better feel for their county’s priorities than VDOT officials in a district office somewhere.
The current separate of transportation and land use is dysfunctional. Local boards of supervisors approve “pod” subdivisions that funnel traffic onto collector roads — and expect VDOT to address the resulting congestion. They approve big-lot subdivisions that require more lane-miles of roadway to serve — and expect VDOT to pick up the tab for maintenance. They mandate low density development that makes bus service uneconomical. They forbid the development of mixed-used, pedestrian-friendly communities that reduce the length and frequency of car trips. They limit development around rail stations that could take rush-hour automobiles off the road. And then they criticize “the state” for failing to pony up the funds to rescue them from the consequences of their decisions. Such irresponsibility simply has to end.
Once the fundamental decision has been made to align transportation and land use at the level of local government, a number of secondary decisions need to be made. What state resources should be transferred to local governments in compensation for taking over the job? If extra funds are needed, what revenue sources should be tapped?
Those questions are not being asked yet. Right now, the debate has taken an unproductive tone. (It’s hard to tell whether the truculence of local government officials is to blame, or where drama-seeking reporters are cherry picking the most belligerent quotes and overlooking the more thoughtful statements.) From what I’ve read, the main concern of local government officials is not seeking the optimal governance structure but avoiding getting blamed for raising taxes to fund the road improvements they want. It’s so much easier blaming the state.
Despite the deficiencies of the debate so far, it represents a departure from the Mainstream Media meta-narrative that defines the transportation debate as a purely state-level fiscal matter. Finally, the dysfunctional nature of Virginia’s governance system is coming to light.
