| Think Holistically
Transportation policy affects more than just simply getting people from one place to another. The way we travel has a profound impact on land use decisions, economic viability, and, of course, the environment. In other words, the decisions made by the DOT do not exist in a vacuum. Therefore, its functions should at least be coordinated with other applicable state agencies, and ideally, should be folded into a single state agency that oversees transportation and land use.
Numerous states have already taken these steps. In Oregon, for example, the state has implemented a Transportation and Growth Management Program, a joint program between the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The goal of this program is to integrate transportation planning with statewide land use planning by helping local communities plan for streets and land use in a way that creates livable, transportation-efficient places in which people can walk, bike, take transit or drive to places they need to go.
Furthermore, the state of Massachusetts created the Office for Commonwealth Development (OCD) in 2003. The OCD brings offices responsible for the state's environmental, transportation, and housing under one manager to better coordinate investment and capital spending on Transit-Oriented Development, brownfield development, and various other Smart Growth projects. To date, these policies are having large-scale results. Production of multi-family housing units, crucial in a state with the nation's third least affordable housing market, has grown from 3,800 to more than 7,000 units annually. State support for TOD will result in 37 million square feet of new development near transit stations, relieving growth pressure in greenfields. OCD has also helped protect approximately 35,000 acres of land.
Highway Second
The Connecticut DOT is notorious for having a "highway first" and "widen the road" mentality. Over the last several decades, we have invested billions and billions of dollars into the most inefficient mass transit system -- the highway -- despite what planners call the iron law of traffic: Traffic will increase to fill the space available to it. For some reason the CT DOT did not get this memo because it seems their only solution to traffic congestion is widening the roads or building new ones, despite the failure of such solutions in the past. Case in point: billions of dollars were spent in the 1980s to reconfigure the I-84/I-91 interchange in Hartford. We were told it would alleviate the traffic congestion, remember? Well, here we are 20 years later still complaining about the traffic congestion in Hartford. Same goes for the traffic problems along I-95 -- no amount of widening will relieve the traffic problems. Yet, we continue to pour our tax dollars into highway widening and construction.
There is another way. After decades of "highway first" mentality, the Maryland DOT, after sweeping Smart Growth legislation was passed at the behest of then Governor Parris Glendening, has focused on developing a balanced transportation system that aims to give the citizens of that state genuine travel choices. After years of having an 80/20 bias - 80% of transportation funds went toward highways and 20% toward mass transit - Maryland just recently, for the first time in the state's history, achieved almost equal capital investment in both highways and mass transit.
Cooperation
The Connecticut DOT is also notorious for having a poor working relationship with municipalities. Its top down, insulated decision making process often leaves taxpayers and municipalities with little say in the decisions that affect their towns and neighborhoods. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we should look to other state DOT's efforts in helping municipalities create vibrant communities instead of dictating same-as-always state road widening projects. Imagine if you will, the DOT installing traffic calming devices where state roads go through town centers, or installing wide sidewalks for pedestrian friendly mobility. These types of innovative ideas, along with a myriad of others, have been successfully accomplished in other parts of the country.
For example, Frederick, Maryland has a historic downtown that was being threatened by increased traffic and commercial development forces along a state road that connected the nearby interstate to the downtown area. Maryland's Office of Smart Growth and the DOT, along with local stakeholder and hundreds of citizens, participated in a series of workshops, including an intensive four day planning charrette. Together, they developed a series of long-term strategic goals, creating a vision upon which to focus the community's energy and resources. The plan helped to define a downtown core, rehabilitate historic structures, and developed a vibrant town center for events and entertainment with improved public spaces, transportation and parking.
The above structural and cultural changes will take time to be implemented within the Connecticut DOT. But the time to begin that implementation is now, before the attention of our elected officials begins to turn to other issues. Instead of focusing on the I-84 debacle, our elected officials have the opportunity to bring the Connecticut DOT into the 21st century. State governments throughout the country have already reorganized their DOTs around land use decisions and Smart Growth policies. Do our elected officials have the political will to do the same? |
MLN is powered by