In the muddle of debates over individual transportation projects, people tend to define themselves as supporters or opponents of this highway or that transit project. Some bigger issues — what are we trying to do as a region, and how should we do it — tend to be lost, or at least downplayed.
There’s an exception: The empowerment of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority this year has sparked a debate among advocates for improvements and among the board members themselves about the what constitutes congestion relief and how best to reach that goal.
On Wednesday night, the authority’s board approved a first round of spending.
From The Washington Post story by Michael Laris: The approved projects include $5 million for a power upgrade on the Orange Line, $12 million for improvements along Columbia Pike, nearly $20 million for VRE rail cars and $31 million for widening Route 28 in Fairfax County.
The total amount of spending, a $209 million combination of pay-as-you-go spending and bond authorizations, is small compared to the amounts that the Virginia Department of Transportation invests in projects. And often, the authority’s spending represents a contribution to advance a project rather than full funding.
In this early part of the authority’s development as a spending agency, the really attention-getting thing is the way the public and the authority board members engage in discussions about transportation.
Some of the region’s fundamental disagreements about priorities emerge from the debates. Also interesting is the high degree of civility that people — both the public and the board members — are showing to each other in the talks. That’s a credit to the transportation authority and the openness of its decision-making process.
Regional vs. local. An overriding theme in public comments made to the authority by both citizens and interest groups is whether its projects are regional, and therefore worthy of financing by a regional agency, or strictly local, in which case they should be funded solely by the locality promoting the project.
Bang for the buck. There’s a tremendous pent-up demand for congestion relief. Some individuals and groups argue that the available money should go to a very small number of projects likely to provide the greatest relief for the greatest number of people. These folks point to projects such as bus shelters and bike paths and ask, Where’s the congestion relief?
Define congestion relief. While many arguments are more nuanced, there is an element of roads vs. everything else in this debate, or everything else vs. roads. It’s rare to find an advocate for improvements in roads, transit, biking and walking.
The advocates for road improvements correctly note that state law and regional plans put a priority on congestion relief. Most people drive, so that’s where the congestion relief spending would do the most good, they say. Advocates for other types of projects say an important part of congestion relief comes from giving people good choices of alternatives to driving.
Now vs. later. What’s the rush with the spending, some people ask. Shouldn’t the authority take more time to decide how best to allocate the new revenue it started to receive on July 1? The counterargument is that the authority, created in 2002, has had plenty of time to study the region’s goals and the specific projects to achieve those goals.
A related argument has to do with picking projects. Should the authority focus on projects that might provide some immediate relief, whether that’s buying buses or improving part of an interchange, or go for projects that will have a significant but delayed impact on the region’s commuters?