Proposed Twenty-Year Transportation Plan Announced: Results, More of the Same

Recently the Herkimer Oneida Counties Transportation Survey (HOCTS), released their new proposed twenty-year master transportation plan for the region.  Back in June I wrote a post asking our readers to fill out a questionnaire that they had created to help them bring in feedback from the community as to what their priorities should be.  And, shockingly, they are exactly the same as they have been since the automobile made its debut in our area.  Here is the proposed plans vision statement:

To develop an integrated intermodal transportation system that efficiently, conveniently, and reliably provides mobility networks that are responsive to the community's need for safe and secure movements of people and goods.

And who can argue with that?

While there is a lot of technical jargon and nice sounding goals in this document, there is no substance.  The one main take away point from this document seems to be this; we as an area have scarce resources, and as such should focus on maintaining our existing infrastructure in light of the fact that we have a declining population.  I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, but it is how we utilize our existing infrastructure that matters.

The Plan outlines six main focus areas that will drive transportation planning in our region in the future, and these are:

-Land Use

-Mobility and Accessibility

-Preservation of Existing Infrastructure

-Economic Efficiency

-Environmental Impact

-Public Participation

Once again, very commendable sounding objectives, but what do they actually mean.  Lets take a more in depth look at a few of these areas:

Land Use:  According to the report land use issues will be taken into account in our future transportation planning.  This means that we will not be building roads into new areas that do not need roads and not alter the face of communities through transportation projects.  A historical example of this would be the construction of the arterial through West Utica and how it tore a neighborhood in half.  This is both a blessing and a curse of sorts, for it means that we will not be building highways through suburbs, it also means that we will not create pockets of densely populated development through public transportation initiatives.

Mobility and Accessibility:  This area focuses upon how to allow every citizen to be able to move freely and easily through the community to all the places they need to go (grocery store, school, hospital, etc.).  Not surprisingly, it talks about our public transportation system, which leaves a lot to be desired.  It recommends the creation of a new funding mechanism for allowing the secure operations of our current public transit infrastructure, along with making small improvements such as new buses and installing cameras on them for security.

But no where in this report does it mention the fact that our public transit system is terrible.  The report assumes that Bernie Bus will continue to operate its half-assed routes through our rural communities that drop people off in Utica no where near where people need to go.  A bus network that takes peoples lives into account would be incredibly beneficial for our region, not only would it be utilizing the infrastructure that is already in place, our roads, but it would decrease our dependence on cars and trucks.  It would also allow those who are not able to operate a vehicle, children, the disabled, etc. to get around the area and become more productive members of society.

So why not open up our rural route service to competition?  Bernie's monopoly on the Little Falls to Utica route has created a terrible service that no one knows anything about.  Or, to go one step further, create an overarching committee that would bring local entities and bus operators together to create physical infrastructure, bus shelters, bus tracking technology, route maps, and marketing, as well as to create services that get people where they need to go (ex. provide service around the shifts at the Arms, a route that goes to where people need to go in Utica, employments centers, Varick St., Sangertown, etc.).  It is admirable to want to improve public transportation, but you need to actually have a means to improve it, just saying that it is a goal in a master plan does nothing, and frankly I find it irresponsible to all those who have no other means of transportation.

Preservation of Existing Infrastructure:  Pretty self-explanatory, we need to focus on keeping our roads, sidewalks, and few bike paths we have, in working order instead of focusing on constructing new roads that we cannot afford.

Environmental Impact:  The report's definition of environmental impact seems to be focused on land use.  Thus, to mitigate the environmental impacts of a transportation plan you look at how much land is being developed, how to minimize the impact of storm water run off, etc. This is a very traditional definition of environmental impact.

In the report it states that they must include how the plan overall will effect the region's carbon emission levels, but they seem to do this as an aside.  It is almost as though they went through the motions of including calculating future emission levels because New York State forces them to, they certainly did not put any stock in their findings in terms of transportation planning, as under all of their scenarios emissions rise.  

I find this quite troubling because the world will be a much different place in 2030 than it is today and to assume that we will be driving the same amount of miles, using the same methods of transportation, and not even attempting to include alternatives in more than passing sentences seems ludicrous to me.  We need to be able to adapt to whatever problems arise in the future, especially a rise in oil prices, and no where in this report is this taken into account.  Once again, there is no foresight in this report, only going through the same motions that have been gone through since we began paving roads.

So now that we have explored the proposed plan in depth, what does this mean for our future?  Well, for starters, our transportation policy leaders feel that the world, and our region, will look exactly as it does now in 2030.  I find that near possible to be the case, but then again, maybe they know something that I do not.  I also find no leadership in this report, it just continues to reiterate what our transportation policy has been in this region for decades.  It is very easy for a political figure, or government official, to just continue to spit out the same material that they always have been, but it takes a leader to have a vision and act upon it.

When I saw that this document was being produced I had high hopes that we may begin to see some change in our transportation system, but sadly I was let down, as seems to be the case by our local officials lately.