INTERGOVERNMENTAL DIFFERENCES IN SUBURBAN TRANSPORTATION POLICY. FINAL REPORT

There are almost always conflicts in the effort to alleviate suburban congestion. Vested interests are different among pro-growth and pro-amenity towns, and between pro-growth towns and state agencies with limited highway budgets. This research examines four cases of suburban transportation planning in the Boston metropolitan area in an effort to identify ways of keeping development benefits and liabilities from being distributed in bulk win-or-lose quantities among the surrounding jurisdictions. Instead we look for ways to distribute benefits and disbenefits equitably. We conclude that the greatest contribution to solving this program could be state planning legislation that requires compatibility among local jurisdiction plans and between development and infrastructure supply. Such legislation is pending in Massachusetts and already enacted in certain other states. We recommend revenue sharing, transfer of development rights, incremental improvements to transportation networks, and other means by which costs and benefits could be distributed in divisible amounts. We recommend inclusive local coordinating communities that convene developers with local and state officials.