10/04/2002: "Taking Our Time and Getting It Right"
History is replete with situations where policies implemented with the best of intentions had unanticipated negative consequences. Famous examples include (1) the treaty ending World War I which put in motion the forces that led to World War II (as predicted by noted economist John Maynard Keynes) and (2) the efforts to deregulate financial institutions in the 1980s which contributed to a massive debacle among banks, savings and loans, and real estate developments. While I certainly don’t see anything of that magnitude on the horizon in Texas, there is an issue quietly surfacing that does merit due caution and careful consideration.
Specifically, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) is conducting public hearings over the next week regarding a proposal to limit access points along frontage roads and at intersections. The purpose is to promote safety, which is a laudable objective and clearly an issue of highest priority. Like many other good intentions, however, this plan could have serious adverse effects, and better alternatives may be available.
The proposal significantly changes accessibility and can materially affect land-use patterns in every part of the state. The distance between access points and their distance from intersections can impact hospitals, schools, restaurants, shopping centers, and single- and multi-family housing. The proposed rules would likely cause numerous projects which have been in the planning stages for years to be shelved or delayed, thus inhibiting the fledgling economic recovery and depriving the State and its cities of much-needed sales tax revenues. They might also create some safety issues of their own by complicating access to facilities by fire, police, and emergency vehicles.
There are certainly viable reasons to be exploring the best mechanisms to provide ingress and egress to major transportation arteries. It is not at all apparent, however, that a “one size fits all” mechanism best meets the mobility needs of Texas. Rural areas may well have requirements and concerns that are quite different from those of urban and suburban regions. Local safety planning may well offer a better, more tailored approach in some instances.
Obviously, I am not suggesting that safety be sacrificed for economic development. I am merely saying that there may well be ways to achieve both through an open, patient process in which all relevant interests are involved. It does not take much of an artificial disturbance in land use to adversely affect billions of dollars in investment and economic growth. A decision with such wide-ranging implications should be made deliberately and with the advantage of both extensive input from involved parties and research by folks with knowledge of the relevant economics (including me) and engineering (definitely not including me). The only related study I have seen is based on a survey of business owners in affected and potentially affected areas; it does not even address the critical issue of land-use patterns.
Over the course of what I am reluctantly having to admit is a very long career, I have been involved in dozens of matters in which there was a seeming conflict between the economy and some other significant social priority. Without exception, I have found that “win-win” solutions were available. They don’t always happen, mind you, but they are always possible. The failures occur not because of a lack of options, but rather a lack of willingness to creatively engage in proper analysis and dialog.
Texas needs safe roads, and Texas needs responsible development and growth. There is every reason to believe we can have both. It is not necessary to rush to judgment. Getting it done right is far more important than getting it done quickly. Taking the time for thoughtful deliberation and investigation now could pay dividends for generations to come.