Junction ATL

US PIRG and the Frontier Group released a report this week on driving trends, “A New Direction: Our Changing Relationship with Driving the Implications for America’s Future.” The report in its entirety is here but they’ve also released an infographic summarizing its results.

With a number of high profile (and high price tag) managed lane projects in the works throughout the region, it is an opportune time to reexamine their justification in light of this report.  Largely conceived prior to the recent decline in vehicle travel, these projects are premised on growth, transportation and economic forecasts comparable to the infographic’s red curve.  But what if our future looks more like one of the other curves? What if driving rates in 2025 haven’t reverted to those seen in 2005?  A certain amount of uncertainty is inherent in any forecast, but the data from this report and elsewhere certainly suggest the need for robust due diligence before sinking hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into projects based on potentially outdated trends.

To this end, the Report makes a series of recommendations for approaching transportation policy decisions and project selection:

• Plan for uncertainty. With future driving patterns uncertain, federal, state and local transportation officials should evaluate the costs and benefits of all transportation projects based on several scenarios of future demand for driving. Decision-makers should also prioritize those projects that are most likely to deliver benefits under a range of future circumstances.

• Support the Millennials and other Americans in their desire to drive less. Federal, state and local poli­cies should help create the conditions under which Americans can fulfill their desire to drive less. Increasing investments in public transportation, bicycling and pedestrian infrastruc­ture and intercity rail—especially when coupled with regulatory changes to enable the development of walk­able neighborhoods—can help provide more Americans with a broader range of transportation options.

• Revisit plans for new or expanded highways. Many highway projects currently awaiting funding were initially conceived of decades ago and proposed based on traffic projec­tions made before the recent decline in driving. Local, state and federal governments should revisit the need for these “legacy projects” and ensure that proposals for new or expanded highways are still a priority in light of recent travel trends.

• Refocus the federal role. The federal government should adopt a more strategic role in transportation policy, focusing resources on key priorities (such as repair and maintenance of existing infrastructure and the expan­sion of transportation options) and evaluating projects competitively on the basis of their benefits to society.

• Use transportation revenue where it makes the most sense. Trans­portation spending decisions should be based on overall priorities and a rigorous evaluation of project costs and benefits—not on the source of the revenue.

• Do your homework. Federal and state governments should invest in research to evaluate the accuracy and useful­ness of transportation models and better understand changing trans­portation trends in the post-Driving Boom era.

In mid-April, Gov. Deal signed  HB 202 into law, modifying Georgia’s congressional balancing requirements to exempt certain interstate and freight projects.  Georgia’s congressional balancing law, which requires state gas tax dollars to be spent equally across Georgia’s congressional districts, is intended to ensure that transportation funds are spent (more or less) evenly across the state.

Georgia’s Congressional Districts

HB 202′s changes are intended to address the fact that major interstate projects are used by Georgians statewide but may be located in a single congressional district.  These projects are also extremely expensive so they can suck up the funds allocated for that district, preventing the funding of other, purely local projects.  Lawmakers hope that removing these state priority projects from congressional balancing will allow them to move forward and local needs to be met.

The following day, North Carolina Gov. McCrory announced a proposal to rework the “Equity Formula” used by that state to allocate its transportation funds.  NC’s Equity Formula allocates funds across seven regions based on population, lane miles and other considerations.  The new proposal would allot defined percentages of the state’s transportation funds for statewide projects, regional projects, and local projects.

These are alternate approaches to the same problem:  every state has limited funding and wishes to spend that money equitably across the state.  But every state also has large, strategic transportation projects that it wishes to fund.  Long on needs and short on funds, Georgia and North Carolina are adjusting their funding procedures to ensure that their equitable distribution formulas do not prevent investment in the state’s priority projects.   Georgia attempts to accomplish this by moving the projects and North Carolina seeks to move the funds.  It remains to be seen which approach proves more successful.