آیا سیاست های سرمایه گذاری بزرگراه ها می تواند بر رشد منطقه ای تاثیر گذار باشد؟

If a highway investment policy instrument is to alter growth in the manner desired, two criteria must be satisfied: (1) the policy instrument must be implemented, and (2) the implementation must achieve the desired policy goal. A look at three decades of highway policy goals (slowing net population growth, reducing arterial congestion, and fostering city-specific population increases) and policy instruments (zoning and sewer restrictions, gridded networks, and highway facility construction or non-construction) provided insights regarding the extent to which Virginia's growth-oriented highway investment decisions satisfied these two criteria. Crucial to the first criterion is that a policy instrument will not be implemented if it lacks a supporting mechanism. For example, the policy instrument of gridded networks in this study lacked any ordinance, financial incentive, or training to facilitate its implementation. Crucial to the second criterion is that highway investments are not effective for achieving a growth-related policy goal. Development will continue in a region despite efforts to slow it by deleting new roads from master plans or will occur elsewhere despite efforts to target it in a specific area.

For a highway investment policy instrument to achieve an intended growth-related policy goal, two criteria must be met: (1) the policy instrument must be implemented, and (2) the policy instrument must influence growth in the manner intended. For the purposes of this study, a policy instrument is an action proposed by stakeholders—planners, elected officials, and advocacy groups—to achieve a specific policy goal. Growth-related policy goals include a change in residential or commercial activity or related concerns such as emissions or congestion reduction. Implementation of a particular policy instrument may require enacting particular laws, creating coalitions, training staff, or using other resources. When developing long-range plans that contain policy instruments designed to influence growth, stakeholders should first consider how these two criteria will be satisfied. For example, if a new highway is intended to stimulate commercial growth in a rural, economically depressed area, stakeholders must first assess the likelihood that the road will be constructed. Then, stakeholders must assess the likelihood that the new road will increase commercial development as intended. Both assessments will be completed many years before it is known if the policy instrument was implemented or if its implementation achieved the desired goal. Accordingly, guidance is needed that can help planners to predict whether a proposed policy instrument is likely to satisfy these two criteria. This paper examines the extent to which the two criteria have been satisfied in Virginia by examining the decision process used in Virginia localities over three decades. Three case studies were used to achieve this end. The Virginia experience should provide important guidance to other localities that may wish to use highway investment policy to influence growth.

This paper gives two criteria for achieving a particular policy goal: (1) the policy instrument must be implemented and (2) the policy instrument must achieve the goal desired by the decision makers. Application of the two criteria to the case studies suggests two conclusions that can be generalized to other locations. 1.With regard to criterion 1, to be implemented, a policy instrument requires a supporting mechanism. The history of planning efforts in Fairfax County and Spotsylvania County (Table 1 and Table 2), and the relationship of desired growth outcomes to policy instruments for all three regions (Table 3), demonstrates that localities have been unable to require where population growth will occur by using highway investments alone, even though there may be popular support for a particular growth outcome. Although this paper found that policies that lacked an implementation mechanism in the comprehensive plan tended not to be enacted, the solution may not be as simple as the requirement that mechanisms be developed early in the planning process. The nature of the planning process is to create consensus from diverse stakeholders in order to establish policy. Indicating specific implementation mechanisms will likely increase potential opposition to a plan at the time of its creation: compensatory mechanisms for a specific group will increase costs for the entire population, and regulatory mechanisms will reduce power for a particular entity. Yet, their omission from the planning process means there is no catalyst to implement a particular policy instrument that adversely affects one particular group. One direction for future research is to better understand the point in the planning process at which discussion of specific actions, such as increased costs, regulations, or other controversial changes, is most productive. 2. With regard to criterion 2, once implemented, a policy instrument may lead to unintended outcomes.