John Gardner: Rural voices should be screaming for mass transit

"The future of Idaho is not contained in the North End." So says Wayne Hammon, Gov. Butch Otter's budget director, in response to a query by Sen. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise, earlier this month. Sen. LeFavour was asking why public transit and other alternative transportation infrastructure is not a priority in spending federal stimulus dollars.

I believe that their exchange reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of such infrastructure on a growing state and, even more significantly, the interplay between the development of urban areas and the preservation of rural ones.

Implicit in Hammon's comment is the assumption that public transit and bike lanes benefit only those who avail themselves of them, not the Idahoans who live on ranches and farms and work the land. While this may be the view of many of our current leaders, the facts on the ground say otherwise.

The state is becoming more urbanized year by year, and that urbanization, in the form of sprawling, land-gobbling developments like the ones strewn along the I-84 corridor in Southwestern Idaho, take up valuable agricultural land and forever change the fabric of life in the rural communities that are unfortunate enough to get in the way.

To put it another way: How cities grow impacts the lives of rural families as much as urban ones, perhaps even more.

Researchers who study world demographics point to May 23, 2007, as a significant milestone in human history. As of that day, the majority of mankind has lived in urban environments. This is the result of a steady trend throughout history. The United States is ahead of this trend, with the majority of our population being found in urban areas since the early 1920s. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2000, more than 65 percent of Idahoans lived in urban rather than rural areas.

In recent decades, the majority of this urbanization has actually been in the suburbs, a trend that has had unintended consequences - such as the dramatic increase in reliance on personal automobiles and rapidly dwindling open space. James Howard Kunstler, a noted journalist and social critic, considers the development of the suburbs as the "single greatest misappropriation of resources in the history of mankind." Which brings me back to my point:

If the goal is to preserve the rural way of life that we treasure in this state, whether for the agricultural roots or the recreational opportunities, then a successful strategy is to make our cities livable and attractive. Develop a vibrant cultural life, encourage amenities like entertainment, restaurants and shopping, make it easy for people to live near where they work and don't force them to get into a car every time they need to get somewhere.

This doesn't mean that everyone has to abandon the ranches and move downtown. The truth is just the opposite. If we want to preserve the family-run farms and ranches upon which the traditions of this great state rest, we must reverse the trend toward sprawling suburbs and invest in livable and more compact cities - and public transit is a vital part of this strategy.

People who prefer a more rural lifestyle are tempted to oppose investment in public transit on the premise that it doesn't affect them, but the facts don't support this position. The declining rural population should be contributing the loudest voices in the chorus demanding smarter planning and long-term investment in the right kind of infrastructure.

So, in some sense, Mr. Hammon's statement is correct: The future of Idaho is not contained solely in Boise's North End.

The future of Idaho is, however, inextricably linked to how our urban centers develop and grow, and it is critical that our leaders understand this connection and allow and offer incentives to communities to plan with this in mind.

John Gardner, who doesn't live in the North End, is associate vice president for energy research, policy and campus sustainability.