As I wrote in my latest Spotlight, state transportation policy is as much as about environmental issues as it is about transportation.

Check out this quote from the Transit 2001 Plan, which is highlighted in the paper:

The Transit 2001 vision extends far beyond public transportation. It embraces notions of how we want to live in the 21st Century and what we want our neighborhoods and communities to become.

What is it that we want to become? Basically, whatever the planners tell us. One thing we want, at least according to the Transit 2001 vision, is sustainable development. Here’s how sustainable development plays a role with transportation:

For transportation planning and decision-making, sustainable development primarily means reducing our dependence on personal vehicles to balance mobility needs with commitments to use less energy, improve air quality, preserve land and conserve limited resources.

There’s more extremism in official government documents. The “State Transportation Plan” states:

It [The Plan] should be seen as a “living document” that focuses our resources on (among other things):

- Strengthening stakeholder partnerships to support the development of sustainable, vibrant communities;

- Promoting economic vitality while preserving and enhancing natural and cultural resources.

Really? Is the public aware that tax dollars that they think are going to critical needs such as roads and bridges are instead going to “enhance cultural resources?”

I don’t argue in my Spotlight that environmental issues should be ignored when developing transportation policy, but that they are secondary considerations:

More specifically, the core purpose of transportation policy should be to address the mobility needs of North Carolinians. In determining those needs, the government generally should look at the voluntary transportation choices made by individuals and then develop policies around those choices.

Most people choose to drive to get from point A to point B. Developing safe roads, including highway bridges, is required to support that choice. Also, developing cost-effective approaches is necessary to meet the demand for roads. Environmental and land use issues, while not directly related to improving mobility, still should be considered, but they should be secondary concerns.

The Spotlight highlights how environmental extremism has hijacked transportation policy. This is especially troubling in light of the recent I-35 Minneapolis bridge disaster. Our priorities need to be on critical needs, such as the 5,082 deficient bridges in North Carolina, not on making our streetscapes “attractive.”

This radical “transportation” policy, whose centerpiece is excessive spending on public transit, places transportation way down the list of priorities, despite the money existing for transportation. This quote says it all:

“We always saw transit as a means, not an end,” says planning director Debra Campbell. “The real impetus for transit was how it could help us grow in a way that was smart. This really isn’t even about building a transit system. It’s about place making. It’s about building a community.”

- Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Director Debra Campbell in the June 2007 edition of Governing.

Next time you hear whining about the state not having enough transportation dollars, the first question isn’t “are you spending the money wisely?” It amazingly should be “Are you spending transportation dollars on transportation?” If policymakers want to spend money on central planning, they at least should have the courtesy of being honest about their intentions.

No Comments »