Policy and Funding
In my opinion surface transportation is vital to the economic prosperity of a region. With an efficient transportation system, services and goods are easily moved throughout and individuals are able to access employment opportunities and resources to improve their social and economic status. Wach's article, The Political Context of Transportation Funding, brings up a good point to think about when considering how transportation projects come to fruition. Overall, almost all planning decisions are driven by policy and/or legislatures. And most of the time, policymakers do so in good faith, thinking of the greater good. But as the article pointed out, at times it is done so via a personal agenda. Transportation projects are immense, in terms of timeline and budget, and bring forth divisions unlike other projects might bring.
A recent example is that of Oregon Department of Transportation, who is currently engaged in a project that will bring forth congestion pricing along busy interstate highways. This project came about via the state legislature who back in 2017 signed a law that directed the Oregon Transportation Commission to implement congestion pricing. Therefore the decision to implement congestion pricing, while many transportation planners could agree that is a sensible solution, was made in the political arena.
Similarly TriMet is currently in the works to extend their MAX service with a new line going south along the historic highway 99W. While the project came about through countless years of planning by various jurisdictions, now the completion of the project lies within the political arena. The huge transportation bond that was put forth by Metro, if passed, will ensure that TriMet gets enough local funding to qualify for the federal match. Yet, given how the bond will be funded by an employer tax, multiple big corporations are lobbying against it. In a few weeks, the future of our regional public transportation system will be decided.
Overall, my opinion is that policy and funding points to what we value as a society. Our built environment builds off how we fund transportation projects. With climate change, racial justice, and COVID in the forefront of issues our society is facing today, it is critical that policy and funding of transportation projects reflect them.
Government projects in favor of alternative modes in the United States are hotly contested and people who don't stand to benefit from it are opposed to it if they will be taxed. In china, the high speed rail was implemented fast because there is no voting. In Europe and Japan, governments acknowledge the importance of a reliable mass transit system because their cities are dense. The United States faces many obstacles and often times, the solution is in good old capitalist hands by letting the market take on these projects.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing. I agree with you regarding policy and funding pointing to our values as a society; the same, i think, is true of land use (of course, the two are obviously very linked). It's interesting, too, to think about these decisions in the political arena and how, as a result, they still aren't really equitably decided. In the case of the Metro transportation bond, this is especially disheartening given the challenges of the bond to pass (though we'll see soon) and the inherent politics around the conversation. Of course, we should fund transportation; but, even for folks who support the idea of extended light rail, the imperfectness of the solution might keep the measure from passing...but, then, I don't know if a regionally based funding mechanism like this could be any LESS messy due to varying values and interests within different municipalities.
ReplyDeleteGood insight on how agencies get funding, and what areas they should focus on. I think it's interesting on who these agencies decide to tax, and there will always be a group of stakeholders that aren't satisfied. That being said, it seems like TriMet is doing a good job managing this issue, but there are a lot of political hurdles they have to deal with to get the job done.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post! I agree with that policy and funding points to what we value as a society. It's been frustrating to see that I think everyone would agree that quick and efficient transportation is key economic prosperity, but people won't agree to how (public) transportation projects should be funded. There are glaring issues with equity around local funding. It's still a bit early to call, but the Metro transportation bond seems unlikely to pass which casts a shadow on the new light rail project.
ReplyDeleteTransportation is no doubt one of the most crucial elements shaping city development. In China, there are many mass transit projects going on. In the meantime, highways, or regular roads wide enough to drive as fast are constantly being built in new development zones.The system in China is different when it comes to the decision-making process of where and how the fundings should be used. I would say that the majority of transportation investment is put into TOD projects, which sometimes turns out to be unsuccessful and causes certain "waste" of funding. At this stage, Chins's transportation does reflect what is valued in city, but it is still a reflection of the top-down system of urban planning. There are still more to be changed for more public participation, a trend we are already seeing in certain projects like the bicycle highway in Beijing.
ReplyDeleteTransportation is no doubt one of the most crucial elements shaping city development. In China, there are many mass transit projects going on. In the meantime, highways, or regular roads wide enough to drive as fast are constantly being built in new development zones.The system in China is different when it comes to the decision-making process of where and how the fundings should be used. I would say that the majority of transportation investment is put into TOD projects, which sometimes turns out to be unsuccessful and causes certain "waste" of funding. At this stage, Chins's transportation does reflect what is valued in city, but it is still a reflection of the top-down system of urban planning. There are still more to be changed for more public participation, a trend we are already seeing in certain projects like the bicycle highway in Beijing.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right on about transportation policies and projects not always reflecting the "best" option but reflecting a lot of personal interests of decision makers. I remember for a long time, Jim Oberstar from Duluth was the chair of the House transportation committee, and let me tell you, the roads in his district were pristine. Transportation projects are major symbols that elected officials use to curry favor with their constituents. I think that's actually why broad-based policies like congestion pricing are harder to pass - there's less tangible things for decision makers to celebrate and campaign about.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the importance of Marty Wachs' point. We're in an era where rigorous analysis and data carry a lot of weight, and (most) politicians consider them in decisionmaking. If nothing else, they can always blame the analysis if something goes wrong! When analysis aligns with constituent goals and values, I think we get pretty good results. When the two diverge, though, the political process can become a huge hindrance, even when politicians agree with the analysis! It becomes a deeper question of political representation and governance at that point: social good versus individual interests. This is one reason it's importance to set up guidance and planning rules that can provide political "cover" for otherwise unpopular but sound ideas to move forward (e.g. some form of road pricing).
ReplyDelete