Suburban Nation - Andres Duany [92]
STATE GOVERNMENT
Owing to the scarcity of regional governments, cities typically rely upon state governments for leadership on regional issues. Therefore, state lawmakers must attempt to enact legislation that effectively accomplishes regional planning. This may be done in two ways: either through new growth management laws, or through the modification of existing laws and funding vehicles.dp Maryland recently committed itself to a smart-growth agenda, to be accomplished through the careful allocation of infrastructure financing. Florida and New Jersey, in turn, have enacted top-down growth management legislation. Georgia, Vermont, Maine, Oregon, and Washington are also fighting sprawl, through a variety of less direct measures.
New Jersey’s visionary law establishes a clear ideal for the full range of models, from rural conservation to urban redevelopment. If there is a flaw, it is the absence of a strong compliance review process. Such a process is the strength of Florida’s growth management laws, which, conversely, lack the clear vision of New Jersey’s. Over time, the success or failure of these pioneer states in fighting sprawl will show other states which model is worth emulating. The most promising solution may be New Jersey’s recently initiated “tough love” incentive program, in which cities and towns must practice smart growth in order to receive state funding for infrastructure and education. The success of such a program depends on sustained leadership from a strong governor, as every state agency must participate in a coordinated way.
States that truly hope to control sprawl must also combine regional planning and transportation planning into a single activity. Most existing Metropolitan Planning Organizations are misnamed, as they deal only with transportation plans. State departments of transportation (D.O.T.s) are more often than not a part of the problem, as they largely ignore the interrelationship between transportation systems and land-use patterns. State transportation planners, intending to reduce traffic congestion, routinely commission the new roadways that further disperse the population and only make traffic worse. By mistaking mobility for accessibility, they undermine the viability of both new and old places by focusing entirely on moving cars through them. The result—already well documented—is a landscape lacking in destinations worth getting to. Florida has begun to address this phenomenon by refusing to fund the construction of new highways containing more than three non-car-pool lanes in either direction. As a result, in congested cities such as Miami, some transportation funds are now flowing to public transit.
If they wish to play a role in the creation of healthy communities, state D.O.T.s must come to view transportation policy as an integral component of a regional land use plan, not just as an autonomous problem with a financial solution. They might learn to assess their effectiveness by how little money they need to spend, rather than by how many federal highway dollars they can grab. Unlike education and policing, fields in which more funding may produce better results, increased highway funding consistently makes traffic worse. Additional funds for public transit, however, not only alleviate the traffic problem but also create jobs at an astounding rate, as shown in Chapter 5. But even embracing transit—as more states are beginning to do—is insufficient without a comprehensive plan for high-density pedestrian-oriented development at rail stations. In this regard, Portland and San Diego are implementing state-assisted programs that deserve to become models for the nation.
Of course, if state transportation departments cannot be reformed,