When Politicians Can't Bring Themselves to Do the Right Thing

In my hometown, Alexandria, Virginia, the local all-Democratic city council is proposing a big cut to their already-meager budget for Complete Streets: from $900k down to almost $600k.

If we put it in tiny, tiny print, maybe nobody will complain.

Local advocates have tried being polite, calm and respectful in arguing against a cut to tht portion of the budget that provides better pedestrian and bike access. Clearly, that approach has run its course. The proposal is still going forward, if only perhaps slightly less draconian.

That means it's time to get tough. When politicians refuse to do the right thing, advocates mustn't shy away from getting both more vocal and more organized.

In the spirit of the former, I've pointed out to Council how cutting the budget that, among other things, funds curb ramps at intersections for the disabled fits a pattern of behavior. As it turns out, this Council and other local Democratic officials make use of an office with absolutely no ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) access. I've personally witnessed a man in a wheelchair having to be carried down these steps. That humiliation is not something anyone with a disability should have to endure.

Remember, we're the party that advocates for the vulnerable.

Well, at least the steps have a railing.

If you're in a wheelchair, they'll be willing to carry you down like cargo.

To my knowledge, only ONE local Democratic candidate has publicly called for this condition to be remedied or have the office removed without delay. Interestingly, elections for Council, Mayor, and the 45th district Virginia Delegate seat are set for this year.

While the city's leaders have ignored their office's condition and plead poverty when funding Complete Streets, they have managed to scrounge up the millions of dollars necessary over the years to lure and accommodate large federal and quasi-federal institutions in Alexandria. These include the DOD's Washington Headquarters Service, the National Science Foundation, and potentially a new TSA headquarters.

Yet now the city argues it can't cough up a measly $300k gap to make Alexandria safe and accessible for those who:
1. Don't WANT to drive.
2. Can't AFFORD to drive.
3. Are UNABLE to drive.

Even if the proposed cuts are reduced ever so slightly, what does that say about the city's priorities? How progressive can an elected official claim to be when subsidies for development trump safety and accessibility for citizens in any way? And, of course, how can a city's leaders allow their own campaign office to send a signal of discrimination towards those with mobility impairment?

It's a sorry state of affairs, but it demonstrates the need for sustainable transportation and disability advocates to get tough. The easy stuff is all behind them. Now comes the hard part.

Five Steps to Successful Transportation Planning (and how to tell a NIMBY from a Naysayer)

Imagine yourself as a political official with authority over a city's transportation system. Your task is to build an efficient, functional transportation system in your city.
Let's assume that, for external reasons, exponential growth is headed your way. Your current infrastructure can't possibly handle it all. What do you do?

Step 1: Don't freak out.
All too often, planners faced with exponential growth panic. They propose outlandish plans to double, or even triple, the capacity of primary roadways. Georgia's Department of Transportation (DOT) did this with Atlanta's expressway network in the 1980s. For their trouble, they got some of the worst congestion resulting from induced demand the US has seen.

Step 2: Learn from the failures of your predecessors.
California built a staggering number of freeway lane-miles in the 1960s and 1970s, many of them in urban areas. It was very impressive-from the air. From the ground, it was bad enough to give rise to a new phrase, "road rage." Unfortunately, in the 2000s under Governor Schwarzenegger, California planners went old school and started building urban freeways again.  Neither the former governor nor his advisors connected the dots and realized that their approach had no more chance of success than did their predecessors'. Indeed, despite of the continuing gridlock, the former governor claimed in a recent interview on The Nerdist Podcast that his freeway construction was one of his great legacies. That's an odd way to feel about a collection of what are effectively parking lots during rush hour.

Step 3: Don't just react to circumstances.
If you simply take a reactive approach, you'll end up with a mess. Consider this hypothetical scenario: Main Street is jammed with cars, buses, and pedestrians. So, you decide to add vehicle capacity to the road by widening it. This penalizes pedestrians, of course, but maybe you're hoping to fix that later.
The added capacity induces demand, as it always does in urban areas, so you decide to build a bypass. That induces more demand, so you widen the bypass which induces still more demand. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The reactive approach, wildly popular in the mid-20th century US and currently in vogue in China, is great for keeping construction companies happy, but lousy for actually accomplishing anything. Try to anticipate conditions so that your solutions are sustainable.

Step 4: Get some vision.
This is easier said than done, as engineers and technocrats are seldom trained, or even asked, for creative vision. Vision requires the capability to step back and imagine the best result. Engineers and technocrats are usually expected to just make sure the details are right.
No, you need not be an artist (though that could lead to some amusing results), but you must have knowledge in a broad variety of fields so you can synthesize them into a holistic view of the urban environment. For instance, psychology gives insight into how pedestrian pathways tend to gravitate towards a straight line, even if it leads to walking a muddy track or jaywalking across an expressway. Sociology offers perspective on why Americans tend to shun buses, but ride streetcars, even when there's no difference in travel times. Political Science might give you a clue as to why mass transit is unpopular in the GOP-dominated American South, but highly prized in Democratic strongholds on the East and West Coasts. Bottom line: read outside your professional box.

Step 5: Don't confuse naysayers with NIMBYs.
Naysayers are those who reflexively say no to any change, even if it doesn't affect them directly. NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) are, as the name suggests, directly affected opponents.
However, someone who is adjacent to project doesn't necessarily start out as an opponent. For example, suppose a redevelopment project that will boost homevalues by eliminating ugly, decrepit warehouses ends up with strong NIMBY opposition because someone in a neighborhood association excitedly spread wordthat traffic would be awful. Never mind that the site is well-connected to transit and in a highly walkable area. Professional staff opinions will count for nothing, because those opinions are grounded in evidence. The naysayers who are whipping up the NIMBYs into a frenzy are manipulating emotions and have no need or use for evidence.

If you consider yourself a leader, you will have to be able to disregard dishonest naysayer objections and push forward. Luckily, in politics memories are surprisingly short. Those NIMBYs who want to burn you in effigy today may reluctantly admit you were right tomorrow, especially if the results of your projects are discernibly different from the apocalypse forecast by naysayers. But, this favorable outcome won't happen if you skip any of these steps.