Rethinking the Options

Infrastructure is not a popular topic. It always involves a discussion of money, and the sums are often extremely high. When it comes to roads and bridges, nothing is cheap and therefore consistently under public scrutiny. As the cost to provide infrastructure improvements has increased steadily over the past decade, the revenue funding it has essentially declined. We are faced with the constant decision of where to make investments, and which projects to defer. Recently, the concept of privatization has come into favor with bureaucrats and politicians because it offers a seemingly easy solution to a rather difficult problem.

Privatization, in short, is taking a public asset such as a highway and turning it over to a private company. The company then operates and maintains the roadway by collecting fees from the users. In this manner, our roadways become more like public utilities and less like public rights of ways. Fair arguments can be made to support or negate the idea, but it does address the problem of funding necessary improvements to our system. What privatization does not do however is address the underlying issue of why our system needs so much money.

During the past fifty years our nation has been on a highway building craze. We built interstates, bypasses and arterials at unprecedented rates. Our nation quickly went from a relatively compact urban form to a sprawling suburban landscape in less than a generation. The pattern of development was heavily reliant upon the automobile, unlike the urban predecessor which was predominantly pedestrian oriented. As the distance between places expanded, so did people’s ability and willingness to travel.

Our willingness to travel was novel fifty years ago, however now the willingness has been replaced by necessity which created the infrastructure funding problems we now face. The issues we face extend beyond longer drive times and increased traffic and include things such as increased reliance upon fossil fuels, degraded air quality, storm water runoff, not to mention increased rates of adult and childhood obesity related from reduced activity. Our dependence on the automobile longer makes sense, and plans are being made to take these issues head on.

Over the past two months, municipalities have been presented with the US 422 Master Plan, and the two scenarios it proposes. In the trend scenario, the corridor continues to grow and develop as it has, with a heavy reliance upon the automobile as the primary form of transportation. The alternative being presented is called the “sustainable scenario.” The sustainable scenario includes traditional neighborhood developments that encourage walking and biking over driving. The sustainable scenario welcomes the use of transit as a transportation option, and encourages development to embrace transit options. The most remarkable aspect of the sustainable scenario is that the end result is a net savings of 10,000 acres of open space and farmland while still maintaining the projected 21,000 new residents.

So far response to the US 422 Master Plan has been positive, however the real work is only beginning. Adopting the plan does not take nearly as much political will and foresight as implementing the plan. Will the corridor land owners and municipalities continue to choose the status quo when faced with development opportunities, or will the principles set forth in the plan hold true to develop in a more sustainable fashion? Time will be the ultimate judge, but if the past few years serve as indicator for our future, the ability to maintain our auto-dependent lifestyle is only going to be more expensive, and much more detrimental.